Sitting of 19 June 1995

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

    Disabled People
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action his Department is taking to tackle discrimination against disabled people; and if he will make a statement.[27598]
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): The Government's Disability Discrimination Bill will provide effective protection for disabled people against discrimination in employment, access to goods, services and premises, transport and education. The Bill, unrivalled in the history of Government provision for disabled people, has already received the approval of the House and is currently being considered in another place.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him and his Department on their excellent work in this field. Does he agree that education is important in raising public awareness? Furthermore, many public body facilities, such as the British Rail station at Erith, at which it is impossible for disabled people to get on to the London-bound platform, have to
    2
    be brought into line. Public bodies must provide access for disabled people to railway stations, and Erith station must be one of the first to have such provision.
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the continuing importance of education and persuasion. Even after the Disability Discrimination Bill becomes law, it will be important for people in all political parties to join together and lead the nation in showing why it is important to combat discrimination against disabled people. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the difficulties that disabled people often face when using public transport. I assure him that the transport infrastructure will be covered by the Bill, which will also contain the power to set minimum access standards for public transport vehicles.
    Mr. Barnes: The unrivalled Bill on disability is not that of the Government but the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which has had solid support in the House. Will the Government at least seriously consider introducing a disability rights commission, in line with that proposed in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, through their measure? That would start to turn it into far more reasonable legislation and give all disabled people hope for the future because, in time, that commission would see that the Government's Bill was brought into line with the principles in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman's Bill—he knows my view on it after our eight Committee sittings—is confusing, unfair and inflexible. The Government measure is clear and fair to others, and it will command the support of the nation in bringing discrimination against disabled people to an end.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Disability Discrimination Bill, which is in another place, will do much for schoolchildren? Does he agree that it will oblige education providers to make special provision for disabled people at school and university?
    Mr. Hague: Yes. The Bill will strengthen the Education Act 1993 by further improving provision for disabled pupils. In addition, the Government have announced a new £10 million fund for education providers to improve physical accessibility at schools.

    Mortgage Interest
    Mrs. Liddell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the effect of his proposals to alter the present system of help with mortgage interest payments under income support on the number of repossessions. [27600]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Current income support provision is costly yet fails to cover the majority of people who fall into difficulty with their mortgage payments. The new proposals encourage the provision of comprehensive, high-quality mortgage protection for all new home owners should they suffer a loss of income. This should help to reduce the number of repossessions.
    Mrs. Liddell: The Secretary of State is being most unreasonable in this matter. Does he agree with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Association of British Insurers, which have already pointed to the likely dramatic increase in repossessions? If he is not prepared to listen to the common sense of Opposition Members who are concerned about repossessions, will he at least respond to the fear on his Back Benches about the consequences of these moves for those who are already suffering the effects of negative equity?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady is entirely mistaken. The Association of British Insurers has said the complete opposite of what she has said. It has said that virtually everybody who can obtain a mortgage should be able to obtain insurance. As a result, there should in due course be a reduction in repossessions and in the number of people who fall into arrears.
    Mrs. Roe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to a recent survey in the Mortgage Finance Gazette, two thirds of the building societies polled said that they are planning to provide block insurance for their members and that 60 per cent. of those will provide it free? Does that not show that it is not only the Skipton building society but also many others that are likely to provide free unemployment insurance cover for their borrowers?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was very interesting to see the reaction of the Labour Benches when the survey and the news which it brought forward were brought to their attention. They were shocked at the good news, because what is good news for home owners is bad news for Labour.
    Ms Lynne: Does the Secretary of State not understand that there is genuine concern that those who have been encouraged to buy their homes could, because of the cut in income support for mortgage benefit, face homelessness? Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether he has fully thought through all the implications of the policy? Whatever he says at the Dispatch Box, I do not think that he has.
    Mr. Lilley: I can, of course, give the hon. Lady that assurance. We are consulting about it with the help of the Social Security Advisory Committee. We have had a very
    4
    good response from the insurers, and the evidence is that the building societies will follow the excellent example set by the Skipton building society. However, I find it a bit rich for the sole representative of the Liberal party here present to pose as being interested in home owners when her party is actively contemplating abolishing mortgage interest tax relief.
    Mr. Congdon: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his determination to reduce the £90 billion a year spent on social security? Is it not right that those who are acquiring an asset that they will use and benefit from for their lifetimes should contribute towards insuring it rather than expect other taxpayers to bail them out?
    Mr. Lilley: It is certainly absolutely right that we should try to move from a system which, at present, leaves 70 per cent. of people with mortgages, who may find themselves unemployed or without an income, uncovered by the existing state system to one where all new home owners have protection and cover against the risk of losing their jobs. The extraordinary complacency of the Labour party, which had a debate on the subject and revealed that it had no policy to help those 70 per cent. will, I think, be recognised as a letdown to home owners.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State hold to the estimate—rather optimistic, I fear—referred to by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) that a minimum of 40 per cent. of home owners will have to meet a significant additional cost to have insurance cover in the private market? Does he endorse that estimate? Has he noted the rather endearing, touchingly loyal, advice from the Secretary of State for Employment that the problem for the Tory party will be solved if it pulls up its socks? Would not dropping a plan for mortgage interest payments, which would add greatly to the uncertainty in the housing market, be an absolutely excellent contribution to that rather odd exercise?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman, who had the opportunity to tell us what Labour party policy is, tacitly criticises us because there may be some small cost to 40 per cent. of home owners in getting the protection that everybody believes they should have when taking out a new mortgage, and ignores the fact that his party proposes to leave 70 per cent. of them without any cover at all. The other day, he disowned his party's housing spokesman, who had at least offered to do something for that 70 per cent., but at the expense of abolishing mortgage interest tax relief.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good to see a split among the members of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, and that those building societies that remain neutral look as though they have an interest in trying to help people not only to buy homes but to keep them after they have contracted to buy them, and that that example should be followed, not criticised, by the banks?
    Mr. Lilley: I am not one to rejoice in splits in any direction. I thought the correspondence from the chairman of Skipton building society was very interesting. In one respect, he is in agreement with the chairman of the Cheltenham and Gloucester, who himself a little while ago said there was no need for building societies to raise interest rates—which they did—because there was an

    5
    ample profit level. That means that they will have the means to provide cover without undue cost to home owners.

    Absent Parents
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he has taken in respect of those absent parents who as well as contributing to the upkeep of their absent children have negative equity in the housing they occupy. [27601]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): The vast majority of absent parents have their housing costs taken fully into account under existing child support rules. The problem of negative equity may affect parents other than those who have separated but we have no evidence of its being a significant problem in relation to child support.
    Mr. Gunnell: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that financial tensions often give rise to marital tensions? Would he have a different answer if he were considering the specific case of a person whose negative equity was in the original family home and who, when that home was sold, crystallised that equity as a debt and is now paying that debt on behalf of himself and his former partner? Would that payment be taken into account in assessing his contribution to a CSA payment?
    Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman has written to me about those circumstances; a reply is being signed and will be waiting for him after Question Time. The circumstances that he describes are slightly unusual because, in most cases where there is negative equity, the property would not be sold and one party would remain in it. In that case, there would be extensive protection. In the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes, the debt would not be a housing cost as such. It could, however, be construed as a debt of the relationship. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Child Support Bill that is currently going through Parliament will provide the opportunity to consider such debts as a departure from the maintenance formula.
    Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend stay true to the principle that parents are financially responsible for their children and that that responsibility comes before almost every other responsibility unless the parents do not have the financial wherewithal, in which case the state should step in? Will my hon. Friend take all possible steps to ensure that the parent with care and control of the child receives a reasonable sum from the absent parent, who is often using every possible means to avoid paying for the child that he has left behind?
    Mr. Burt: Yes. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. He is right to say that the principle that parents should maintain their children rather than leave it to the taxpayer to do so is at the heart of the Child Support Agency. It is not often realised that more than 70 per cent. of absent parents who have been asked to pay by the agency this year were not previously paying any regular maintenance. Given that 95 per cent. of parents with care exist on benefits, it is time that people appreciated that there is another side to the child support story. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting it so clearly.

    State Pension
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received over the state pension. [27604]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. James Arbuthnot): Since the beginning of this year, Ministers have received a number of pieces of correspondence from organisations, Members of Parliament and members of the public, covering all aspects of policy on the state pension.
    Mr. Winnick: I am not sure what the Minister means by "pieces of correspondence", if I heard the phrase correctly. Is he aware that the National Pensioners Convention, which represents many organisations for retired people, was deeply disappointed by the response that it received from Ministers, including him? Is he further aware that millions of pensioners who are living in or near poverty believe, with justification, that they have been swindled by the Government during the past 16 years? They could not care less who leads the Government; they want decent policies for pensioners, and they have every right to demand them.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Under the Conservative Government, pensioners' incomes have increased almost as much every year as they did during the entire period of the previous Labour Government. I met representatives of the National Pensioners Convention in August last year. We had a constructive and helpful meeting, and I was left with no sense that they had the reaction that the hon. Gentleman describes.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not the whole point of the state pension that it is the foundation stone on which people provide for their old age? Is it not a fact that, under the Conservative Government, most people do not have to rely on the state pension as their sole income because more than 20 million people are now members of occupational pension schemes and can look forward to a far better old age than would have been provided by the Government supported by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. He has concentrated on people at the upper end of the income range. They are important, but it is also interesting to note that the proportion of pensioners in the bottom decile has fallen dramatically under this Government. In 1979, 31 per cent. of pensioners were in the bottom decile; now, 9 per cent. of them are in the bottom decile after housing costs—an important improvement.
    Mr. Ingram: Does the Minister agree with the assessment made in December 1993 by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), that the value of a state pension scheme under current Government policy would be worth a nugatory amount in the coming century? Coupled with the massive reduction announced by the Government in state earnings-related pension scheme entitlement, does that not show that the Government are prepared to increase pensioner poverty, in addition to the 1.5 million pensioners who already receive income support?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I am a little surprised at the hon. Gentleman. First, my right hon. Friend did not say that. Secondly, our policy is to ensure that the state retirement

    7
    pension remains the bedrock of pensioners' incomes and that it will be increased in terms of prices year by year. If the state retirement pension becomes a smaller proportion of pensioners' incomes, it is because, under the prosperity introduced by the Government, their other income is growing so fast. That is why pensioners' incomes have gone up by more than those of the rest of the country as a group.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating John Cuckney on the award given to him in the recent honours list? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a suitable reward for the man who rescued the Maxwell pension fund? Does he also agree that pensions in this country are better funded for the next century than are those anywhere in the continent of Europe, due to the importance of our occupational pension schemes?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. I and, I am sure, the entire House would wish to pay particular tribute to Sir John, now Lord, Cuckney for his amazing achievement in making secure the future of Maxwell pensioners. I should like to put on record my gratitude, and that of the entire House, to Lord Cuckney.

    Arcola Street Social Security Office
    Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to visit Arcola street social security office to discuss the payment of benefits. [27605]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so.
    Ms Abbott: Is the Minister aware of the recent Public Accounts Committee report which revealed that the benefits of 266,000 claimants, out of a total of 5 million, were underpaid to the tune of £76 million? What will he do to ensure that the Benefits Agency does not penalise the poorest in our society by that sort of inefficiency, and when will he make the actual take-up of benefits a target for the Benefits Agency?
    Mr. Evans: Ministers are of course aware of the Public Accounts Committee report. The Arcola street social security office has met all the main targets apart from, as the hon. Lady very properly mentions, those on income support accuracy. Our principal difficulty with income support accuracy statistics involves the issue of mortgage interest rates and their variation. That is why, with the agreement of those involved, we are introducing a standard rate that will be simpler to administer and that will lead to a much more satisfactory position.

    Family Policy
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which minister is responsible for the co-ordination of family policy within his Department. [27606]
    Mr. Burt: Although overall policy co-ordination is, of course, the responsibility of the Secretary of State, I have responsibility for responding on general family issues in the Department.
    Mr. Soley: Is the Minister aware that almost everyone outside the House who is concerned about family policy and the enormous impact that it could have on the welfare of our society, if we got it right, take the view that the
    8
    Government do not have a real family policy and that there is virtually no effective co-ordination between Departments? If he believes that that is not correct, will he put out a statement saying who is responsible for what and what is the structure of co-ordination?
    Mr. Burt: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Just about every Government Department handles policies that are of direct relevance to families, and individual Departments work closely together on matters that are common to them. A number of regular meetings to consider issues that impact on the family are held through, for example, the ministerial committee on home affairs and the ministerial sub-committee on women's issues. The whole of Whitehall is concerned about co-ordination of those policies. Such co-ordination does take place. The hon. Gentleman's plea for greater co-ordination is not falling on deaf ears. The work of each Department is complex and involves families in many different ways. The work is going on, even though the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept it.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree with Cardinal Hume that the nuclear family is the bedrock of our society? Although a family who are unfortunate enough not to have both parents must be given help, basically we are aiming, as a party and as a Government, to support the family, and that is the right aim to have.
    Mr. Burt: I agree with my hon. Friend. The family is an integral part of the United Kingdom. We spend a lot of time concentrating on the income that goes into families, but we have spent rather too little time considering the structure of families and the damage that has been done over the past 20 or 30 years, with the changing structure of families and the pressure that is put on the relationships that keep families together. Anything that can focus both the mind of the House and the mind of the public at large on the importance of those relationships and the importance of families is a good thing. I wish that the ideal of a particular family type—that is, marriage—as the best basis for raising children would also be in the mind of the Church of England as it considers its conclusions to its report.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Then perhaps the Minister would like to consider the position of families, many of them old-age pensioner couples, who find themselves required to find extra money for their own parents because of the Government's policy of moving an increasing number of geriatric patients out of the health service and dumping them in the community without proper support. What kind of family policy is that, pray?
    Mr. Burt: If I remember rightly, the change to community care was welcomed by the vast majority of local authorities, which competed keenly with Government to get the responsibility to look after elderly people. Substantial Government money has been put in to ensure that local authorities live up to those obligations; in many cases, they do.

    Fraud
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department is taking to reduce social security fraud. [27607]
    Mr. Lilley: My Department has been developing a comprehensive strategy to combat fraud, moving from reliance primarily on detection to a much greater reliance on prevention and deterrence. It is devoting increasing resources to achieving this end.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with social security expenditure now by far the largest component of all Government expenditure, it is doubly important to maintain public confidence in the system by ensuring that every possible measure is taken to reduce and to prevent fraud? Will my right hon. Friend use the opportunities presented by new information technology to carry forward the struggle to prevent and deter fraud?
    Mr. Lilley: I can assent to both my hon. Friend's propositions. Fraud is a matter that gives rise to great public concern, and it is right that we should do all in our power to combat it. That undoubtedly means taking advantage of modern information technology and data-matching processes, which is part of my strategy.
    Mr. Frank Field: Will the Secretary of State confirm that about 10 million additional national insurance numbers that are not attached to individuals are floating around the system and that, last year, 30 million national insurance accounts neither had contributions paid to them nor credits made to them? Does he accept that, with a social security budget of £90 billion, it would be inconceivable, in view of what we know about City fraud and financial fraud, for there not to be the most sophisticated gangs operating against the social security budget? What action does the Secretary of State intend to take to protect that part of the budget, and how does he answer the charge that, in this most important of areas, he is soft on fraud and soft on causes?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is probably the only person who thinks that I am soft on fraud. If I am honest, he is the only Labour Member who is not soft on fraud. None the less, he should not give the impression that national insurance numbers are "floating around", as he put it, because of fraud. There are national insurance numbers that no longer have people in this country attached to them simply because the people concerned are abroad. In other cases, there is a period of some months after death before probate is got through, so the number exists in the meantime. We want to tighten up on this issue so that we can make better use of national insurance numbers to combat fraud. The phenomenon to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not the result of fraud.

    Incapacity Benefit
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had with regard to the incapacity benefit. [27609]
    Mr. Hague: I have received a number of letters about incapacity benefit. This major reform was introduced because, when the nation's health was improving, the number of people claiming invalidity benefit doubled.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that, last year, the Government spent £7 billion on invalidity benefit—more than the total sum spent on further and higher education? Will he therefore join me in welcoming the new incapacity
    10
    benefit, which will control that spending and ensure that only those who are genuinely incapable of working will receive benefit?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right. Reform of the system was vital to ensure that benefit went to the people that it was intended for. Without that reform, expenditure would have grown at an unsustainable rate. That is the reality that the Government have faced up to and which the Opposition are unwilling to confront.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Minister comment on the distress that some of the questions on the incapacity benefit form are causing my constituents and many other people, especially questions such as "Does your bladder work?" for which they are asked to tick the yes or no box? Those who drew up the questionnaire did not even have the decency to put "Private and Confidential" on the top. My constituents are having to answer questions on things about which they feel embarrassed, knowing that there is not even any confidentiality in the processing of the form. Will the Minister reconsider the design of the form to take account of some of those difficulties?
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Lady must recognise that the form is an opportunity for individuals to express their opinion about whether they are incapable of work and to give their own account of the difficulties that they face and any conditions that they have. Many of them will also have a medical examination to make a further assessment and many of them will find that their GPs are asked for their opinions. The hon. Lady would be the first to come to the House and complain if we did not ask individuals for their opinions. The information is not publicly available. There is no question of distributing such information in the public domain; she need have no worries about its confidentiality.
    Mr. Luff: On the subject of the medical test, will my hon. Friend confirm that many GPs will welcome these changes? They will no longer have to act as gatekeepers for long-term incapacity benefit, a role which many of them greatly disliked.
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right. Many GPs have welcomed the changes because, with the best will in the world, in the past, their decisions about benefit produced haphazard and inconsistent results. That was one of the principal problems with the old system, and we have removed it from the new system.
    Mr. Bradley: Has the Minister received representations from individuals who are terminally ill or from groups which represent them? I am sure that he remembers accepting the Labour amendment which will allow the higher rate of incapacity benefit to be paid to terminally ill people at 28 weeks instead of 52 weeks. Will he ensure that all the regulations allow for all linked benefits, including the Christmas bonus, to be paid to terminally ill people at 28 weeks instead of their having to wait for 52 weeks, so that they receive the maximum amount of benefits at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman knows that the exemptions from the test provide for people with severe conditions, which will include people who are terminally ill. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that any commitment that we have made is not being met, I will certainly look at it. At the moment, I am not aware of any such instances.

    National Insurance
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he proposes to meet the chief executive of the Contributions Agency to discuss national insurance contributions. [27610]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular meetings with Mrs. Faith Boardman, chief executive of the Contributions Agency, to discuss a wide range of issues.
    Mr. French: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Contributions Agency, will he ask her why the tests to determine whether an individual is employed or self-employed are sometimes applied differently by the Contributions Agency and the Inland Revenue? Does he accept that the tests ought to start off being the same and be applied consistently? Unnecessary confusion arises when the Inland Revenue accepts individuals as being self-employed while the Contributions Agency says that they are employed. Will he bring measures to bear to ensure consistency?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend's question. My Department and the Inland Revenue have a common approach to employment status. Where one person is described as employed by one department, that judgment is normally accepted by the other department. That is intended to reduce burdens on businesses and on employees, and in almost every case it has that effect. If my hon. Friend would care to contact me about any individual cases that he might have in mind, I shall be pleased to take them up.
    Mr. Flynn: Why are the Government planning to reduce the value of employees' and employers' contributions from 18.25 per cent. of median wages to 14. per cent. in the next century, while allowing the value of the basic state pension to fall? The pension has already fallen from 20 per cent. of average male wages in 1979 to 15 per cent. now, and it will be 10 per cent. in 2020. Is that not an example of the Government trying to drive people into poor value private pensions and away from a good value national insurance scheme, the running costs of which are a mere 5 per cent.? In private pensions, the cost of administration, commissions and profit is 50 per cent. Is that not very poor value for future pensioners?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: No. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening to some of the answers that I gave earlier. The state pension, as a proportion of earnings, is falling because other people's earnings and occupational pensions are going up so fast. One of the reasons for the prosperity of this country is that so many people have opted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme into private, funded occupational pension schemes. The result of that is that we now have more money set aside in occupational pension schemes in this country than in the whole of the rest of the European Union put together. We are in a very good position indeed.

    Benefit Reductions
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have had their benefit reduced as a result of adjudication officers ruling that they are not available for work because their homes are remote from work opportunities. [27612]
    Mr. Roger Evans: None in the terms of the question asked. Benefit can be refused if a person imposes restrictions on his or her availability for work and has no reasonable prospect of securing employment. That is a different situation from a person being in circumstances that impose their own restrictions. No one should be refused benefit purely on the grounds of where he or she lives.
    Mr. Ainger: That answer runs contrary to the evidence from my constituent in Rhosfach near Maenclochog, whose income support was suspended at the beginning of this year. The reason given in its evidence by the Department of Employment to the appeal tribunal was:
    "Unless she moves to a less remote area or obtains her own transport it is difficult to see what work she could take."
    That is contrary to what the Minister has just told the House. Is it not true that the way in which the rules are being applied discriminates against people in remote areas where there is virtually no public transport and against those who do not have their own personal transport?
    Mr. Evans: No. The rules have remained unchanged since 1955. I am aware of the case of another constituent of the hon. Gentleman, in respect of whom he has written to me. A review has taken place and it has been agreed that benefits should be payable. I have had no specific notice of the particular constituent whom the hon. Gentleman now mentions, but I can assure him that the guidance that has been issued to adjudicating officers has been clear and in the same terms for some considerable period. If people impose conditions, that is their own choice. If the adjudicating officer is satisfied that they have done so, there may be grounds for refusing benefit, but no one is to be denied benefit simply because he or she happens to live in a beautiful, rural and remote part of the hon. Gentleman's lovely constituency.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend ask the adjudicating officers to examine the case of two of my constituents who live in a beautiful part of Todmorden? They went to a remote area of the United States for 11 months and returned to find themselves totally out of benefit.
    Mr. Evans: As far as I can recall, my hon. Friend has not given me details of that particular case. It sounds as though the difficulty would seem to be the issue of habitual residence, which is a different matter.

    Old Age Pensions
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met a group of pensioners' representatives to discuss the level of old age pensions and other entitlements. [27614]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: During the passage of the Pensions Bill, which is currently before the House, Ministers have had many meetings, both formal and informal, with pensioners' representatives and organisations.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not a scandal that, at a time when pensioners have been robbed blind by the Government—they lost up to about £20 a week when the Government changed the system of paying pensions in relation to wages and prices—a few thousand Lloyd's names have been given £2.8 billion in tax relief? If as much as £2.8 billion is in the country, is it not high time for that money

    13
    to go to hard-pressed pensioners and not to Tory Back Benchers who have been saved from bankruptcy and financial ruin?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: As a Lloyd's name, I suppose I should declare an interest. As the hon. Gentleman is coming up to pension age, perhaps he, too, should declare his interest.
    I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's contributions. On this occasion, as he mentioned wages and prices, he had the opportunity to set out whether it was Labour party policy to uprate pensions by prices or by wages.
    Mr. Skinner: It is mine.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: How reassuring for us.
    The Labour party has, however, produced no policy on that. It is not so much a pig in a poke as a porker in a pickle.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Value-for-money Audits
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what funds will be provided to the National Audit Office for value-for-money audits. [27642]
    Sir Peter Hordern (representing the Public Accounts Commission): The net budget of the National Audit Office for 1995–96 is £37.6 million. That includes provision for both financial audit and value-for-money investigations. The Commission will meet on 4 July to consider the future expenditure of the NAO.
    Mr. Cohen: Is not the Government's incompetence becoming legendary—witness the fiasco at the weekend when tens of thousands of officially held documents were found? Is not such incompetence expensive for the taxpayer? The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury has produced a document entitled "Waste Watch", which shows that more than £21 billion has been wasted by the Government since 1989 on wrong priorities and ideological experiments. Is there not a case for more value-for-money audits—conducted sooner rather than later—so that Government incompetence can be exposed and prevented. That would put an end to such plain bad management.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The hon. Gentleman did not give me notice of his exact question, but I have read the document to which he referred. It is a rag-bag of some quite good points and some absolute rubbish, as one would expect from the Labour party. I had the good fortune to a member of the Public Accounts Commission during the previous Labour Government, under whom the omissions and faults were just as bad as they are under this Government.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman is supposed to be neutral.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would bear witness to that record.
    Mr. Hawkins: Are there any plans to introduce value for money audits, supervised by the National Audit Office, of inefficient, wasteful Labour councils, such as Hackney, Islington and those in Lancashire?
    Sir Peter Hordern: No. Such work would be for the Audit Office, not the National Audit Office.

    Statisticians
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what is the current number of statisticians employed by the National Audit Office. [27643]
    Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office employs about 550 staff who either have accountancy qualifications or are training for them. Of those staff, 25 have degrees in statistics or mathematics. There are eight full-time professional statisticians or operational researchers. In addition, when specialist statistical advice is needed, the NAO uses external experts.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He is no doubt well aware of the difficulties that the NAO has experienced when dealing with the World Health Organisation. Would he like to comment on them and to offer any advice to the Government?
    Sir Peter Hordern: The House may be aware that the Comptroller and Auditor General thought it right not to carry on with his work as auditor of the World Health Organisation because it involved a most unsatisfactory process. The Comptroller and Auditor General has issued a statement, which I expect Members will have seen. The House and all subscribing countries owe a vote of thanks to the Comptroller and Auditor General for his hard work and assiduousness on behalf of all subscribing nations to the WHO.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the best way to deal with the problem simply to pull out? I have every respect for the Comptroller and Auditor General, but would it not be wiser to stay in, argue the issue publicly and secure reforms? At the moment, we have no guarantee that changes will be made to the process. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in his reply to me he freezes the political content that he used in answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), as he holds a non-political office?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I apologise most sincerely to the hon. Gentleman for offending his political sensibilities in any way. I understood that there was a hint of political content in the hon. Member for Leyton's question, and I hope that the hon. Member for Leyton did not mind the way in which I answered.
    In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, I would say that—so far as I know—this country is still a subscribing member of the World Health Organisation.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Hourly Wages
    Mr. Wicks: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many House of Commons employees employed directly or on contract, receive hourly wages of (a) £4 or less, (b) £3.50 or less and (c) £3 or less; and what is the lowest hourly rate for anyone working in the House of Commons. [27631]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the House of Commons Commission): None of the staff employed by the House of Commons Commission is paid an hourly rate of less than £4. The minimum point on the salary scale of the

    15
    most junior grade equates to £4.39 per hour. Two staff in this grade are currently paid at that rate. The House authorities do not hold details of the wages of staff employed by contractors.
    Mr. Wicks: Is it not a disgrace that the House does not know the level of pay of staff employed by contractors? Is not that pay likely to be very low? Should not we satisfy ourselves from data that the people we employ are paid a fair wage, so that we are not an exploitative employer and the House of Commons is not a House of poverty?
    Mr. Beith: As I pointed out, the people whom we employ are paid a fair wage. The House uses contractors principally in the Parliamentary Works Directorate and the Refreshment Department, and usually has contracts with firms or agencies rather than with individuals. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of low pay in those areas, he should draw it to my attention so that I may draw it to the attention of the Department concerned. The rates paid by the House to contractors take account of the prevailing rates of pay for the appropriate levels of skill for which the contract is made.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether the House of Commons Commission employs anyone below the ages of 18 or 19? He may discover that, as in some other public organisations, the rates of pay are high while the number of young people employed is nil.
    Mr. Beith: I would require notice of that question, but I shall obtain the information and let the hon. Gentleman have it.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Expenditure
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission whether he will make a statement on the current year's expenditure of the National Audit Office. [27644]
    Sir Peter Hordern: The Public Accounts Commission approved the National Audit Office estimate of £37.6 million net for 1995–1996 on 6 December 1994.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Chairman tell the House how much of that expenditure goes towards producing the figures on unemployment, which nobody in the country believes to be anything other than fiddled? Will he consider whether the National Audit Office might not produce another set of figures to show how many people in this country want a job but cannot get one, because that is the real measure of joblessness in this land?
    Sir Peter Hordern: On the unemployment statistics, the hon. Gentleman may be referring to a report by the Royal Statistical Society, which is not a matter for either the National Audit Office or the Comptroller and Auditor General. The comptroller's job is to look into waste in Departments and value for money. The hon. Gentleman may care to put his question to the Secretary of State for Employment.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Pensioner Incomes
    Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the real average increase in pensioner household income since 1979; and what was the increase for the average household of the United Kingdom overall. [27617]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Between 1979 and 1992–93, average household income rose by at least 43 per cent. for pensioners. During the same period, average household income in the United Kingdom rose by about 38 per cent.
    Mr. Robinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does that not show that all pensioners are now better off in real terms than they were in 1979, thus giving the lie to some of the Labour party's claims?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes, it does. It shows also the virtues of our pursuing funded occupational pension provision and other policies that have been dramatically successful in improving this country's economy.

    Mortgage Interest
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received regarding changes in benefit to meet mortgage interest payments. [27618]
    Mr. Roger Evans: A number.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that, despite what was said in response to questions earlier this afternoon, the only free thing about the Skipton building society is the free publicity that it is receiving from the Government in the form of answers to questions? Is it not true that the Government can no longer claim that they are the friend of the house owner when that house owner runs into difficulty?
    Mr. Evans: The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no. Far from receiving free publicity, the Skipton building society has behaved in a thoroughly responsible fashion.
    As a socialist, the hon. Gentleman might have bothered to notice that the margins of building societies and lenders are at an historic high of nearly 2 per cent. and that they are in a position to help their borrowers in times of adversity. The report by Special Risks Services showed clearly that many lenders will now introduce free insurance in such circumstances and that prudent lenders will do so universally.
    Mr. Dewar: As the Minister has praised the Skipton building society for its responsible approach to the problem, will he comment on its clear view that the Government have got it wrong and on its opposition to their plans?
    Mr. Evans: That is not so, as one can see if one reads all the statements of the Skipton building society. Ultimately, it will introduce the scheme and that is the important thing.

    Mortgage Interest
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what modifications he will

    17
    introduce to his proposals for paying mortgage interest in the light of the Loughborough university and Policy Studies Institute research into the housing market, commissioned by the Department of the Environment. [27624]
    Mr. Roger Evans: The research commissioned by the Department of the Environment was not directed specifically to the Government's income support mortgage interest proposals. The report confirmed that the majority of those who are affected by arrears and repossessions do not currently qualify for income support. Our proposals will encourage the development of comprehensive quality insurance, as I mentioned a moment ago, so that all new home owners should obtain proper protection if they suffer a loss of income.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it true that the report showed that two thirds of mortgage protection policies issued were invalid for reasons of exclusion? If so, is it not a remarkable statistic?
    Mr. Evans: It is a remarkable statistic, but the sample was 12. The Special Risks Services report showed that 75 per cent. of those involved in lending were surveyed not only about their intentions in respect of mortgage insurance, but also about the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. The Housing Finance Gazette of April 1995 stated:
    "One of the most unexpected results of the survey was the satisfaction with the claims service. The evidence, mostly anecdotal, from newspaper articles complaining about the claims service on creditor is largely unsupported by these figures."
    The lender, as much as the borrower, has a vested interest in ensuring that quality insurance is in place to ensure that the borrower's obligations to the lender are met when the borrower falls into unemployment.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative party is the party of home ownership, that it encourages and will continue to encourage home ownership, that it has enabled millions of people throughout the country to buy their own council homes and that we shall continue to encourage people who wish to buy their own homes?
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend puts four questions robustly. The answer to each is yes, and that historically is in stark contrast to the policies of the Labour party.

    Benefits
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what machinery or method he obtains the views of recipients of social security benefits; and if he will make a statement. [27626]
    Mr. Hague: The Benefits Agency commissions an annual national customer survey, carried out by an independent external research contractor, to examine customer opinion of the service that it provides. The overall satisfaction rating for the 1994 survey was 83 per cent.
    In addition, all BA districts carry out local customer surveys, which focus on the difficulties encountered by customers. BA also holds a series of biannual meetings to provide organisations with an opportunity to discuss issues of concern to customers. The surveys are in accordance with citizens charter principles and the BA customer charter.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is the Minister aware that pensioners will not consider an independent research company a proper way of sounding out individual views and frustrations, bearing in mind that married couples are losing some £20 a week due to the Government's meddling with the system of uprating pensions? Is it not time that the Government listened to pensioners, who feel frustrated by the level of their pensions and their lack of mobility on public transport? On the 50th anniversary of voting for a Labour Government and a welfare state, they see the great prize for which they fought and for which they voted in 1945 being eroded by the Government.
    Mr. Hague: Pensioners are included in the survey to which I referred, but in recent years they have benefited from the uprating of the pension in line with prices, the increased resources being given to the less well-off and oldest pensioners and the low inflation that the Government have delivered, in stark contrast to their predecessor.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Business Questions
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Lord President of the Council what percentage of requests for debate at business questions resulted in parliamentary debates. [27632]
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Representations at business questions are among a wide range of factors that influences the content and timing of the business of the House. In recent months, several debates have responded to such representations.
    Mr. Flynn: Unfortunately, the Leader of the House has not answered the question. Does he agree that most right hon. and hon. Members regard business questions as a valuable opportunity to raise matters that are not otherwise on the Order Paper, with no real expectation of securing a debate? Does he agree that the system of business questions is now a meaningless ritual and that we should replace it with the system used in many Parliaments around the world, such as India and the United States, where, with the agreement of the Speaker, Members can speak for one minute during a period of about 10 minutes every day and raise any subject? Does he agree that the system of business questions and points of order is now archaic, meaningless, time-wasting and inefficient?
    Mr. Newton: It is clear that, were any such opportunity to be created, the hon. Gentleman would almost immediately talk it out. Many of his suggestions are clearly for the Procedure Committee. It seems sensible that there should be a weekly business statement. How people choose to use it is a matter for them, under the rules laid down by you, Madam Speaker, but much ingenuity is undoubtedly used.
    Mr. Dykes: Contrary to the previous churlish and over-lengthy question, will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of the House for being a fair-minded Leader of the House and providing opportunities for debates on many subjects? In the same constructive spirit, will he give a little more thought to having slightly more debates

    19
    on Europe on the Floor of the House, not just in Committee, so that we can debate the obvious merits of the single currency more often?
    Mr. Newton: On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, on one recent occasion many members of the Select Committee on European Legislation found it useful to be able to question a Minister in a way that would not be possible on the Floor of the House. I agree entirely with the first part of my hon. Friend's question.

    Privy Council Office
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the work of the Privy Council Office. [27633]
    Mr. Newton: The Privy Council Office acts as the secretariat to the Privy Council. Among other things, it considers applications for the granting or amendment of royal charters, scrutinises changes in the byelaws or statutes of chartered institutions and in the governing instruments of universities and colleges, and arranges a variety of Crown and Privy Council appointments. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is serviced by the Department, which also contains the central drugs co-ordinations unit.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Lord President reflect on the fact that, had the Halifax summit occurred any time after the third week of July and before the third week of October, there would have been no statement in this House of Commons? If the BMARC affair had cropped up in that time, there would have been no debate here. Is it not time that this Parliament provided, at least in the first or second week of September, a period when we could have statements from Ministers and could probe the Executive? How is it that I can table parliamentary
    20
    questions in January, February and March but cannot get replies in July, August, September or October? It is time this Parliament had proper sittings in the autumn to allow for proper scrutiny.
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's question is all very interesting, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the one that I was asked.

    Divisions
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many Divisions have taken place in the House since January; and what was the figure for a comparable period in 1994. [27634]
    Mr. Newton: The number of Divisions in the House for the period from Tuesday 10 January 1995 to Friday 9 June 1995 inclusive was 129. That period represented 90 sitting days. During the first 90 sitting days of 1994, covering the period from Tuesday 11 January 1994 to Thursday 26 May 1994 inclusive, there were 202 Divisions.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Leader of the House agree that there has been a dramatic change since the Jopling proposals were introduced in the House? I could not for the life of me understand why Tory Back Benchers, almost certainly facing a Labour Government in the near future, would want to throw away the opportunity to oppose that Labour Government. Then I suddenly realised why: because most of them realise that there will be a Canadian whitewash, and they will not have jobs.
    Mr. Newton: An above-average amount of ingenuity is being shown this afternoon—quite apart from the first question. The principal reason for the figures that I have just given is likely not to have been the Jopling changes but the fact that the usual channels were not operating in the first half of last year.

Halifax Summit
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Halifax summit, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury. I have placed the communiqué and the chairman's statement in the Library of the House.
As last year, the summit was in two parts. We started with a G7 meeting focusing on economic matters and were then joined by President Yeltsin for a G8 meeting on wider political issues.
In the G7 countries, growth averaged 3 per cent. last year, with the United Kingdom growing somewhat faster. The issue of most concern is the continuing high level of unemployment, particularly in continental Europe. Unemployment, for example, across the western European states in the European Union is currently at 11 per cent. We are all agreed on the policies needed to tackle that. They are those set out in the G7 jobs conference last year and taken forward in the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study: more flexible labour markets, deregulation and the scrapping of restrictive practices, and better training and education. Those are the policies being pursued by the Government of this country, which have led to unemployment falling by more than 600,000 in the past two years.
We agreed to hold another jobs conference in France next year to review progress on those issues. All countries will be represented by Finance and Employment Ministers, and further consideration will be given to including others, such as Education and Trade Ministers, as well.
Last year at Naples we agreed to conduct a review of international institutions. At Halifax we have drawn up a series of specific proposals to strengthen the Bretton Woods institutions and the United Nations.
We all agreed that the most effective way to tackle exchange rate instability is the pursuit of sensible economic policies domestically. Finance Ministers and central bank governors will maintain close co-operation on economic surveillance and on exchange markets. We also agreed on a range of measures to strengthen co-operation between the world's financial regulators and supervisors on such matters as prudential standards and transparency. Among the proposals for the international financial institutions, I would single out those aimed at improving the International Monetary Fund's early warning mechanisms and its ability to handle crises where prevention fails.
The summit also discussed the problems of poverty and sustainable development. We agreed in particular to encourage better use of all existing World bank and IMF resources to tackle the substantial burden of multilateral debt faced by some of the world's poorest countries. That is an area where the UK has taken the lead in pressing for action. All G7 countries have now agreed to explore the option of pledging some of the IMF's gold, and we and some others will continue to argue the case for modest outright sales of gold to help reduce the debt burden.
This year is the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. We all wish to see a strong and purposeful UN, able to play the full role envisaged under its charter. We agreed that
22
reform is essential if the UN is to continue to meet the demands placed upon it. We have made a number of proposals for eliminating duplication and waste, and consolidating and streamlining the UN's economic and social bodies.
We shall be actively pursuing those proposals in partnership with the rest of the UN's membership, as decisions on them are not solely for the G7. We also recognised the need for the UN to be properly financed. All UN member states should meet their financial obligations and agree to reform the system of assessment.
The G7 gave a strong push to the next stage in liberalising world trade. There is unfinished business from the Uruguay round, as well as new areas to be tackled, including non-tariff barriers, investment and Government procurement.
We dealt with a number of other issues, including the environment, where we agreed on the need to review and, where appropriate, strengthen the commitments that we made at the 1992 Rio summit. We also discussed international crime, where the G8 has taken up our suggestion to establish a high-level group to look at existing arrangements for co-operation against crime and to make practical proposals to improve them.
President Yeltsin played a full part in the political discussions. He described the tragic consequences of the taking of hostages by Chechen guerrillas in Budyonnovsk. The crisis, which has claimed many lives, has taken a new turn today. The guerrillas are now reported to be leaving, by agreement, but with a large number of hostages as well as Russian deputies and journalists. I hope that there will be no further loss of innocent lives, but the wider problem of Chechnya remains. We urged President Yeltsin to do all that he could to find a political solution.
Terrorism has been a problem in many of our countries, and we agreed to set up a better system for exchanging information about terrorist incidents and methods of dealing with them. We also agreed to President Yeltsin's proposal to hold a special summit in Moscow next year to discuss a range of issues on civil nuclear safety.
On Bosnia, Security Council resolution 998 on the reinforcement of UN protection forces was adopted on 16 June. The summit supported the new rapid reaction force, which the UK and France have helped to establish. President Clinton said that he had not yet secured congressional approval for that force to be funded from UN assessments, but made it clear that he wanted the US to share in the financing.
Following new offensives in Bosnia, summit leaders called for an immediate moratorium on military operations so that political negotiations based on the contact group proposals could resume.
Over the past day, the remaining protection forces' hostages have been released and the level of fighting has decreased. There has so far been no significant change in the military situation as a result of the latest offensives, and we continue to believe that this question will not be solved militarily.
Bosnia clearly remains in a dangerous phase. Mr. Carl Bildt, the former Swedish Prime Minister, is about to begin his mission as the European Union's negotiator. He will do so with the strong support of all the eight summit nations.

23
This was a summit that addressed a range of primarily long-term but in some instances short-term issues: growth and employment; the reform of international institutions; the debt problems of the poorest countries; pushing forward free trade; the conflict in Bosnia; and terrorism.
The people of Nova Scotia gave the summit a conspicuously warm welcome. That helped to make it a friendly and productive meeting without the over-elaborate formalities that have often characterised previous summits. That is something that I have pressed for for some time, and I hope that we can take the process forward even more next year.
Mr. Tony Blair: I broadly welcome the statement that the Prime Minister has just made. I shall deal with it briefly under four key headings: Bosnia; global finance; action on jobs and the environment; and other related matters.
On Bosnia, the Prime Minister knows that we support the deployment of the rapid reaction force. May I simply press him, though, on its role? Is the intention that it be limited mainly to the protection of UNPROFOR troops, or will it be more vigorous in implementing the UN mandate, for example, in trying to secure convoy routes or in the policing of safe areas? I add our regret that the United States Congress has not thought it right—yet, at any rate—to contribute to the funding of the force. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is likely to change? Are there other measures with which the US is proposing to help?
Was it impressed on President Yeltsin in particular that continuing pressure on Serbia by Russia is essential to a solution in Bosnia? Did the Prime Minister make it clear to Mr. Yeltsin, as other leaders did, that our desire for him to act over Serbia, and our deploring of any acts of terrorism by Chechen guerrillas, does not mitigate our concern for minimum standards of proper conduct on all sides in the handling of the crisis in Chechnya?
On global finance, I regret that the Government's proposals on the use of gold sales to help the debtor nations did not find support. Does the Prime Minister agree with us that the summit was disappointingly empty of new measures to assist poverty in the poorer countries? Does he further agree that such measures are in the interests not just of those countries but of the wealthier nations, too?
It is clearly right, especially following the financial crisis in Mexico, that the IMF pays greater attention to the way in which a crisis is prevented rather than merely to the way in which it is resolved once it has happened. I therefore agree with the improvements that have been suggested to allow for a better early warning system where problems have arisen and with the key benchmarks agreed on the publication of economic and financial data, but does the Prime Minister accept that doubling the IMF's general arrangement to borrow, as has been agreed, to allow earlier intervention in an emergency, is sensible, but only if the other reforms that have been agreed and the tough conditions necessary are put in place?
I also welcome the increased emphasis on co-operation over banking regulation in the wake of Barings, but is not the central issue the revolution in the globalisation of the financial and currency markets, which now wield massive
24
speculative power over the Governments of all countries and have the capacity seriously to disrupt economic progress?
Apart from the general words—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may find this a problem of no account at all—but that is hardly surprising—but I think that most sensible people do. Apart from the general words in the communiquéé, were there any specific proposals as to how the G7 countries—[nterruption.] I do not think that Conservative Members realise that the G7 summit specifically drew attention to those problems, and most sensible people would regard it as intelligent to ask questions of the Prime Minister on them.
Apart from the general words in the communiqué, were there any specific proposals as to how the G7 countries could promote the greater stability in the new financial world that they have asked for?
On jobs, without such stability, job prospects are much bleaker, and the Prime Minister will know that the G7 suggested, as well as the elimination of unnecessary regulation, a greater emphasis on investment in skills. Will he not therefore reconsider the irresponsible cut of around 20 per cent. in the Government's budget for training the long-term unemployed? Does he agree with the emphasis in the communiqué not just on jobs, but on jobs of quality that pay wages that allow people to enjoy decent living standards?
As for the environment and related matters, especially nuclear power, we welcome the statement on the environment and, in particular, the decommissioning of Chernobyl nuclear power station. But is the Prime Minister as sanguine as the G7 appears to be about the state of the other nuclear power stations in the former eastern bloc? The chairman's statement mentions the importance of bringing the chemical weapons convention into force at the earliest possible date; what are the Government's current plans for its ratification, and when can we expect legislation?
We also welcome the initiative on fighting international crime and terrorism. Does the Prime Minister agree that the global nature of organised crime today makes concerted action imperative? We also approve of the mention of the position of Mr. Salman Rushdie, and the support for him expressed at the summit.
Finally, may I make a point with which I am sure the Prime Minister will agree, although he may not say so? When he next represents our country at an international financial summit, will he do so without his efforts being overshadowed by undisciplined shenanigans on the Conservative Benches? In the end, the loser from such behaviour is not just the Conservative party, but Britain.
The Prime Minister: First, let me thank the Leader of the Opposition for the areas in which he supported the decisions and proposals that were made at the summit.
I shall take the right hon. Gentleman's questions in the order in which he raised them. He asked about Bosnia. The role of the rapid reaction corps is primarily to reinforce and protect, but it may well be operating in greater numbers in terms of some elements of convoy protection. For example, it will have much better equipment to remove mines. It is difficult not to give a misleading impression by saying that it is there to add muscle; it is emphatically not there to fight—that point should be clear—but the greater reinforcements and equipment will assist in ensuring that more convoys can

25
get through, because of the ability that they will have in greater numbers to deal with problems that are currently extremely difficult to overcome.
As for funding by Congress, President Clinton faces the difficulty that he needs the approval of Congress and at present does not have it. He wishes to pay, and he wishes to make it clear that the United States would wish to pay its equivalent to an assessed United Nations contribution towards the cost of the rapid reaction corps. He will be looking to see how that can be done. Moreover, around the table, every Head of Government agreed that, in the absence of an assessed contribution, they would themselves voluntarily pay the contribution that they would have paid under a system of assessed contributions.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about President Yeltsin's relationship with Serbia. President Yeltsin has repeatedly put pressure on President Milosevic; he did so most recently when I telephoned him with Chancellor Kohl from Germany when the present difficulties began. He reassured us yet again that he would continue to do so—although I think that the degree of pressure subsequently exerted by President Milosevic on Karadzic is a different matter, over which the Russian leader feels that he has less direct control.
The chairman's statement made clear the feelings of the G7 about Chechnya, the need for a political solution and the need to ensure proper standards in dealing with the conflict. President Yeltsin knows from what we have said on this and other occasions that we do not believe that it was handled in the most appropriate fashion.
As for finance, we would have preferred an outright sale of gold by the IMF to help to deal with the problems of the very poor nations. The intention, however, was never to sell the gold and use the proceeds, but to sell the gold, maintain the proceeds and use the interest to alleviate the debt of the poorest. I think that that can broadly be met by the pledge, although I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that the pledge is second best: we would have preferred the outright sale of gold, and we shall continue to press for it to assist those very poor nations.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support on the IMF questions and agree that doubling the general arrangement to borrow is sensible, but that the other reforms need to be put in place. That point has been securely made. I also agree about the co-operation that is necessary to deal, in terms of IMF surveillance, with countries that are running into economic difficulties.
I now refer to speculative flows. Everyone is concerned about an element of speculation, although sometimes people confuse speculation, which does exist, with significant movements of large pension funds from one country to another. Those responsible for pension funds are sometimes under a statutory requirement to move funds if that is right and is thought to be in the interests of their pension holders. There is undoubtedly some speculation. The problem in dealing with it is that even the sum total of foreign exchange reserves of the world's seven largest industrial countries, whose representatives were seated around that table, would probably be less than the flow of foreign exchange through the New York exchanges on a single day.
The reality is that we are no longer in the circumstances that we may have been in 15 or 20 years ago to deal with open market operations on speculation. Frankly, it is no longer true and no one should harbour the belief that it
26
can be tackled in that fashion because the market is now much too big for the problem to be dealt with in that way. We looked at how best to deal with it and reached the unsurprising but, I think, sensible conclusion that the only way to deal with it is for countries not to place themselves in that position. They will not do that if they follow sensible economic policies, so that their currencies are not likely to become subject to speculation. I think that that was universally agreed around the table. There are areas in which there can be central bank co-operation, but we felt that they were very much on the margins of what could be achieved and that those achievements cannot be central because the market is too big.
On the environment and nuclear power, we welcomed the decommissioning of Chernobyl. I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the communiqué is sanguine on the eastern bloc problems. I do not think that that was the view of those who were present. Certainly, Chernobyl has caused great trouble, but there is a large number of unsafe nuclear establishments across eastern Europe. They have not become Chernobyls and we hope and pray that they never will, but judged by the safety standards that we wish, they are not safe. That is one of the reasons for not only the financial assistance that has previously been offered but the decision to hold a conference on civil nuclear safety in Russia in the first half of next year.
I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a date on the chemical weapons convention, but I can tell him that we shall proceed to ratification as soon as we can. I am grateful to him for his support for the condemnation of Iran's fatwa on Salman Rushdie. On jobs, we agree about greater investment in the right sort of skills. We were looking at skills and education expenditure right across the board. In our view, it is a matter not just of more spending but of how existing resources were being used.
On jobs, we supported what was said by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which made the position clear on the policies that it supported. The OECD also highlighted policies that it felt cost jobs. They included: high non-wage costs, artificial training levies and high minimum wages—all of which will be familiar to the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir Peter Hordern: My right hon. Friend said that the United States sanctioned the United Nations rapid reaction force, but is not prepared to pay for it. Is there some prospect of that being reversed, and does he agree that if it is not, there will be an unacceptable burden on ourselves and the French? Would reform of the IMF mean that we could avoid the problems that occurred when Mexico was bailed out by the United States and by the International Monetary Fund without, I understand, any consultations with those, including ourselves, who subscribe to the IMF?
The Prime Minister: In response to my right hon. Friend's first point, I hope very much that the President will be able to find a way of meeting what would otherwise be the assessed United Nations contribution of the United States. Whether the President will be able to change the present opposition by Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich is not a matter that I can judge from here. I am in no doubt about the President's willingness to do that or to find some other way to meet that cost. If not, it will, of course, have to be met either by France and

27
Britain or by a voluntary settlement from other members of the G8 and other United Nations members. That also is a possibility; both possibilities exist.
One impetus for the reform of the IMF was, of course, the lack of proper surveillance that predated the problems with Mexico. The difficulties in Mexico should have been spotted earlier by the IMF, but they were not. The problems created a great deal of currency turbulence in central Europe and also played a material part in the rising level of the deutschmark against other European currencies. It is precisely for that reason—among others, but certainly for that reason—that we are looking at reform of the institutions.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I welcome the Government's proposals for the limited sale of gold to relieve the debt burden on third-world countries. I am sorry that they did not receive the full support that they deserved. May I assure the Prime Minister that if the Government continue to press those proposals, he will, I suspect, have the full support of all Opposition Members?
On currency speculation, the Prime Minister described very accurately both the scale of the problem and its danger. Have the Government given any thought to the proposals, which have been very well worked out over a number of years, that are being put forward by, among others, Professor Tobin for an international scheme for a low level of taxation of speculators in the spot markets in currency? Many believe that that would have a stabilising effect and it is well within the scope of the international institutions' power.
On Bosnia, the Prime Minister will no doubt understand why the very disappointing decision of the Americans not to fund the rapid reaction force at the moment will be regarded by many as yet another example in the long chapter of disorganisation, disarray and disunity for which the UN, the Bosnians and our troops on the ground have paid such a price in the past. I would ask the Prime Minister one specific question. On Saturday, he said that, if the UN was forced to withdraw, the result would be a massacre. I believe that that calculation is correct. Does it not follow that if, against our will, the UN is forced to withdraw from Bosnia, it would be inconceivable to leave the Bosnian Government without the means of their own defence?
The Prime Minister: Again, let me take the right hon. Gentleman's points in order. On gold, yes, we shall continue to press and I shall be happy to have the right hon. Gentleman's support and that of other hon. Members. It is the right way forward. Pledging the gold will certainly make an improvement, but we think that outright sales of gold would have been better.
On speculation, we did not specifically refer to the Tobin proposals, but we did discuss matters such as the imposition of taxes and exchange controls. However, we agreed without dissent that either the reimposition of exchange controls or new taxes on financial transactions would be counterproductive. We did consider those proposals, but there was unanimous agreement among the G7 that that was not the direction in which we wished to go.
On Bosnia, I think that the first half of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was inaccurate, in the sense that the responsibility for the fact that the United States is
28
unprepared to contribute lies not with the United Nations, the Bosnians or the American Administration, but with Congress itself. I very much hope that that will be able to be corrected. As I indicated to my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) a moment ago, we must wait and see whether that is the case.
I did say that, if the United Nations protection force were forced to withdraw, I feared that one of the outcomes would be a massacre. That is a position that I have held to for a long time; it is why I remain rigorously opposed to the withdrawal of the United Nations protection forces unless and until it becomes transparently clear that it is no longer safe or prudent for us to leave our troops there. So I very much wish them to remain. Were the United Nations protection force to leave, I think that it is very likely that the arms embargo would be lifted.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. A number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to question the Prime Minister. I caution the House that now that we have heard from the two major Opposition parties, I am seeking one question each from Back Benchers to the Prime Minister; otherwise, there will be great disappointment. There may be disappointment in any event, but this is not a debate. It is one question to the Prime Minister, who, I am sure, will give a brisk answer.
Mr. David Shaw: My right hon. Friend will have met President Chirac at the conference, someone who has suffered a number of political disappointments in his political life, but who won through in the end. Perhaps my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to talk to President Chirac about reports last week that he criticised our overseas aid budget. Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to point out to him that Britain not only spends some £3 billion a year on overseas aid, but puts £3 billion into Europe, whereas France gets about £3 billion from Europe? Should—
Madam Speaker: Thank you. I meant it.
The Prime Minister: I did not spend any time discussing overseas aid with President Chirac. We had the opportunity to discuss that the week before, so we did not do so this weekend. I think that President Chirac knows and accepts that we have a very high-quality aid programme.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Prime Minister tell the House what representations were made to him about the decision to allow the Brent Spar oil rig to be ditched in the sea and what representations he and others made to the French about the resumption of nuclear testing, both of which run absolutely counter to the bland and meaningless words used in the communiqué about the environment?
The Prime Minister: I understand that many people seem deeply upset about the decision to dispose of Brent Spar in deep water. I believe that it is the right way to dispose of it. It will be disposed of in the Atlantic, in 6,000 ft of water. It is 150 yd tall and 30 yd wide, and the proposition that it could have been taken inshore to be disposed of is incredible. Shell has my full support to dispose of it in deep water. I made that clear to people in the discussions that I had over the weekend.
Sir Patrick Cormack: When my right hon. Friend and his colleagues made their understandable calls on Saturday for a cessation of hostilities in Bosnia, did they recognise the fact that any sovereign state has the right to defend its own capital city?
The Prime Minister: I think that that point was well understood, but I repeat that I do not believe that the matter is ever going to be solved on the battlefield in any remotely satisfactory way. That is why I believe that we must do all we can, as we have over the past three years, to try to seek a negotiated political settlement. It is bitterly disappointing that, time after time, one group or the other—it has not been one group alone—has stood in the way of a settlement when it looked as if we could get to serious talks.
All the main groups have stood in the way of that at some stage and, I believe, for different reasons. However, the sooner that every group realises that if it seeks to win on the battlefield it will be an international pariah for years, the better; the sooner other groups realise that the United States is not going to enter the war on the ground on one side, the better; and the sooner those two points are recognised by the different groups, the sooner we might get to some political negotiations that would realise a satisfactory settlement.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Given the vulnerability of modern society to terrorism and the certainty that terrorism will seek to dominate democracy in the next century, will the Prime Minister continue the good work that he did last week and strongly press his colleagues—the leaders of the other Governments—to arrange and establish workable and effective structures to co-operate against terrorism? Will he warn the other leaders that it would be completely futile if they were to make any concessions to terrorists, which would merely whet their appetite?
The Prime Minister: I share the right hon. Gentleman's views. We agreed to share information on major terrorist incidents and to strengthen co-operation in all aspects of counter-terrorism, including the research and development of methods to prevent and to deal with terrorist attacks. In our discussions, we attached special importance to measures to impede the ability of terrorist organisations to raise funds, without which, of course, they cannot purchase the weapons that they use against innocent citizenry. In order to carry matters forward, we asked a terrorism expert group to report on specific measures to deter, prevent and investigate terrorist acts, and we shall jointly consider that report when it is completed.
Sir Cranley Onslow: When my right hon. Friend says—and it is welcome news—that there are to be measures to improve international co-operation against terrorism, may I take it that that extends to crime in general and not just to terrorism in particular? If there is to be a better system and one that is more effective and secure than Interpol, will he tell us any more about how it is to be developed and who is to pay for it?
The Prime Minister: I can confirm that to my right hon. Friend. There are some further matters directly related to crime, again to strengthen the exchange of information and co-operation and to provide assistance to other nations in areas where drug-related crime, for
30
example, may find its roots. We are also seeking to co-operate, to stop criminals escaping justice by crossing borders—another matter that is long overdue, where more decisions are yet necessary and where discussions will take place to ensure that they are taken.
We should also like to encourage all Governments to adhere to the recommendations of the financial action task force to prevent money laundering. Clearly, money laundering takes place on a massive scale in different parts of the world. Often it is money laundering not just by individual criminals, but by organised, large-scale criminal groups in different parts of the world. We have established a group of senior experts to consider critically existing arrangements for co-operation and to report back to the next summit.
Mr. Peter Shore: Returning to nuclear matters, the Prime Minister touched on the business of nuclear safety at Chernobyl and elsewhere, but he made no mention of the French decision to resume nuclear testing in the Pacific. In the context of the advanced stage of the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations, and taking account of the justifiable anger in New Zealand, Australia and other Pacific countries, what representations did the Prime Minister make to the French President and, if so, with what effect?
The Prime Minister: The question of French nuclear testing was not discussed bilaterally or in the discussions among the G7 or G8 at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It was not discussed at all at the economic summit. The important international objective now is the early agreement of the comprehensive test ban treaty, and we all confirmed our commitment to that. The decision on the resumption of French nuclear testing is a matter for the French Government and they have taken that decision. The French have said that there would be a short series of tests, following which they proposed to adhere to the comprehensive test ban treaty. That is their position. It has been established and we accept it.
Mr. Roger Knapman: When discussing economic affairs, did my right hon. Friend and other leaders discuss the position in socialist Spain, which was recently obliged to increase its interest rates by 0.75 per cent. to meet convergence criteria—and that despite a 24 per cent. unemployment rate? Does not that show my right hon. Friend's wisdom in maintaining our opt-out from a single currency?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the wisdom of maintaining the opt-out. [HON. MEMBERS: "What a surprise."] I say to Opposition Members that it is no surprise that I agree with my hon. Friend on that particular opt-out, as I negotiated that particular opt-out and it would be extremely surprising if I did not agree with it. I must say to my hon. Friend, however, that, although it would have been tempting, we did not discuss the particular matter to which he referred in the first half of his question.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: How on earth can the Prime Minister come to the House of Commons and try to give the impression that he can resolve the problems on the world stage when he cannot sort out all the conflicting groups in his own party?
The Prime Minister: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that his ingenuity knows no bounds, and that its irrelevance to the subject under discussion knows no bounds, either.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Leaving aside Bosnia, is the Prime Minister aware that there will be broad support for the agreement to try to find fairer ways of financing the overall budget of the United Nations? However, was there broad agreement among all the Heads of Government, including the Americans, that, given all the problems that we have in the world, the recent decisions by the United States Congress to cut United States contributions to the UN are both deplorable and, as the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office told the House the other day, probably illegal?
The Prime Minister: Yes, we have discussed that matter. I share the view expressed on the subject by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State just a few days ago. It is necessary, though, for us to reform the system of payments to the United Nations generally. The House will be interested to know that if the system is based on gross national product, it will not make any material difference to the British contribution. It would certainly reduce the American contribution and increase the contributions from Japan and Germany. There would be other changes as well, to reflect changing patterns of GNP over the years. For this country, the change would be marginal.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the issue of Brent Spar was raised publicly as well as privately at the summit? Will he advise the House which, if any, other leaders agreed with the decision taken by Shell and the United Kingdom Government in favour of such a form of disposal? Will he advise us whether there is a financial interest for the Government, because some of the costs of disposal at sea can be offset against petroleum revenue tax? The costs cannot he offset if there is full disposal on land, which could actually create jobs and has been shown in the Smit report to be much cheaper.
The Prime Minister: The question of Brent Spar was not discussed among the G7 leaders. Chancellor Kohl and I spoke bilaterally about Brent Spar; he expressed one view and I expressed another. There were no public statements about the matter other than in response to questions asked of us by journalists. There were no public discussions.
On the disposal of Brent Spar, I repeat the point that I made a moment or śo ago. The right environmental way in which to dispose of Brent Spar is to drop it into 6,000 ft of water in the Atlantic. The hon. Lady seems to think that the platform should be taken ashore. If she thought that it was to be taken ashore in Scotland, she would think differently.
Sir Peter Tapsell: On the subject of global finance, may I put it to my right hon. Friend that the most immediate problem is not speculation, as stated by the leaders of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, but the continuing need of many Japanese institutions to repatriate, for purely commercial reasons, increasing quantities of their vast holdings of overseas assets, much of them held in liquid form? If that repatriation continues
32
at the rate of recent weeks and months, it will have the same impact on the world economy as did the oil hike of 1973–74. It could plunge the whole world, including this country, into another slump. Did the leaders of the G7 give any thought to international co-operation to deal with this problem of a recycling kind?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches on a problem of real severity as we look to the months that lie immediately ahead. There was some discussion of the problem at the G7 and there was some discussion about the desirability of increased demand within Japan itself. Those points were carefully noted by the Japanese Prime Minister.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: On the matter of Brent Spar, does the Prime Minister acknowledge that, once again, the reputation of the United Kingdom as the dirty man of Europe has been confirmed'? Will he confirm that it is technically possible to recycle Brent Spar on land, which would create more jobs, and that the only obstacle is that it would be more expensive for Shell?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I repeat that Brent Spar was not a subject of discussion at the G7 summit. The deep sea disposal of Brent Spar, first, is consistent with our international commitments, secondly, has been endorsed by the overwhelming majority of independent expert opinion received by the Government, thirdly, has received all the necessary approvals and consents and, fourthly, is the best practicable environmental option available to us. The hon. Gentleman would be wise to consider that.
In the context of the Government's general position on the environment, this country is, in many ways, far from fitting the hon. Gentleman's categorisation, which I do not recognise and which I think he should be ashamed of having uttered. He should be ashamed of having uttered it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is untrue. Not only is it untrue, but it is another illustration of the way in which Opposition Members always speak as ill as they can of this country and as well as they can of other countries.
The hon. Gentleman should look at the environmental record of other countries before criticising this country for its environmental record. Not many other countries are, like us, on target to exceed the Rio commitments on carbon dioxide emissions; we are. Not many other countries are contributing £90 million to the global environmental facility; we are. Not many other countries have made the contributions that we have to things such as the biodiversity convention. It would be very nice if, just for once, Opposition Members spoke well of this country and not ill.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is in fact a matter of some pride for him to represent the economy in Europe that is leading Europe out of recession? Will he confirm that there was absolutely no interest in national minimum wages and increasing employers' costs, demonstrating that the ideas of the Leader of the Opposition are as irrelevant to the rest of the world as they are to the future of this country?
The Prime Minister: I can confirm that for my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that this country was well ahead in terms of growth as we emerged out of the recession

33
and that it still leads the rest of Europe in its growth, low inflation rate and fall in unemployment. On measures for further job stimulation, the G7 leaders endorsed the OECD report, which supported in terms the policies that we have been following and condemned in terms those advocated by the Opposition.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: As regards Brent Spar, which was raised by Chancellor Kohl in bilateral discussions, what contribution does Shell UK make to the Conservative party? If the Prime Minister does not like the question, why does he not publish the figures of funding for the Conservative party?
The Prime Minister: I repeat that Brent Spar was not a subject of the conference. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] I have no idea whether Shell contributes. The hon. Gentleman may not know it, but the responsibility for the Conservative party's finances does not lie with the Prime Minister if he is a Conservative. It lies with the party machine itself and not with me. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that I do not know whether Shell contributes. The reality is that, having sought advice on the best environmental method by which to dispose of Brent Spar, we have taken that advice.
Mr. Winston Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the President of the United States the regret of this House that the United States Congress, so free in giving its advice on Bosnia to those of us whose countries have for many years had forces serving in difficulty and danger in the Balkans, has thus far appeared unwilling to pay its contribution to the funding of the rapid reaction force?
The Prime Minister: I can say to my hon. Friend that I have already done so. I believe that the President regrets it as well.
Mr. Denis MacShane: On jobs, did the Prime Minister discuss with Chancellor Kohl the fact that the rate of decline of unemployment in Germany is now four or five times that in England? In other words, for every job that we are creating, the Germans are creating four under a partnership economy committed to the social charter.
The Prime Minister: I must say that the hon. Gentleman never ceases to amaze me with the nonsense that he talks. That is absolute rubbish from top to bottom. The reality is—[Interruption.] I am sorry that he does not like the reality. We have to live in the real world. He can live in his fantasy world if he likes. The reality is that this country has reduced unemployment by more than any other country in Europe. If he cares to look at the particular—[Interruption.] If he looks not just at Christian Democrat countries but at those socialist countries in Europe, he will see unemployment very much higher in those socialist countries, as it would be in Britain if the sort of policies that they have followed were followed here.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he went to the conference in a remarkably strong position, despite what the Opposition have said? He was the leader of a country with one of the lowest levels of unemployment, the lowest interest rates and lowest inflation. Does he not therefore agree that, despite what the Opposition say, the reality is that
34
speculation takes place on economies that are unsound, which is exactly what would happen were the Opposition to get into power?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right about the soundness of our economic recovery and the security of our economic recovery. That was well recognised by our partners at the summit.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I say that I can scarcely remember a day when such an important statement from the Prime Minister was greeted by so many empty Benches behind him? It must worry him as much as it intrigues us. To what extent did the questions that he had to face in Halifax about divisions in his party and the impending leadership challenge—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is totally irrelevant to the Prime Minister's statement. If the hon. Member has a question relating to the statement, of course he should put it. It must relate to the statement.
Mr. Banks: I was merely asking to what extent the questions that the right hon. Gentleman faced in Halifax distracted him from important considerations in Halifax.
The Prime Minister: To no extent whatever.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Did my right hon. Friend notice the odd way in which the social costs of employment were jumped over by the Leader of the Opposition in his questions? Does my right hon. Friend think that our policies will be adopted by the right hon. Gentleman or that he was merely embarrassed?
The Prime Minister: I am not sure. Far be it from me to divine what was in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition. That is not a matter for me. I did notice that he did not touch on those particular points, but the right hon. Gentleman and I know that we have clear differences on the matter and that they are likely to continue in the future.
Ms Angela Eagle: The Prime Minister's answer on the failure of the summit to do anything about some of the difficulties of exchange rate instability assumed that the global financial markets were rational. Does the Prime Minister agree that global financial markets can be as irrational as the Conservative party when it contemplates leadership elections and stalking horses?.
The Prime Minister: What is irrational in the hon. Lady's question is the belief that exchange rate stability can be imposed when the flows over the New York exchange in a day probably equal the sum total of the foreign exchange reserves of all the seven countries that were at the summit. That is completely irrational, to the point of being economically dotty. The only way in which people will get exchange rate stability is by having underlying economic stability. That was accepted by all the seven Heads of Government who sat round the table at the G7 summit.
If the hon. Lady is indicating to me that it is now Labour party policy to try in some artificial way to sustain exchange rates with open market operations, I look forward at long last to a statement on policy from the shadow Chancellor on that issue, if on none other. He seems to have no policy on most issues. If he is being pressed by his Back Benchers on that issue, I am sure that

35
my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will press him on whether that is indeed the principal Opposition party's policy.
Mr. John Wilkinson: To what extent does my right hon. Friend feel that the Group of Seven summit clarified the objectives to be given to the allied rapid reaction force? When he says that the force will not be there in order to fight, how will it be able to fulfil its mission of protecting the protection force of the United Nations if it is not permitted to take offensive action if necessary? Is the withdrawal of UNPROFOR from the weapons holding sites a precursor to a more passive role? Did Mr. Chrétien feel that Canada, which has troops in the theatre, ought to be represented on the contact group? Did the Dutch feel that they should be represented?
The Prime Minister: The latter point was not raised by Prime Minister Chrétien either in the G7 or in the bilateral meeting that I had with him. If he holds that view, it is not a matter that he raised with me. Certainly, the proposals do not indicate a more passive role for the United Nations protection forces. I was seeking to tell the House that they will not unilaterally fight aggressively, but of course, under the rules of engagement, they have the authority to fight in defence or in protection of other United Nations protection forces that are there. They will certainly exercise that right if it proves to be necessary.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby): Was there any discussion at Halifax about the need to stop the sale of arms to oppressive regimes, particularly to those countries against which there are United Nations sanctions? If there was, was the Prime Minister embarrassed?
The Prime Minister: There was a discussion on collaboration with Iran on nuclear matters. That was the subject of a discussion. If the hon. Gentleman cares to see the chairman's statement, which has been deposited in the Library, he will see that it calls
"on all States to avoid any collaboration with Iran which might contribute to the acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability."
The G7 partners have already adopted restrictive practices on nuclear co-operation with Iran.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend referred to the discussion on the brutal war in Chechnya and the hostage taking in Russia. Whatever decision the Russians may feel they have to take, will my right hon. Friend make it plain that this country is not likely to change its policy when people make menaces of that kind?
The Prime Minister: That point is clear and it was made clear again.
Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman began his statement by referring to the
36
important subject of unemployment. Has he the courage to tell the House how many people are unemployed in the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister: If the lion. Gentleman goes to the Library, he will see the figures that are published monthly, which are calculated on more than one basis. At present, that figure stands at just over 2.3 million, and he will find that that is so according to more than one basis. The figure was 2.9 million some time ago. If the hon. Gentleman looks across the European Union, he will see that, whereas the average unemployment rate is around 11 per cent., it is 8.3 per cent. here. In some large countries, the unemployment rate is getting on for 13 per cent.—for example, the rate stands at just over 20 per cent. in Spain. The only European Union country with a lower unemployment rate than us is, I think, Holland.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: When considering the long-term reform of the United Nations institutions, did my right hon. Friend stress the importance of maintaining Britain's seat on the Security Council? Does he agree that, if there were to be a European Community seat, as proposed by the Labour party, Britain's seat would be gravely threatened?
The Prime Minister: In due course, the membership of the permanent five on the Security Council will be reformed, which I am sure is right. I have no doubt that that reform will lead to the enlargement of the five, to include a larger number of nations on the Security Council. I doubt that that will be a speedy process, because, although there is rapidly building consensus in favour of two nations, other nations will also want to be included. It will therefore take some time before a decision is reached. I see no threat whatsoever for the United Kingdom's place on the Security Council either now or in the future. I see no probability whatsoever that the European Union would be collectively represented. It is currently represented by France, Germany and the United Kingdom. It would not be in the tradition of the Security Council for it to have a member that did not represent a nation state.
Mr. David Winnick: On Bosnia, is there not something particularly despicable about the manner in which the Serbs have deliberately targeted civilians—for example, by murdering those who were trying to get water at the weekend? That probably occurred at the same time as the summit was taking place or just ending. Does not such an act amount to outright terrorism?
The Prime Minister: Many of the actions that we have seen in Bosnia in the past few years have been, as the hon. Gentleman said, despicable. Many have been aimed at innocent civilians or aimed carelessly, in a manner in which innocent civilians have been as likely to be killed or maimed as soldiers fighting in the opposite camp. I therefore share the hon. Gentleman's view, but I would add only that the appalling behaviour of the Serbs has from time to time been matched by the other parties as well.

Points of Order
4.27 pm
Mr. David Rendel: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As someone who came to this place from local government, I am well aware that councillors are forbidden to take part in a debate or vote on a motion in which they have a declarable interest. They are not even allowed to remain in the council chamber during the debate. May I ask whether the rules that we impose on ourselves in the House are any weaker or looser than those that we impose on local councillors, in particular, in relation to the participation of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the forthcoming debate on BMARC?
Madam Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. The hon. Gentleman and the House must know that we have different rules from local authorities on that and many other matters.
The hon. Gentleman's point is essentially dealt with on page 358 of "Erskine May", from which he will see that there must be a pecuniary interest before any question of the disallowance of a vote can be entertained. There are no rules at all restricting attendance during a debate.
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will the House have a chance to vote on the sinking of Brent Spar, which contains 100 tonnes of toxic—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's question. As far as I am concerned, the House votes only when there is a motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Terry Dicks: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), Madam Speaker. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. Councillors in local government must vote on rent increases and—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have made it clear to the House how our rules differ in many respects from those of local government.
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In July, I asked a parliamentary question—
Madam Speaker: July 1994?
Mr. Cohen: Yes.
Madam Speaker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has such a good memory.
Mr. Cohen: I asked the Secretary of State for Defence
"on what grounds the documents and diaries of Mr. Gerald James, the former chairman of the British Manufacturing and Research Company, were taken by the Ministry of Defence police; what information of relevance was gleaned from them; when they will all be returned to him; and if he will make a statement."
I shall not read the whole of the reply given by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces—it is in Hansard—but it included the statement:
"In 1993 at the conclusion of all aspects of the MOD investigation, the documents were returned to Astra Holdings' officially appointed receiver, Cork Gully."—[Official Report, 21 July 1994; Vol. 247, c. 554.]
A statement made at the weekend has shown that that answer clearly was not correct. May I make a couple of points in relation to that?
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can raise only points of rules and procedure with me. He has indicated to me that he wishes to speak in the debate, and perhaps he can make his points to the Government when he speaks. If there is a point of order for me, I must of course hear it.
Mr. Cohen: I shall put my other points during the debate. The point relevant to you, Madam Speaker, is that the record is incorrect. Will you make sure that a correction is made to the record?
Madam Speaker: Let me answer that. If the hon. Gentleman believes the record to be incorrect—as he is alleging—he must raise that matter during the debate today.
Mr. Cohen: It has been stated that the information contained in the record is incorrect. Will you take the matter away and have a look at what can be done with that record? Should not the Ministry of Defence's handling of the parliamentary answer be investigated, because clearly its procedures were at fault?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is attempting to make a serious point, and I shall have a look at the matter. He is obviously trying to clarify a very important matter. May I suggest that he tables further questions to obtain the information and answers that he seeks? He can obtain the information only by using the Order Paper, and questions are the best method of doing that.
Mr. Cohen: I shall take your advice, Madam Speaker, and table further questions. But what guarantee will I have that I shall receive correct answers?
Madam Speaker: I have no authority over the answers that Ministers give. The hon. Gentleman is a very probing Member of this House, and I am sure that he will see to it that his questions are properly answered.

Opposition Day
[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  BMARC
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. Given the number of hon. Members who are seeking to speak, I must limit speeches from Back Benchers to 10 minutes.
  4.32 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move,
  That this House calls for an independent inquiry into the BMARC affair.
  Once more the nation has been rocked by disclosures of incompetence, negligence and perhaps worse at the heart of this decrepit Government. Again we learn that, after years of denials, stated Government policy on arms sales to Iran was covertly undermined and widely breached. Again we learn that, in a wide variety of answers to parliamentary questions—as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has highlighted—Ministers have held to the fiction that the policy was being rigorously observed when it was being easily and regularly breached.
  Finally, and most astonishingly, we learned this weekend that more potentially crucial documents had been lost, overlooked or forgotten, and that evidence germane to investigations, prosecutions and inquiries had been mislaid—by accident, of course—by the Ministry of Defence police, the very people responsible for their care. Like the last chapter of "Huckleberry Finn", no doubt they were locked in an attic somewhere. It is no wonder that in respect of this Government's stewardship—a period that has seen Government officials coin phrases such as "being economical with the truth" and "the truth is a difficult concept"—Mark Twain's words still apply:
  "Rumour is half way around the world before truth has got its boots on".
  The Government seem to have removed the laces from the boots of truth in these matters.
  The issues go to the heart of the credibility, competence and integrity of government in our country. They raise fundamental questions that demand rigorous investigation, especially as we need to be convinced that Ministers were not conniving all along in a covert policy of providing arms to Iran while pretending publicly to prevent weapons sales.
  There is an astonishing parallel with the arms to Iraq scandal, which has been under investigation by the Scott inquiry since November 1992. The Government's stated policy on arms sales to Iran and Iraq was set out by Lord Howe in October 1985 when he was Foreign Secretary. He informed the House of
  "the following set of guidelines to all deliveries of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq:
  (i) We should maintain our consistent refusal to supply lethal equipment to either side;
  (iii) We should not, in future, approve orders for any defence equipment which, in our view, would significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict;
  (iv) In line with this policy, we should continue to scrutinise rigorously all applications for export licences for the supply of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq".—[Official Report, 29 October 1985; Vol. 84, c. 450.]
  40
  After years in which three different Foreign Secretaries, six different Trade and Industry Secretaries and four different Defence Secretaries told the nation that those policies were being implemented effectively, we now know that their statements were false. Their statements are worth recording, although time limits me to only a few quotations. In December 1990, the then Minister of Trade, the right hon. Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury), said:
  "The guidelines … were set out … on 29 October 1985, and since then they have been scrupulously and carefully followed".—[Official Report, 3 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 29.]
  In August 1991, the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) told the Select Committee on Trade and Industry:
  "Our examination of the records shows that the policy announced in Parliament in 1985 was adhered to both in the spirit and in the letter".
  That statement is hardly justified in the light of the announcement by the President of the Board of Trade last week; nor does it fit with the Prime Minister's guidance to Ministers which said that Ministers had a
  "duty to give Parliament and the public as full information as possible about the policies, decisions and actions of the Government".
  The right hon. Member for St. Albans told my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers)—
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: I will give way in a moment.
  The right hon. Member for St. Albans told my hon. Friend:
  "Each application for a licence is considered on its merits in consultation with other Departments taking into account the type of equipment, its end use and end user".—[Official Report, 17 December 1990; Vol. 183, c. 66.]
  The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) told the House:
  "Arms embargoes are in place with regard to Iran and Iraq".—[Official Report, 28 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 884.]
  The right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) was very active in answering questions on the subject in his role as Minister of State for Defence Procurement. In a written answer, he told my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) that the Government's policy was
  "to permit exports to Iran only within the policy announced by the then Foreign Secretary on 29 October 1985".—[Official Report, 24 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 645.]
  The right hon. Member for Thanet, South told my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill):
  "There has been a substantial sea change in Whitehall under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, away from the old habits of unnecessary secrecy … Now there is greater emphasis on a new era of more responsible openness in all matters."—[Official Report, 30 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 706.]
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: I shall give way when I have finished my quotations.

  41
  On 13 May 1992, the right hon. Member for Thanet, South said in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan:
  "I would add, however, that since 1984, the United Kingdom has refused to supply any equipment which could prolong or exacerbate the Iran-Iraq conflict"—[Official Report, 13 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 156.]
  We now know that none of those statements were true.
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman started his speech with a number of sweeping allegations. He went on to read a lengthy list of quotations from Ministers. He is now saying that every one of those ministerial statements was not only untrue but, by implication, that the Minister who made it at the time knew it to he untrue. Is not his whole case based on the idea that, when somebody sets out to break the law or avoid regulations, those whose law or regulations they are seeking to break or breach are aware of that person's intentions?
  Dr. Cunningham: Is not the right hon. Gentleman making the case for an independent inquiry? We need to know the answer to his question. The House and the country need to know exactly what was going on in government at the time.
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: No. I am not giving way again.
  Similar assurances were given about the return of documents withheld by the Ministry of Defence. On 30 March this year, I wrote to the Prime Minister about the withholding of documents, asking him three specific questions. In his reply of 5 April, he said of the papers:
  "These were in the temporary possession of the Ministry of Defence Police after they had been taken from Astra and BMARC during an investigation into corruption. These were sent to the receivers in mid-1993 when the investigations were completed."
  As we now know, that statement is completely false, as has again been revealed apparently by accident and not through any desire for openness.
  Similarly, on 4 April this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) was given the same answer by the Leader of the House. We now know that those answers were untrue.
  We have established that the right hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), for Witney, for Thanet, South for St. Albans and for Braintree (Mr. Newton) have all given answers that now cannot withstand examination because they are untrue. I am sure that, given time, many more untrue answers to questions and interventions will emerge from the records of the past few years.
  The matters have come to light only because of the persistence of my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda, for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), for Wallsend, for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) for Clackmannan, for Kirkcaldy and others, and not because the Government have been open.
  The President of the Board of Trade was obliged to lift the veil on the real state of affairs in his statement to the House last week because he could not answer the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North, although a plethora of his predecessors had willy-nilly answered similar questions—wrongly, as it turns out.
  42
  Many questions, however, remain unanswered. In the circumstances, how can anyone accept that we know all there is to know? We have learnt by experience that the Government cannot be trusted on such issues, any more than they can be trusted on their promises on taxation.
  Mr. Winston Churchill: Before the hon. Gentleman waxes holier than thou, is he aware that the Labour Government under the late Lord Wilson supplied counter-insurgence Puma helicopters to South Africa in contravention of mandatory United Nations sanctions, without giving the facts to the House?
  Dr. Cunningham: I am aware that the Wilson Government stopped selling arms to South Africa.
  Last week, in his wish to help his Cabinet colleagues, the President of the Board of Trade made a statement blaming officials. He blamed the failure to circulate intelligence reports properly. He blamed almost everyone but Ministers. He said that so many things had to be checked that' his Department was swamped and, as a consequence, 36 per cent. of BMARC applications were not properly supported by documentation.
  Apparently, by a remarkable coincidence, the very things that Ministers were trying to block—guns and ammunition—got through. There were a lot of guns—naval cannon. If all the guns exported to Singapore had been used by the Navy there, the Malacca straits would probably be blocked by capsized warships. No one in the Government noticed; or did they notice but not want to know? The Conservative Government ensured that the combatants did not have lap-top computers in the trenches on the battlefield, but they made sure that they had guns.
  In a debate on arms to Iraq in November 1992, the President of the Board of Trade said:
  "Scrutiny was to be carried out by the interdepartmental committee on exports to Iran and Iraq, which comprises officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments as necessary. Not only would individual licence applications need to be scrutinised, but it was obvious that, in many cases, a judgment would have to be exercised as to whether or not certain potential exports came within the rules. I draw attention only to the words 'significantly enhance' or 'prolong or exacerbate', so that the House may appreciate the detail of the judgment that was bound to be necessary."
  The right hon. Gentleman told the House that the detail of all the judgments had to be scrutinised, not just the superficiality. That is what he said was happening, but we know from his statement last week that it could not possibly have been true.
  In the same speech, the right hon. Gentleman continued:
  "Secondly, it is obvious that any interpretation of those rules require careful consideration of individual export licence applications."—[Official Report, 23 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 640–41.]
  If what the right hon. Gentleman told the House in that debate was happening, how did those weapons escape the net? That could have occurred only because what he claimed was happening was not actually happening, so on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman was not being particularly accurate or candid with the House, of which his statement to the House last week was absolute confirmation.
  In his statement to the House on 13 June, the President of the Board of Trade painted a picture of the treatment of intelligence in Whitehall that frankly defies belief.

  43
  Are we to believe that the 1986 intelligence, which he says was not distributed to DTI, simply sank without trace in the rest of Whitehall? He acknowledges that it went to other Departments. What did they do with it? Did they ignore it? Did not one Sir Humphrey pick up the phone and say, "Bill, I think you should know about this. It affects your Department"? Did not one person in the FCO, the MOD or the Cabinet Office, which presumably received the intelligence, consider that there was something to act upon, perhaps even to check with the Department of Trade and Industry and ensure that it was informed about what was happening? It is just not credible.
  Are we to believe that, in the period before 1988, when, we are told, two intelligence reports were distributed to the DTI, no assessment was made of intelligence for distribution around Whitehall and to Ministers who took it into account? I find it difficult to accept that, because an intelligence report was not distributed to the DTI, the Department can be assumed to have been in complete ignorance of its contents for several years. The point just does not bear scrutiny.
  In his statement to the House, the President painted this picture in a very odd way, completely unconvincing on subsequent analysis. In any case, even when intelligence reports were distributed to the DTI, as in the two 1988 cases, much good did it do. When there were not very difficult links between Oerlikon and BMARC to be made, the Department simply failed to make them. The President says that arrangements for the distribution and handling of intelligence, both generally and in the DTI, have been "substantially improved" since 1988, but I put it to him that it is not the distribution and handling of intelligence that needs improving: it is the reading and using of the reports by Ministers and their officials where the improvement is long overdue.
  Did officials, on the other hand, know from Ministers that they did not want to hear? It is an unusual experience for me to find myself in agreement with Baroness Thatcher, yet I cannot help feeling that she was correct when she told the Scott inquiry, commenting on the handling of intelligence reports, that one would expect Ministers, when dealing with such an issue, to ascertain whether there was any intelligence to be considered, or to ask someone to put an inquiry through to see if there was any.
  As with Iraq, so apparently with Iran. No one, including Ministers, seems to have asked—perhaps because they did not want to know the reply.
  Last week, in a series of media interviews, the President described all these failures as "a cock-up". Apparently the lost papers this weekend were another cock-up. Government by cock-up is what this country has under the President of the Board of Trade and his right hon. Friends. We have non-executive directors who do not read minutes or agendas. We have Ministers who do not read intelligence reports, or even ask intelligent questions about them. It can all be summed up by saying: negligence, incompetence and a lack of integrity, too.
  The guidelines were issued in 1985; project LISI began in 1986, 12 months later. Directors at BMARC say that Whitehall knew the guns were going to Iran via Singapore from the very beginning. Intelligence reports said that a UK company was avoiding export controls by shipping
  44
  weapons via a subsidiary in Singapore—but no one in the Government apparently made the connection. The right hon. Member for Thanet, South, who was recruited by BMARC exactly because of his knowledge of the middle east, knew nothing about one of the company's largest orders; when at least three former directors of BMARC have stated publicly that, as all directors were regularly briefed on all aspects of project LISI, the right hon. Gentleman must have known who the end user was.
  Are we to believe that a man who says he took his non-executive duties seriously did not see fit to press his fellow directors as to the real nature of project LISI—a project under which naval cannon were ordered by Singapore, despite the fact that its navy did not have enough boats capable of mounting a fraction of the weapons provided?
  It is a basic principle of company law that a non-executive director has the same obligations and is subject to the same liabilities as any other director. He has a duty to keep himself informed about the business activities of the company. The fact that the Chief Secretary may not have bothered to find out the basic facts of one of his companies' largest orders does not excuse him. The right hon. Gentleman failed in his duties as a non-executive director; and the same is true of Ministers and their Departments. Ministers have a responsibility to keep themselves informed about the workings of their own Departments.
  This is not just a question of one person's guilt or otherwise. This is a matter that encompasses many Government Departments and many Ministers—for instance, the Department of the President. Not only did his Department fail to make a connection between BMARC's export licence applications and the intelligence reports distributed, but during the period of project LISI, 1986 to 1989, full supporting documentation concerning end users was not supplied—was apparently never asked for by the Department—yet the licences were granted. How on earth does this statement fit in with Lord Howe's assertion, repeated so often by so many Ministers to the House, that the Government would
  "continue to scrutinise rigorously all applications for export licences"?—[Official Report, 29 October 1985; Vol. 84, c. 450]
  Anyone genuinely concerned for the right hon. Member for Thanet, South should support the call for an independent inquiry. After all, even his own publicity adviser's faxes seem to support the need to clear up the matter once and for all. The Chief Secretary said publicly last week that he would welcome a fuller inquiry.
  The concern of the President of the Board of Trade for his right hon. Friend shone through his extraordinary performances last week, in the House and in media interviews. As the book of Samuel puts it:
  "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan."
  The President is, as we all know—and his colleagues know only too well—in the clear. He has nothing to fear from an independent judicial inquiry; he was out of government for most of the time. Indeed, he might positively benefit because, as has been noticed—as much by his right hon. and hon. Friends as by us and the media—he increasingly resembles a man who hopes to keep his head while all around are losing theirs.
  The Scott inquiry is dealing with arms to Iraq. We do not want to delay it any longer. The Trade and Industry Select Committee has already held one inquiry into these

  45
  issues. We now know that it was denied papers and evidence. Not surprisingly, the report was inconclusive. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) is trying to clarify the position, not just of the President but of the whole Government, on these issues.
  The House is facing new revelations in what are, by any test, extraordinary circumstances. That is why we believe that the BMARC affair should be the subject of a fully independent judicial inquiry, quite separate from the Scott inquiry. This new inquiry should have access to all documents and reports relevant to the BMARC affair. It should be headed by a judge; the person appointed should satisfy him or herself that the terms of reference are effectively drawn up. The issues raised in the BMARC affair go to the heart of the integrity and competence of government in our country. They should be independently and rigorously investigated.
  Most of all, I am surprised that the President of the Board of Trade is not supporting our motion, which reflects the seriousness of the allegations and issues under debate—negligence, honesty, ministerial competence and integrity. The right hon. Gentleman certainly supported such an approach in the past, for in 1992 he had this to say about very similar accusations:
  "That brings me to the allegation that, while rules were in place, they were flouted with ministerial connivance, if not positive encouragement. The seriousness of such allegations cannot be overstated, but nor can they be examined with the care that is appropriate without a full and independent inquiry…That is the only way in which the matter will be seriously investigated to the satisfaction of the House and a wider public…Conservative Members want an independent inquiry to be carried out by a distinguished judge, with all the evidence, and that is what our amendment seeks."—[Official Report, 23 November 1992; Vol.214, c. 644–53.]
  The Conservatives' amendment does not seek that today—but then, as so often before, the right hon. Gentleman has shifted his ground. I nevertheless urge the House to support our motion tonight.
  4.59 pm
  The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "recognises the independence of the all-party Select Committee for Trade and Industry; welcomes the Government's assurance that if that Committee decides to examine the issues raised by the allegation that Singapore was used as a conduit for arms to Iran then it will co-operate fully; and recognises that as far as intelligence is concerned the Government will establish procedures with the Select Committee in the light of the Intelligence Services Act 1994.".
  In the ordinary course of events, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would begin with your characteristic title, but the whole House will want to recognise that in one material way your title has changed since I was last able to address you. I do not in any way seek to change your title, but the spirit of my congratulations is deep and heartfelt.
  It was not until the 27th minute of the speech of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that it appeared that there was a substantial difference between the thrust of what he was saying and the reasons why I made an oral statement a week ago. I accept at once that my statement arose directly from the fact that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I had three written questions to address from the hon. Member for
  46
  Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). As a result of those questions, we did what the House would expect Ministers to do, which was to ask the basic questions and to seek the basic information so as to give a full answer to the House.
  My hon. Friend and I were not satisfied with the answers which were in front of us, and therefore asked for further information. As a result of the further information which was brought to our attention, it became apparent that there was a serious issue which Ministers in my Department first had to address. The right hon. Member for Copeland was correct when he said that there is a range of quotations, letters and parliamentary answers which needs to be revisited in the light of my statement.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I take the President of the Board of Trade back a few sentences to clarify his position? He said that the first drafts which were placed before him were unsatisfactory. Does that mean that civil servants put drafts before him which they knew to be misleading?
  Mr. Heseltine: No. I realise that the Labour party has not been in government for a long time. It is common—
  Dr. John Cunningham: Patronising.
  Mr. Heseltine: I am not patronising the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours): I am commenting on a merciful release for the country, which has been spared the phenomenon of a Labour Government.
  It is common for Ministers to change the drafts of parliamentary answers. That is what Ministers are supposed to be in a position to do. The thrust of the questions of the right hon. Member for Copeland is that we should have done that earlier, as opposed to not doing it at all. Perhaps the Labour party will try to understand the normal workings of government. It is—[Interruption.]
  I never said that they were dishonest. I merely said that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I were not satisfied that the responses answered the questions to our full satisfaction. Looking back, without the drafts in front of me—this is if I remember correctly—I thought that we could give fuller answers. I thought that, in giving fuller answers—[Interruption.] There is no surprise in any of this. The House will appreciate that it is precisely for those reasons that I came before it with an oral statement.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the President of the Board of Trade give way on that point?
  Mr. Heseltine: No.
  I am sure that the House will appreciate the enormity of the fact that the Labour party wants an independent judicial inquiry, which would take a long time. It is now trying to press an inquiry into a few moments across the Dispatch Boxes. I must be allowed to try to explain as fully as I reasonably can the circumstances and the decisions that the House will have to face this evening.
  I have made it clear that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I asked for further details lying behind the original answers which were presented to us. As a result of further details, we became convinced that there was a need to bring to the House, in one form or another—I shall discuss that in a moment—fuller information, which would mean that earlier information would have to be modified, adjusted or even changed in all the circumstances.
  Mr. Rogers: Questions were tabled on issues similar to the one that we are discussing for over five years. Even last year, the particular issue had been brought to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Why did he realise that the answers were unsatisfactory? Were abilities and perceptions peculiar, or did he know that there was a gap in the information? If so, how did he find out that there was a gap?
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has asked a specific question. I happen to remember one of the reasons that influenced me at the time. With my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, I had asked for certain information in a form which had not been asked for before. It so happened that that was one of the questions that I had asked.
  The precise question tabled by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North happened—I have no criticism of this—to focus upon the particular inquiry that I had made within a matter of weeks, or days probably. He asked for information which I had just commissioned. The information was in my possession and that of the Department, and I could see no reason for not providing it. That information, however, revealed information which was new to the House and new to Ministers.
  That was one of the reasons why I had information available to me which had not been available previously to Ministers. That is one of the reasons why my hon. Friend and I were in a position to give a different answer from that which Ministers had been able to give earlier.
  Given that we had decided that there was a need to answer fully, fairly and frankly the questions which had been put to us, how did we deal with the issue? We could have done what would have been perfectly proper in the circumstances—I have been criticised for not following the route—and answered a written question with a written answer. That would have been a defensible response. I would not have been prepared to do it, but technically I could have used a device which all Governments have employed from time to time in different circumstances. I could have sought a bland form of words which would have skated over the issues. I did not try to do that.
  If the House wants to discuss these matters seriously, it should be acknowledged that we all know that there are, and have been throughout time, answers to questions which do not reveal the whole story. I could have sought a form of words which would have had that effect. I was not prepared to do that.
  The next option was a written answer. I knew perfectly well that a serious matter was before me. I thought that the House would wish to ask questions about it immediately it became aware of the issue. I knew that if the House did not want to, although I knew that it would, there would be an immediate inquiry by the media over 24 hours until, by means of a private notice question, I was back at the Dispatch Box the next day going through precisely what seemed to be the right thing to do, which was to make a statement in the first place.
  That was the precise position that we decided to adopt.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: No.
  That led to the next inevitable question—
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Wilson: I am obviously grateful that my questions brought the right hon. Gentleman to the House. We shall discuss the problems in the wider context of what he says later. It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman has revealed that he had already set parallel inquiries in train. What prompted him to do so?
  Mr. Heseltine: There was a range of other questions, and I had been looking at them. The House must realise that it was not an isolated event. There was a series of questions, and I was looking at answers to them. We had been able to answer some of them quickly. We could not answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions quickly, as we did not have the information. It took us some six weeks, if I remember correctly. In the course of answering other questions, I undoubtedly would have pursued lines of inquiry, which, when the precise question came from the right hon. Gentleman, would have been relevant to it.
  Dr. John Cunningham: I am grateful to the President for giving way again. He just told the House, Sir Geoffrey, and I take this opportunity to congratulate you—[Interruption.] I say that, because Sir Geoffrey was not in the Chair when I began my speech. The President just told the House that he could not answer the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). Why, then, over a number of years, did his Ministerial colleagues go on giving answers to similar questions with such apparent authority and ease?
  Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that the evidence available to my ministerial colleagues in the answers that they gave had appeared satisfactory. On the evidence that was available to them at the time, the answers appeared to be accurate. It was because of the precise investigations that we had begun, as I have explained to the House, that we became aware that there was cause for concern. That is why I took time to answer the questions, and, when I had the answers, came to the House with a full explanation, as I believed it to be then, and still do, in a way in which I thought appropriate.
  Mr. Rogers rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: No. I am not giving way. I am trying to take the House through difficult issues. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The President of the Board of Trade has been asked questions, and he has a right to be able to answer them without interference.
  Mr. Heseltine: The next question which, inevitably would have been asked, would have been: "Given that the President of the Board of Trade has answered a question in a way which changes evidence before the House, in the form of answers, should there be an inquiry?"
  It was evident that that question would be asked, and I felt therefore that, with my ministerial colleagues, we should address it. Therefore, far from covering up, my statement categorically suggested that, if the Select Committee on Trade and Industry wished to conduct an inquiry, we would give it the fullest possible co-operation.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the President of the Board of Trade give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: No.

  49
  That seemed to me an absolutely clear indication that the Government recognised that this was a proper subject for an independent inquiry. There was no issue between myself and the right hon. Gentleman on this matter.
  Dr. John Cunningham: The difference between us is that we are calling, as the right hon. Gentleman did in the question of arms to Iraq, for an independent judicial inquiry. To revert to the right hon. Gentleman's course of argument, does he not think it a remarkable coincidence that, over five years, in the face of sustained questioning, every one of his Cabinet and ministerial colleagues had come to the same conclusion: there were no questions to answer in this matter? What was so remarkably different about the evidence and information available to him?
  Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman simply does not seem to have grasped the whole significance of the debate: to answer these questions, we have suggested an independent inquiry. That was what I said a week ago. The only issue that the right hon. Gentleman should have addressed in his speech, and which he hardly mentioned, was not the substance of the debate but the means of pursuing an independent inquiry. That is the only difference between us.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Rogers rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: The two hon. Members have had a fair crack of the whip—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The President of the Board of Trade has made it very clear that he is not giving way.
  Mr. Heseltine: The issue is not whether there should be an inquiry but the form of the inquiry.
  The right hon. Gentleman has tried to suggest that I blamed officials. I did not blame officials. There is nothing at all in the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend and myself to restrict the inquiry to civil servants. There was nothing in my statement that said that civil servants got it wrong. I came to the House. I am answerable. I provided the answers to the questions.
  It is because the right hon. Gentleman, throughout the entire matter, has been trying to find a way of putting the blame on Ministers before there has been any sort of inquiry that I reject his allegations. I did not blame officials. With the agreement of my colleagues, I said that I thought that there should be an inquiry into these matters.
  The right hon. Gentleman suggested that this was all about a cover-up exercise, that, by suggesting a Select Committee rather than a judicial inquiry, we were somehow trying to get around the matter via the back door. The whole House is fully aware that the Labour party, which, to quote words that I jotted down peradventure, is interested in more responsible openness, is currently conducting eight inquiries into the practices of Labour local authorities: Birmingham, Leicester, Manchester, Nottingham, Paisley, South Tyneside, Tower Hamlets, Bradford—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The President of the Board of Trade is straying a little. The debate is not about local authorities. [Interruption.] Order. The Chair will decide.
  Mr. Heseltine: The Chair will indeed decide, but the House, in witnessing the decision, will not lose sight of the fact that all those eight inquiries are being conducted in private—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must now settle down. The Opposition spokesman was given a reasonable hearing, and the President of the Board of Trade must have the same.
  Mr. Heseltine: I was settling down, but apparently without any cause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you were not on your feet.
  If one is to have a Select Committee inquiry, it is entirely a matter for the Select Committee to decide whether it should make such a decision.
  Mr. Barry Porter: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the implication in the right hon. Gentleman's speech: that the Trade and Industry Select Committee, which is chaired very ably by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), first, is not capable, secondly, would not be independent, and thirdly, would not be objective? If that was the implication, it is quite wrong. Provided that the Committee has all the information, which perhaps we did not have on the Iraq investigation, it seems to be an entirely appropriate way, but I disapprove strongly of the suggestions made by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Heseltine: I will now be able to abbreviate my speech, because of the excellent intervention of my hon. Friend. I was going to come to the very point that he has so eloquently made.
  The issue that arises once one has decided that there is a case for an inquiry—there is no difference between the two sides of the House on this matter—is what the inquiry should investigate. Again, it is entirely a matter for the Select Committee to determine, within the discretions that it has and the motions that we are discussing, how it should go about its task.
  The right hon. Gentleman has spelt out clearly that he wants a full judicial inquiry into the matter. He made the point that I was in favour of it, and suggested it over Iraq, but he does not seem to have appreciated that any such inquiry that started from scratch with a clean sheet of paper would have to examine the licensing and intelligence dissemination arrangements, and that it would have to look at a range of other issues, but all from a starting point where it was not part of any existing inquiry.
  As the whole House is aware, Sir Richard Scott has exhaustively examined the licensing arrangements in my Department as they apply to Iraq. No one is trying to suggest—no one could suggest—that things were done in a way that one would want to defend today; but what on earth is the point of setting up another judicial independent inquiry to go over all that ground all over again? We broadly know the facts.
  A similar argument applies to the dissemination of intelligence. Those matters—again, in the context of Iraq—have been examined, and are being examined, by Sir Richard, whose conclusion we do not yet know. I do not think that a case can be made for the need to start from the very beginning, discounting all the work that has been done over nearly three years.
  Mr. George Walden: It strikes me as both insulting and absurd of the right hon. Member for

  51
  Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to accuse Ministers of covert connivance in the supply of weapons to revolutionary Iran. On the other hand, does my right hon. Friend agree that a question does arise about British defence exports as a whole? I suspect that the issues involved in the Pergau dam affair, the Scott inquiry and the little problems that we are having here today spring not from ministerial malfeasance of any kind, but from the fact that this country has become a little too dependent on arms exports.
  When the Select Committee has completed its present job, perhaps it could look into the whole question of our over-reliance on arms exports, the opportunity cost in terms of research, technology and manpower and the long-term effect on the country—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Long interventions of that nature do not help in short debates.
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has raised an important point, but I consider his approach ill conceived. The research and national resources that go into the production of defence equipment are not there to sell arms overseas; they are there to equip our armed forces with the equipment that they consider necessary to the performance of their job. That is what the defence budget is designed to achieve.
  Once our military planners and equipment manufacturers have achieved it to the best of their ability, we must ask ourselves whether we should take advantage of the information, professionalism and quality of equipment available to us by selling overseas, under the regulations and regimes that we have put in place. I can find no argument that suggests that, if Britain has the equipment and the right relationship with the country concerned, we should stand back and allow the French, rather than our own people, to make the sales and create the jobs.
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury: In emphasising the advantages of building on a corpus of knowledge that is already there rather than starting with a blank sheet, does my right hon. Friend bear in mind—I suspect that he does—that the Select Committee has already examined, exhaustively and rather effectively, the very licensing arrangements to which he has referred? It did so in 1992.
  Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that.
  The option of a new judicial inquiry of the sort that the right hon. Member for Copeland wants has serious disadvantages. First, it would repeat a considerable amount of the work on matters that Sir Richard Scott has already explored exhaustively and is continuing to explore, and would take the same amount of time.
  Dr. John Cunningham: The President is making much of this point. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry, however, will not have Sir Richard's conclusions, or the conclusions that he has drawn about the very matter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. It, too, will have to start with a blank sheet of paper, will it not?
  Mr. Heseltine: I shall come to the precise point that the right hon. Gentleman has made. There is, however, an
  52
  alternative, and I am surprised that he did not raise it: Sir Richard could have been asked to continue his inquiry. [Laughter.] I am sure that Sir Richard will gather any impressions that he wishes from the amusement that that has engendered among Labour Members.
  Let me say at once that I am not in favour of that solution, because I think that it is in the public interest for Sir Richard to finish his report. By the time it is concluded, it will probably have taken virtually three years to complete, and cost the best part of £2 million. That is a matter of concern, and the House and a wider public would like the matter to be concluded.
  I am not convinced, however, that the House now wants another inquiry of that sort, any more than I am persuaded that the House wants Sir Richard, having finished with the Iraq inquiry, to be invited to extend his inquiry to deal with the wider issues involved in the Iran process.
  Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: It becomes apparent to me—adopting a step-by-step approach—that, by acclaim, the House has reached the very judgment that the Government reached a week ago. It does not want Sir Richard to go on; I do not think that it wants to start another Scott inquiry costing another £2 million, taking another three years and stretching into the next Parliament—which is what the right hon. Member for Copeland has asked it to do.
  I am not persuaded that the right hon. Gentleman has made a case of any sort. All he has done is reveal, first, that the Government behaved properly in making an oral statement; secondly, that we were right to recognise the need for an independent inquiry; and thirdly, that we were right to suggest that the independent inquiry should be carried out by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, if it was so minded.
  Immediately after my statement, the Committee's Chairman said that most of his colleagues
  "would like to see a sharp inquiry into it quickly and not for it to drag on."
  To all that I say amen. That is precisely the point that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken on board.
  Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: What I find most questionable and doubtful about the right hon. Gentleman's position is the assumption that an inquiry carried out by a Select Committee of the House is not independent.
  Mr. Anderson rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: No, the hon. Gentleman cannot intervene on that point. He has been trying to intervene for some minutes, and he now wants to try to link his question to the point with which I am now dealing, but he will not have the chance.
  I happen to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury), who has now left the Chamber, that the Select Committee—under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn)—does an impressive job. When I have appeared before it, it has never occurred to me that there is any escape from the rigorous questioning to which I am subjected. I have never for a minute believed that Labour or Liberal Members are in some way minded to make it easier for Ministers to escape the questions by giving the wrong answers.

  53
  I believe that—in terms both of the desirability of moving the process forward and dealing with the questions as rapidly as possible, and of achieving a degree of independence that I personally believe members of the Committee to be uniquely charged with achieving, and to have proved themselves capable of achieving—the Government amendment is correct.
  The Chairman of the Select Committee has now written several letters to me on the subject of the mechanisms and procedures within which his Committee will work. I have tried to answer them; I did not answer the one that arrived at 3.25 pm today, but I shall do so at the earliest opportunity.
  My intentions in suggesting this route for the House were to enable it to deal with the matter with dispatch, to co-operate with the Select Committee within the proper rules of the House and to answer questions that the House is entitled to ask and have answered. I commend the amendment to my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Richard Caborn: In the light of what has been said, I had better clarify the position. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) spoke about the United Kingdom's reliance on arms exports. The Select Committee on Defence and the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service are jointly meeting on that very issue and will, one hopes, report before the recess.
  It is important for me to update the House on the current situation and on the response of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to the request by the President of the Board of Trade for an inquiry into BMARC and exports to Singapore and Iran. The Committee discussed those matters on Wednesday and, as is right, we take the President of the Board of Trade's request seriously. What will happen after tonight's vote is a matter for the House and not for the Select Committee.
  To the best of my knowledge and that of my officials, this is only the second time that a Secretary of State or, in this case, the President of the Board of Trade, has requested a Select Committee to hold an inquiry. It is usually the other way round. For the record, the only other request related to the closure of 31 pits.
  When the members of the Committee discussed the matter last week, we were mindful of the inquiry by the previous Select Committee on Trade and Industry into exports to Iraq, Project Babylon and the long-range gun. Anyone who revisits that inquiry will see that its report was inconclusive because the Committee did not have access to a number of Departments outside the Department of Trade and Industry.
  The President will probably recall that my first action on becoming Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry was to write to his Department asking for clarification of that issue. Perhaps he would like to check the record on that. I said that it was unfortunate that the Select Committee could not reach a conclusion because it was denied access to people and papers.
  The other area in question relates to Customs and Excise. On Wednesday, the Select Committee wanted to make sure that it would be able to get access to all the information that has been available to the Department of Trade and Industry—the information that was referred to in the President's statement.
  Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman speaks about information, which he could obtain from civil servants. Does that include advice tendered to Ministers? What was the attitude of the Department in that respect?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is a 10-minute limit on speeches.
  Mr. Caborn: When all the information in the letters is revealed—and I do not intend to do that in this debate—the House will see that, as the President said, a number of letters passed between the Department and the Select Committee. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the matter has been raised and that we are still awaiting answers.
  As has been said, we are dealing with a subject that is nearly a decade old and many of the civil servants who were in place then may no longer be there. That was another area of concern when the Select Committee was scrutinising the issue of the Iraqi super-gun.
  A number of key areas make the inquiry unique and dispensation may be required from some Ministers. I shall not go into detail but I can tell the House that the Select Committee is corresponding with the Department to resolve that. I hope that the Committee will have resolved those questions by Wednesday and will decide, first, whether to proceed with the inquiry and, secondly, on the terms of reference. The Committee operates under Standing Order No. 130, but that will need to be expanded if we are to carry out a thorough inquiry. As the President said, it may be short. I hope that it will be and that we shall be able to focus on clear terms of reference and to present a report to the House.
  Select Committees are responsible to the House, and we must balance the President's request, which we take seriously, and the information, people and papers that the Government will allow for scrutiny against the credibility of the Select Committee system. As Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry I am the custodian of its credibility. The DTI and the President must allow the Committee access to information which it believes is necessary for a thorough inquiry.
  Sir Cranley Onslow: The Committee has not yet had an opportunity to discuss the exchanges that the hon. Gentleman has had. I hope that he will not presume to anticipate the Committee's collective decision.
  Mr. Caborn: The right hon. Gentleman is a member of that Committee and knows that I do not anticipate anything, because things can go badly wrong. I assure him that all the information that has passed between the DTI and me over the past seven days will be presented for objective analysis. I hope that all members of the Committee will ensure its credibility by making sure that we have access to all the information because if we do not do that, our report will be inconclusive. That will depend on the House's decision, but if the Select Committee is asked to conduct an inquiry it will do a thorough job.
  5.36 pm
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Plainly, we do not wish to have another long inquiry. We must dispose of this matter briskly and ensure a swift conclusion that the House can consider. The best way to

  55
  do that would undoubtedly be for the Select Committee to look into the issue. As Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, I can endorse all that the President said about the impartiality of Committees. I assure him that Conservative and Opposition Members rigorously scrutinise what Ministers tell them.
  I should like to put the debate into its wider context. In one year, 1993, we exported £7 billion-worth of arms. I totally disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) who, unfortunately, is not in the Chamber. More than 500,000 people are involved in arms production. Our armed services need to be able to use British equipment where possible. We need the best equipment, and we can afford to produce it only if we succeed in exporting arms because that supports the logistics and the necessary research and development. The idea that we should cut our arms supplies is absurd, and would cause deep and lasting damage to our country.
  We should compare the £7 billion-worth of arms exports in 1993 with exports to Iran and Iraq in the 1980s. During that entire period, exports to Iran totalled £35 million, while those to Iraq amounted to some £569 million. That was over 10 years, and when it is contrasted with the exports in 1993 one sees the relative insignificance in terms of money and equipment that the House is debating.
  In 1987, there were some 98,000 applications to obtain the necessary licences under the then rules, and only a handful succeeded. It is not surprising that the Department of Trade and Industry was inundated with such work and that its officials occasionally allowed something to slip through.
  Project LISI is the title of the BMARC export that we are debating. No one has yet mentioned that when the contract for that was signed the project was being handled by, and BMARC belonged to, Oerlikon, which is a Swiss company. It was not until nearly two years after that contract was entered into that the new management of Astra, headed by Mr. James, bought BMARC and continued with that contract.
  As I understand it, in 1988 the intelligence community realised that Oerlikon—not a British company—was exporting arms via Singapore to Iran but it did not specifically mention BMARC. It is again, therefore, not surprising that, in this very complicated net of applications and other matters which were being examined by the intelligence community, the DTI and the MOD, a comparatively small contract might have slipped through.
  I should like to move on from that as I appreciate that I have only a minute or two to deal with two specific issues that have been raised this afternoon. The first relates to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He has come under attack on three bases.
  First, The Independent newspaper, which normally I think is reliable and accurate, has today published one of the most appalling and inaccurate headlines that I have read in the media, saying that papers showed that "Aitken knew" about the arms deal. Nothing in the text of that article or what anybody has said—there is no evidence from any source whatsoever—suggests that that is an accurate statement. My right hon. Friend has categorically denied it. For a national newspaper to use such a headline is irresponsible, and journalism of the worst kind.
  56
  The second attack on my right hon. Friend, which was made by the Opposition Front Bench, can be summed up in the words, "If he did not know, he certainly should have known." I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is not here, but I have no doubt that he will read the report. If he were here, I would ask him to tread very carefully when lecturing the House about the duties of non-executive directors. I happen to know that the right hon. Gentleman is a non-executive director of two chemical companies. I know nothing against the activities of those chemical companies, but I will wager that some of the contracts undertaken by those companies have been made without the express knowledge of any of the non-executive directors.
  Mr. David Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman is an adviser to those companies.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I have been corrected. He is an adviser, not a non-executive director. None the less, I am sure that, if the right hon. Gentleman is doing his job in advising those companies, he should know what is going on in them. It is precisely that sort of relationship that Lord Nolan, in my view perfectly properly, attacks.
  Nothing said in this debate or in the press justifies the sort of behaviour which has been shown from those quarters towards my right hon. Friend. I hope that the House will accept the word that he has given that he did not know what happened and allow him to get back to the excellent job that he is doing as Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
  In the few minutes that I have left—
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: Two minutes.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: In the two minutes that I am told I have left, I shall move on to the issue of Mr. Gerald James. Unlike most hon. Members, I have met Mr. James. He provided a lot of papers to me about the Iraqi gun affair when I was appointed Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, and asked me to instigate the inquiry into it. I told the House that I was deeply disturbed by some of the things that I saw. I did not feel that the Defence Committee had the proper resources to look into that matter. After discussion with the other members, I passed all those papers on to Sir Richard Scott.
  I believe that Mr. James has been treated very badly. His misfortune was that his very successful company, Astra, made two unfortunate purchases—BMARC and the other company that supplied the Iraqi gun, PRB. Those purchases led him to disasters with which he was not equipped to deal. He was treated badly by certain members of the Administration, with or without the Government's knowledge. That is something Sir Richard Scott is going to look at, not something for the House to comment on today.
  I hope that we will follow the advice of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to refer the matter to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and that the Committee will look into the matter.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Nigel Jones: We are debating a very serious matter. The President of the Board of Trade told us in his statement on Tuesday 13 June:

  57
  "it does appear that there may be grounds for believing that the final destination of naval cannon made by BMARC could well have been Iran."—[Official Report, 13 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 596.]
  That must be one of the biggest confessions ever made in the Chamber that was not followed by a resignation, the establishment of a full independent inquiry or even the slightest acknowledgment of ministerial responsibility.
  The arms embargo during the Iran-Iraq war was there for a purpose. I was working in Baghdad at that time on legitimate civilian business, with the full backing of the DTI. Now we are told that, during that time, the DTI was approving the export of arms to fuel the already devastating war in that region. Examples like that, combined with allegations of British troops facing British weapons in the Gulf war shortly afterwards, contribute to the accusations of disgraceful hypocrisy and illegality in British foreign policy. If the Government believe those allegations to be false, an independent inquiry is surely the best way to prove it.
  The question of illegal arms sales from Britain to Iran in the mid to late 1980s has, so far, been too narrow in its focus. Of course, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has still to convince anyone of his innocence in this affair, but to concentrate purely on his role as a non-executive director is to miss the point. The real investigation goes far beyond that. The roles of the DTI, the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the intelligence services must all be probed in the fullest possible detail if the truth is to be discovered.
  A vast array of evidence suggesting serious wrongdoing has been put together, mainly by the media, whom I congratulate on their digging. The denials of the accused have varied from the unsatisfactory to panic. The result is a general air of suspicion that will not go away simply because one Minister cannot remember and another was not even there at the time. If we are to avoid the sort of trial by media that the Chief Secretary so abhors, the plethora of unanswered questions that surrounds the affair must be answered in the appropriate forum.
  What are the unanswered questions? Why has it taken the Government so long to put two and two together, considering that the vital clues that prompted the President of the Board of Trade's suspicions were both available in the 1980s? Why have we had to wait seven, eight or nine years for the issue to be addressed? Should not the DTI, with advice from the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office as well as the intelligence services and Customs and Excise, have been able to smell a rat at the time? Did the Government really think that the amount of munitions—140 naval guns exported in project LISI—could all be wanted or needed by the navy of Singapore? I represent GCHQ and it is inconceivable that the high standard of intelligence gathering in this country could have missed something as important as the breaching of an arms embargo to Iran.
  To what degree should Ministers accept responsibility for the failings of the export control procedures and the breach of the arms embargo? Given reports that Mr. Stephan Kock, one of the co-directors, gave representatives of MI6—with which he had close contacts—a tour of BMARC's factory showing part of the project LISI exports, what exactly was the role of the intelligence services and why did Ministers apparently ignore the advice that they were given? Were the errors made in granting export licences the result of a conspiracy or a cock-up? If those and countless other questions are
  58
  to be answered, an inquiry with the necessary resources and the right of access to all relevant information must be established.
  If the role of the Chief Secretary is to be ascertained, it is only right that he be given the opportunity to give evidence to such an inquiry. There appears to be some uncertainty and possible contradiction in his account of events in BMARC between 1986 and 1988.
  For example, how is it that, according to the minutes of BMARC's board meeting on 2 November 1988, it appears that the Chief Secretary made a contribution to discussions at a point after he claimed to have left the meeting? How is it that he failed to read the company's progress report circulated to the board meeting on 28 February, a meeting that he personally attended? This sits very oddly with the Chief Secretary's claim that he took all steps to become well briefed on the company's activities. The Chief Secretary chose to be a director of the company. He shares the corporate responsibilities of all directors and, as a director, he must be presumed to know of the very important contract in question.
  It may be that the Chief Secretary is right and his boardroom colleagues are mistaken, but, until the investigation is taken away from the media and given to an official inquiry, the Chief Secretary cannot hope to use his simple sword of truth or his shield of fair play. In the light of this weekend's developments, the onus is still very much on the Chief Secretary to prove that he was unaware of what BMARC was up to. There have been contradictory statements.
  Establishing the appropriate means of investigation is something that the Government have so far done everything possible to avoid. In view of the complexity and importance of the countless questions that must be answered, why did the President of the Board of Trade suggest that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry would be able to reach satisfactory conclusions with its limited resources if his own Department, with all its personnel and access to information, had failed to do so?
  The suggestion that the Select Committee should investigate the affairs of BMARC is as unrealistic as the Chief Secretary's request that Lord Justice Scott should look into the allegations levelled against him. The Select Committee and Lord Justice Scott have expressed the view that they are not equipped satisfactorily to investigate the affair. To expect them to take on the job, therefore, will be regarded as a whitewash and a sham.
  The questions that I have asked deserve investigation and answers. It is not good enough for Ministers to say, "Sorry, I can't remember anything," or "It wasn't me. I wasn't even there at the time." That is all we have been offered so far, but it does not wash. If that evidence was submitted to a court of law, I cannot help but feel that it would be dismissed on the grounds that the witnesses were unreliable.
  The idea that Ministers will not take responsibility for the failings of their own Departments is unacceptable to the British people and to the House. We now need a full, independent, judicial inquiry to look into the matter properly. I trust that the Government will not shy away from their responsibility to establish such an inquiry.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I am the Member of Parliament whose constituency

  59
  includes the former BMARC factory at Faldingworth in Lincolnshire. The site is still operational under the new ownership of Royal Ordnance. It assembles shells and fills them with explosives, as it did under BMARC's ownership.
  My purpose in speaking today is to establish the fact that, in my view, none of my constituents or anyone involved in BMARC can be accused of wrongdoing. Certainly, there was no question of anyone knowing at the factory that the end user was Iran—shipping freight was simply marked with a code. However, nor do I believe that anyone higher up in BMARC management knew—certainly, a non-executive director could not have known.
  The contract for project LISI—the sale of 20 mm guns to Chartered Industries of Singapore—was very clear. BMARC sold the guns to Oerlikon, and not to Singapore, as it was required to do under their licence. Oerlikon shipped the goods to Singapore. Oerlikon in Switzerland, or possibly someone working in Chartered Industries in Singapore, passed them on to Iran without the knowledge of BMARC's staff or management. BMARC was prohibited from trading not only with Iran but with Singapore under the terms of its licence with Oerlikon.
  Mr. Jim Cousins rose—
  Mr. Leigh: No, I shall not give way as I have only 10 minutes.
  I have documentary proof. I have obtained from within the factory copies of the licence put together for the receiver of the company on 28 February 1992. They are, as far as I know, hitherto unpublished—perhaps they are some of the missing documents, but I do not know. They are marked "Private and Confidential". Exhibit 1B states:
  "The following manufacturing and selling rights are granted by Oerlikon to BMARC under the terms and conditions of the Licence Agreement for the below listed material:—
  —Exclusive manufacturing rights in the UK.
  —Exclusive sales' rights to the Government of, as well as other end-users in, the UK.
  —Exclusive sales' rights for worldwide naval applications, except for the countries listed in Exhibit 2".
  Exhibit 2 states:
  "In the following countries Oerlikon will be the sole distributor for all the Material listed in Exhibit 1B. Therefore BMARC is not entitled to sell any of the Material either directly or indirectly in the below listed countries.:

  —Cyprus

  —India

  —Malaysia

  —Singapore

  —Sri Lanka

  —South Korea

  —Taiwan

  —Iran

  —Saudi Arabia

  —all Latin American countries".

  The licence is quite clear, but I have today double-checked at some length with Dr. John Pike, the former armaments director in the relevant period and the former managing director of BMARC, as well as with trade union representatives of the work force in my constituency.
  60
  As far as anyone in the company was concerned, Singapore was the end user of the goods. That was a perfectly legitimate assumption, given that BMARC did not have any direct contract with Singapore. The Singapore navy already possessed these guns and was expanding.
  Chartered Industries of Singapore to which the guns were sent by Oerlikon—not by BMARC—was Government-owned and was a proper and legitimate, and likely, recipient of them. However, because the guns were not being sold directly to the Singapore navy, Major-General Donald Isles, a highly respected, responsible and competent former Ministry of Defence employee, and the other full-time directors checked carefully.
  There was no reason for them to indulge in shady deals. Why should they risk acquiring a possible criminal record for a deal? In addition, BMARC was a highly respected and successful British company and did not need to break DTI guidelines. Having checked carefully with the DTI, whose officials apparently had the full information at their fingertips, there was no doubt in the minds of the directors that the end user was Singapore, not Iran.
  My point is that, if the DTI, with all its specialised resources, did not manage to second-guess the deal, how could a non-executive director such as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary?
  What about Gerald James? He may indeed have a legitimate grievance—he brought down Astra and BMARC through his misjudgment in buying PRB, and was no doubt sold a con by the Belgian Government—but, as a result of that grievance, he is undoubtedly pursuing a campaign—some might say, a vendetta—against the British Government. Because my right hon. Friend happens to be a member of the Government, he is the target of that campaign.
  When Mr. James was asked by Mr. Peter Snow on the BBC's "Newsnight":
  "Did you … at any time brief him"—
  my right hon. Friend—
  "personally about the nature of the Singapore contract?",
  he said:
  "No I did not brief him personally at all."
  I have, from my own sources within the company, obtained more information. After he took over the company, Mr. James apparently took the opportunity when the remaining Swiss employees were out of the company offices for their national holiday to check their papers. He could find no evidence that the guns were going anywhere other than Singapore. I submit that, at the relevant time, no one in BMARC—certainly not the staff or my constituents, or the non-executive directors—had any clue that the goods were going anywhere but Iran—[Interruption]—Singapore. I apologise, that was a slip of the tongue. They were clear that the goods could have gone only to Singapore, not Iran.
  In any event, my right hon. Friend joined the company only in 1988 when the contract was already well advanced. It was signed in 1986 and, by 1990, my right hon. Friend had resigned. According to Dr. Pike, to whom I spoke today, it would have been dealt with only in the most cursory fashion, if at all, at any board meetings that my right hon. Friend attended—for example, to check that the goods had been delivered to Oerlikon.

  61
  There may or may not have been some incompetence on the part of DTI officials—we shall no doubt find out about this—in not making the connection between the Singapore deal and the known fact that Oerlikon was selling to Iran. However, if full-time experienced DTI and intelligence service officials could not make such a connection, I cannot see how my right hon. Friend could have done so.
  In any event, he has given his word to the House. He is a much-admired and competent Minister. We should accept it, but the evidence that I have found and that others have alluded to is overwhelming. It shows that he did not know and could not have known. On the contrary, we should back my right hon. Friend and what was an excellent British company, run by extremely responsible and respectable people such as Major-General Donald Isles.
  My right hon. Friend is a victim of a discreditable witch hunt by the Opposition and media. He should and must stand his ground, so that truth and honour will be the touchstone by which we conduct our affairs, and not personal vindictiveness and innuendo.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I must admit that I have not heard in this House a more flimsy defence of any situation than the one that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). He accuses us of pursuing a vendetta, but may I put just one point to him? The statement to the House of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has brought about today's debate; it was not the Opposition chasing the issue. For what reason did the President of the Board of Trade want to bring it back to the House?
  I say this not with any particular hindsight, but because I might have been the first person in the House to raise this issue. I did so back in 1989 when I was shadowing, as I had been for a number of years, the defence procurement portfolio when it was held by the right hon. Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) and, later, Alan Clark. At that time, it was fairly obvious that something was wrong. If I had time, it would be easy to catalogue the responses I had, but I want to pick up one issue in the limited time available: the lost documents that seem to have become available this weekend.
  I find today's response by President of the Board of Trade as remarkable as the fact that those documents are suddenly available, that he suddenly finds a reason for bringing this matter forward, and that he suddenly finds the questions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) so stimulating that he finds that there is a gap in the intelligence.
  Let me just remind the House that an investigation into Astra/BMARC had been going on for three years. The response to a question that I tabled last year revealed that the cost of that investigation was £2,170,000—more than £2 million had been spent on acquiring the information, and suddenly we are told that it was not available until last week.
  In response to a question that I tabled on 19 April last year, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) said:
  "The inspectors commenced work on appointment on 16 August 1990 and their report was signed on 7 April 1993"
  So all the information that is presently available was available all the time that these obfuscations were going on. The then Minister went on to say:
  62
  "the inspectors considered substantial representations received during the course of fairness procedures."—[Official Report, 20 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 74.]
  Mr. John Anderson has again been heavily featured in the media this weekend. In relation to the lost papers, when he was Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for Thanet, South told me:
  "Mr. Anderson was arrested by the Ministry of Defence police … in April 1990. He was detained in connection with a possible case of corruption, interviewed and released without charge. Subsequently, he made a number of complaints concerning the circumstances of his arrest. These have been investigated in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the report currently rests with the Police Complaints Authority whose decision is awaited."—[Official Report, 26 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 298.]
  Those papers relate to BMARC and Astra, the company run by Mr. John Anderson, who was a director at the same time as the right hon. Member for Thanet, South. I find it incredible, therefore, that the information is seemingly suddenly available, as it was supplied to me more than a year ago, and after nearly £2 million had been spent on that report.
  The issue of arms exports to the middle east and elsewhere has come about because of a change of culture in our political life during the 1980s. An hon. Member asked for an investigation into arms exports. He probably was not aware, although it was pointed out to him later, that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry had considered the issue—specifically in relation to Iraq, I warrant that, but also in relation to other issues, such as the uses and applications of licences.
  If we put it into context, in 1984 in this country there was a tremendous charge for arms exports. I am not questioning the morality or otherwise of arms exports, but that charge for more and more exports generally existed throughout the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence, the Defence Export Sales Organisation, International Military Supplies, and even with the Prime Minister at the time. She accompanied her son, who took a rather lucrative part in these events, and batted for Britain—I cannot think of a better bat—in both Saudi Arabia and Malaysia to get these huge contracts.
  A general culture, going through Whitehall and the relevant Departments, allowed such instances to happen. All it requires is a greedy man or men to latch on to that culture or the lack of morality in relation to where arms were going.
  We should not forget that the guidelines controlling the export of arms were laid down by this Government—by Sir Geoffrey Howe—in 1984. One of the cardinal criteria was that arms should not go into regions with bad human rights records, and that they should not lead to warfare between countries. On many occasions, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), said that arms should not go into regions where they could be used in a way that cut across the Government's guidelines.
  The whole issue revolves around that change in culture. It is about arms going not only via Singapore into Iran but into many other areas. The then Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, said:
  "We should maintain our consistent refusal to supply lethal equipment to either side"
  in the Iraq-Iran war that was going on at that time. That was flagrantly broken by members of his own Government. He also said:

  63
  "We should not, in future, approve orders for any defence equipment which, in our view, would significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict".— [Official Report, 29 Oct 1985; Vol. 84, c. 450.]
  That guideline was again broken by the Government.
  On reflection, probably the only honest man in the whole affair was the then Minister for Defence Procurement, Alan Clark, who has left this House. At least he always made it clear what he was about, and made no apologies for the fact that he knew that arms embargoes were being broken. He said that that was because it was bringing jobs to this country.
  I am amazed that the Chairman of the Select Committee should support that view this afternoon. If there are jobs out of people being killed or murdered in other parts of the world, we should not have such jobs in this country. If there is to be an inquiry into arms exports, the first thing we should consider is the morality of it.
  People are trying to suggest to us that there are only two options; either it was a cock-up or it was a conspiracy. I believe that it was both. The general climate in the Government Departments I have named, and the inefficiency and incompetence of the Department of Trade and Industry, allowed those who were conspiring to break the arms embargo to carry out that dirty, sordid business, as I pointed out to the then Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, in 1989 and to the present Prime Minister in 1992—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time's up.
  6.9 pm
  Sir David Mitchell: The motion refers to the BMARC affair, which is concerned with arms for Iran. The reality is that the motion is a malicious attempt by the Opposition to destroy the reputation and career of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
  There are certain facts that should be brought to the attention of the country and the House. In 1986, BMARC was a Swiss-owned company, and it was at that time that it signed the offending Singapore contract. In 1988, the company was bought by Astra, a British company. In the same year, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was made a non-executive director, a post in which he remained for only 19 months. In practice, non-executive directors are not much more than advisers to the board; they have no powers to interfere in the management of a business.
  I now turn to Mr. Gerald James, the chairman and the source of the suggestions that my right hon. Friend knew about the contract. I draw the House's attention to an article on page 25 of The Economist this week, which says:
  "Mr. James says that a group of senior figures at BMARC knew all about these fishy contracts yet thwarted his efforts to find out what was going on."
  If the chairman did not know what was going on and if the chairman was thwarted in his efforts to find out, how on earth could a temporary, non-executive director be expected to find out and to know?
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has no case to answer. The House should accept the Government's amendment as a cost-effective and speedy way in which to clear the matter up.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Jim Cousins: The matters before us are serious, but we should not jump to conclusions. What is highly significant is that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—I do not think that we should dwell on him—shared with the nation on "Question Time" last Thursday the information that he had been briefed that some of the contracts involved were for the Singapore navy. That contradicts the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that none of the contracts was the responsibility of BMARC itself. If BMARC was simply producing the items and could not sell them, why was it applying for export licences for the relevant items?
  The entire matter was exhaustively dealt with in the Department of Trade and Industry report on the Astra group of companies. The report makes it crystal clear that the licence agreement that Oerlikon had with BMARC, which Astra inherited when it took over, did not mean that BMARC—and Astra subsequently—was not the promoter of the sales, albeit that the goods were being produced under a licence agreement with Oerlikon. Those are important matters, which we must seek to get to the bottom of.
  The Select Committee on Trade and Industry will face a number of considerable difficulties. First, there is the quantity of information. Some 1 million documents are said to have been removed from the Astra group of companies, either by DTI inspectors, from 1990 onwards, or by Ministry of Defence police. That is a formidable and overwhelming task of investigation. It took the DTI almost three years to produce its report on the Astra group of companies—never mind the efforts of a Select Committee, which will face other lines of inquiry.
  The Select Committee will immediately confront the difficulty of intelligence information. It has had an offer from the Chairman of the new Intelligence and Security Committee, but the difficulty is that he was the Secretary of State for Defence at precisely the time when the Ministry of Defence police were going into the Astra group of companies to lift the information. That is a difficulty—a contradiction.
  The Select Committee will face the puzzle of understanding why, if the Government did not know about arms sales to Iran, a wholly owned Government company, International Military Services Ltd., had an office in Iran that was open throughout the entire period of the first Gulf war between Iran and Iraq. Those are difficult matters to inquire into.
  Another problem, sadly, is the unfortunate coincidence that the company that dealt with the receivership of Astra—Coopers and Lybrand—had a historic connection with Sir Kenneth Cork, who, unfortunately, is no longer with us; I am conscious of what I am saying in this regard. Sir Kenneth had a business connection with the Chief Secretary through his company Aitken Hume International.
  Another difficulty is that all the investigations into Astra have been carried out, to some degree, by the Department of Trade and Industry through its inspectors, who took three years to report. Only a year after it had had that report did the Department of Trade and Industry decide to prosecute all but one of the directors of Astra. That legal case is still before the courts. I have a question for the Government. Can they give an assurance that, if a

  65
  further case, which will cut across many inquiries, comes to court, they will not use the public interest immunity certificate suppression system, although they used it in the Matrix Churchill trial?
  These are weighty and serious matters. Although we cannot leap to conclusions, we have here a mystery within several other mysteries. We have to seek the answer to the question why a full explanation of matters has never been given to Parliament.
  Only tonight, in a parliamentary answer that I have just received and hardly had time to take on board, is it revealed that, of the 224 private export licence applications submitted by BMARC between 1986 and 1989, 149 had no supporting information about end users. That figure is 66 per cent., and not the 36 per cent. that was used by the President of the Board of Trade in his statement to the House. There is confusion and obfuscation about such a simple matter; the matters under investigation are far more serious.
  The issue of Iran and Iraq is not some marginal matter, but one that took up the time of Governments and Departments, as we know from the Scott inquiry, through much of the 1980s. It is one of the great secrets of the 1980s, and it will, sadly, take far more, as I know to my cost as a former member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that investigated arms to Iraq, than a Select Committee inquiry to get to the bottom of these very murky affairs.
  6.18 pm
  Sir Jim Spicer: It is right and proper for the Opposition to make as much of this matter as they can. I remind everyone in the House, however, that that bloody and bitter war lasted for eight years, and that during that war, many countries supplied both Iran and Iraq with massive amounts of weaponry. At the top of the list of suppliers to Iraq were the Soviet Union and France.
  Most hon. Members will know that the French Government—or the French—are still owed some £12 billion for arms supplied during that war. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, made it quite clear that, compared with such a scale of supply of arms to both protagonists in that war, what we were doing was on the margin: £75 million to Iran and, over a ten-year period excluding the war—a large part of that period—about £500 million to Iraq.
  During that period, Iran and Iraq scoured the world for weapons, and there have been many revelations of just what happened in other countries. At the top of the list of arms suppliers during that time were Austria, under a socialist Government, Belgium, under what to all intents and purposes was a socialist Government, and Sweden under a socialist Government. They have all had scandals involving such sales. Therefore, it is no surprise that parent companies such as Oerlikon should make use of subsidiaries in this country to pursue their lucrative trade with either Iraq or Iran.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) has made BMARC's situation and the relationship with Oerlikon absolutely clear. May I remind the House that the war between Iraq and Iran ended in August 1988? It was not until September 1988 that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, became a non-executive director.
  66
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is not present. His remarks were not only unfair but showed a total lack of knowledge about the role of a non-executive director of any company whatever.
  Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Sir Jim Spicer: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
  If I had been appointed a non-executive director in September 1988, I would not have known about the affair, because the contract was complete, with one shipment still to go. That one shipment went out through Oerlikon. That is a fact which can become public knowledge, and I hope that it will come before the inquiry when it is held.
  The Opposition are asking for an outside independent inquiry. All the evidence of the Scott inquiry shows that such an inquiry would be precisely the wrong way in which to conduct our affairs and to achieve natural justice for those who appear before it, to which they are entitled. There can be no valid reason for any inquiry in which one person becomes the prosecutor, the judge and the jury. The result is muddle and delay. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made quite clear in his speech, there would be delay on a massive scale, which is exactly what the Opposition have said today that they do not want.
  Let us have faith in ourselves, conduct our own investigation through the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and, in the light of its report, decide what we should do.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: We have heard Conservative Members put some pretty wafer-thin arguments this afternoon, but the previous speech excelled. It is astonishing at times such as this how limited, in the view of Tory Members of Parliament, is the role of non-executive directors. As for the Scott inquiry being the wrong way to conduct "our affairs", it might be the wrong way for Conservative Members to conduct their affairs—one can understand their reservations about the Scott inquiry—but Labour Members think that it is a very good way in which to conduct our affairs, the nation's affairs, to get at the truth about complex issues.
  We also heard the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) put a remarkable defence that the affair was all beyond the reach, knowledge or control of Parliament because a Swiss company was involved initially. Of course it does not matter who owns the company; it is where the arms are manufactured that is critical for export licences. We have heard a very thin—
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wilson: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that, for the second time recently, the Government have breached the Jopling rules by arranging to make a statement on an Opposition Supply day. I certainly do not intend to give very much of my time to interventions.
  Mr. Allason: One point.
  Mr. Wilson: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman even attempted to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye. He is certainly not going to waste my time.

  67
  I want to ask the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) a question. He said that, if he had become a non-executive director of BMARC in 1988, he would have known nothing of contracts entered into in 1986. He appears to consider that a proud boast. But would he, for instance, have known anything of BMARC contracts entered into in 1989, such as the contract to supply fuses to Iraq worth £3 million, via Jordan as a conduit? Would he have regarded that as being any of his business as a non-executive director? If the answer to that is also no, it tells us more about the hon. Gentleman than it does about the duties of non-executive directors.
  Sir Jim Spicer: If I were a non-executive director, I would not be running the company on a day-to-day basis. I would have a brief report on the work of the company. The board meeting that I would attend would be—perhaps—two hours long and cover a whole range of subjects. The executive directors would have the responsibilities.
  Mr. Wilson: We understand that, but the hon. Gentleman chose to raise the role and duties of non-executive directors. I asked him a specific question about whether he would have seen it as his duty to know anything about where orders for £3 million worth of fuses were going, when they were going to one of the world's most lethal trouble spots in breach of his Government's rules and laws on the export of arms.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: My hon. Friend is really touching on the defence of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which is basically that he was on the board but did not know about such contracts, especially the LISI project. Is not the real problem that a number of BMARC contracts have ended up in Iran or Iraq and that the response of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is that he was on the board, but did not know about them? Does not that weaken the right hon. Gentleman's position enormously?
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes his own point. I want to be absolutely clear that, to Labour Members, this debate is not about the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is about the firm BMARC and the inquiry into it. Any emerging information that either worsens or secures the position of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is a by-product of that inquiry.
  The issue on which we shall shortly be asked to vote is quite specific. Conservative Members are not being asked to participate in some primary contest for the Tory party leadership or even to demonstrate their support for the Chief Secretary. Incidentally, we can all sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in his discovery that fax machines, like swords of truth, are two-edged weapons. We are concerned about whether there should be an independent inquiry into what has become known as the BMARC affair.
  Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wilson: No, I will not give way.
  The case for an independent inquiry similar to the Scott inquiry is, as we have demonstrated in the debate, unanswerable. We have not heard any worthy answers from Conservative Members. The outrageous conduct of Ministers—Ministers who still hold office—towards the
  68
  directors of Matrix Churchill forced the Government to establish the Scott inquiry, with a remit to investigate only matters related to arms for Iraq. All the prima facie evidence, including that referred to in the statement on Tuesday by the President of the Board of Trade, suggests that BMARC gives rise to questions as serious and as wide-ranging as Matrix Churchill and that arms for Iran is just as much a part of this filthy saga as arms for Iraq. The difference is that Ministers have managed to keep the lid on BMARC and arms for Iran for two years longer than was possible with Matrix Churchill and arms for Iraq.
  That success, if it is worthy of the name, should certainly not be rewarded with a process of scrutiny that is any less rigorous than that established under Lord Justice Scott. The President of the Board of Trade did himself no credit today, in a blatant piece of casuistry, when he said that an independent judicial inquiry would have to start with a blank piece of paper. Equally, the Select Committee will have to start with a blank piece of paper unless it is in receipt of the conclusions of the Scott report.
  The President of the Board of Trade mentioned a figure of £2 million, as if it were some exorbitant amount, for conducting the Scott inquiry. It is less than the single illegal order to which I referred a few minutes ago. What is the price of the sword of truth? How much is the country expected to pay to find out about the deceits and deceptions that were the stock in trade of the Government for such a long time? Two million pounds does not seem an excessive price for that process.
  The Ministers involved in the affair, including the President of the Board of Trade today, have been anxious to suggest that they are dealing with matters that belong to some distant period and that have left a legacy which regrettably now has to be dealt with; far-off events of which they knew nothing. The spate of cock-ups, leading to the suppression of evidence and the misleading of Parliament, in which we are invited to believe give the convenient impression that the matter is something that has nothing to do with Ministers today; that it is all in the past. That is a false impression.
  I do not intend to talk about what happened in the 1980s, because that is the proper material for an independent inquiry to deal with. I shall concentrate only on what has happened since the offices of Astra, the parent company of BMARC, were raided in April 1990.
  Last Tuesday, from this Dispatch Box, I asked the President of the Board of Trade a straightforward question, which he conspicuously failed to answer. I repeat it now. I said:
  "Does he accept that, as far back as 1990, the Ministry of Defence seized files from Astra, the owner of BMARC, as part of a fraud investigation? Those files referred to Astra and BMARC trade with Iraq and Iran. Were the files handed to the DTI then? If not, why not? If they were, why have we had to wait five years for this statement?"—[Official Report, 13 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 605.]
  Tonight I add the words, "and this debate and this inquiry".
  Let me bring the summation of events right into the period when the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) held his present office. On 27 January 1993, Detective Inspector Berry of the Ministry of Defence police wrote to the receivers for BMARC, ostensibly offering the return of
  "all the property seized from Astra holdings and subsidiaries during our inquiries into allegations of corruption."

  69
  Let us leave aside for a moment the clearly inaccurate use of the word "all". I should be interested to know who gave the political authority to Detective Inspector Berry to make that offer. I should like to know what consultation there was between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry between the date in 1990 when the raid on the Astra offices took place and 27 January 1993, when the offer, ostensibly to return everything that had been taken, was made.
  It is beyond peradventure that the material taken from the offices—all the material, the totality of the material—could have painted a full and startling picture of BMARC's activities during the years in question. It would have brought BMARC within the ambit of the arms to Iraq as well as the arms to Iran inquiries. It would have provided vital information about the role of the intelligence services in facilitating Britain's role as gun runner to the world.
  So is it conceivable that the material was merely offered for return to the receivers without its full import being assessed at the highest levels of government and then acted upon? The question is rhetorical. The answer is no, it is not conceivable. The Prime Minister announced the setting up of the Scott inquiry in November 1992. By that time, the researches of the Ministry of Defence police were well advanced. The material obtained from BMARC was in the possession of the Government. Will the President of the Board of Trade confirm that, from that day to this, the Ministry of Defence has returned none of the material that it took from the offices of Astra or BMARC to the Scott inquiry?
  Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the indictment is even more serious? Will he confirm that the Scott inquiry was set up with a remit restricted to arms to Iraq, to which Lord Justice Scott has subsequently adhered, to the exclusion of the BMARC affair, at a time when Ministers knew that what was in the BMARC papers—the President of the Board of Trade's statement last week was the merest tip of the iceberg—should have led to the Scott remit being widened to include both BMARC and arms to Iran? That is what the Government frustrated, not in the late 1980s but right up to the mid-1990s.
  Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend is rightly cataloguing what has been going on. I am not sure whether he heard my speech, in which I quoted an answer given to me by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who was a Minister in the DTI at the time, to the effect that the cost of the DTI's own investigation into Astra over a three-year period had come to £2,170,000. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade ought to look into where that money went if it did not provide him with sufficient information to answer my hon. Friend's question last week.
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes his own point well. The thrust of what I am saying is that the information was there. It was in the possession of the Government if they had wished to use it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) says that that is irrelevant. It is highly relevant.
  Mr. Allason: I said no such thing. I said that there was not a shred of evidence and you know it. Furthermore, the debate this afternoon is a disgrace. You have not been able to bring home the bacon.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Members on both sides should address each other as hon. Members, not "you".
  Mr. Allason: Would the hon. Gentleman care to answer this question? Does he agree that the sole issue here is whether end user certificates were misused? If that is the case, does he have the slightest evidence that any one director of BMARC knew that those end user certificates would be misused? The answer clearly is no, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman does not come to the Chamber very often and cannot be expected to know the rules. If he has been busting a gut to get in with that intervention for the past 10 minutes, he really has problems. If he thinks that that is the sole issue, he is very much mistaken and he will find out a great deal to his cost.
  Will the President of the Board of Trade confirm that it is essential that all the documentation—this is the reply to the hon. Member for Torbay—removed from the offices of Astra and its subsidiaries should be at the disposal of the independent inquiry that we seek tonight? That includes the documents that so mysteriously turned up at the weekend, but not only those documents. It includes the documents—there are plenty of them—which are still in the possession of the Ministry of Defence or the DTI and also those documents that have already been returned to the receiver.
  The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) about the role of the receivers was well taken. Those documents, too, should be put into the hands of an independent curator in order that there can be no question about their total, unqualified availability to those who are charged with inquiry into the affair.
  Now we come to the nub. When the Minister sums up, we shall want an answer to the question whether all the papers taken from the offices of Astra and its subsidiaries will be at the disposal of the inquiries that are proposed. That is the absolutely crucial question. Any hedging on the answer will confirm our worst suspicions.
  Fortunately, on that point, if on no other, we have assistance from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I quote an extract from the transcript of the BBC's "Question Time" last Thursday. It runs:
  "Mr. George Robertson: 'Will they get all the papers, all the documents, MI6, and the rest?'
  Mr. Aitken: 'Yes, MI6, all the documents, they have been promised all the documents.'
  Mr. Dimbleby: 'This has happened today, has it?'
  Mr. Aitken: 'Yes, today.'
  Mr. Robertson: 'And all the confiscated papers?'
  Mr. Aitken: 'Which are the confiscated papers? I didn't know there were any. I am sure they can get any papers they want.'"
  We have it on the authority of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the inquiry, under whichever auspices it is held, will receive all the papers, the intelligence reports and everything that it needs, including every bit of paper that was removed from the offices of Astra in 1990. We shall want to hear only one answer when the Minister replies to the debate. Does he stand by the promise of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in that respect or does he not? Will every bit of paper be available to the inquiry or will it not? Those are the only answers on which the Minister will be judged.

  71
  Let me deal briefly with the position of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. First, I should sympathise with him over his weekend difficulties with a fax machine. A rather dire message from someone who was apparently trying to help him was faxed to an art dealer in north London. That public-spirited gentleman then supplied it to the public prints. How ironic that the Chief Secretary, who has spent years in cahoots with arms dealers, should have fallen foul in that way to an art dealer.
  When, as has now been confirmed, the Ministry of Defence failed to return all the BMARC papers to the receiver, the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of State for Defence Procurement. He is now a Treasury Minister and Customs and Excise is inquiring into the affairs of his former company. He is a Cabinet Minister, whose Cabinet colleague, the President of the Board of Trade, has authorised two inquiries into the company of which he was a director. Is there no level of conflicting interest at which the right hon. Gentleman will step aside—at least until the inquiries are completed—or will he continue to brass-neck it out for as long as he can get away with it? Will he wait, to quote the famous fax, for
  "the straw that breaks the camel's back"?
  I have a great deal of respect for the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and in particular for its Chairman, but the inquiry is patently not a job for it. It is too big, too complex and too forensic for the procedures of a Select Committee. The case for an independent inquiry, in parallel with the inquiry of Lord Justice Scott, is unanswerable. I warn Ministers that, if they successfully resist that request, it will be a pyrrhic victory. The questions will still be asked and the evidence will still emerge. Those who have sought to present themselves today as honest brokers will be recognised instead as those who have prevented, even at this late stage, a proper inquiry. They will be clearly identified as part of the problem rather than of the solution.
  The President of the Board of Trade should remember that the biggest cover-up in modern political history came to be known as "All the president's men". Meanwhile, let me assure the House that the questions will continue to be asked and the sword of truth will gradually turn in the proper direction.
  6.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): This debate has been intriguing. From the Order Paper, it appeared to be a request for a public inquiry, but the way in which Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have conducted the debate suggests that they do not want an inquiry. They want, instead, to prejudge everything. They have used the debate purely to make accusations based on flimsy evidence and make allegations against Ministers, past and present. They have used words such as "conniving" and other emotive words that are not fitting given that, last week, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made it clear that certain information needed to be revealed to the House. He said that that information needed to be followed up in detail. He suggested that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry should look into the matter if it saw fit to do so.
  72
  The best speech today came from the Chairman of that Select Committee, who clearly understands the implications of what is at stake and has confidence in the authority of the House to take action when such matters are brought to its attention.
  Simply because things have happened differently from what people had thought, the automatic response should not be to reach for the nearest judge. The call for an inquiry is not some attempt to keep judges in work. It should not be used as an attempt to prolong inquiries year after year.
  The inquiry of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will attempt, however, to get to the bottom of something that has been brought to the attention of the House. Its Chairman understood that and I am delighted that he addressed some of the substantive issues involved. I am also aware that, on behalf of his Committee, he is in correspondence with the President of the Board of Trade about some of the detailed matters that need to be settled. I hope that they will be settled before the inquiry begins. I understand that the Committee will consider its decision on Wednesday. We look forward to co-operating with the Chairman in pursuit of the attempt to get the documentation agreed.
  It may be only the second time that a Minister has offered a Select Committee, certainly the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, such information, but that is what we have done. We have offered the Committee an opportunity to look into the matter. We have agreed to co-operate with it as fully as possible. The details of the documentation will be available. Hon. Members should take those facts into account carefully when considering how to vote.
  Anyone in the House who believes that the authority of the House is sacrosanct should accept what two Chairmen of Select Committees have said today: Select Committees are ultimately responsible to the House. I was delighted that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), also said that Select Committees need to consider the matter and are quite capable of doing so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster also made the important point that the issue before the House is not whether arms should be exported. This country exports arms perfectly legitimately and our defence industry employs many people. As I understand it, Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have never said that they would stop defence exports. I do not believe that that is their policy, but if it were it would certainly be of great interest to many constituencies.
  Dr. John Cunningham: It is not our policy.
  Mr. Taylor: I note that the right hon. Gentleman has kindly helped me by making it clear that it is not Opposition policy to stop defence exports.
  It is important to establish a licensing procedure and to ensure that it is followed as rigorously as possible. That procedure should enable officials to discover the ultimate destination of the products. All licence application forms have a box that clearly requests a statement about the end user and the ultimate consignee. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) referred to such information, which on the face of it suggested that in 1988 Department of Trade and Industry officials were given an assurance by BMARC that the exports were destined for Singapore.

  73
  The thrust of last week's statement from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was that officials, having been given that information, then failed, for reasons which, with hindsight, we consider were not justified, to connect it with the intelligence that was available to the DTI in 1988. That raises genuine questions about such licenses as well as questions of procedure. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said this afternoon, and in relation to the Scott inquiry, the licensing rules have been tightened and adjustments made in the light of criticisms and the problems discovered.
  The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made certain accusations about activities in the latter part of the 1980s. In one year, 1987, there were 98,000 applications for export requests and the simple connections were not made. That did not happen because Ministers did not want them to be made or because of some malicious attempt to evade export rules, but because of a cock-up. The fact is that life is simply not that exciting.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Not again.
  Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend may disapprove of that phrase. I did not invent it, but it has been used in the circumstances. It is a good deal more accurate than some of the accusations of Opposition Members. Life is simply not as exciting as they would wish us to believe. It is fortunate that they have not been in government recently; otherwise, they might have discovered that.
  Mr. Rogers: The Minister has quite rightly drawn our attention to the importance of an effective licensing system to govern our arms export policy. Surely he accepts that part of the Opposition's argument is that at the time Ministers encouraged arms exporters to break the rules. The then Minister for Trade, Alan Clark, documented evidence, which has been submitted to the Scott inquiry, about how he invited people to his office and told them to fill in forms in such a way as to confuse officials. A politician did that, not Ministry officials.
  Mr. Taylor: Once again, the hon. Gentleman is indulging in allegations. The purpose of this debate is very clear, and it was stated by the right hon. Member for Copeland: it is whether there should be an inquiry, and what form the inquiry should take. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make allegations, he can do so in that context. The Department's willingness to produce documentation is evidence of our openness.
  Mr. Wilson: Time is getting on, and the Minister has not got round to dealing with my specific questions. Does he endorse the specific assurance given by the Chief Secretary on "Question Time" last Thursday about the total availability of documentation, including everything that was taken from Astra and the intelligence reports?
  Mr. Taylor: The President of the Board of Trade is having discussions with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn)—the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Select Committee—about the documentation that is required. The hon. Gentleman, as a responsible Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, will know that certain documents must be handled with caution. [Interruption.] I will not listen to accusations and have fingers pointed at me when Opposition Members know very well that Governments wishing to get intelligence from sources do
  74
  not reveal those sources immediately. The reality is simple—revealing intelligence sources risks lives, and Governments depend on their intelligence services.
  How that intelligence is then handled within Government is a proper matter for discussion. That is what the President of the Board of Trade referred to in his statement, and that is why my right hon. Friend is having discussions with the Chairman of the Select Committee about the documentation that is required, and how that can be handled to allow the Select Committee to start its inquiries. That is the right way to proceed. It is wrong for Opposition Members to point their fingers and jump up and down. They are attempting to cause difficulties which are likely to end—
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Mr. Taylor: How am Ito reply to the hon. Gentleman if he keeps rising to make points that he clearly forget to make during his own speech?
  Mr. Wilson: This is precisely a point that I remembered to make in my speech. Is the Minister repudiating the statement made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the BBC's "Question Time" last Thursday night—yes or no?
  Mr. Taylor: I am answering this debate on the basis not of television programmes that I did not watch but of information that the House has before it as a result of the statement made in the House by the President of the Board of Trade last week. As I have said, detailed correspondence is going on between the President of the Board of Trade and the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Select Committee. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make specific allegations, I urge him to do so through the proper channels—the Trade and Industry Select Committee.
  This debate—even in the terms framed by the Opposition—is not about detailed allegations, but about whether there should be a public inquiry and about what form the inquiry should take. The most suitable way of progressing is to have an internal inquiry by the Trade and Industry Select Committee, which is then accountable to this House.
  Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Opposition have no basis for saying that they know all about inquiries, because they resisted an inquiry into Monklands district council? In the last hour, it has been confirmed that serious allegations of corruption are to be referred to the police.
  Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend has played a notable role in pushing for such inquiries into that matter. That is not the matter before the House this evening and I realise that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would stop my continuing on that subject. However, perhaps it does go to show that the desire for information to be made public is not always carried through in detail by Opposition Members in terms of their own affairs.
  We have an important responsibility to try to find out more about what might have gone wrong. The Opposition are going from pillar to post in their reactions, and they seem less like seekers of truth and more like seekers of sensation. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said that he wanted the House to have a
  "far more wide-ranging inquiry than anything that has been suggested today."—[Official Report, 13 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 606.]

  75
  The Chairman of the Trade and Industry Select Committee has rightly said that most of his colleagues would like to see a sharp inquiry—one that should not be allowed to drag on, as a wide-ranging inquiry would. The right hon. Member for Copeland called for a seven-course banquet of an inquiry. He said that BMARC should be the subject of a fully independent inquiry, quite separate from the Scott inquiry. That new inquiry should have access to all the documents and reports relevant to BMARC, and should be headed by a judge.
  One effect of the right hon. Member for Copeland's suggestion would be that we would not know the results of the inquiry for years. The inquiry would incur vast costs, and would not even have the advantages that Lord Justice Scott had from looking into export licensing operations. That is not an argument in favour of a genuine inquiry into the facts. I never give up hope with the right hon. Gentleman, who is a smiling and charming person who listens to arguments. I wish him to listen to this argument.
  The right hon. Gentleman cannot really be saying that he wants to push the matter into the public domain with a judge and with all the panoply that we have seen with the Scott inquiry in order to seek the facts rapidly, because the result would be an expensive rigmarole. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman share the confidence of his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central in the Select Committee system, particularly a Select Committee under the chairmanship of one of his colleagues?
  One or two colleagues referred to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. My right hon. Friend has made a clear statement to the House that he was not aware that goods were being exported through Singapore to any other country, including Iran. The House has a proper respect for statements made by Members of Parliament to the House, and the tradition of the House to respect such personal statements should be continued in the circumstances. I believe that my right hon. Friend made a clear statement and—as far as I am concerned—that is that.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central picked apart a question to which I replied this afternoon, but it is a fact that the President of the Board of Trade made a perfectly accurate statement to the House last week. It is in keeping with the willingness of the DTI to provide full information that the information that the hon. Gentleman has received this afternoon is accurate in all respects. When the hon. Gentleman looks at the answer that is published tomorrow in Hansard, he will acknowledge that the average overall figure is 36 per cent.
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North challenged us about various documents found by the Ministry of Defence, but that is a proper matter for the inquiry and I do not intend to go into it this afternoon. The Ministry of Defence police have made a statement over the weekend, and those questions will continue. I am sure that the Trade and Industry Select Committee will look at that matter.
  I am afraid that we have not thrown much light on the key subject of whether there should be an inquiry. If Opposition Members were genuinely interested in getting the facts, they would have agreed with Conservative Members that the Select Committee system has been set up for this purpose. The DTI is clearly willing to provide evidence. In the circumstances, the sooner we can proceed to a short, sharp but accurate inquiry, the better it will be.
  76
  When the President of the Board of Trade and I first heard our officials' findings in relation to BMARC's exports to Singapore, we admit that we were in no doubt about their significance and we kept inquiring for further details. Initially, the President and I asked questions that had been mentioned in the media regarding accusations that were made at the end of March. There has been no sudden desire to ferret out information. We believed that a clear series of events should be examined in the public interest and that resulted in last week's statement to the House.
  I believe that it is the House's proper duty to take the matter forward and to ask the Select Committee to do its job. If it can do its job quickly, we will get to the facts and that will benefit all hon. Members.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
  The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 291

  Division No. 165]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cohen, Harry

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Connarty, Michael

  Ainger, Nick

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Corbett, Robin

  Allen, Graham

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Corston, Jean

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cousins, Jim

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Barnes, Harry

  Darling, Alistair

  Barron, Kevin

  Davidson, Ian

  Battle, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Denham, John

  Bell, Stuart

  Dewar, Donald

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dixon, Don

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dobson, Frank

  Benton, Joe

  Dowd, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Berry, Roger

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Betts, Clive

  Eastham, Ken

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Enright, Derek

  Blunkett, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Boateng, Paul

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bradley, Keith

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fatchett, Derek

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Faulds, Andrew

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

  Reid, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fisher, Mark

  Burden, Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Callaghan, Jim

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fraser, John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caravan, Dennis

  Galbraith, Sam

  Cann, Jamie

  Galloway, George

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Gapes, Mike

  Chidgey, David

  Garrett, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  George, Bruce

  Clapham, Michael

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clelland, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Gordon, Mildred

  Coffey, Ann

  Graham, Thomas

  77

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & S Bute)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Milburn, Alan

  Grocott, Bruce

  Miller, Andrew

  Gunnell, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hain, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hall, Mike

  Morley, Elliot

  Hanson, David

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Harvey, Nick

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Henderson, Doug

  Mudie, George

  Heppell, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hodge, Margaret

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Olner, Bill

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Parry, Robert

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Pearson, Ian

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pike, Peter L

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hutton, John

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Illsley, Eric

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ingram, Adam

  Purchase, Ken

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jamieson, David

  Radice, Giles

  Janner, Greville

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MÔon)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rogers, Allan

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

  Rooker, Jeff

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rooney, Terry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry

  Ruddock, Joan

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Salmond, Alex

  Litherland, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Loyden, Eddie

  Short, Clare

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

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

  McCartney, Ian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Snape, Peter

  McFall, John

  Soley, Clive

  McKelvey, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Spellar, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stevenson, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Stott, Roger

  McWilliam, John

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Madden, Max

  Straw, Jack

  Maddock, Diana

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mahon, Alice

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Marek, Dr John

  Timms, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Touhig, Don

  Maxton, John

  Turner, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

  Tyler, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Vaz, Keith

  Michael, Alun

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  78

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wilson, Brian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Winnick, David

  Watson, Mike

  Worthington, Tony

  Welsh, Andrew

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Williams, Ftt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Mr. Stephen Byers.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Day, Stephen

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Devlin, Tim

  Amess, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Ancram, Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dover, Den

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Duncan, Alan

  Ashby, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Elletson, Harold

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evennett, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Faber, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  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

  Brazier, Julian

  French, Douglas

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Garnier, Edward

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Burns, Simon

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Butler, Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Butterfill, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Cash, William

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Churchill, Mr

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clappison, James

  Hague, William

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Colvin, Michael

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Congdon, David

  Hannam, Sir John

  Conway, Derek

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Harris, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hawksley, Warren

  Couchman, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cran, James

  Heald, Oliver

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

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hendry, Charles

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  79

  Hicks, Robert

  Malone, Gerald

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Mans, Keith

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Marland, Paul

  Horam, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

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

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Mates, Michael

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow West)

  Merchant, Piers

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Mills, Iain

  Hunter, Andrew

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Jack, Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Jessel, Toby

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Key, Robert

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Norris, Steve

  Knapman, Roger

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Page, Richard

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

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Pawsey, James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Pickles, Eric

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Legg, Barry

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Richards, Rod

  Lidington, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Lightbown, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Lord, Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Luff, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sackville, Tom

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Madel, Sir David

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  80

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Trotter, Neville

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Viggers, Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Walden, George

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Waller, Gary

  Spring, Richard

  Ward, John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stephen, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Stern, Michael

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Stewart, Allan

  Whitney, Ray

  Streeter, Gary

  Whittingdale, John

  Sumberg, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sykes, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thomason, Roy

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mr. Timothy Wood

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises the independence of the all-party Select Committee for Trade and Industry; welcomes the Government's assurance that if that Committee decides to examine the issues raised by the allegation that Singapore was used as a conduit for arms to Iran then it will co-operate fully; and recognises that as far as intelligence is concerned the Government will establish procedures with the Select Committee in the light of the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

Overseas Aid
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.14 pm
Miss Joan Lestor: I beg to move,
That this House, concerned by reports that one billion people throughout the world live in abject poverty, condemns Her Majesty's Government's failure to place genuine poverty alleviation at the heart of overseas development policy, an aim which has been repeatedly sacrificed to the pursuit of political dogma, confusion over Britain's relationship with its partners in the European Union and unlawful linkages between aid and trade; condemns the Government for a decline in real terms in development spending; urges the Government to improve the quality of British aid by reallocation of resources so that more is spent on meeting basic needs such as primary education and health care and less on tied aid; calls on the Government to explain how it will achieve the UN aid target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP; and calls on the Government to take a lead in multilateral programmes which address the needs of the poorest in the world, particularly women and children.
Nineteen ninety-five is a year of anniversaries. It is 50 years since the foundation of the United Nations and 50 years since the creation of the Bretton Woods institutions—the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. For millions of people who had just lived through the horrors of the second world war, those institutions held out a vision of a fairer and more secure world. Absolutely central to that vision was the goal of a world free from Poverty.
Unlike most Tory political leaders today, the world's statesmen in 1945 had an acute understanding of the relationship between poverty and conflict. As the United States Secretary of State Cordell Hull put it in 1945:
"The battle for peace has to be fought on two fronts. The first is the security front, where victory spells freedom from fear. The second is the economic and social front, where victory spells freedom from want."
Fifty years on, the greatest threat to the world is still poverty, which not only brings with it death and disease, but fuels conflicts and condemns entire nations to dependency.
The gap between the have and have-not nations continues to grow. In 1960, the richest fifth living in the industrialised world enjoyed incomes 30 times higher than those of the poorest fifth living in the developing world. Today, it receives 60 times more.
According to Oxfam, the poorest 50 countries in the world account for less than 2 per cent. of global income, yet are home to one fifth of the world's population. That is a clear recipe for instability, conflict and human suffering on a tremendous scale, as we have seen.
There have been extraordinary advances in technology in the past 50 years. People are living longer, infant mortality is falling and more people have access to education, yet one fifth of the world lives in absolute poverty, unable to meet basic needs.
In Africa, one in six children die before the age of five, 130 million children get no primary education and 35,000 children die every day from preventable diseases. That is despite the success of immunisation programmes, oral rehydration therapy and other advances. There is now another threat to which I will refer later—that of Aids. Some 1.3 billion people have no clean water or sanitation.
82
Throughout the world, millions of people live in indescribable deprivation and misery. The Opposition believe that such poverty is a moral outrage. Self-evidently, the Government do not regard the eradication of poverty as a priority, and I shall demonstrate why.
I turn first to the Conservative record on aid. If we look at the level of aid as a proportion of GNP, for example, the Government have massively cut Britain's aid budget from 0.52 per cent. in 1979 and rising, under the Labour party, to 0.3 per cent. and falling today. Britain's aid budget as a proportion of GNP is now one of the lowest in the European Union and is set to fall even further if forecasts are accurate. On the Government's current plans, between 1994–95 and 1997–98 the British aid budget will be cut by £;116 million, or 5.2 per cent. in real terms. Moreover, between 1994–95 and 1996–97, bilateral aid to Africa will fall by 17 per cent, while aid to Africa and the Pacific will fall by 12.5 per cent.
The Government have also proposed huge cuts in the British contribution to the European development fund. How does the Minister justify the 29 per cent. cut in the British contribution? Does he not realise the anger that greeted that decision among both our European Community partners and the ACP countries? Does he recognise the important role played by the Lomè convention in the economic development of the 70 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, 40 of which are defined as least developed and a majority of which are in sub-Saharan Africa?
What is more, British aid has become significantly less poverty-focused, with a large and growing proportion of the budget spent on technical assistance, external consultants, the aid and trade provision and capital-intensive projects. The 1994 Development Assistance Committee review of British aid revealed that, in 1991, only 6 per cent. of British aid to sub-Saharan Africa, accounting for 50 per cent. of bilateral aid that year, was spent on education and other social services such as family planning and health. How does the Minister square those figures, drawn from the "Reality of Aid" report of 1995—I am sure all hon. Members have received copies of it—with Baroness Chalker's claim that the overriding goal of the British aid programme is poverty reduction?
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss Lestor: I wanted to get on, because this is a short debate that is held only once a year—but such is the hon. Gentleman's charm that I will.
Mr. Brandreth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady—this is indeed a short and important debate. I am sorry, however, that she is adopting such a negative approach. Once again, she is talking entirely about inputs, not outputs. Clearly it is important to have aid that is well focused and well delivered. The amount, too, is important. Will she confirm her party's commitment to the 0.7 per cent. target within five years, and explain how such a commitment will be more effective this time round than last time, when her party ended up reducing the amount spent on overseas aid by £50 million?
Miss Lestor: I am rather glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, in the event. When we left office, the amount

83
spent on overseas aid was 0.52 per cent. of GNP, and rising. This Government have been in power for 16 years, throughout which time it has been shamelessly falling.
I do not intend to give any commitments—for the following reason. If the overseas aid budget carries on falling at the present rate for the next year or two, we do not know what level it will be at by then. But if we had been in power for 16 years and had not reached the UN target, if I were dead I would come back and haunt the lot of them.
Miss Emma Nicholson rose—
Miss Lestor: I have already said that we get this debate just once a year, and it would not be fair to others if I gave way again.
Lady Olga Maitland rose—
Miss Lestor: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady.
We also know that the Government are spending an increased proportion of the aid budget on aid and trade provision projects. In effect, that means that large amounts of aid are concentrated on countries that are already several runs up the development ladder, such as Malaysia. These are countries that provide a market for the technical know-how and more sophisticated technological goods that we export.
Lady Olga Maitland rose—
Miss Lestor: I will not give way to the hon. Lady, who is not as appealing as the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sexist."] The hon. Lady can make her own speech later, when I am sure she will be called. She must not interrupt mine.
What I have outlined is made clear in the 1993 review of the aid and trade provision, as a result of which the Government introduced a sensible reduction in the per capita income eligibility threshold, to $700—considerably below the OECD figure of $2,500.
When the ATP was introduced by the Labour Government in 1978, it was designed to allow a small proportion of the bilateral programme—about 5 per cent.—to be available to give a higher priority to the commercial importance of a limited number of developmentally sound projects. Since then, a far greater emphasis has been placed by successive Conservative Governments on commercial interests, and the ATP reached its peak in 1991–92, at 10 per cent. of the total bilateral budget. That caused some disquiet, not least to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, whose 1987 report stated:
"We have no doubt that the influence of commercial interests on the aid programme can and has led to a conflict of priorities."
Then came the scandalous, unlawful decision to fund the Pergau dam project in 1991, which the Government now try to shrug off as a brief period of unfortunate entanglement between aid and arms sales. Following the High Court judgment last winter, the Foreign Secretary was forced to carry out an ODA review to determine whether any other projects had fallen outside the legitimate provisions of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. He came up with three more: a project to built a metro system in Ankara, costing £22
84
million, which, like Pergau, had Lady Thatcher's personal recommendation behind it; secondly, a £9.3 million project to build a television studio in Indonesia; and, finally, £2.9 million to put in a flight information system in Botswana.
Many of us anticipated a justified replenishment of the aid budget as a result of the repayment of the misappropriated funds, but a seemingly unrepentant and unabashed Foreign Secretary claimed that the books for the previous years in question were effectively closed. Parliament voted the ATP money on the assumption that it would be used for genuine development projects, and we believed that the money spent on Pergau and the other three projects should be returned to the aid budget; otherwise it would be seen as a blatant disregard of parliamentary authority. Only by restoring the money can the Government restore credibility to their aid programme.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I share the hon. Lady's criticisms of the aid and trade provision, which was introduced by the Labour party. Does she want to abolish it or reform it?
Miss Lestor: We are looking at how the ATP has been used in practice in recent years. I make no commitment, but we are looking closely at reforming the ATP to fit it in with what was originally intended.
Under the new criteria introduced in the 1993 review, we learn that the ATP is to be focused in future on China and Indonesia. Yet the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, in its July 1994 report on Pergau and the ATP, said that it hoped that the benefit of the ATP would not be confined to China and Indonesia, which it described as countries with "poor human rights records"—an understatement, to say the least.
As for debt, the Conservative Government are keen to appear leading players on the world stage. In that case, one would reasonably assume that they would be willing to play a strong role in the international organisations that are such a central part of the lives of developing countries. The debt owed by poor countries to rich ones brings with it the power of the rich to dictate economic, political and social conditions in the developing world.
The terms of the International Monetary Fund and World bank structural adjustment programmes have often resulted in deep cuts in social spending, which mean collapsing health services and closed schools. It is the non-governmental organisations and other aid agencies that are expected to pick up the pieces, but the scale of the problem is so vast that they can skim only the surface of the need. The stock of debt owed by developing countries to the IMF and World bank has grown faster than any other type of debt, tripling from $98 billion in 1982 to $304 billion in 1992.
This year, the 50th anniversary of Bretton Woods, provides a focus for reassessment of the large institutions' role. Typically involved is economic regulation. They have gone in for privatisation of state assets, reductions in public expenditure, liberalised trade, easier access and enhanced terms for foreign investors. We have never denied the need for adjustment, but we are critical of the form that adjustment programmes take. Too often they have resulted in reduced access to health, education and other essential public services. These are basic needs that should be central to any development programme. Coupled with rising unemployment, falling levels of real

85
income and damage to the environment, it is often difficult to identify the benefits of such programmes to ordinary people. Inevitably the poorest, especially women and children, suffer disproportionately.
That is acutely obvious in Africa, where more than a decade of structural adjustment programmes has contributed to a fall in real incomes of 20 per cent. There has been a fourfold increase in unemployment, a reduction in investment to the level of 1970 and a further contraction of the region's share of the world market to 2 per cent. Africa is not the only region of the world in which human welfare standards are worsening and where overall levels of poverty are increasing.
In recent years, the World bank has admitted some past mistakes. I welcome the fact that it is now normal practice to include in the pre-planning stage ways to minimise damage to the poor. I welcome also the statement in the bank's 1990 development report that no task should command a higher priority for the world's policy makers than that of reducing global poverty. We live in hope. For the Labour party, that is the yardstick by which the performance of the World bank will be judged in future.
The World bank needs to concentrate much more on improving the direct poverty impact of its projects. It must reverse the alarming decline in lending to agriculture, especially small-scale farming. It must not insist on the imposition of user charges on primary health and education. Indeed, it should seek to safeguard and prioritise public expenditure in those areas. As I have travelled, I have been saddened to see in countries in Africa, especially Tanzania and Zambia, that people must pay for primary education. Apart from anything else, that means that girls in particular are denied access to education. Sadly, a less high priority is placed on their future and their education than that which is attached to boys. That is a direct result of structural adjustment programmes which demand that parents must pay for their children's schooling.
We ask for greater accountability, both of the World bank and of the IMF, to loan recipient countries and of the United Kingdom executive director to the British Parliament. What measures is the Minister considering to improve the accountability and transparency of the World bank and the IMF? Will he consider reports to Parliament? Should there not be regular reports to Parliament and debates on them?
I have been watching with interest developments at the Paris Club since the new debt reduction terms—the so-called Naples terms—were agreed in December 1994. In the Chamber, the Prime Minister said:
"At Naples, we agreed on two specific measures to help those countries facing special difficulties: first, more help with debt payments, taking the level of relief above 50 per cent.—to two-thirds and perhaps beyond; and, secondly, reductions in the stock of debt."—[Official Report, 11 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 668.]
On 16 December, the chairman of the Paris Club is reported to have said:
"A small number of countries may be awarded once-and-for-all deals in the next few months",
although he omitted to name them. Sources close to the club suggested, however, that Uganda, Bolivia and Nicaragua might be among the first countries to receive such awards.
Against that background, I have been extremely disappointed in the outcome of some negotiations, especially those that involve some of the world's most
86
indebted and poorest countries. Nicaragua's Paris Club debt is $1.6 billion, but that is only 14.3 per cent. of its total debt. Many of us had hopes for 80 per cent. relief on Nicaragua's Paris Club debt. After all, it is the most indebted country in the world. In the event, Nicaragua was offered debt relief of only 36 per cent. That was not a breakthrough, and it was certainly not an exit from debt programmes.
Even more disappointing is the case of Uganda. It was offered a 67 per cent. stock of debt reduction, only part of its debt of $350 million. That is only 20 per cent. of its total Paris Club debt. That cannot be described as a two-thirds reduction of Uganda's stock of debt. Nor is it an exit strategy from a debt programme, as recognised as needed by the World bank. As a result, the continuing burden of debt is preventing the Government of Uganda from spending the country's resources on their own people. In 1995, Uganda will spend five times more on servicing its debt than on its own health services.
What happens now that Uganda, in Paris Club terms, has exited from debt reduction negotiations? Who is left to pick up the pieces? Where does Uganda go now with an enormous overhang of debt that is, in effect, unpayable without destroying the future for millions of people?
We have heard that Zambia is due soon to come to the Paris Club. Zambia's debt is chronic. It places a severe burden on Zambia's economy and its people. Servicing Zambia's $6.79 billion debt swallows up 33 per cent. of the country's export earnings. The volume of total debt stock is 2.3 times higher than Zambia's gross national product. Per capita income within Zambia has been in decline but the debt overhang has been rising steadily.
Zambia is a major recipient of British bilateral aid. That aid is not used, however, for furthering development to enhance the quality of people's lives. On the contrary, in 1993–94 about two thirds of total programme aid was used indirectly to support IMF and World bank structural adjustment programmes.
We must put a stop to the merry-go-round of money. Bilateral aid is often used to pay off multilateral as well as bilateral debts. That is no progress. Will the Minister reassure us that the Government role at the forthcoming Paris Club meeting on Zambia will be positive? The debts that are owed by the poorest countries to the Paris Club are causing great concern. Of even greater concern is the growing debt of poor countries to the World bank and the IMF. We all know that, within the World bank, there is growing awareness of the unsustainable level of debt among the poorest countries. There were discussions about such debt at the spring meeting at Washington.
There are two specific points to which I hope the Minister will respond. First, as I understand it, debt outstanding to the World bank from the poorest countries—severely indebted low-income countries—amounts to about $3.9 billion. Although this debt is crippling for the countries concerned, it is not a large sum for the bank. I understand that it has about $3.3 billion set aside for loan-loss provisions. It has $14.5 billion in reserves.
Have the Government given consideration to supporting proposals for the cancellation of debt of severely indebted low-income countries to the bank, and for the moneys to be written off under loan provisions? It would be interesting to know the views of the Minister

87
and of the Government on these matters. Has the Minister discussed them with his colleagues in the Treasury and in the Departments with responsibilities for trade?
Secondly, we know that there have been discussions about the conversion of International Development Association loans into grants for the poorest countries. The proposal has been supported by the Government. Has there been further discussion? Will the matter be discussed at a meeting of IDA deputies in South Africa at the end of the month? Is the proposal supported by other countries? My right hon. and hon. Friends have shown a great interest in the possible conversion and may wish to enlarge upon it. We would all welcome replies to my questions. Continuing flows of aid will have little impact on poor countries if the aid is swallowed up by debt repayment.
Something that was not foreseen 50 years ago and which has brought misery and destitution to many parts of the third world, particularly Africa, is, of course, acquired immune deficiency syndrome and human immune deficiency virus. I do not believe that it is given anything like sufficient attention worldwide, and it is having an impact on the developing world. We cannot have aid and development policies that do not take it into account. I attended a seminar in Barcelona in May, in which we evaluated the progress to date. AIDS has to be taken seriously in any programme for aid and development.
In one antenatal clinic that I visited in Africa recently, some 25 per cent. or more of the women attending were HIV-positive. As I am sure the House is aware, AIDS is now spreading among women far more rapidly than any other section of the population. One in three of the babies of those women will be born with the virus. All of them will develop AIDS and most will die before they reach the age of five. So far, 1 million children worldwide have been infected and half a million have died, most of them in Africa. Two thirds of all new cases of HIV are occurring in Africa, where, it is estimated, 9 million children will be orphaned in the next five years, and where recent gains in child survival are being reversed.
In Zimbabwe, which I visited recently, AIDS has become the single biggest killer of the country's under-fives. In Thailand, one adult in 50 is infected, and it is feared that the country's under-five mortality rate will rise rapidly within the next five years.
Of the $2 billion spent annually on AIDS prevention, only about 10 per cent. is spent in the developing world, where 85 per cent. of infections are taking place. That is a sobering thought for all of us to take on board. The targets set by the 1990 World Summit for Children agreed on a series of goals for improving the lives of children, and lowering infant mortality. Some of those goals are well on the way to being achieved: malnutrition has been reduced; measles deaths are down, due to immunisation programmes; and polio is well down—some areas are free from it altogether. Iodine deficiency illnesses and vitamin A deficiency are being overcome and the use of oral rehydration therapy is rising, preventing more than 1 million children's deaths a year. There has been other progress.
Is AIDS now to replace those diseases? Is it to become the biggest killer of the under-fives? We have to give it attention. As I said, 50 years ago that illness could not
88
have been foreseen and the HIV virus was unknown. We cannot go on with aid and development policies without taking that on board.
Fifty years ago, the founders of the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions committed themselves to the eradication of global poverty and to the construction of a fairer and more secure world. While much has been achieved in the past half century, the goal of eliminating world poverty is still far from being realised. Although the Government claim to be committed to tackling poverty, their record, as I have shown, tells a very different story. Over the past 16 years, they have cut aid as a proportion of GNP, reduced the poverty focus of UK aid and failed to lobby for the world's poor within international forums.
The Government's policy for international development has been a failure. Labour—and only Labour, with its record in this field—can be trusted to make a priority of the struggle against global poverty and injustice. I commend the motion to the House.
7.43 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"concerned by reports that one billion people throughout the world live in abject poverty, commends Her Majesty's Government's support for sustainable development and poverty alleviation through its support for economic reform, good government, and investment in people and productive capacity, as well as through direct action to provide the poor with opportunities to improve their lives; and urges the Government to pursue these policies with their development partners and multilateral agencies.".
I very much welcome this opportunity for the House to look again at the subject of overseas aid. It is, as always, a timely issue.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) threatened to return, under certain circumstances, to haunt us. I hope that that will not be necessary, or, indeed, possible, as I hope that she will remain on this earth with us. But if I am ever to be haunted, I would like to be haunted by the hon. Lady.
The Halifax summit devoted particular attention to the subject of development and to the scope for improving the international system for promoting it. At the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Ministers have recently endorsed a statement of the role of development co-operation at the mid-point of this decade. Here at home, the Overseas Development Administration, like the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is undertaking a fundamental expenditure review, and all those matters are of great concern to the House.
The world is going through a rapid process of change. My responsibilities take me frequently to Asia. Much has been said and written about the "Asian miracle"—the way in which so many countries have succeeded in growing year after year at rates that are among the highest ever recorded in history; their growing role in the world economy; their ability to continue growth, even during an OECD recession; and, of direct relevance to the Opposition motion, the sharp decline in the number of those in poverty.
The reasons for that astonishing progress have to do with consistently sound macro-economic policies and a long-term commitment to private sector development,

89
pro-export policies and high attainment in education. The "miracle" has now spread westward—although, perhaps, not as far as the constituency of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—encompassing most of south-east Asia. Parts of Latin America are experiencing unprecedented growth.
Aid has played an important role in the Asian transition, and continues to do so for the poorer countries. The hallmark of that aid, however, has been helping people and Governments to help themselves. There is no dependency culture in eastern Asia. Countries wish to access western know-how and concessional finance to accelerate their social and infrastructure investments. As they become better off, their need for aid declines. Some have graduated out of aid entirely. Private finance in all of them is playing an increasing role. Singapore and Korea, for example, are already significant investors and donors in other countries. Other new donors are about to emerge.
There is, on the other hand, no doubt that poverty remains a deep-rooted and vital problem. The figure of roughly 1 billion people in abject poverty has remained stubbornly high even while their proportion in the rising population of developing countries has fallen. The largest part of the problem is in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The Government and other donors are working to help the countries concerned to address the problem.
The ingredients of success in east and south-east Asia—rapid growth based on sound policies, export orientation, high savings and investment, avoidance of a dependency culture—are as relevant to south Asia and to Africa. They also fit well with the evolving nature of international aid programmes. Last month, the OECD drew up and agreed a statement of common purpose about the role of aid in the mid-1990s. It recognised the successes achieved over past decades, noted that aid was only one of the sources of those successes, urged that aid should help the poorest to expand their opportunities and improve their lives and committed donors to managing bilateral and multilateral aid with maximum efficiency. Britain fully supports the themes in that statement.
The statement was issued against the background of concern about the future levels of aid. In 1993, the absolute amount of western aid fell significantly for the first time in recent years. We expect the official figures for 1994 to be released by the OECD in the next few days. They are likely to show that western aid will, as in 1993, represent around 0.3 per cent. of OECD gross national product, or a little lower. There is talk of a global aid funding crisis.
The Government believe that such talk is overdone. There are still high net transfers from donor countries to low-income countries. A number of donors, including Japan, which is now the largest of all, are continuing to expand their programmes. There is still, in the Government's judgment, scope for several donors to focus their aid more intensively on the poorer countries, as we do. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Government budgets are tight everywhere. Canada, Germany and Italy are three of the largest examples of important donors whose aid programmes have declined, or seem likely to over the next couple of years. However, the most significant question, yet to be determined, is how the American authorities—the Administration and Congress—will judge the future size and scope of foreign assistance.
90
The United States is already the back-marker among OECD countries in terms of the proportion of its economy devoted to overseas aid. We are very anxious that the United States should remain fully engaged as a bilateral donor in Africa, and should play its traditional strong role in the planned replenishment of the soft loan arm of the World bank. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will visit Washington next week, and I know that those matters will be high on her agenda.
We have had the usual representations from the Opposition about the size of the British aid effort. The fact is that, as the 1994 figures will confirm, we are at fifth place in the overall league of donors, up from sixth place—the position that we occupied when Labour was last in power. Furthermore, our assistance in 1994 was above the average for all OECD countries. The last public expenditure round led to an enhancement of £115 million for the aid budget for the final year of the public expenditure survey. That demonstrates the Government's commitment to maintaining a substantial aid programme, despite the cuts being made by many other donors and despite the absolute need to keep public expenditure under control.
Concern has been expressed that our aid is being diverted from the poor by the needs of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the rise in emergency aid and the pressures from increased European Community aid spending. Let me deal with each point in turn.
The Government make no apology for our assistance to eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. It is an overwhelming British, and global, interest that their transition to market economies and pluralist democracies should be accomplished swiftly and effectively. Hundreds of British private sector organisations—including many non-governmental organisations—have responded to the new challenge. The Government, for their part, expanded the aid programme to launch the know-how fund. It will account for some £80 million this financial year, and has an outstandingly successful reputation. Several countries are now well on with the transition, and as it progresses we expect the need for assistance to decline.
As for emergency aid, it has indeed increased substantially, from under £100 million in 1989–90 to over £260 million in 1993–94. The Government have thought it right to contribute generously to emergency needs, whether in Bosnia or Rwanda. British agencies have an outstanding record in effective delivery of such assistance. We are putting increased effort into conflict prevention and crisis management. Despite understandably gloomy predictions, I see no reason why emergency aid should need to expand further. Each situation will be judged on its merits, and Britain will continue to play a prominent role.
The rise in European Community spending on aid has been widely remarked, not least in successive reports from the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Government attach great importance to the effective management of European Community assistance within the ceilings set at the Edinburgh summit. We are hopeful that an early decision will be made on the priority areas for aid from the Community budget. In addition, as the House will know, important negotiations are now taking place on the United Kingdom's contribution to, and the overall size of, the next European development fund.
Mr. Mike Watson: The Minister mentioned the Edinburgh summit. As is well known, his

91
Government—admittedly, along with the German Government—have been primarily responsible for the stalling of negotiations on the eighth EDF. Will he explain how the Government align that with the Foreign Secretary's comment, in a speech at the Overseas Development Institute in March, that the EDF was perhaps the best and most effective element of European Union aid? Is it not true that those two facts cannot be reconciled, and that the Government must take their responsibilities much more seriously?
Mr. Goodlad: We take our responsibilities extremely seriously. As the exact amount of the European offer is subject to on-going negotiations with our European partners, I think that it would be wrong for me to comment further at this stage.
Mr. Watson: Will the Minister give way again?
Mr. Goodlad: No, I do not think I will.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have a slightly different problem. The Foreign Secretary also said in that speech that the amount that we were committing to European funds would cut the amount available for bilateral aid. We have a long and honourable tradition of efficient bilateral aid. Can the Minister sort out my problem? Is it true that the Foreign Secretary thinks that we spend too much through the European funds and would like more to be spent bilaterally, or does he feel that we should now be committing more to the European institutions?
Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Lady will agree with me on two points. First, she will agree that there should be an appropriate balance: I take it that she has no innate prejudice against European aid, as opposed to any other aid. Secondly, she will agree that the aid should be properly applied. Perhaps the hon. Lady will disagree with this, but I do not think that a recipient of aid is likely to say, "I do not want any of this multilateral filth from Europe; give me the decent bilateral stuff that I am used to." I see that the hon. Lady agrees with that analysis.
Although the rise in the European Community budget will inevitably mean some further decline in Britain's bilateral aid programme, the Government are determined to maintain bilateral aid at an adequate level and to focus it on poor countries. Very nearly seven tenths of it is at present directed at the poorest categories of country—countries with incomes lower than $675 per head. That is a higher proportion devoted to the poorest countries than by any of the other top five donors.
The Government are also determined to build on their well-deserved reputation for quality. We have a highly professional aid programme that recognises the importance of appropriate policies in recipient countries, the need for aid to support local initiatives rather than substituting for them and the need for local communities, as well as Governments, to participate fully in the process of development.
The Opposition motion urges the Government to spend more on basic needs such as primary education and health care. We are indeed doing just that. At the beginning of 1994, we announced a change in our policy on support to education to emphasise primary and basic education. We started to implement that policy immediately. Expenditure
92
on primary education has risen by nearly two thirds since 1992. We have consolidated work on projects at the primary level in India and south, east and west Africa; we have also undertaken major new initiatives over the past 18 months in central Africa. In non-formal education, a project to support nomadic education in Nigeria is being appraised, and we are supporting a number of projects in Bangladesh that provide education for those denied access to the formal sector.
In addition, we have funded research into levels of reading skills in Zambia and Malawi. That research is crucial in assisting us to address some of the problems of quality at primary level. Without good reading ability, the rest of the curriculum can be lost to children. In India, where we have worked with the local authorities to upgrade primary education in Andhra Pradesh—a state with a population roughly the same size as Britain's—we are now well advanced in developing a similar project in the even more populous state of West Bengal.
In Zambia, we are working with the Ministry of Education to strengthen the primary inspectorate and establish training systems for all primary teachers. In Malawi, we are helping the Government to meet the demand for primary schooling by providing funds for the construction of community schools. In South Africa, Gambia and Ghana we are supporting primary teacher education projects, and in Kenya we are helping to strengthen research and planning capacity for the primary sector.
We are also increasing the resources that we devote to assistance in the areas of health and population. We are major contributors to essential health care and better reproductive health in sub-Saharan Africa. We have ground-breaking new projects involving NGOs as well as Government in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Malawi. At last year's population conference in Cairo, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development committed Britain to investing more than £100 million in new health and population projects by 1996. I am confident that we shall exceed the commitment target and, through the high quality of our aid, bring benefits to millions of disadvantaged people.
There is more. The House will be aware that Britain has unrivalled expertise in the area of international health. Our aid to Cambodia, Russia, and South Africa shows how we can support effective partnerships between British experts and their colleagues overseas. We back the know-how, where possible, with capital and commodity aid, sometimes from the European Community. As a result, we are playing a significant role in improving people's access to primary health care, their survival and well-being in the face of hazards such as malaria and AIDS, and their access to essential services in emergencies. Those are real achievements of which Britain and all those involved should be very proud.
Mr. Brandreth: Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity last week to see a television programme on the fate of children in an orphanage in China, or has he seen reports of it? As the motion refers to children, does he have any reflections on that programme?
Mr. Goodlad: I have reflected on it. Anybody who saw the film will have been profoundly shocked by the inhumanity that it exposed. We take every opportunity to bring our concerns about human rights violations to the attention of the Chinese authorities. We shall continue to

93
do that. The film alleged that the UNFPA—the United Nations population fund—supports population control in China. That is incorrect. The UNFPA and the International Planned Parenthood Federation are at the forefront of global action to promote the right of all women and men to choose without coercion the number of children that they wish to have.
While the Government do not contribute directly to population control in China, we contribute to the core funds of the UNFPA and the IPPF, both of which have small programmes in China aimed at promoting more humane policies. They strongly oppose coercive population control of any kind. If we withdrew our support from the UNFPA and the IPPF, we would remove one of the few channels through which we can seek to influence China's population policies. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) raises an extremely important point, which we shall continue to raise with the Chinese Government.
The Opposition motion also speaks of unlawful linkages between aid and trade, and calls on the Government to spend less on tied aid. As the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs instituted a rigorous review of all aid programme commitments following the judgement on Pergau last November. We found three other projects financed from the aid and trade programme, where it seemed that political or commercial factors had overridden developmental counter-arguments. Those projects are now being financed outside the aid programme.
To give the House a flavour of how rigorous we were, I should point out that one of those projects, for an air navigation aids system in Botswana, was deemed by the Foreign Secretary to be questionable on the ground that the papers showed that, from an economic point of view, Botswana should have continued to use the services of the then apartheid South Africa. Hon. Members may feel that the decision, in the circumstances of the day, to provide Botswana with a system of its own was not unreasonable.
The hon. Member for Eccles spoke about the aid and trade provision. We announced in 1995 in the departmental report that the ATP would be £53 million in 1997–98. That will be less than the 5 per cent. of bilateral aid that was set as a target when the ATP was introduced by the previous Labour Government.
I repeat that we are aware of no remaining projects that are questionable in terms of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. I categorically reject the absurd allegations that the World Development Movement still seeks to make about alleged linkages between aid and arms sales to a small number of foreign countries. Aid has not been used to promote arms sales, and it will not be so used.
Those who complain about tied aid should look carefully at the facts. Half our aid programme goes through multilateral channels and is thus automatically untied. [Interruption.] More will go through multilateral channels, so it is right to say that more will be untied. A large proportion of the rest is tied only in a sense that it brings foreign students to Britain or provides the services of British experts, consultants and institutions to foreign countries—including those who work on basic education and health projects.
The Government have untied 75 per cent. of our contribution to the special programme of assistance for Africa, to which our latest contribution was £300 million.
94
We routinely finance local costs for projects, such as many of those in the social sectors, which depend on such funding. Where Britain is not a competitive supplier, we are perfectly willing to purchase from third countries. But the Government believe that it is right and proper that, until such time as the donor community as a whole unties bilateral aid, Britain should similarly give first crack to its own firms and suppliers.
The Government wish to see the international aid agencies to which we contribute address the problem of poverty following the same principles that I have outlined, and to do so with increased efficiency. In that context, the reform agenda set out by the Halifax summit is of major significance. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his statement to the House, we have now drawn up a series of specific proposals to strengthen the Bretton Woods institutions and the United Nations. Revitalised international institutions will play a vital role in tackling poverty and creating the conditions for sustained development.
We agreed in particular to encourage better use of all existing World bank and International Monetary Fund resources, to tackle the substantial burden of multilateral debt faced by some of the world's poorest countries. The United Kingdom has taken a lead in that area in pressing for action, and reducing the debt burden will make a major contribution to alleviating poverty.
The number of people in abject poverty is a challenge to us all. Simplistic solutions do not work, and merely throwing money at problems is always ineffective. Time and again we have seen that sustained reductions in poverty come from broad-based growth grounded on the steady application of sound economic policies, better government and investment in people. Success does not come instantly. Aid donors can speed the process by facilitating reforms and strengthening programmes to alleviate poverty. Britain has demonstrated time and again its capacity to provide finance and know-how in ways that contribute to that goal.
For me, the speech of the hon. Member for Eccles was rather like flicking through an old album of yellowing sepia-tinted photographs of a bygone era of Stalinist neo-colonialism: looking at well-meaning figures facing the camera, staring life straight—if unseeingly—in the face. The poorer countries do not want hand-wringing from the Labour party. They want concrete measures to help them to become more self-reliant.
The Government have led the way and transformed the global aid debate. First, we have led the drive for free trade and trade access. We must never forget that trade brings three times as much revenue to the developing world as aid. Secondly, the Prime Minister has consistently led the way on debt relief with the original Trinidad terms and their subsequent extension through the Paris Club. Thirdly, we have introduced the idea of good government, using aid to promote sensible economic policies, democratic institutions, the rule of law and respect for human rights. We have pioneered the use of dedicated technical aid through our know-how funds.
The Labour party is a very long way behind the game. If it has begun to shift away from the old left-wing orthodoxy of never criticising third-world Governments, I welcome that. It still puts all the emphasis on the symbolism of large transfer payments instead of looking

95
at how aid resources are used. The objective must be not to make ourselves feel good, but to help the populations of the world's poorest countries.
Today's debate is an opportunity for Opposition Members to posture, as their spokesmen do every day in the media with every conceivable pressure group, irrespective of whether their sums, if they have done them at all, add up. Labour's commitment to reach the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP does not add up to a row of beans unless Labour is prepared to put a precise time scale on it and say how it will finance it. Will it be by higher taxes or by cuts in education, health or social security funding? If so, I am sure that Labour Members will have cleared their statements with the shadow Chancellor, and we shall note them very carefully.
Such pledges are an irrelevance unless they form part of a strategy for economic growth that will generate new economic resources. Thanks to Conservative policies, Britain's economic performance is second to none in Europe and is set to remain that way. That is the key to a serious long-term aid commitment.
I invite the House to reject Labour's irresponsible motion and to support our amendment.
8.13 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: A group of women from all over the Commonwealth came together in the House last week. They were members of the Commonwealth Countries League. Their patron is our most honoured Speaker and their function is to raise money for the education of women throughout the Commonwealth. They do so not in a showy way but in a consistent attempt throughout the year to raise cash. A small group of them do all the administration and take control of the money, which is sent to some Asian countries and, largely, to Africa.
I was able to tell that group of women that, a short time previously, I had been honoured to go to Ghana with a delegation under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts). He distinguished himself with that wonderful Welsh hwyl that made him dearly loved throughout the country and his ability to recognise instantly and identify with the problems that we met.
When I hear some of the undoubtedly very uncomfortable cliches that Ministers trot out from the Dispatch Box, I am reminded of the reality of life for many women and children in Africa: the lack of decent clean water and the shortage of education and health provision. Indeed, in some Commonwealth countries there has been a reversal of existing health programmes so that people's access to clinics and to the support that they had had through trained village nurses has been reduced rather than increased.
When the Government know that the money committed by the United Kingdom is becoming less every year, I wonder that Ministers can still seriously talk about our reputation, experience and commitment to overseas aid. In reality, we are always seeking ways of expanding our commercial opportunities. While there is nothing wrong in that, it is not what aid is for. It does not improve the income or opportunities of many of the people who are most in need. Moreover, it is clear that the Government's commitment to aid and trade is positively damaging some of the things that the House regards as most important.
96
I wish to deal briefly with the Government's commitments to Ghana in respect of supporting the electoral commission as it illustrates the problems that we have. We were told in Ghana that the electoral commission, which is independent of the Government, is seeking to set out in considerable detail the new registers for the coming election. It is working on an extremely tight timetable. If it fails to do the job efficiently, Ghana's belief in democracy will be severely damaged. It is therefore very important that the electoral commission should be given every known support.
The Government were therefore prepared to look at the available machinery and the modern equipment that would enable the electoral commission to produce an accurate electoral register containing the names of all the people who needed to vote. That is tremendously important because, as we were told, large numbers of people did not vote in the last general election because they believed that there were problems with the existing machinery.
The fact that people boycotted those elections produced a Parliament which, although it impressed us with its vigour and its intent efficiently to bring democracy once again to the parliamentary system, clearly left some large sections of the community in Ghana feeling that they were not properly represented. It is therefore vital that we help the electoral commission to get the whole business of preparing its register right. If that fails, the whole system will be blown out of the water, not least because people will not believe that there is a genuine, accurate register. Hon. Members know how important it is that such elementary machinery should be available.
I have no intention of naming names, but a British company did a great deal of development work with the electoral commission and said that it thought that it was capable of producing equipment which would not only make it possible to scan at tremendous speed the relevant information but to produce detailed and positive benefits. Certainly, that would involve a great deal of expense but it would produce a reliable and efficient register. It worked with the director of the electoral commission over a long period on the sort of information and the general level of expertise that was needed, using a system which was reasonably well known in Government circles in Ghana because it had been used by some people in education.
Then, apparently, London determined that everything should be put out to open tender, and the contract went not to the people who had done the development work but to someone else, using a different system which is probably not compatible and certainly has not been used in that context and that manner. I am not prepared to argue the rights and wrongs of whether one unknown system will be any better than another which is equally unknown, but I am alarmed at the political implications of taking the wrong decision.
If the register is not correct, Ghana—the one west African country capable of producing stable parliamentary democracy—will find that democracy is put at risk because the voters will think that the results are not genuine. There can be nothing more damaging than the voters believing, for one reason or another, that the register is not correct.
When one realises that there is no register of deaths in Ghana, the sort of problems that the electoral commission will face become apparent. The commission was not allowed to accept the carefully noted information kept by

97
traditional chiefs, because the law would not allow it. The inflexible attitude in London is causing major problems. I do not expect Ministers to comment tonight, but I ask them to think seriously about the matter and to be prepared, even at this late stage, to consider the alternatives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): It is not clear whether the hon. Lady is saying that such projects should not be put out to competitive tender. She has been in Ghana recently—I understand that she and others are coming to see me about that tomorrow—so she must appreciate that there is no question of the ODA ever seeking to impose a particular solution on another country with regard to any aid project. Any aid that we give is given co-operatively and with the full support of the country receiving it. The project to which the hon. Lady refers will only and could only go ahead with the full support of the electoral commission in Ghana. Without that support, there would be no point in proceeding.
Mrs. Dunwoody: That would be very reassuring if the Minister did not know that the only way that the equipment is ever going to be paid for is through tied British aid. While I am happy to have his assurance that nothing will be foisted on the electoral commission, I have to ask him to think again, even if not tonight, because if we get it wrong the results could be dangerous.
One of the problems is that the Government are not clear about their own attitude to overseas aid. It is certainly not clear to us whether they have the commitment to the African continent that they should have. I do not know whether this is a correct but only this weekend I read that the Foreign Secretary said:
"The commitments we face to multilateral agencies—notably the programmes of the European Community—are reducing what we have available for aid that is recognisably British."
Was he saying that our European commitments are leading to difficulties? If so, and if he is saying that there is pressure on the ODA to reduce its trained staff, the programmes that it is undertaking or the various support systems that it uses at times of emergency, the House has reason to be seriously worried.
I was approached by a member of the medical profession when there were considerable difficulties in Rwanda. It was pointed out to me that this country had large amounts of sterilisation equipment and straightforward medical aids for barrier nursing which could have been transported by the planeload to those at risk from hepatitis and other diseases, but that we were not transporting it in the amounts or with the speed and urgency necessary to turn the situation around.
Barrier nursing is one way in which we can stop the spread of dangerous diseases among many Africans. That is doubly true of HIV. We know that many AIDS patients are removed from hospital by their families, who have no clear idea of how disease is transmitted and certainly no clear idea of how to protect themselves. That in itself can lead to more infection.
Mr. Baldry: The Government and the British people have given more than £90 million of relief to Rwanda to help with its recent disaster. How much more does the hon. Lady think should have been given? Is there 1p of that £90 million that she thinks has been spent on a project that was not worth while?
Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister was clearly not listening. I am not responsible for the overseas aid budget.
98
The Conservative Government are responsible for the budget, and they are spending less than they were. They have access to medical equipment that could be sent by the planeload. If the Minister wants to know whether I think that, in an emergency, we should send immediate medical support and aid, the answer is that I do. If he wants to know whether I think that we should commit more money than we have in the past, I do. If he wants to know whether that is a generally held view among members of his party as well as mine, I can tell him that it is. If he thinks that he has scored some clever political point, I have to disabuse him of that notion.
Many people outside the House, of every religion and type, understand what we could do if we had the necessary commitment and political will. They also understand that only in the House is overseas aid regarded as one of the least important topics. It is debated only in Opposition time because it is not convenient for the Government to discuss in any detail what we are doing with our existing aid and trade budget.
I do not have the great and unalloyed admiration for the European aid projects expressed by some of my colleagues. I served on the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries committee for four and a half years. I believe that the inability to introduce flexible banana quotas between one country and another is contributing to the poverty of the West Indies right now. The inability of the British Government to push through some protective measures is revealed every time one goes into a supermarket and sees nothing but German and South American bananas on display rather than those from Commonwealth supporters.
I believe that institutions are becoming so rigid that they are not producing the necessary results in terms of their own development programmes. The Government's apparent ambivalence is probably a reflection of the fact that they are now waking up to the reality of what is happening in the Community. However, if we are not going to use those mechanisms, we must expand what we are doing bilaterally and put a great deal more effort into Africa and accept that that is where the major problems lie. We must also be genuinely prepared to tackle at source the matters with which we can deal, and deal with them with the expertise that we have but which we sometimes seem loth to demonstrate.
8.28 pm
Mr. Jim Lester: I always enjoy speaking in such debates. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), because I remember that, in a previous incarnation, she resigned her position over the reduction if the previous Labour Government's aid budget in 1976.
Miss Lestor: I must correct the hon. Gentleman—I hate to do so, because I am being flattered. In fact, I resigned because of the cuts in nursery school education. There would have been no need to resign over the overseas budget, because it increased throughout the life of the previous Labour Government.
Mr. Lester: It was reduced by, I think, 50 per cent. in 1976 according to my figures, but that is in the past.
One gets the impression that the motion is a scattershot motion that nitpicks about everything. The only line with which I agree is that which states:

99
"one billion people throughout the world live in abject poverty".
During the years that I have been in the House, I think that I have visited most of the poorest countries in both south-east Asia and Africa. I have seen changes for the better as a result of our aid programme. I am second to none in my belief that the transfer of resources, of which aid is one important element, is essential as a moral imperative and is in Britain's self-interest—for those who consider matters only in terms of self-interest—in terms of the development of our economy as a major trading nation and of the movement of people.
It is often forgotten that television works in two ways. We see situations in the rest of the world that cause our constituents and ourselves great concern, but, equally, people see our world. Having just been to the Caribbean with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, one was conscious of the fact that, in every island one went to, people complained about the endless diet of American television, which was the only thing they could get. It shows them a level of affluence and creates pressures that, inevitably, people will want to remove if their position in their country is not likely to improve.
We have always had the argument about the level of aid. My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned one or two countries that have reduced their aid budget. In the present world situation, according to the latest figures from 1992–93, the British Government have held, and in fact increased, their budget. That is a matter for congratulation, not condemnation.
I say this with no pleasure. Looking through, one finds that aid has been reduced by Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and, most serious of all, the United States of America. Britain is one of the four countries in the group that increased its budget. That should be a matter for congratulation, not condemnation.
We need to ensure that some colleagues and others do not latch on to the idea that reducing the aid budget is a good idea. Having just come back from Washington, which I visited before we went to the Caribbean, I am deeply concerned about the discussions on Capitol hill about what overseas aid should be. There is real concern among American officials that, if the present discussions come through, they will not he able to claim that they have an aid budget of any description.
The hon. Member for Eccles mentioned aid and trade provision, and the Select Committee report in 1987. I happened to be on the Committee at the time and a party to that report. We have always agonised about aid and trade, the way it should be organised and whose budget it should come from. We are about right in terms of the 5 per cent. figure that we have reached.
It is difficult to know, but I suspect that, if they were honest, Opposition Members would admit that, if a constituency company told them that it had won a contract, wherever in the world, but that lack of British Government support, as opposed to support by the French, German or Italian Governments, had lost it the order and therefore it could not succeed, those Members would go to the Minister with that company and argue that we should at least have a same level of support other companies in other parts of world. It is a bit of a
100
double-take to argue against aid and trade provision but then not to accept the consequences in terms of international competition.
I have always thought that aid and trade provision should be argued for by the Department of Trade and Industry, but we cannot honour the general agreement on tariffs and trade rules if we do it that way. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs felt that it was important to maintain this minimal aid and trade provision. A small proportion of our total overseas aid budget, which again was not mentioned by Opposition Members, is basically given on grant terms. I think that, in Britain, a higher proportion of the aid budget is given as a straight grant, which affects neither loan nor any other support, than in any other country.
Brief mention has been made of the Pergau dam. Again, as someone who has studied it carefully on the Select Committee, I believe that it is a grave mistake not to recognise that electricity is an important element in poverty relief. Places such as north Malaysia that have no electricity, and villages that cannot operate after dark or that do not have any basic machinery, should all be taken into account. I do not want to go further down that road, because others want to speak, and I want to talk about other issues.
The hon. Member for Eccles mentioned debt, as did my right hon. Friend the Minister. I genuinely cannot understand why the Opposition cannot produce some enthusiasm for the British Government on the issue of debt. Of all countries in the world, we have given the foremost lead.
When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister started with the Trinidad terms. He pushed it again at Naples. Again, his statement on the Halifax summit shows that he is one of the front runners, along with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who used the Commonwealth Finance Ministers meeting to put forward the terms of selling International Monetary Fund gold, investing it and writing off the debt of sub-Saharan Africa. He spoke out clearly, and, for once, Oxfam was thoroughly delighted because that was its policy; it is not often that it feels that a Chancellor of the Exchequer argues for its policy, but he believes it strongly, and he argued for it.
I understand from a brief conversation about Halifax that we were the front runners in pushing other countries—we must act in partnership—to move forward. It is not the British Government who are resisting the sale of gold and the investment of that money; at least three other partners continue to do so. The British Government and the British Prime Minister are trying the hardest to bring that policy about by one means and another.
We all accept that the debt level of some sub-Saharan African countries is unacceptable. The all-party group on overseas development produced a report on that issue, to which Opposition Members were party on an even basis. We are clear on what needs to be done and how it needs to be done, but one must move along with other countries; we cannot do it single-handed.
We have also led the way in debt reduction and on grant terms. I occasionally wonder whether some faint words of praise from the Opposition for the way in which the Government have given the lead on this issue might be helpful and encouraging in terms of both the Prime

101
Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer continuing their excellent work, which is widely recognised by third-world countries, about which we all share a concern.
Recently, the hon. Member for Eccles and I were signatories of a letter to the World bank over its attitude on poverty relief. In Washington, I saw the figures of the signatories from different Parliaments when that letter was presented. It would not surprise Opposition Members—it might, judging from the number of people listening to the debate—that the United Kingdom Parliament had by far the most people signing that letter.
Miss Lestor: It was all the work we did in getting the signatures.
Mr. Lester: From memory, I believe that we got more than 337 signatures, and that will have an effect.
Mr. William Cash: On the question of the World bank, does my hon. Friend, who is a great expert in these matters and is recognised in the House as such, realise that it may be a good idea to change the charter of the World bank to ensure that the arrangements for debt reduction can be reflected not merely in what we want to do but in the provisions of the charter? I understand that Mr. Cadmessus is somewhat sympathetic to that point of view. Would my hon. Friend want to give him every encouragement, and would he want the Government to give every encouragement to a change in the charter, so that we can achieve something rather than merely say that we want it?
Mr. Lester: As I said earlier in relation to debt reduction, one must recognise that one must work with many partners in these issues. At Halifax, we have reinforced the fact, as the Prime Minister said today, that we need to look hard at the Bretton Woods institutions. People have all sorts of ideas about how they can be improved, but the real point is that the only way in which we can improve them is to carry our other major donors with us.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and I attended a hearing on Capitol hill on behalf of the all-party group on overseas development, in which we had before us the deputy both of the IMF and the World hank. That was an international effort to show those eminent and important people the depth of concern that many of us have about the level of poverty and the way in which World bank loans can be used.
Over recent years, we have seen a total change in the World bank's attitude. One change is for the bank to recruit some of its most persistent critics from the World Development Movement, from Oxfam and from some of the non-governmental organisations in this country to advise how it can reach and involve the people who share the greatest concern.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth ladies. Britain gives a unique input. We cannot do any other, because we are unique in having the Commonwealth, with 51 nations at all levels of development. At any Commonwealth gathering, we learn directly from people we know and trust precisely what the individual problems are.
I have just been to Jamaica, Barbados and St. Lucia, three islands in the West Indies which are at quite different stages of development—[HON. MEMBERS:
102
"Bananas."] I learned quite a lot about bananas, and I now know that there are big differences in the views on bananas held in the Windward Islands, in St. Lucia and in Jamaica. There is not necessarily an overall solution for helping each country. Having the Commonwealth makes us unique in the world, and therefore able to make a much greater contribution in aid and development.
We are also unique in having the Commonwealth Development Corporation. The agencies that are available to other countries must envy us the CDC. It has £1.5 billion of investment, 40 per cent. of which is in sub-Saharan Africa. I suspect that most hon. Members here have seen Commonwealth Development Corporation schemes in countries that would otherwise get no inward investment.
The corporation's schemes prove that one can have a successful, profitable investment in countries that would not attract private investment. The corporation can give the lead in how to invest, and because it has extended terms and does not demand immediate commercial returns, it can encourage the people in those countries and those who work on the projects to see that they can make a real success of a whole range of issues.
There is an endless debate about how best to focus one's aid programme. The Labour party has focused on personal services, which are important. However, time after time, one has seen schemes in different countries, such as health schemes in Tanzania and in Ethiopia, which are not sustainable by the country's economy once the aid programme has finished. One has seen operating theatres and drug schemes that cannot be sustained unless one continuously gives aid.
We must strike a balance between direct personal services which can be sustained by the country concerned—that does not necessarily mean building a western-type hospital—and infrastructure which, in my judgment, is even more important in enabling a country to produce for itself.
In Kenya, a road that many who work with the aid budget would argue was not poverty relief has linked a series of villages and farms to the airport in Nairobi. That has resulted in us being able to get Kenyan beans at any time from any supermarket in Britain. The Kenyans have been able to utilise their climate for a wider development of agriculture, to their overall benefit.
Anyone who knows Mozambique, for which we cannot claim any responsibility as we were not the colonial power, knows that infrastructure is essential. One can waste so many resources in trying to get from A to B. One cannot go from the north to the south in Mozambique without taking to the sea, taking to the air or driving through three other countries. It is an important element of poverty relief to look at how one can design a basic economy that enables people to succeed.
Sub-Saharan African countries are often impoverished because of their inability to trade with one another. Apart from Nigeria and Ethiopia, most of the 55 countries in Africa have small populations and cover huge areas. Most have a distinct inability to trade with the others. The overall level of trade between one sub-Saharan African country and the others is about 5 per cent., whereas in this country and the rest of Europe, the equivalent figure is nearer 70 per cent.
We need to look critically not just at the micro-level of personal services, but at the macro-level, and at how one develops an infrastructure which allows sub-Saharan

103
Africa, about which we all care because it is the worst part of the world and the one that is slipping back, to develop. We need to balance personal services and the sustainability and development of the economy in which we are interested, so that the people can re-direct their own resources, having got the debt relief.
From our know-how fund to eastern Europe, we can see that, once one has the infrastructure, the transfer of know-how can be enormously beneficial and easy, thus giving a great deal of added value for a relatively small amount. Harare in Zimbabwe is twinned with my town, and as a result, we are able to give direct technical assistance in all sorts of ways which produces a higher standard for Harare, with relative ease. All those issues need to be looked at carefully.
The hon. Member for Eccles also did not mention our reputation for disaster relief. This country gives a higher proportion of its aid in disaster relief than other countries do, mainly because we are good at it. We can act quickly and effectively in all sorts of situations.
Last month, we gave assistance for fire victims in Burma, food distribution to survivors of a volcanic eruption in Cape Verde, flood relief in India, and even 15,000 goats for the agricultural rehabilitation programme in Eritrea, a country that has caused us concern for a long time. We should give credit to the Overseas Development Administration for its disaster relief programme, and we should recognise, yet again, that we give a lead. We should be proud of that, and should not niggle about it.
Hon. Members have referred to the proportion of aid that goes to the poorest countries. Over the years, it is remarkable how aid has helped the development of countries that have the potential to become countries that can give. I am sure that the aid we are currently giving to Vietnam and Cambodia will fall into that category.
The combined resources of the 15 countries of the European Union, through the European development fund, can do a great deal more in terms of infrastructure than can be done by 15 bilateral programmes. Again, Britain gives a lead, because of its experience and because of its links with the Commonwealth, in directing the aid programme and in giving an input of knowledge that will, one hopes, make the programme better.
The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs produced a report on the balance of European aid, multilateral aid and bilateral aid. Of course we support the quality of our bilateral aid programme, but we should realise that it is essential that our Ministers should ensure that the money that goes to the European Union has a similar, but greater, effect, because there is an accumulation of funds from 15 countries. Exactly the same point applies in the United Nations, where we are among the strongest supporters of the multilateral programmes for which the UN is responsible.
Britain gives a lead in all these issues, and we shall continue to give a lead. Many of us recognise that the transfer of resources and aid is an essential element of Britain's leadership and international position. We shall be vigilant in ensuring that the British Government, whichever party is in power, maintain an effective and good aid programme. To many of us, that programme has great significance, and we have devoted a great deal of our parliamentary careers to supporting it.
8.48 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: This is an important and welcome debate, which has been treated seriously, as befits a subject addressing the needs of a very large number of people across the world. In every speech so far, we have heard that more than 1 billion people in the third world live in absolute poverty, but we should not forget that 1.5 billion people lack access to health care, and 1.75 billion people are without clean water.
Those figures illustrate the depth of poverty we need to address in our policies on overseas aid. We must remember, however, that behind those unimaginably vast figures lie individual people—families, children, men and women with the same human feelings as our constituents and our own family members. We have to hold on to that thought in addressing these issues, because, in a way, the very large figures that we put about almost mask the reality of what happens to those individuals in their own communities.
It has been said that, although we do what we can to alleviate such abject poverty, at the end of the day it is not our problem. I suspect that all hon. Members have heard constituents—albeit a minority of them—make that case. It is simply not true, and I shall give three examples why.
First, to put it in brutal economic terms, poor people cannot provide new markets for our goods. Secondly, third-world problems also feed first-world problems. For example, I do not believe that we can expect a country such as Colombia to be able to stop effectively the narcotics trade when its farmers cannot afford to grow other crops and the state cannot afford to tackle a multi-million—indeed, multi-billion—pound international trade.
Thirdly, poverty breeds war. Increasingly in the modern world, war can touch all of us economically, but—potentially even more important—it can also touch us through the use of nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry. Yet it remains the case that the struggle of developing countries to overcome such problems is too often overwhelmed by the struggle to repay debt to the developed world, and to maintain essential trade.
So overseas aid is crucial. Indeed, it would be better if we talked about it as overseas investment in the future—an investment to turn countries round, to our mutual advantage—and not as aid which, in some sense, is charitable and which we could withdraw if we so chose. Overseas aid is fundamental to the interests of this country as well as crucial to the fight against poverty.
Appropriately and sensitively targeted and delivered aid, often through non-governmental organisations, and always—I hope—delivered in co-operation with the people in need, can be of substantial benefit. As such, the British public have again and again showed their support for helping the world's poor.
The public's generous response to famine and poverty has been contrasted too often, although not always—I do not deny that the Government have measures of which they can be proud and it would be foolish and unhelpful to deny that—with the self-interested attitudes of the UK Government, which have undermined the overseas aid effort. Britain's record of overseas aid has not been the endless story of good news that Ministers have suggested.
The truth is that neither Conservative nor Labour Governments have kept their commitment to move towards the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross

105
national product for official development assistance. Instead, we have consistently managed a figure lower than the European Union average and, in 1993, British aid amounted to just 0.28 per cent. of GNP.
I say to Ministers—and, indeed, to the Labour Front-Bench team—that, if they have no intention of delivering the commitment, they should have the honesty to say so, and the courage to explain it. I do not think that it does anybody any good if it is a mythical target that is so far from being achieved, and which is utterly impractical, given present Government policy and decisions in the spending round. It certainly does not help to feed those people who need feeding.
While the figures are important, I agree with the Minister that the quality as much as the quantity of aid is crucial. I want to concentrate on the effectiveness of British aid.
Too often, Governments, especially this Government, have elevated commercial objectives above humanitarian and development objectives: first, by tying two thirds of aid to purchases from Britain; secondly, by failing to target aid sufficiently on the poorest nations; thirdly, by linking aid to arms purchases and failing to encourage good Government; fourthly, by failing to promote sustainable development. I shall illustrate why I believe that that is the case. There is plenty of evidence to support those claims.
Much British aid is tied to purchases from Britain. The OECD analysis in 1991 showed that 72 per cent. of British aid was tied, compared to an international average of 33 per cent. Similarly, in 1992, 67 per cent. of British bilateral aid was tied, compared to an international average of 40 per cent. In being tied to purchases that the developing country often does not need—indeed, sometimes has no use for—such assistance fails to reduce poverty or promote sustainable development.
Mr. Baldry rose—
Mr. Taylor: I shall develop that point and give way to the Minister in a moment. I wanted to refer to the 1993 OECD report, which said:
"tied aid procurement can mean that recipients pay on average 15 per cent. above prevailing prices for goods that may not correspond to development priorities."
Mr. Baldry: I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman could cite any overseas development project announced in the past year which he thinks should not have been allowed. Will he tell the House, and make it clear which projects the ODA has taken forward in the past year and he feels should not have been taken forward?
Mr. Taylor: The first part of my answer to the Minister is that I am looking at the history of this Government. If he is conceding that mistakes have been made in the past and that errors are now being corrected, I would agree with him. As the Minister knows, the essential issue is the competing options, and to give the Minister the answer that he is asking for would be to say that one project in itself had no value.
That may not be the case, but there are opportunities to make still better use of resources, in particular for aid to be targeted at local communities—for example, to support non-governmental organisations' pioneering work in
106
helping women within those communities. They bear many of the problems to which I have referred in developing countries.
Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Gentleman has cast a gross slur on British companies, which have done such useful and excellent value-for-money work in third-world countries. It is incumbent upon him to state the exact name of a company that he believes is ripping off a third-world country. I do not accept that he could name one.
Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Lady is suggesting that aid and trade have never been abused, I cite the examples of helicopters sold to India and the Pergau dam. The simple fact is that there are plenty of such examples, but I will not bore the House with them. The hon. Lady has missed the point if she thinks that I am attacking British companies, which understandably take advantage of whatever opportunities they can. I am attacking Government policy. The hon. Lady should understand that.
The aid and trade provision, which is part of our aid programme, was established under the previous Labour Government. It gives a small number of British companies subsidies to compete for contracts in developing countries. That provision has been particularly destructive. ATP accounted for 9 per cent. of Britain's bilateral aid in 1993 and lay behind the Pergau dam scandal. That scandal exposed the fundamental problem with ATP, because it is dominated by the needs of British business, but funded from the ODA budget. That reveals an internal conflict. The needs of British business should be removed from the ODA budget.
Tying aid to trade does not necessarily benefit either the donor or even the recipient economy. The "ATP synthesis evaluation study", conducted by the ODA and the Department of Trade and Industry, found that
"none of the projects evaluated in 1990 benefitted the poorest social groups directly to any great extent."
That is my point. Those projects may have provided some benefits, but they were not directed at those most in need, who were not placed high enough up the priority scale.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Taylor: I will not give way. I have already done so several times, and the point is clear.
Another ODA-DTI study of ATP-supported projects found that
"very few real economic benefits for the UK economy as a whole appear to have been realised in practice."
There is everything to be said for helping our industries and our businesses to obtain contracts, but that is the job of the DTI and should not be funded from the ODA budget. The Government must tackle unemployment and the needs of industry through better economic policies at home and not by raiding the aid provision, which is intended for the poorest people in the world.
The Government have admitted that just 10.7 per cent. of bilateral aid went on basic needs in 1992–93. In 1994, the Development Assistance Committee review of British aid showed that just 6 per cent. of bilateral aid to low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa went towards education and social services in 1991. I believe that the principle of aid must be to make it work for the individ-

107
uals in developing countries who most need it. That means developing education, health, telecommunications and the infrastructure.
More development assistance should be devoted to improving investment opportunities in developing countries, particularly for local enterprises.
Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Taylor: No, I will not, as I have already done so several times.
Those local opportunities are often not realised, simply because of a lack of knowledge and technical expertise. Technical assistance should therefore be supported and expanded through the work of organisations such as the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Taylor: I have given way several times. I would be criticised more for speaking for too long than for not giving way. I hope that the hon. Lady may have a chance to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The problems with the Government's provision of overseas aid reach beyond its quantity and the conditions imposed. If we look at the countries that benefit from our aid provision, the evidence is equally disturbing. Despite the Government's commitment to concentrate aid on the poorest countries, in 1988, just 69 per cent. of Britain's bilateral aid was allocated to the 50 poorest nations. There seems to be a tenuous link between a country's income per head and the amount of aid it receives. The neediest countries are not receiving the most aid. In 1992–93, only three of the top eight recipients of aid were UN-defined least-developed nations.
Whatever the Government say about the link with arms, the simple fact is that, instead of a correlation between aid and those countries in the greatest need, there appears to be a growing correlation between the failure to direct more aid to the poorest nations and arms contracts.
Oman, whose GNP per capita is more than $6,000—higher than that of aid-giving Portugal—has seen its aid double during the lifetime of the Government. In 1994, however, it ranked third largest in the list of purchasers of arms from Britain.
Although Ecuador, Colombia and El Salvador share the same level of poverty, in 1994 Ecuador received five times as much aid as Colombia, and eight times as much as El Salvador. The difference is that Ecuador was also the fifth largest purchaser of British arms.
Even more striking is the case of Indonesia. Our aid programme to it has quadrupled under the Government, while it has become the fourth largest purchaser of British arms—despite Ministers' commitment to promote good government through aid. Since 1975, when Indonesia invaded its neighbour East Timor, a third of the latter's population—20,000 people—have been killed. Surely we should be suspending aid and putting pressure on the Indonesian Government, instead of backing a regime with precious aid in what appears to be a response to massive arms sales.
The development projects promoted by British bilateral aid should have one other key feature built into them. They should be tied to environmentally sustainable, as
108
well as economically and socially beneficial, projects. At present, the majority of aid is targeted on large-scale capital-intensive projects which perpetuate existing social inequality and accelerate the deterioration of the environment.
The Government promote environmentally damaging projects such as the Pergau dam, and the environmental awareness that is developing at home—I acknowledge the progress that the Government have made in that respect—is not matched by an environmental awareness in our overseas development projects, or in our approach to development internationally.
If we are to have a genuinely sustainable world economy, there is no question but that the bulk of the environmental problems must be tackled in the developed nations. The developing nations have a right to expect the kind of social benefits which come from economic development, but such development in itself will have an impact on the environment unless two things happen.
First, developments must be directed specifically towards environmentally sustainable projects, and that must be a part of our aid package. This country must recognise that we not only have to bear the costs of sustainability at home, but that we must also help developing countries bear the costs. We have been the beneficiaries of the pollution until now, and we therefore owe those countries that much.
Secondly, we must recognise that to allow development abroad, we have to go even further at home in tackling pollution than would be the case if pollution was shared equally and globally. Those countries have not caused the pollution or benefitted from the development. They cannot be expected to bear the costs in the same way as we must.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. There are four hon. Members who wish to speak in the time remaining before the winding-up speeches. I would appreciate it if speeches were kept short, so that all four might be called.
9.6 pm
Miss Emma Nicholson: I am most grateful for the opportunity to put a few points.
I support the Government amendment and strongly oppose the rag-bag of items that make up the Opposition motion. The Opposition forget that, during the past decade and a half, the socialist policies that their motion reflects have been discarded by nearly every Government in the world. The primacy of the market for freedom and wealth creation has a long tradition in the Conservative party, and I believe that we have also made one notable convert in the present leader of the Labour party.
Tonight the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) led for the Opposition with passion and with a commitment to overseas aid. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, who is still with us although he is not listening. Despite the passionate commitment of those hon. Members, they were just rotating old and outdated statements that bore little relationship to the reality of today's overseas aid programme, the results of which I have seen on the ground in many nations of the world.

109
The hon. Member for Truro talked about the need to help the poorest of the poor, but he wholly overlooked the fact that some of the poorest of the poor live in some of the better-off nations, and they are helped by our aid programme. Things are not always what they seem. We can give money to the poorest of the poor nations—in terms of how poverty is identified internationally—yet still not create the job opportunities on which economic development and the future of families rests.
I was saddened that both Opposition spokesmen made statements such as, "We must give more aid for primary education, health and so on." Surely we should try to use British aid to create jobs that will enable people to cope with their own lives. The Government have achieved that objective quite superbly in the past 15 years.
I pay special tribute to a very successful part of the Foreign Office, and formerly part of the British overseas aid programme, the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I did not hear Opposition spokesmen pay tribute to the corporation's job-creation activities. It distributes a rotating loan package of almost £1.5 billion to more than 47 different nations around the world. Why did the Opposition spokesmen ignore that wonderful job-creation programme, which has been in place since 1947?
Mr. George Foulkes: The hon. Lady may have missed the fact that we spoke in favour of the Commonwealth Development Corporation legislation when it was considered by the House, and there may be further legislation of that sort in the future. I think that it is a case of horses for courses.
Miss Nicholson: I was delighted to take part in that debate and to pay tribute to the Commonwealth Development Corporation. However, I was very surprised that Opposition Members, with their constant bleating about old-style socialist policies—moan, moan, moan—failed to acknowledge that great British success story. I hope that the Government are projecting that bilateral partnership between Britain and individual developing nations as something that other nations should copy.
The Government's amendment concentrates on the essentials. One of the most important points is that aid must not be a crutch; it must be a means of creating better societies and enabling people to look after themselves. Aid must be used to assist societies to improve their long-term means of production and economic benefits. Quality aid is essential, and I am fortunate to have seen many of the Overseas Development Administration's quality programmes in operation.
I return to the supposed statement by the Foreign Secretary to which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred. She attempted to denigrate his statement that, as more than half of Britain's aid now goes to the European Union and other multilateral organisations internationally, British aid becomes less and less identifiable as such. The Foreign Secretary is correct, if he did indeed make that statement. Every single barrel or boatload of ECO aid—the emergency aid of the European Union—must be labelled with the European Union's logo. The Foreign Secretary is correct to say that more of our aid is being spent through multilateral organisations, including the European Union.
I have had some experience of European Union aid provision, and I hold it in very high regard. I hope that Britain will play a larger part in the multilateral
110
organisations through which some of our aid is being spent. I draw the Minister's attention yet again, in the name of education and culture, to the need to rejoin UNESCO. This year is the 50th anniversary of the United Nations and the anniversary of Britain's founding of UNESCO.
The quality of British aid is exemplified by the Conservative amendment and by the work of the ODA. I am glad that, through the Government, we have brought our influence to bear in the cause of good governance internationally. Opposition Members should not be so critical of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank; I am pleased that our Government have been at the forefront of securing alterations in the way in which World bank money and International Monetary Fund influence is being used to create better governance in the countries that we attempt to assist.
There is certainly much more to be done, but this evening I urge hon. Members to discard the rag-bag of items proposed by Opposition spokesmen and to give the Government's amendment their whole-hearted support.
9.14 pm
Mr. Mike Watson: Judging from Conservative Members' responses, it appears that my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) touched a few raw nerves—some of them protest too much.
The Minister said that there are rumours of a global aid funding crisis, but the Government do not recognise it as such. How can he say that when, in 1993, for the first time in 20 years, aid from the richest nations to the poorest suffered a significant drop of some 6 per cent. or $5 billion? That represents a global aid funding crisis, as it shows that aid available is on a downward spiral.
The OECD investment assistance committee recognised that downward spiral and noted:
"The painful irony of the current situation"—
the reduction in aid—
"is that many developing countries could now use more aid, and use it well because they have been doing more than ever to help themselves."
It is unfortunate that the current figures mean that less aid will be available to developing countries.
Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Watson: I shall not give way, as others are waiting to speak.
The debate is about United Kingdom aid, and it is important to focus on that. I agree with the Minister that aid as a proportion of the United Kingdom's gross national product has remained stable at 0.31 per cent., but that is hardly a reason for self-congratulation, bearing in mind that the United Nations target is 0.7 per cent. Although we do not exactly expect the Government to reach that target in one Parliament, they have a duty to outline how they plan to move towards it.
Conservative Members asked about Labour's position. It is fair to say that we recognise the United Nations target, but as the total aid budget is £2.5 billion, or less than half that target, it is not feasible to add 55 or 60 per cent. on to that in five years of government. Although non-governmental organisations may not like hearing that from a Labour Member of Parliament, we have to be realistic and set out a plan so that we can move towards achieving the target. The Labour party will certainly carry

111
that commitment into the next election. It will be welcome, as it will reverse the trend and for that reason it will be put in positive terms.
I accept the Minister's figures on total United Kingdom aid, but he failed to tell us that, between 1992–93 and 1993–94, the volume of United Kingdom aid to developing countries fell by some £50 million. The plans outlined in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office departmental report showed that British aid to developing countries, far from moving towards the target to which I referred, is likely to decline as a percentage of national income over the next few years—all right hon. and hon. Members would deprecate that.
It is important to place United Kingdom aid in the international context, just days after the G7 summit that considered such matters. I have seen the communiqué from Halifax, which contains some encouraging aspects. Obviously the renewed commitment of G7 countries to sustainable development and the realisation that extreme poverty and marginalisation of the poorest countries is not compatible with the general prosperity and security of the world as a whole is welcome. It also pleasingly acknowledged the particular problems faced by sub-Saharan Africa—a subject on which I have spoken at some length in the past. There are also calls for donors to meet their commitments to International Development Association 10 and that is needed, as is a significant replenishment of IDA 11.
The communiqué contained good ideas and intentions, but failed to say how the countries involved would achieve them. It set out no strategy to meet the policy that has been adopted. It did not mention achieving or approaching the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP, so we have to question its effectiveness.
President Chirac of France, who should be an ally of the Government, at least in ideological terms, criticised in quite florid language the "immoral" shrinking of the United Kingdom aid budget when the United Kingdom is calling for more humanitarian assistance throughout the world. I hope that the Government will eventually respond to that criticism: coming, as it does, from a like-minded person, it carries considerable weight. I hope that the Minister will refer to it later.
The Lome mid-term review financial negotiations are currently stalled—a matter of concern to anyone with an interest in overseas aid. There is to be a summit at Cannes towards the end of June, as the French presidency comes to its conclusion. Do the Minister and his colleagues intend to try to break the deadlock, so as to agree the financial resources for the eighth European development fund, which supports the Lome convention?
Surely Foreign Ministers at that summit must agree the compromise proposed by the French presidency, which would still fall short of what the ACP countries want. They want 15 becu; the French proposal is for about 14.3 becu. The United Kingdom and German Governments are arguing for a cut in their contributions, which would mean that the eighth EDF would amount to only 12 becu, which is only a small increase on the seventh. That would be scandalous, but it describes the point at which the talks have stalled.
What does the Minister think the United Kingdom can do at the summit to break the deadlock; what initiatives does he plan to take? Contributions to the EDF are
112
voluntary, whereas the Edinburgh summit committed EU member states to significant increases in their payments to other parts of the world—especially eastern Europe. I do not want to take away any money from eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union—I want democracy to be entrenched there. The key to the issue is how to ensure that help for those countries is not given at the expense of the poorest countries.
Like some of my hon. Friends, I should like less money to be spent on multilateral aid and more to be retained for the bilateral aid budget. Certainly, there is a fine line to be drawn. We must face up to our responsibilities towards the ACP countries, however, and we must try to break the logjam.
The Foreign Affairs Select Committee noted in its report on European Union aid last year that EC aid spending is better focused on poverty than are UK bilateral aid projects.
One other point has not been given much consideration this evening, but it is important to our overall aid strategy. I refer to the impact of aid on the lives of women in the developing world. I read in the part of the Government expenditure plans relating to the ODA that one of the latter's aims is to promote the status of women, but I looked through 40 or so pages of the report on the ODA and found only a short reference to what it is doing for women—about £80 million-worth of aid goes in their direction. There is but scant detail of what the money has been used for. Despite the lofty aim of promoting the status of women, there is little evidence that it is being achieved.
I find it strange that there is so little detailed information on how the strategy is to be taken forward. About a year ago, I received a publication—one of a series of development priorities guidelines—entitled "Women's Issues in Developing Countries". It includes six detailed points on how a gender strategy might be implemented. Owing to the lack of time, I shall not go into them. The document is published by the British Council, which administers quite a lot of aid project work on behalf of the ODA. The document sets out a clear strategy, and in 1992 the British Council appointed a women-in-development officer. The guidance, too, is clear, as are its annual reports on the impact of the projects on the lives of women, yet the ODA appears unable to come up with such detail.
Mr. Baldry: The annual report submitted to the Overseas Development Administration contains a chapter dedicated entirely to the subject of empowering women.
Mr. Watson: I have not seen the report to which the Minister refers. I have, however, asked for clarification, which so far has not been forthcoming.
Mr. Baldry: It is the annual report.
Mr. Watson: I am talking about expenditure plans for the forthcoming year, about which there is little detail. That is unfortunate. I shall certainly refer to the document to which the Minister has drawn my attention. I thank him for so doing.
We must recognise that women comprise about 70 per cent. of the world's poorest people and that they do most of the work. In many ways, they seriously lack economic, social and political opportunities to enable them to improve their lives. I should like the aid programme to place more emphasis on their unfortunate position.

113
It is difficult in such a short time to cover some of the other issues that have been raised in the debate. I wish, of course, to allow other hon. Members to contribute to it.
The overblown reaction of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) to the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, demonstrated that the Government are a little touchy on overseas aid. They need not be so. The motion is constructive. It shows that the Labour party has a positive agenda on the way in which we develop aid.
It is clear, however, that we and the Government have different priorities. One of our priorities will be to establish a separate department of international development. We shall return to 1976–79, when there was a separate department for overseas development. That will underscore the importance that an incoming Labour Government will give to overseas aid. A separate department could be introduced at remarkably little additional cost to the Exchequer. I do not want the Government to throw up the argument that a separate department could not be introduced for reasons of cost.
Status must be given to the overseas aid programme. It should not be regarded as a branch line of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The current overseas aid programme is, unfortunately, lacking in status. We should focus on it by entrusting it to a Cabinet Minister, who should have his or her own department. There should be a Select Committee with responsibilities for overseas aid and a specific question time so that relevant issues could be considered in greater detail. I am sure that that approach would prove universally popular. It reflects a policy that the Labour party will introduce when in government. I commend it to the House.
9.27 pm
Lady Olga Maitland: The Government have nothing to apologise for given their enormous commitment to overseas aid. Year on year, they have increased resources devoted to our aid programme, and have done so during a period in which we have had to keep our eye on public spending. We have had a tight economic schedule in recent years. It is remarkable that, in the past year, the Government have increased their spending on aid by £115 million. A total budget of £2.2 billion cannot be insignificant.
I am sorry that the Opposition find it extremely difficult to acknowledge the enormous amount of work that the Government have done on overseas aid. It seems that they are ignoring the praise that the Government have received from other areas. The OECD noted:
"The UK bilateral programme is highly concessional and well organised … based on substantial national expertise and largely orientated towards the poorest countries."
Surely it would be hard to find a better statement than that from the Government's point of view.
The Opposition say that we are failing in the commitment to which we all aspire to raise aid spending to the target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product. They suggest that we are alone in not reaching that target. It has already been said that many other countries have fallen way below the level of aid spending that we have
114
achieved. The House should be referred to the comments of my noble Friend the Minister of State, Baroness Chalker, who said:
"No one would thank us for putting ourselves in hock to the IMF by such spending as is boasted about by some Members of the Labour Opposition."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 June 1992; Vol. 538, c. 431.]
I do not wish to spend any more time commenting on the Opposition, because there is so much to be positive about when drawing attention to the Government's achievements.
It is admirable that we have set aside considerable resources for aid and that we are ensuring that they are directed to the areas where they will have most effect. It is important not only to ensure that it is effective but that it is well delivered, that it goes through the non-governmental organisations, which are best placed to facilitate us in that regard, and that we use agencies in this country, which are best placed to help us.
If my hon Friend the Minister will forgive me, I shall draw the attention of the House for a moment to the Crown Agents, whose expertise stretches back more than 100 years. A Bill is now going through Parliament to give the Crown Agents greater independence to carry out its work in future. The truth is that the Crown Agents is a flagship for British aid overseas, serving 150 countries. Within its procurement programme, the Overseas Development Administration forms its largest customer.
The Crown Agents has undoubtedly set a great seal on its achievements by the superb work that it has done in facilitating aid in Bosnia. It has not only delivered value but has provided dedication, commitment and extremely brave ODA workers, six of whom have gained an award for their valour in extremely difficult times. That is an example of British aid overseas. We should be proud of what we are delivering. We should be proud of the fact that, throughout the world, countries come here to seek expertise, dedication and a knowledge that is second to none about how to put it into action.
9.30 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: At the start of the debate, we had the unusual privilege of welcoming the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to the debate. He is not with us at the moment, but it is unusual for him to lead off one of the debates on aid. It is rather unfortunate that the principal aid Minister is not in the House of Commons, and even more unfortunate that she is not in the Cabinet.
Mr. Watson: I wonder whether my hon. Friend saw a report in The Sunday Times, which said that the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell), who commenced the Fresh Start group and held an important meeting last week, has apparently offered himself to the Prime Minister as a future overseas aid Minister? Would that not be one way of getting around this problem? Having said that, if he did travel overseas, would it not be best that he stayed there?
Mr. Foulkes: I am not an avid reader of The Sunday Times, but I know that there would be some awful prospects if some hon. Members became overseas aid Ministers. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Eddisbury would welcome elevation to the Cabinet and promotion to the post of overseas aid Minister.

115
We also had the rather unedifying experience, for the Opposition, of being preached at by the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). I shall try not to be distracted by their lectures to myself and my colleagues.
Considering the somewhat calamitous events that have been afflicting the Government, particularly the proceedings earlier this evening, the Government might have been lulled into a mistaken belief that this debate would be a respite for them. The truth is that overseas development is yet another area in which they have abjectly failed.
In the past, debates on development have usually been seen as a chance for the Government and the Opposition—indeed, we have seen some of it again tonight—to throw conflicting figures at each other; our own sometimes at the request of the NGO community who, justifiably, want to help a developing world that is crippled by poverty, and Conservative figures tending to come from a frustrated Treasury that is rather keen to boost the bank balance and to bribe voters in the forthcoming general election, which cannot be too far away.
The right hon. Member for Eddisbury again stood at the Dispatch Box and tried to convince us how wonderful British aid is and of the poverty that is being reduced, but my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) successfully and with great sincerity managed to inform the House and the Minister of the facts, the real problems that confront more than 1 billion people every day of their lives. The Government do not seem to realise—I do not include all Conservative Members purposely—the gravity of the situation that faces more than one fifth of the population of the planet. We Labour Members, as democratic socialists, say that there can be no retreat from our responsibilities as citizens of the world. We know that the Conservatives have somewhat different priorities, but I do not feel at all embarrassed about repeating ours.
The Government's aid programme over the past 16 years has been widely attacked. Recent reports from many aid organisations refute the statements and figures given by Lady Chalker and repeated again and again by her stooges tonight. The reality is not, as Lady Chalker stated in The House Magazine, that Britain has one of the largest and most efficient aid programmes; the reality is that aid has been cut chronically, diverted dogmatically from those who really need it and politically perverted to further privatisation, arms sales and rewarding the Government's supporters through the aid and trade provision programme that they have suborned and manipulated.
Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman has been trying to intervene for a long time. I will give way, although I may regret it.
Mr. Cash: I am grateful. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in Uganda, where President Museveni has shone like a beacon in connection with the whole question of development in the third world, his privatisation projects are proving increasingly successful? Furthermore, he has just announced proposals to ensure that the people of his country operate on a basis of lower inflation. Do not
116
those proposals—which are dramatic by any standards—demonstrate that policies carried out by a highly respected and extremely efficient Government can produce very good results?
Mr. Foulkes: I believe that such countries will increasingly come to realise that, although privatisation can be helpful when there is real competition, the privatisation of utilities that are natural monopolies can create tremendous problems, and has done in this country. I fear that the problems in the developing countries will be even greater than our problems of rising prices and people at the top ripping off the utilities. I do not wish to be diverted, however; I want to concentrate on poverty, which must be the central focus of our aid programme.
It is admirable that Ministers—including the Under-Secretary of State who will reply to the debate, and the Minister for Overseas Development herself—visit Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa and Swaziland, but why the delay? Why do those countries receive so little of our bilateral aid? The 1994 Development Assistance Committee of the OECD has pointed out to the Government that our aid programme is not poverty-focused—but perhaps Ministers are spending too much time visiting countries to read the criticisms contained in OECD reports.
The 1994 ODA statistics show us the Government's idea of poverty focus. The Minister referred my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) to that report; if he looks at it again, he will see which countries are receiving assistance from the United Kingdom—Bermuda, the Bahamas, Indonesia, Malaysia, China and Nigeria. Those are not countries in abject poverty; that is not a poverty focus for our aid programme.
Moreover, the four last-named countries have appalling human rights records. I have just received a letter from the daughter of Chief Abiola. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) spoke of a record of good government; I wonder if we really have such a good record of ensuring that the countries to which we give aid provide examples of good government.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) mentioned Indonesia. Is that a country with good government? No. I think that we have some way to go before we can be happy that our aid programme really supports good government.
Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foulkes: No.
British aid is not targeted on those who need it most. The projected cuts in future budgets will further squeeze sub-Saharan Africa, with the aid budget set to fall by £116 million over the next two years. The mere fact that the ODA's seven development objectives were headed by economic reform, with poverty reduction only at No. 4, shows the lack of emphasis given to poverty in the Government's programme.
I now turn to the question of bilateral versus multilateral aid, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central and others. The continuing drastic decline in the bilateral aid budget is consistently blamed on our increasing multilateral commitment. We heard that again in the debate.

117
Regrettably and appallingly, in recent months the aid budget has been used as a bargaining chip with European Union Ministers in the Lome negotiations. Ministers embarrassed our African, Caribbean and Pacific colleagues and our European partners by proposing a cut of 29 per cent. in our Lome contribution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central said in an intervention, how does that correspond to the Edinburgh summit commitments? It completely contradicts them.
The Government say that they want to say no to Europe occasionally, but they should not do that in this area. Through the ACP countries, we give vital assistance to some of our former colonies, the countries about which the Minister spoke so highly in a debate on the Commonwealth. If the Government are to put their money where their mouth is, they should give more to that fund.
The Government's position has been a major obstacle to the replenishment of the European development fund. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles told the House, in March the Foreign Secretary told the Overseas Development Institute that the EDF was one of the better parts of European aid. I underline and repeat the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central in asking for a commitment from the Minister that at the Cannes council the Government will change their attitude on this matter.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) spoke about tied aid and the aid and trade provision. The use of tied aid by this country is not alien to the Labour party. We developed the principle when the aid budget was increasing and our predecessors thought that a small amount should be given to the ATP programme. But when the Tories took office, their priorities were industrial and commercial instead of developmental. That is how the ATP scheme was abused and corrupted by the Government. Their new rules have not even been adhered to. The restriction to countries with a $700 or less per capita income has already been broken. The plan to restrict the value of any project to £46 million has been diluted by the Government. They cannot even keep to the rules that they have set.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles spoke about debt. In answer to the hon. Member for Broxtowe, I can say that we accept what the Prime Minister did at Halifax in relation to gold stocks. That was a welcome step. It is nice to say something nice about the Prime Minister, although I may be one of the few people saying something nice about him these days. But as well as accepting our congratulations, he should accept our criticisms.
The debt of the developing world represents a staggering flow of aid, especially for the poorest countries of Africa. In a recent parliamentary answer to me, the Chancellor acknowledged that an 80 per cent. write-off of official bilateral debt owed to the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Overseas Development Administration by the poorest countries would cost approximately £750 million. But such a gesture would help crippled economies and would result in the economic growth that the Minister constantly cites as necessary for development. I hope that he will give some further commitment to writing off the debt of those countries.
In the context of emergency funding, recent events in Rwanda and Bosnia have shown the need for humanitarian aid. That is because of the lives that it saves. The escalation of the conflict in Bosnia has tended to obscure the reality that both British and United Nations involvement in the area was agreed to ensure the safe
118
delivery of humanitarian aid. Increasing pressure by the Republicans in the US Congress has demonstrated an all-too-familiar mix of ignorance and hypocrisy.
I do not know whether other hon. Members saw Congressman Bob Livingston, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, advocate withdrawal of all troops and the lifting of the embargo on arms sales to the Bosnian Muslims. Nothing could be more designed to put UNPROFOR personnel, once again, in immediate danger and usher in a major escalation of the war, which would result in death, destruction, hardship and suffering. That is the opposite of what is needed in Bosnia today. However, the need for humanitarian aid is without question, in Bosnia and elsewhere. We must resist the temptation to allow our contributions in that regard to take away from continuing development aid to help the poorest countries of world.
Finally, I shall deal with the crux of the matter—the 0.7 per cent. target. The British record over the past 16 years is despicable. I mentioned previously that figures would be thrown acrosg the Chamber. Let me correct the figures that have been thrown by Conservative Members.
I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesman that the 0.7 per cent. target set by the United Nations is realistic. Further, that target was close to fruition under the last Labour Government. In the five years that we had to implement the UN figure, we made significant progress towards it.
We inherited an aid programme that had been reduced to 0.36 cent. In only five years, the Labour Government brought the programme to a peak of 0.51 per cent. and rising. That record speaks for itself, but since then, successive Conservative Governments have cut the figure to 0.31 per cent. Those cuts are set to go further, with the budget expected to fall to its all-time low of 0.27 per cent. in the near future.
Government excuses no longer add up. We cannot have an economy that is, as we are told, doing well, yet, when we are legitimately asked to help the poorest countries in the world, be told that they must get less and less.
Figures based on GNP hide the loss in real terms. This figure has not been brought to the House before, but it is startling. Cash prices give no indication of the full extent to which the developing world has been damaged by the reductions. If we take all the reductions cumulatively from 1979 to 1993—the latest available figures—the cumulative total that has been lost to the third world is over £10 billion. What is the Minister going to do tonight to replace that money, which is owed to the poorest people in the developing world?
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, rightly, that outside the House, there are Churches, voluntary organisations and individuals whose compassion for the developing world continues. For them, there is no compassion fatigue. The fatigue is on the Government Benches. Tonight, we have seen no sign that there will be a regeneration while the Government remain in office. The only way that the developing world could expect a fair deal from Britain would be if the Labour party replaced the Tories on the Government Benches. That cannot come too soon for Britain or for the people of the third world.
9.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): It is always rather difficult to reconcile the

119
indignation and enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) with the emptiness of the Benches behind him. This is an Opposition supply day. When the hon. Member rose to reply for the Opposition, there were precisely four Labour Back Benchers, three Labour Front Benchers and two Liberal Democrats present. During his speech he has managed so to enthuse the House that we now have six Labour Back Benchers, five Labour Front Benchers and three Liberal Democrats.
The debate has established that a large number of Opposition Members have not acquainted themselves with the facts. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, admitted that he had not seen the annual report on overseas aid.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley said that we were giving money not to Commonwealth countries or poor countries but to affluent countries. If he reads the ODA annual report, he will see that we could not have set out the information more clearly. We put it in the form of bar charts, which could not be simpler. They show that, of the countries receiving aid, India receives £103 million; Bangladesh, Pakistan, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Uganda—
Mr. Foulkes: China.
Mr. Baldry: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should object to China, a large and very poor country, receiving development aid. It is right that it should do so. The charts clearly show that Commonwealth countries and poor countries are receiving large sums of United Kingdom aid.
Britain is maintaining a substantial aid programme. At £2.2 billion, it is now the fifth largest aid programme in the world. Hansard will show tomorrow that there was no willingness on the part of the Labour party to commit itself to spending any more. We heard many weasel words about what happened or might have happened under the previous Labour Government, but there was no suggestion that the Labour party would spend more than £2.2 billion, perhaps because even the Labour party recognises that it is a substantial sum. Indeed, the previous Budget announced further increases. For 1997–98, the aid programme provision is £115 million higher than the 1995–96 figures. That is proof of the Government's commitment to maintaining a substantial and effective aid programme.
The June 1994 figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development show that the United Kingdom was one of only seven countries to increase official aid in the preceding year. Our aid as a percentage of GNP is equal to the average for all donors. Of course, more than two thirds of our bilateral aid goes to the poorest developing countries, which is well above the average for all donors. Nine out of 10 of the biggest aid recipients are poor countries in Africa and Asia. The only exception is the former Yugoslavia, where Bosnia is the main recipient.
The quality of our aid is high. The OECD has recognised its effectiveness and its poverty focus, even if Opposition Members cannot. We have also led the way in promoting debt relief. We welcome the latest Paris Club
120
agreement, which fully implements the Trinidad terms, including the 67 per cent. stock of debt reductions as proposed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in 1990. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has recently launched initiatives on multilateral debt and, as was recognised by today's statement on the G7 report, the United Kingdom took the lead in Halifax on debt relief. We are also ensuring that not only Government money but private money is being invested in developing countries. Indeed, we are taking a lead in that area, too.
We have what is generally recognised across the world as a quality aid programme to help poor countries. We are the fifth largest aid donor but, to my mind, the size of our aid programme is by no means the only point to bear in mind. Our overseas development agencies are dedicated, practical and effective and the quality of their work is recognised world wide.
We have the fifth largest aid programme of £2.2 billion covering aid to developing countries, and that programme is increasing. That must be contrasted with what is happening elsewhere. Many other countries have frozen their aid programmes. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) read out a long list of countries that have reduced their aid budget, including Canada, Italy and Finland. The aid programmes of countries such as Germany and the United States have declined.
We, meanwhile, are managing to maintain our aid programme and we are showing the world that we can make a significant contribution. Our aid:gross national product ratio is almost exactly the same as the average of other countries. The Development Assistance Committee's 1994 figures will be published shortly. They will show that the UK is among the donors showing a real increase in aid in the two years before 1994.
Britain is not alone in facing the need to be responsible about public spending; other countries are in a similar position. We are managing to maintain a credible and sizeable aid programme. Volume, however, is not the only issue; one must also consider the quality of that programme. The quality of British aid is high. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) mentioned, the OECD has recognised and publicised our overseas development programme's effectiveness, poverty focus and growing emphasis on encouraging the private sector.
Forty per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Of course, the poorest countries of that region will continue to require substantial amounts of aid. Those countries have been and will continue to be a high priority for British aid, which is focused on the poorest countries. We must also ensure, however, that our aid programme is properly and satisfactorily balanced between multilateral and bilateral aid.
Until recently, about 40 per cent. of total resources were spent multilaterally and 60 per cent. bilaterally. The exact figure has varied from year to year, but things are set to change. For the first time, a majority of our aid will be spent multilaterally. Clearly, that is a matter of concern. That is why, when we negotiate on the next replenishment of the European development fund,. we must be conscious that every further pound that we spend multilaterally is one pound less that we spend bilaterally.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Baldry: No. The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question on the EDF which I am trying to answer.

121
Of course we shall continue to make a substantial contribution to the EDF programme. He prays in aid France. Of course it is in favour of the present EDF arrangements, because much of the EDF was geared to a situation that benefits former French colonies. Under the EDF, more money goes to Mauritius than to Bangladesh. We are seeking not only to ensure a substantial £1 billion-plus contribution to the EDF programme, but that we have a sizeable and responsive British bilateral programme.
It was Britain that initiated the Toronto terms, under which 20 countries enjoyed debt relief, it was Britain that proposed the Trinidad terms, and it is Britain that continues to take those forward.
We have had an aid programme of which we can all be proud. It is a sizeable aid programme. It is focused on poorer countries but, throughout the world, it is also doing fantastic work in disaster relief. One will find Overseas Development Administration personnel in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker is in Angola, where, again, British aid workers, just as in Rwanda, have been at the forefront of ensuring that relief, humanitarian supplies, water, food, medical aid and equipment reach people who require them. That, and not the World Development Movement brief, which has been constantly repeated this evening by the few Opposition Members who have spoken, is the reality of our aid programme.
Every hon. Member and everyone in this country can be proud of our sizeable programme. It is focused on the poorest; it is of high quality and high value, ensuring that Britain can give of its best throughout the world. I invite the House to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 287
Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House concerned by reports that one billion people throughout the world live in abject poverty, commends Her Majesty's Government's support for sustainable development and poverty alleviation through its support for economic reform, good government, and investment in people and productive capacity, as well as through direct action to provide the poor with opportunities to improve their lives; and urges the Government to pursue these policies with their development partners and multilateral agencies.

Gipsies (Essex)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
10.13 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the subject of gipsies in Essex. I commend the Government for introducing legislation in 1994 which gave local authorities and the police a great deal more power in dealing with a matter which has been a great problem for many years, particularly in the part of Essex that I represent.
The public clearly wanted something done about the menace of these itinerants, or gipsies, or didicois, or tinkers, or new age travellers, or mobile totters, which is what they are. There was a huge sigh of relief in November last year when the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act was finally passed, because it seemed as though something was to be done at last. We were grateful in the part of Thurrock and Billericay that I have the honour to represent.
These people have scant regard for the rights of others, and trespass en masse on people's property. The new legislation allows the police to take action if six or more caravans or lorries turn up on someone's private property. The Minister has sympathised with landowners and local communities because many householders have been affected and the value of their properties can be severely affected if they live near a piece of land that gipsies or travellers frequently visit. Power was given to the police to act with local authorities to deal with such invasions.
One my constituents—a Mr. Luck from Laindon—received a supportive reply from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is present tonight on the Front Bench. He said:
"We do not believe that it is right that a private landowner should always have to bear the sometimes onerous cost of using his civil remedies to evict unauthorised campers, particularly when the encampment causes intolerable nuisance to the local community."
I should like to pause here to congratulate my hon. Friend, who has an excellent track record in speaking up about this menace, not just for his constituents but for the whole country.
The hard-working and honest farmers in my constituency are not being given the back-up the legislation allows, and they are still being forced to bear the costs. Farmers are harassed and intimidated by these people and then left to clear up the appalling mess that they leave behind. The travellers break fences and leave trails of rubbish and worse—as a well-brought-up young woman, I would not wish to embarrass the House with a more detailed description, but it is extremely offensive for the farmers and very costly to clean up.
Before November 1994, it was up to the individual to get rid of travellers. Now, however, as a result of years of complaint, such trespassing has been recognised as a criminal offence under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. The police have been given discretionary powers to direct trespassers to leave land in cases where there are more than six vehicles or where there has been threatening or abusive behaviour. If the travellers fail to comply, they can be arrested and their vehicles and animals seized.
128
The problem is that in our part of Essex and East Anglia that does not appear to be happening. There are two sites in Thurrock where travellers can go, and we do not want a third. We have appealed, and the matter is being dealt with by the Department of the Environment. We do not want another site, because the people behave so appallingly. They are not even acceptable on the sites that have been made available for them because their standard of behaviour and conduct is so bad.
There has been very little diminution in the number of travellers in our part of the world. For example, in 1994 686 cases were reported. In January 1995—a year on—the figure had gone down by only a handful to 665 cases. On eight separate occasions this year, farmers in my region have asked the police to take action against the gipsies, as it is within their power to do, but the police have failed to do anything. Even Thurrock council, which is rather friendly to such people, has said that it is not prepared to try to get rid of the unauthorised campers. Some of the invasions have taken place on council land.
Those events precede the peak season for itinerants. They travel from southern Ireland, in particular, and spend their summer holidays visiting the tips in Essex. They collect and sort garbage and leave the detritus behind them on the fields. Essex is invaded by travellers in the summer, and we fear that the police may continue to refuse to deal with the problem.
I know that the matter would be addressed more appropriately to the Home Office than to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, but I will come to that point in a moment. There are two existing sites in my constituency for travellers. There are vacancies on those sites and they could apply to stay there. Thurrock council has provided quite good quality accommodation on the sites, but they are not acceptable to the travellers.
There is no evidence that providing a third site will have any impact on the current desperate situation. I therefore urge my hon. Friend not to follow that route. There is no truth in the theory that the more sites one provides the fewer problems there will be. It does not work like that. The travellers are so undisciplined and inconsiderate of everyone but themselves that they simply will not use the site. We therefore do not want to see another site established at Gammon field.
I believe that the argument that travellers should not be moved to those sites is redundant. The travellers are simply not acceptable—not even to Thurrock council, which I believe is over-friendly to itinerants. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) interrupts from a sedentary position. He supports the local Labour-controlled council, which we regard as one of the last outposts of Stalinism in our part of the world. It adopts an extremely soft attitude to people who appear to have no assets, which is not in tune with that of the majority of my constituents or of the hon. Gentleman.
I will outline two cases involving travellers. On 16 May, Mr. Robert Cole's farm was set upon by scavengers. The police were asked to take action, but they decided to do nothing. Mr. Cole had to resort to the legal system and, as a consequence, incurred a solicitor's fee, a process server's fee, a court issue fee, a commissioner's fee and a fee for the bailiffs, which came to a total of £500. The trespassers moved on only when the bailiffs moved in and

129
told them that the police would eventually be coming around. Quicker action by the police would have avoided wasting a great deal of Mr. Cole's time and money.
The travellers had left a great deal of rubbish behind and it cost £250 to clear the field. Those people are positively uncivilised in the way in which they move on and leave their garbage behind them. They do not even put it into black sacks; they simply leave their rubbish, including rented gas cylinders which they use to provide heating and lighting for their caravans, all over the field. Before the poor old farmer can milk his cows, shear his sheep, sow his corn or reap his barley, he must clear up the fields after those people.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Should we not ask the Minister why the people to whom my hon. Friend refers should be allowed to cause such extreme discomfort and aggravation to law-abiding citizens through their totally anti-social activities, which seem to enjoy more protection under the law than the bona fide law-abiding citizens who are affected by them? Should not the Minister address that issue? Were we not all led to believe that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 would help us to solve that problem?
Mrs. Gorman: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said. I know that he encounters such problems, because he represents a rural area. I give the Government credit for introducing the measure as part of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, but in many parts of the country it is not being implemented.
Another farmer in my constituency, Mr. Cooper, watched 24 caravans arrive at his farm in Cookoo lane. The police were asked to intervene, but again they were prepared to do nothing. As the powers are not mandatory, the police can choose whether or not to implement them. After the usual legal wrangling to get rid of the caravans, Mr. Cooper was left with a bill for £2,000 as 200 tonnes of rubbish had been left on his field. That is a perfect disgrace, not just for the farmer, but for those who live in the area.
Last Sunday, the travellers returned with their caravans and entered the land by force. Mr. Cooper had parked a large heavy cultivator across the entrance to the field so they broke in, which is another offence, and the farmer was once again left to phone the police, who were unwilling to deal with the matter. He spoke to the travellers, but he might just as well have been talking to wind as they were not interested until today, when he got a bailiff to talk to them.
We are discussing two issues. First, is there any sense in providing more sites for such people? I entirely disagree with that, as they are so badly behaved that they cannot even get on to the sites. The second issue involves the attitude of the police. That is a delicate problem, because the police naturally do not want to cause themselves more trouble if the travellers become stroppy and difficult, but I maintain that we have to be absolutely firm. The Government provided the power because it was such a popular measure.
Mr. Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend will recall that the amendment to the law was intended to give private landowners the same rights as councils, which have enormous resources, to move travellers on. The decision of the police not to enforce the
130
law returns private landowners to their position before the law was amended, so we might just as well not have amended it.
Mrs. Gorman: I entirely support what hon. Friend has said. That is exactly the position of farmers in my constituency.
I have it on the highest authority that the Association of Chief Police Officers is advising local forces in my area that action should be considered only in exceptional circumstances and that there is an expectation that all other remedies will have been tried before the police are prepared to intervene. As my hon. Friend has just said, that was exactly the position of farmers before the legislation.
The police seem unwilling to get involved, at least in East Anglia and Essex. The local National Farmers Union met the police in East Anglia, who made it clear that police forces intended using their discretionary powers only as the last resort, which I believe to be a negation of the Government's intention in giving them the power. The chief constable in Essex said, "We have to cover Brightlingsea and we have to send policemen to deal with the animal rights protestors." That is not good enough. The police were given that power and they should be using their manpower to help the farmers. If we had one or two good cases, the itinerants would go somewhere else; they might even, for a change, decide to behave like law-abiding citizens, although that would be a small miracle.
The NFU senior technical adviser said:
"I suspect that farmers and landowners will still be left to bear the brunt of the cost, time and stress involved in removing squatters from farmland through the Courts."
That is not acceptable and I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on it in his reply to the debate.
The news is not all bad. In some parts of the country, the police are taking up the authority which has been given to them. I am told that, in the Metropolitan area, Sir Paul Condon, the Metropolitan police commissioner, has set out a plan of action and a clear procedure so that farmers and landowners know exactly which button to push when the problem hits them. They have a sort of ARP notice—those of us old enough to remember the war will know that it stands for "air raid precaution"—to pin up in their barns, outlining the stages to go through and the police officers to call. Sir Paul has said explicitly that he is determined to see that the unauthorised vehicles and animals that these people bring on to land are removed. He is also insisting that local councils co-operate in their part of the job when the vehicles and animals are taken into custody. Obviously, they have to go somewhere.
Co-operation is therefore possible, but I am assured by many of my colleagues with rural constituencies that what they all hoped would be a happy ending to the problem is not materialising—certainly not in our part of the world. I should like all chief officers to do as the Metropolitan police have done and assure farmers that they will never again need to act alone. They must have the sort of back-up that Sir Paul Condon is advocating in the Metropolitan area.
We need more guidelines from the Home Office or the Department of the Environment. Although most of my complaint is directed at the lack of police activity in my area, I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that allowing more official sites to come on stream will not cure the

131
problem. We need more action on the part of the Government. I ask the Minister to try to give some idea to my farmers, and to those in other parts of the country, that the Government are determined to ensure that the powers that they have enacted and which are available to control this menace will be put into action.
Unless that happens, these people will pour into the country seasonally, acting like mobile totters—like Steptoe characters, picking over rubbish or offering their services to put down tarmac on drives. When they do that, they dump all the rubbish taken from people's drives on some hapless farmer's field. These people must be dealt with and made to act within the law of the land.
10.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on securing this debate. I am also delighted to see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who has tirelessly campaigned for his constituents on this and other issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay is concerned about instances where the police have not exercised their powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to deal with trespassers residing on land. I should make it clear at the outset that the enforcement of the law and the making of arrests are entirely operational matters for chief officers of police. They are not matters in which Ministers can intervene. However, what I can do is to explain to my hon. Friend and to the House what the relevant provisions of the Act can do.
Section 61 of the Act strengthens previous police powers to deal with trespass on land, and further assists the police in protecting landowners and local communities which suffer so badly from incursions on to land. It provides the police with a discretionary power to direct trespassers to leave land in certain circumstances.
The Act retains the requirement for the occupier to have taken reasonable steps to ask the trespassers to leave the land before the police may consider whether or not to use their powers. In addition, the section retains the safeguards that the police may direct some, and not necessarily all, the trespassers at a particular location to leave. The police therefore have the discretion to remove only those trespassers who are causing trouble, and equally, to allow those with pressing health or welfare needs to remain.
Police powers to deal with trespass are, rightly, limited to circumstances where public order problems might arise. The majority of trespass cases will continue to be dealt with by civil law procedures.
Of course, where landowners take action by this means, and where it is then necessary to serve court papers on trespassers, the police should be notified so that they can provide a presence to prevent breaches of the peace.
My hon. Friend will also be aware of new powers available to local authorities under sections 77 to 79 of the 1994 Act, to direct unauthorised campers to leave land where they are parked without permission. A direction can be issued immediately and without reference to the courts. If persons so directed do not leave the land in response to such a direction, or if they return to the same land with a
132
vehicle within three months of the date of the direction, they commit an offence subject to a maximum fine of £1,000.
It is open to any private landowner to ask his local authority to use its powers of direction. We have issued a circular, No. 18/94, entitled "Gypsy Sites Policy and Unauthorised Camping", to local authorities. It gives guidance on the scope and use of the new powers. We have made it clear that we envisage local authorities using the powers primarily to protect private landowners plagued with the nuisance of unauthorised camping. I should, however, emphasise that the powers are, like those available to the police, discretionary. It is for the relevant local authority to judge whether, in all the circumstances, use of the powers is justified.
My hon. Friend has made criticisms of the local authorities and the police. If she has not already done so, I hope that she will arrange to discuss these matters directly with the police in Essex and with the local authority in Thurrock. As she has said, these matters are outside the Department of the Environment's responsibilities by and large. They are matters that she should pursue with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Home Office if necessary.
As for the proposed gipsy site at Gammon field, my hon. Friend has expressed concern at the decision of Thurrock borough council to press ahead with it. The council has taken the decision despite the repeal of the duty on local authorities to provide sites and of the power to pay gipsy site grant.
The position is that Thurrock borough council applied in 1992 for outline planning permission to provide a site of 21 pitches at Gammon field. The decision had been made after an extensive search for a suitable site over a number of years to provide for the demand from gipsies in the district, some of whom were encamped on sites without planning permission. There were a number of objections to the chosen site, on the basis that it was in the green belt. The planning application became the subject of a public inquiry in April 1993, at which I believe my hon. Friend gave evidence.
I can reassure my hon. Friend that the full and proper process of public consultation and debate over the provision of the site was followed. In considering the proposal, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had particular regard to the following issues: the relationship of the proposal to policies contained with the Essex structure plan and deposited Thurrock borough local plan; the suitability of Gammon field for a gipsy site, having regard to its location within the metropolitan green belt and a landscape improvement area; the need for a further gipsy caravan site within the borough of Thurrock; the availability of alternative sites for the proposed development; the likely impact of the proposed development on the appearance and character of the area, and the amenity of local residents; and the effect of the proposals on the local highway network and, in particular, the adequacy of measures to control access to the site.
After giving careful consideration to a new scheme for access to the site submitted to the council in February 1994, about which my right hon. Friend and other parties to the public inquiry were consulted, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was also satisfied that the highway safety objections which concerned the inspector could also be overcome, so in August 1994, he granted planning permission to Thurrock borough council. As my hon.

133
Friend will know, once the Secretary of State has issued his decision on a planning application, his jurisdiction in the matter is at an end.
Subject to the granting of planning permission, the authority submitted a valid grant application to my Department in October 1994. My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am bound to consider any grant application which was submitted to the Secretary of State before 3 November 1994, the date of repeal of his power to pay gipsy site grant under section 80 of the 1994 Act. The application from Thurrock borough council falls into that category, and the local authority thus has a legitimate expectation that its application will be considered.
I cannot comment on the merits of this proposal, as the formal grant application is still being considered. My hon. Friend can be assured, however, that I shall consider all remaining grant applications, including the one for Gammon field, very carefully against our criteria of need, value for money and comparability with the works cost benchmark, before deciding whether approval is justified. In Essex, the benchmark is £27,000 per pitch, and we would need to be convincingly persuaded to agree any higher figure.
The Caravan Sites Act 1968 gave county councils a duty to provide authorised sites for gipsies, in the hope that it would control unauthorised camping. Generous Government grant has been made available to authorities to assist them to tackle the problems of unauthorised gipsy camping. Locally, there have been successes. In Essex, many sites have become accepted and integrated into local communities, even where existing residents had doubts. The development of official sites has also led to a great reduction in the number of unsightly roadside encampments.
134
There are a good many gipsy families throughout the country who are keen to make their own site arrangements, and the Department has issued planning guidance to show how that can be achieved within the existing planning framework. We have encouraged local authorities to consider gipsy families' needs within their development plans. Indeed, whether or not a county or district council decides to proceed with the provision of a gipsy site, the planning guidance to which I have referred allows that private sites may well be admissible within the current planning system, and we would expect local development plans to reflect that.
I am also aware that my hon. Friend has written to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in my Department concerning gipsies who have purchased land at Crays hill, Basildon, and sited caravans there. I understand that 17 plots have received planning permission, eight as a result of appeals against enforcement action dating from November 1992.
However, I hope that my hon. Friend will take comfort from what I have said, in connection with the Gammon field site and its location in the green belt, in that planning guidance on gipsy sites has been revised in circular 1/94. That policy, together with the new eviction powers contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 should, as I am sure my hon. Friend and her constituents will recognise, significantly curb the number of unsightly and disruptive occurrences of unauthorised camping.
I hope that what I have been able to say in explaining the position will be helpful to my hon. Friend. I am grateful to her for drawing the subject to the attention of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Food Research
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total number of scientists employed by the Agricultural and Food Research Council for(a) 1979 and (b) at present. [28567]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of scientists employed by the Agricultural and Food Research Council in 1979 was 3,417. As at March 1995, the number employed in the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, as it is now known, has fallen to 1,988.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many scientists were employed at the Institute of Food Research for each year since 1986; and what was the total expenditure for each year since 1986 in(a) cash and (b) constant prices. [28599]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of scientists employed at the Institute of Food Research since 1986, and the total expenditure for each year since 1986 in(a) cash and (b) constant prices are as follows:

  Expenditure £ million

  Year

  Number of Scientists

  Cash

  Constant

  1985–86

  534

  9.6

  14.3

  1986–87

  514

  10.7

  15.4

  1987–88

  517

  10.9

  15.0

  1988–89

  463

  11.4

  14.5

  1989–90

  425

  11.4

  13.6

  1990–91

  308

  11.3

  12.8

  1991–92

  338

  10.9

  11.3

  1992–93

  335

  11.8

  11.8

  1993–94

  303

  11.7

  11.4

  1994–95

  313

  11.8

  11.2

  Research Councils
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many people employed on research council grants have funding from the research councils for telephone bills; and how many do not. [28678]

  Mr. Horam
  Research councils' databases do not hold data at this level of disaggregation. Telephone bills are covered within the indirect costs element of research grants, except where the telephone cost dedicated to a specific project exceeds £1000 per annum.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking or has taken to ensure that funds provided by research councils to meet overhead costs to universities associated with the employment of those funded by such grants are used for the purposes for which they are intended. [28679]
  2
  Mr. Horam
  The funds provided to universities by the research councils to meet overhead or indirect costs are intended to cover central and departmental costs that underpin research activities, but that cannot readily be uniquely assigned to particular research projects. The funding for indirect costs is therefore not earmarked in any way for particular purposes.

  The Government are currently funding an independent review of new arrangements introduced in 1992 for the funding of research council work in universities to examine whether these are operating as intended.

  Civil Service Retirement
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 4 May, Official Report, column 264, if he will provide comparable details on civil service retirement packages on grounds of inefficiency. [29283]

  Mr. David Hunt
  Inefficiency is a ground for dismissal. An immediate lump sum payment of up to two years' salary may be made where a Department judges payment of compensation to be appropriate. Where compensation is agreed and the person dismissed is over age 55, this may be forgone in favour of immediate payment of the accrued superannuation benefits which would otherwise be preserved for payment at retiring age. There have been no departures on inefficiency grounds in the past five financial years from the Cabinet Office, including OPSS and its agencies, HMSO, or the COI.

  Charter Week
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his current estimate of the total cost to public funds of Charter Week 1995. [29178]

  Mr. Horam
  A number of public service events have been timed to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the charter programme, including the publication of several new or revised charters. There will be no extra cost from holding these events in July.

TRANSPORT

  Road Inquiries
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the results of the inquiry on(a) Kidderminster, Hagley, Blakedown bypass and (b) the western orbital route; and when he will announce a decision as to the timetable for the building of these schemes. [28274]

  Mr. Watts
  The Secretaries of State are considering the inspector's report on the A449/A456 Kidderminister, Blakedown and Hagley bypass following public inquiry and will announce their decision in due course. No draft orders for the western orbital route, which could be the subject of an inquiry, have been published. It is not possible, therefore, to give a timetable for either scheme.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many applications for closure of rail services have been submitted to him in(a) the last five years and (b) the last 10 years; and how many of those he has accepted. [28618]

  Mr. Watts
  Over the past five years, 14 closure proposals have been submitted to the Secretary of State for his consent for closure. Consent was given in 13 cases and one proposal is outstanding. Thirty-six proposals have been submitted to the Secretary of State over the past 10 years. Consent for closure has been given in 30 cases, one has been refused, one is outstanding and four were withdrawn.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure improvements in the provision for(a) cycles and (b) disabled persons on all rail services and in all rail stations; and if he will make a statement. [29253]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director is minded to include in franchise agreements the provision that, as far as is reasonably practicable, and subject to the availability of appropriate space on their rolling stock, franchise operators should ensure that facilities for the carriage of cycles on trains are provided.

  The rail regulator has responsibility under the Railways Act 1993 for the protection of the interests of disabled passengers. He has included in passenger and station licences a requirement to establish and comply with a disabled persons' protection policy; and in July 1994 he issued a code of practice on meeting the needs of the disabled which offers practical guidance to the rail industry on improving accessibility to the rail network.

  Motor Cars (Glass)
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent the test for excessively dark or smoked glass in the windows in motor cars depends on whether the driver of another vehicle can see the occupants of the vehicle fitted with such glass; and if he will introduce further regulations to define the criteria. [28977]

  Mr. Norris
  Regulations require the glass in motor cars first used from 1 June 1978 to have at least 70 per cent. light transmittance. This allows only a light tint. Whether one can see the occupants of another vehicle depends on overall light conditions as well as the light transmittance of the glass.

  National Superdome
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made as to the impact of the new proposed national superdome on the traffic flow of the M606, M62 and other related road systems; [29002]

  (2) how many places are proposed for the car park for the proposed national superdome; and what estimate he has made of the length of time it would take to clear; [29003]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the likely increase in exhaust emissions in the area should the proposed national superdome be constructed. [29001]
  4
  Mr. Watts
  These are operational matters for the Highways Agency.

  I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe, dated 19 June 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your 3 recent Parliamentary Questions asking the Secretary of State for Transport about the proposed National Superdome.

  i) The developer has made a traffic impact assessment of the effect of the proposed National Superdome on the adjacent road network. The Highways Agency has examined the effects on the M606 Euroway Junction, M606 between M62 and the Euroway, M606/M62 Junction 26 and M62 main carriageways.

  ii) The proposal is for 8,750 car parking spaces at the National Superdome and a further 1,250 spaces at the nearby Richard Dunn site. The developer predicts that spectators will leave over a three hour period with half leaving in the first hour.

  iii) We have made no estimate of the increase in exhaust emissions in the area. The developer's consultant has produced an environmental statement which concludes that:

  `Although it will have a contribution to the levels of noise and pollution on the road network, its overall contribution is so small as to be immeasurable'.
  I hope this answers your questions.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement as to progress on the construction of the Jubilee line. [28990]

  Mr. Norris
  Progress continues to be made with construction of the line. London Underground is still aiming for it to be completed in early 1998.

  Trust Ports
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he intends to take concerning privatisation of the larger trust ports. [289617]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Ports privatised under the Ports Act 1991 are showing already the increased efficiency which comes from full commercial management and competition on an equal footing with other ports. Both ports and port users benefit from such increased efficiency. All trust ports can, at any time, use the Ports Act 1991 to take action to privatise themselves. Five—Forth, Clyde, Tees and Hartlepool, Medway and Tilbury—have done so already. Dundee is now in the process of privatisation. I welcome this, and hope more will follow.

  Under the Act, following consultation, I am able to direct a trust port with an annual turnover of more than £5.4 million in two of its last three accounting years to form a successor company and to prepare a scheme for transferring the undertaking to that company, with a view to the sale of the company to the commercial sector.

  I am considering giving a direction to the Dover Harbour Board, the Port of Tyne Authority and the Ipswich Port Authority directing each to form a company and to prepare a scheme for transferring the authority's undertaking to it. I have accordingly written separately today to the chairmen of those authorities to consult them on my proposal.
  5
  I have no plans at present to consult the other ports with annual turnover above the threshold.

  Railways (Vandalism)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) railway employees and (b) railway passengers have suffered injury as a result of acts of vandalism or other aspects of criminal activities on railway lines in each year since 1990. [28161]

  Mr. Watts
  The table shows the number of passengers and staff who have suffered injury on the railways, as a result of criminal activity, since 1991. Comparable figures for 1990 are not available.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Passengers

  3,316

  3,523

  3,745

  3,742

  Staff

  428

  442

  449

  344

  Disabled Parking, Great Minster House
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how the number of car parking spaces that are available at Great Minster house and the Horseferry road will affect the representation of disabled people's view points by people who are themselves disabled at meetings of(a) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and (b) the joint committee on mobility for disabled people; [28105]

  (2) how many car parking spaces the city of Westminster will make available on Horseferry road for disabled orange badge holders visiting Great Minster house; [28104]

  (3) how many car parking spaces are available at Great Minster house (a) for disabled employees and (b) disabled visitors. [28100]

  Mr. Norris
  The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee is the statutory adviser to the Department of Transport on matters affecting the transport of disabled people. The needs of that committee will continue to be met when the Department moves to Great Minster house. The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation was commissioned to carry out an access audit of the new building to ensure that it will meet the needs of disabled staff and visitors, including members of the DPTAC.

  The joint committee on mobility for disabled people is a non-statutory body whose meetings the Department has accommodated on an informal basis for a number of years. However, the parking requirements for that committee far exceed the capacity at Great Minster house and we have regrettably had to tell the organisers that we will be unable to continue the arrangements beyond the end of July 1995. Officials will, however, continue to attend meetings of the JCMD at their new venue and to work closely with them.

  Of the 21 parking spaces at Great Minster, seven will be reserved for disabled people whether staff or visitors.

  Westminster City council has also agreed to make two bays available for orange badge holders in Horseferry road outside Great Minster House.
  6
  The needs of disabled staff and visitors will continue to be assessed once the new building is operational.

  Bascule Bridge, Lowestoft
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate he now makes of the life expectancy of the existing Al2 Bascule bridge at Lowestoft; and if he will make a statement; [28911]

  (2) what contingency he has for moving traffic from north to south Lowestoft and vice versa, when breakdowns of the Bascule bridge of Al2 at Lowestoft occur for (a) 24 hours or less, (b) up to three days, (c) up to a month and (d) longer than a month; and if he will make a statement. [28912]

  Mr. Watts
  The Al2 Bascule bridge is now 22 years old and should continue to operate satisfactorily for many more years.

  For planned maintenance closures, and in the event of a breakdown of the Bascule bridge, contingency arrangements are in place to divert local and through traffic via the A1117 Mutford Lock bridge. Associated British Ports, which operates the bridge, liaises closely with the police and Waveney district council to install diversion signing and managing traffic on the diversion route.

  The Highways Agency and Suffolk county council are considering the possibility of a permanent diversion signing scheme to cater for closures of either the Al2 Bascule bridge on the A1117 Mutford Lock bridge.

  Civil Service Retirement
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 2 May, Official Report, column 152, if he will provide comparable details on civil service early retirement packages on grounds of inefficiency. [29290]

  Mr. Norris
  Inefficiency is a ground for dismissal. An immediate lump sum payment of up to two years' salary may be made where a Department judges payment of compensation to be appropriate. Where compensation is agreed and the person dismissed is over age 55, this may be forgone in favour of immediate payment of the accrued superannuation benefits which would otherwise be preserved for payment at retiring age. There have been four departures on inefficiency grounds in the past five financial years. Details are contained in the table.

  Benefits payable at age 60

  Year

  Number of cases

  Immediate compensation lump sum £

  Annual pension £

  Pension lump sum £

  1990–91

  11

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1991–92 to 1993–94

  Nil

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1994–95

  3

  12,221

  1,932

  5,798

  4,476

  1,253

  3,759

  19,256

  3,770

  11,059

  1 The officer had under two years service and did not qualify for benefits.

  Unadopted Roads
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he intends to take to end the system of unadopted roads and pathways and to incorporate such thoroughfares within the responsibilities of local authorities. [29018]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if lorry checks now include a requirement to ensure that where appropriate the connector on the brake pipe is connected to the trailer; and what spot checks are taking place to ensure that this piece of equipment is attached. [28870]

  Mr. Norris
  All heavy goods vehicle inspections by the Vehicle Inspectorate include a check of brake performance. Regulations requiring operating adaptors to be fitted to all heavy goods vehicles will be made shortly. In the meantime we are running a publicity campaign to alert operators to the dangers of not fitting them. In addition, the Vehicle Inspectorate is obtaining equipment with which checks for fitment can be made at annual and roadside tests.

  Track Access Charges
  Miss Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the track access subsidy paid to a private rail franchise will be tax deductible as a trading expense. [28671]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 15 June]: The payment of track access charges by a franchisee to Railtrack will be deductible as a trading expense. The receipt of track access charges by Railtrack will be taxable in Railtrack's hands.

  Road Pricing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost to the transport and information technology industries of the Government's postponement of road pricing. [28815]

  Mr. Watts
  No decision has been taken about the introduction of road pricing in urban areas, so the question of postponement does not arise.

TREASURY

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Customs and Excise has responded to the open government initiative. [29943]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Notice 950, entitled "Open Government: Access to information held by Customs and Excise", has just been published. The notice sets out what Customs and Excise is doing about the open government code of practice, and explains the kinds of information available and how to obtain it. It also sets out Customs's charging policy and the procedures for complaining to the Department, the independent adjudicator and the 8
  Parliamentary Ombudsman should the applicant be dissatisfied with the way Customs has handled their request for information. The notice includes an application form for requesting information from Customs and is available, on request, from all Customs and Excise inquiry offices.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what legal advice he has sought from solicitors or barristers in respect of draft conclusions reached by the Scott inquiry; what is the estiamted cost of such legal expenses to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [28900]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: 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.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estiamte of the net government capital expenditure, less net sales of public sector assets, including privatised entities, for the fiscal years(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95, (c) 1995–96, (d) 1996–97 and (e) 1997–98. [28199]

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 14 June 1995]: The table gives public sector capital expenditure, net of depreciation and receipts from disposals of capital assets, for fiscal years 1993–94 to 1997–98.

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Net Capital Expenditure

  11,668

  12,934

  11,404

  11,277

  10,663

  Figures for receipts from privatisation are given in table 5.6 of the statistical supplement of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" (Cm 2821). In addition, since its launch in 1992, the private finance initiative has harnessed an increasing amount of private sector finance. This increase is set to continue, leading to more and better infrastructure projects and improved services.

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what policies he intends to implement in order to reduce the expenditure of Government Departments on external consultants. [281581

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 14 June 1995]: It is for individual Government Departments to decide how much of their cash provision to spend on external consultants. A report by the efficiency unit on the Government's use of external consultants, published in August 1994, indicated a number of ways in which Departments could optimise their use of consultants. Implementation of those measures, combined with continued firm control of

  9
  provision available for public expenditure, should enhance the value for money Departments obtain from the services of external consultants.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals in Scotland are currently receiving mortgage tax relief; what estimates he has of the regional distribution of mortgagors and mortgage interest relief in each year since 1988; and what is the current cost to the Exchequer of paying mortgage interest relief in Scotland; [27369]

  (2) what was the cost of mortgage tax relief (a) at basic rate and (b) in excess of the basic rate in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96. [27370]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: Information for the years 1988–89 to 1992–93 was published in table 5.3 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1994". Updated figures for 1993–94 and figures for 1994–95 are given in the tables.

  Cost of mortgage interest tax relief and numbers of mortgagors, by region and country:

  Amounts: £ million

  Cost

  1993–94

  1994–951

  Northern

  200

  160

  Yorkshire

  300

  240

  North West

  430

  350

  East Midlands

  280

  230

  West Midlands

  340

  280

  East Anglia

  170

  140

  Greater London

  580

  470

  Other South East

  1,090

  890

  South West

  400

  320

  England

  3,790

  3,080

  Wales

  150

  130

  Scotland

  300

  240

  Northern Ireland

  60

  50

  United Kingdom

  4,300

  3,500

  1 Provisional.

  Numbers: thousands1

  Mortgagors

  1993–94

  1994–951

  Northern

  560

  570

  Yorkshire

  840

  850

  North West

  1,190

  1,200

  East Midlands

  730

  740

  West Midlands

  910

  920

  East Anglia

  380

  380

  Greater London

  1,060

  1,070

  Other South East

  2,120

  2,140

  South West

  890

  900

  England

  8,680

  8,770

  Wales

  450

  450

  Scotland

  720

  730

  Northern Ireland

  150

  150

  United Kingdom

  10,000

  10,100

  1 Provisional.

  No mortgage interest relief in excess of the basic rate is available for the years specified. In 1994–95 the rate of relief was 20 per cent. and in 1995–96 the rate of relief is 15 per cent. The estimated total cost of mortgage relief
  10
  in 1995–96 is about £2.8 billion with about 10.1 million married couples and single people receiving the relief. This is based on the assumption, by convention, of no change from the current estimated average building society interest rate of 8 per cent. The regional distribution for 1993–94 is a broad estimate based on analyses of family expenditure surveys up to 1993. The regional distribution for 1994–95, which is shown in the table, is a projection based on applying the same regional percentages to the total figures for 1994–95. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates of regional distributions for 1995–96.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  British Coal
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the chairman of the Public Accounts Commission (1) if the National Audit Office will publish an interim report into its findings into the British Coal privatisation by N. M. Rothschild; and if he will make a statement; [28278]

  (2) when the National Audit Office will publish its findings into the British Coal privatisation handled by N. M. Rothschild; and if he will make a statement. [28276]

  Sir Peter Hordern
  The National Audit Office is currently examining the sale by the Department of Trade and Industry of British Coal's mining activities. This examination will consider the steps taken by the Department in pursuit of its objectives for the sale, and the costs of the sale, including advisers' costs. When the examination has been completed, the National Audit Office will report to Parliament. I understand that it currently has no plans to make interim reports on any particular aspect of the sale.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Civil Service Retirement
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 232, if he will provide comparable details on civil service early retirement packages on grounds of inefficiency. [29281]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not held by my Department in a readily accessible form. The information which the hon. Member has requested is being collated and I will provide him with a substantive answer shortly.

  Mr. Reda Hanna
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of the legal aid given to Mr. Reda Hanna; what was his contribution; and what account was taken of his parents' wealth as a means of assessing his contribution. [28364]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The trial of Mr. Hanna has only just ended and the costs have not yet been determined. Mr. Hanna was not required to contribute towards the costs of his legal aid, but was ordered to pay £200 towards the costs of the prosecution. Current legal aid regulations do
  11
  not provide for a parent's resources to be included in the means assessment of applicants for legal aid. However, the Lord Chancellor has indicated that he intends to amend the legal aid regulations to provide those conducting means assessments with a discretionary power to include in the means assessment the assets of friends, relatives and children where these appear to be providing a significant material advantage to the applicant.

PRIME MINISTER

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the cost to date of the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life. [28931]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, (Mr. Greenway), 22 May,Official Report, columns 377–78.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Liverpool Police
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, and adeputation from the Merseyside police authority concerning recent troubles on Liverpool streets and the funding for the police. [29279]

  Mr. Howard
  This was a useful meeting, at which I was able to receive a personal briefing on the position in the hon. Member's constituency and to hear the views of the police authority. My Department continues to keep in close touch with events in the area.

  Probation Officers
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter dated 1 May from the hon. Member for Hammersmith concerning training of probation officers. [29103]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member for Hammersmith on 16 June.

  Inquests
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time between a death occurring and an inquest being completed in(a) south Northumberland and (b) nationally; [29256]

  (2) on how many occasions over the past five years the coroner for south Northumberland has failed to issue a death certificate within 12 months of death occurring. [29255]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information collected on deaths reported to coroners is published in an annual Home Office Statistical Bulletin. The latest bulletin "Statistics of Deaths reported to Coroners: England and Wales, 1994", issue 6/95, was published on 20 April 1995 and is 12
  available in the Library. This covers information on deaths reported, post-mortems, inquests held and verdicts returned at inquests.

  Overseas Domestic Workers
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the contractual enforceability of conditions of employment which apply to overseas domestic workers. [29493]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The position of overseas domestic workers is no different from that of other employees in this respect. Contractual terms are matters for employers and employees to agree. Once agreed they are legally binding and, in cases of non-compliance, employees can take action for breach of contract through the civil courts or, in certain circumstances, through industrial tribunals.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what bonuses were paid to prison officers at Blakenhurst prison by United Kingdom Detention Services following the riots of February 1994; and what conditions were applied to them. [28831]

  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. George Howarth, dated 19 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 bonuses paid to prison officers at Blakenhurst prison by United Kingdom Detention Services following the riots of February 1994; and what conditions were applied to them.
  No bonuses were paid to prisoner custody officers following the disturbances at Blakenhurst prison on 24 February 1994.
  Three prisoner custody officers were presented with £50 meritorious conduct awards by United Kingdom Detention Services for their conduct during the disturbance.

  Immigration
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information is recorded when a person who entered the United Kingdom as a visitor, without need for a visitor's visa, leaves the United Kingdom; [28789]

  (2) what information is recorded, and how this information is stored, when a visitor to the United Kingdom who is not required to possess a visitor's visa is admitted at a port of entry; [29787]

  (3) what information is recorded, and how this information is stored, when a visitor to the United Kingdom with a valid visitor's visa is admitted at a port of entry; [28786]

  (4) what information is recorded when a person who entered the United Kingdom in possession of a valid visitor's visa, leaves the United Kingdom. [28788]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information about bona fide visitors, whether or not they require a visa, is not routinely recorded either on arrival or departure. Details of a
  13
  person's limited leave to enter, and subsequent departure, may, however, be recorded on the Immigration and Nationality Department electronic computer system depending upon individual circumstances. In such cases, information given on arrival will be recorded on an arrival card for input on INDECS. Where a detailed interview is required, any supplementary notes will be filed at the port and the outcome may be reported to the Immigration and Nationality Department for information.

  Prisons
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the ratio of staff to prisoners at each prison in England and Wales at the latest available date; and what were the figures for 12 months ago. [28254]

  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. Martin Redmond, dated 19 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 ratio of staff to prisoners at each prison in England and Wales at the latest available date; and what were the figures for 12 months ago.
  The figures were given in a reply to a Question from Mr. Hoyle, the Member for Warrington North, on 23 March 1995 (Col 315).

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has of the number of dogs destroyed under the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. [27855]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: During 1992 and 1993, a total of 630 people were convicted either of offences under section 1 of the Act, or of aggravated offences under section 3. In each of these cases, the court would have had no option but to order the destruction of the dog concerned. This figure is therefore likely to be close to the actual number of dogs put down under the Act in that period.

  Figures for 1994 are likely to be available in the autumn.

  Chief Inspector of Prisons
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedure he intends to adopt for appointing a successor to Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons following the recent announcement of Judge Tumim's retirement. [28313]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 13 June 1995]: The post will be filled by open competition using both advertisement and executive research to identify suitable candidates.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Ministers, former Minsters or civil servants in his Department have sought independent legal advice in assisting their response to draft extracts from Sir Richard Scott's report; in each case from whom the advice 14
  has been sought; and what limit has been placed on payment for such advice from public funds. [28390]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 13 June 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minster to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), on June, col. 374.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Third-World Debt
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further progress is being made in concert with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assist in the reduction of third-world debt. [28622]

  Mr. Baldry
  Ten countries have benefited from debt reduction under Naples terms since these were agreed by the Paris Club in December 1994. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the Chancellor's proposals on multilateral debt at the G7 summit.

  Seychelles
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what bilateral agreements currently exist between the United Kingdom and the Seychelles. [28785]

  Mr. Baldry
  The following bilateral agreements are in force:

  (i) Exchange of notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Seychelles concerning the return to Seychelles of the Islands of Aldabra, Desroches and Farquhar.

  Signed at Victoria on 29 June 1976

  Published in the Treaty Series (Command 6713)

  (ii) Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Seychelles concerning public officers' pensions.

  Signed at Victoria on 29 June 1976

  Published in the Treaty Series (Command 6635)

  (iii) Letters of understanding concerning the United Kingdom/Seychelles loan 1977.

  Signed at Victoria on 10 March 1977

  (iv) Exchange of notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Seychelles constituting the Overseas Service Aid Scheme (Seychelles) Agreement 1981.

  Signed at Victoria on 31 March 1981. Amended by No. 6 of 6 May 1986 to 3 June 1986.

  Published in the Treaty Series (Command 8343)

  (v) Exchange of notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Seychelles constituting the British Expatriates Supplementation (Seychelles) Agreement 1981.

  Signed at Victoria on 31 March 1981. Amended by No. 7 of 6 May 1986 to 3 June 1986.

  Published in the Treaty Series (Command 6635)

  15

  (vi) Exchange of notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Seychelles amending the Overseas Service Aid Scheme (Seychelles) Agreement 1981/86).

  Signed at Victoria on 6 May 1986 to 3 June 1986.

  Published in the Treaty Series (Command 217)

  (vii) Exchange of notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Seychelles amending the British Expatriates Supplementation (Seychelles) Agreement 1981 (The British Expatriates Supplementation (Seychelles) Agreement 1981/86).

  Signed at Victoria on 6 May 1986 to 3 June 1986.

  Published in the Treaty Series (Command 217)

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what technical assistance and aid the United Kingdom gives to the Seychelles. [28784]

  Mr. Baldry
  Our aid programme consists of training awards, small projects and gifts under the British partnership and heads of mission gifts schemes, and residual assistance to the fire service. In addition, the UK share of EC aid to the Seychelles under Lomé IV is over £600,000.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, columns 289–94, what was the nature of the technical co-operation given under the radio/rehabilitation and radio studios projects concluded with Indonesia in (a) 1988 and (b) 1989, respectively, involving David Whittle Associates, and what was the outcome of that technical co-operation. [29537]

  Mr. Baldry
  The appointment of David Whittle Associates was linked to the project to rehabilitate the radio studios in Jakarta.

  The company was initially engaged in February 1988 to advise the ODA on the scope of project and to advise Indonesia Radio, RRI, on its implementation. Its 1989 contract covered specialist advice to RRI on studio building, acoustics and fire safety.

  The technical co-operation improved the capabilities of the Indonesian team working on the project.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, columns 58–59, if he will list the sites in Indonesia at which diesel generating sets supplied under the isolated diesels project and the scattered diesels project were installed. [28185]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: In my reply to the hon. Lady's earlier question, I stated that the isolated diesels project consisted of 45 diesel generating sets at 14 sites. However, further research has revealed that the scope of the project was subsequently modified. The modification was at the request of the Government of Indonesia, and was primarily for financial reasons. The revised project provided 23 generating sets at seven sites. These were located at:
  16

  Lhok Seumawe

  Dumai

  Bengkulu

  Jambi

  Pangkal Pinang

  Samarinda

  Kupang

  The locations of the three sites covered by the scattered diesels project were:

  Sungai Penuh

  Ketapang

  Kebayoran Senayan

  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 national overview of land resources in Indonesia, if he will list the forestry officers trained under the project, in each case specifying the position of the officer within the Ministry of Forestry; and whom the Government engaged to carry out the training. [27827]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 14 June 1995]: The national overview of land resources was a synopsis of the land resources and land use of Indonesia. On the job training under the project was provided to project staff in the department of transmigration as follows:

  Mrs. Donna Sipahutar: Co-team leader/agriculture team member

  Dr. Wahyudi: Land resources team member

  Dr. Eko Budiman: Remote sensing team member

  Mr. Herniono Sigit: Soil team member

  Dr. Sukardi: Hydrology team member

  Dr. Sarjono: Social Demography team member

  Mr. Wirawan: Cartography team member

  Mr. Tobing: Cartographer

  Mr. Sarono: Cartographer

  Mr. Dasimi: Cartographer

  Mr. Sudirman: Cartographer

  Mr. Mulyoto: Cartographer

  Mr. Mulyoto: Cartographer

  Mr. Effendi: Cartographer

  Mr. Sutaryo: Cartographer

  Mr. Maruwi: Cartographer

  Mr. Sunarta: Cartographer

  Mr. Subiono: Cartographer

  Mr. Puji Yuwono: Cartographer

  Mr. Pujo CH: Cartographer

  Mrs. Sipahutar, Dr. Budiman and Mrs. Lillak Winami, secretary, also undertook training in the United Kingdom.

  The land resources department of the Natural Resources Institute was engaged as project manager.

  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 regional physical planning, map improvement and training project in Indonesia, what were the outer islands and other geographical area covered by the project; what was the nature of the training provided

  17
  under the project; what were the names of the trainees and what was their status within the directorate general of settlement preparations; and whom the Government engaged to carry out the project. [27828]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 14 June 1995]: The project covered 26 provinces of Indonesia, and excluded Jakarta. Training was provided in Indonesia on the interpretation and improvement of land use maps and a database for land systems. Officials from all district govyernment organisations and universities concerned with land use planning attended. In total 1,237 people were trained in Indonesia. In addition, seven people involved in mapping and land use planning were trained in UK. Their details are:

  Name

  Nature of training

  Mr. Herson

  MSc (Econ) Development Policy Planning

  Mr. K. Supraplo

  Postgraduate diploma in Human Resource Development

  Mr. M. Effendi

  MSc Geographical Information System

  Ms Diah Kirana

  MSc Geographical Information System

  Mr. Marsono Yullanto

  Postgraduate Diploma in Digital Mapping and Automated Cartography

  Mr. Syaliul Anwar

  MSc in Resource Management

  Mr. Muhtadl Ganda Sutrisna

  MSc in Geology

  The Natural Resources Institute was engaged as project manager.

  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 forestry project identification mission in Indonesia, whom the Government engaged to carry out the mission; what was the outcome of the mission and what further forestry development has been, or will be, funded in Indonesia by the Government. [27829]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 14 June 1995]: The mission in 1989 was led by one of the Overseas Development Administration's senior natural resources advisers, and included a forestry specialist and commodities economist from the Natural Resources Institute as well as a private forestry consultant. The report of the mission set the future framework for UK aid to the forestry sector in Indonesia. We are now implementing the projects the mission identified, known collectively as the Indonesian tropical forest management project.

  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 regional physical planning project for transmigration in Indonesia, for which specific geographical areas maps and data were provided under the project; and whom the Government engaged to carry out the project. [27830]
  18
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 14 June 1995]: The project mapped the land resources and land use of the whole of Indonesia. The project was implemented by the land resources department of the Natural Resources Institute with the Department of Transmigration.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Jim Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's assessment of the implications for the future stability of the non-proliferation regime of agreement to the extension decision of the non-proliferation treaty by majority vote rather than by consensus.

  Mr. David Davis
  On 11 May the states parties to the non-proliferation treaty participating in the NPT review and extension conference decided without a vote to extend the treaty indefinitely. This decision will send the strongest possible signal of the international community's determination to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

  Maastricht Negotiations
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the statement of 24 May in European Standing Committee B,Official Report, column 12, by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), on the 16 new areas of competence sought by the European Commission during the Maastricht negotiations, if he will list the areas of competence to which he referred; and which were conceded at Maastricht. [27493]

  Mr. David Davis
  During the Maastricht negotiations, new or extended Community competence was proposed in the following 16 areas: education and training; health; environment; research and technological development; development co-operation; civil protection; tourism, culture, industry; energy; trans-European networks; consumer protection; external trade in services; social policy; free movement of persons; the common foreign and security policy.

  The result of the negotiation was complicated: for example the CFSP has been established in a separate pillar outside Community competence and social policy was covered in a separate protocol. It was decided not to introduce new chapters on energy, tourism or consumer protection. Community action in the majority of new chapters which were included in the treaty is either subject to unanimity or to limitations on the scope for harmonising legislation.

  Seychelles
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a Minister last visited the Seychelles. [28785]

  Mr. Baldry
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), a Government Whip, attended the inauguration of President Rene in July 1993.

  We look forward to a visit to Britain by the Foreign Minister of the Seychelles in July.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Spanish Government about their recent requirement that a person seeking to cross the Spain-Gibraltar border on an Isle of Man passport must also obtain a visa. [28606]

  Mr. David Davis
  None. We are investigating the incident.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions in the last five years a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister has visited Gibraltar. [28608]

  Mr. David Davis
  Francis Maude MP, Minister of State, visited Gibraltar on 23–25 January 1990.

  Tristan Garel-Jones MP, Minister of State, visited Gibraltar on 26–28 July 1991.

  David Heathcoat-Amory MP, Minister of State, visited Gibraltar on 30 November to 1 December 1993.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he proposes to ensure the swift access into Gibraltar for athletes and officials travelling to Gibraltar for the Island Games in July via Malaga airport or other locations in Spain. [28610]

  Mr. David Davis
  The majority of teams are expected to fly to Gibraltar. But we shall of course continue to press Spain to bring an end to the unacceptable delays at the Spain—Gibraltar frontier.

  European Parliament
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated cost of the European Parliament in 1995. [28680]

  Mr. David Davis
  The total amount in the 1995 European Community Budget for the European Parliament is 843 mecu—705 million—*.

  *The figure for the European Community budget has been converted to sterling at the rate of 1 ecu = £0.8361 being the rate notified in the EC Official Journal as prevailing on the last working day of last month (31 May).

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will now release the names of British supplier companies to the Iraqi nuclear programme listed in the International Atomic Energy Agency report. [28998]

  Mr. David Davis
  No. I have nothing to add to previous replies on this matter.

  Japan
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what representations he has made to the Japanese authorities concerning a Japanese apology for events during the second world war. [29068]
  20
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what steps he is taking to secure a full apology from the Japanese Government for the conduct of its troops towards British prisoners of war during world war II. [29257]

  Mr. Goodlad
  When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Japan in September 1993, the Prime Minister of Japan expressed his deep remorse as well as apologies for the fact that Japan's past actions had inflicted deep wounds on many people including former prisoners of war.

  Civil Service Retirement
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 150, if he will provide comparable details on civil service early retirement packages on grounds of inefficiency. [29291]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Inefficiency is a ground for dismissal. An immediate lump sum payment of up to two years' salary may be made where a Department judges payment of compensation to be appropriate. Where compensation is agreed and the person dismissed is over the age of 55, this may be forgone in favour of immediate payment of the accrued superannuation benefits which would otherwise be preserved for payment at retiring age. Details of the departures on inefficiency grounds are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  China
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigation his Department has(a) instigated and (b) evaluated into the allegations made by Fr. Joseph Jin Dechen in respect of forced abortions in the Chinese population control programme. [28964]

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are deeply concerned by the reports of enforced abortion in China on which we receive information from a number of sources including NGOs. We raise these matters with the relevant Chinese authorities, and we are in contact with the UN agencies working in this area in China. We will continue to monitor the activities of the Chinese population control programme.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what written briefing material he will be making available to those attending the UN conference on women in Beijing in respect of human rights abuses against women by the Chinese Government. [28947]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The UK delegation will be provided with briefing covering issues to be raised at the conference. A general background brief is also being prepared and will be available to other participants.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current arrangements for non-governmental organisations in respect of the UN conference on women in Beijing. [28949]
  21
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome the conclusion of recent negotiations and the acceptance of Huairou as the site for Forum '95 by the convenor of the non-governmental organisations facilitating committee. The provision of additional accommodation and transport should facilitate the effective exchange of views between the United Kingdom delegation and British NGOs.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make further representations to the Chinese Government to request them to lift all restrictions on the movement and freedom of Fr. Joseph Jin Dechen. [28950]

  Mr. Goodlad
  We continue to be extremely concerned about abuses of human rights in China, including the persecution of religious believers such as Fr. Joseph Jin Dechen. We will continue to use every suitable opportunity to express our concerns to the Chinese authorities, both bilaterally and in conjunction with our European partners.

  Joyce Kiiza
  Ms Harriet Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when he expects to give permission for Joyce Kiiza—Ref: 95 21 70—to come from Uganda to the United Kingdom. [29509]

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

EDUCATION

  Standard Assessment Tests
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what has been the actual cost of totally funding supply cover during standard assessment tests(a) nationally (i) for seven-year-olds and (ii) for 11-year-olds and (b) in Nottinghamshire schools for (i) seven-year-olds and (ii) 11-year-olds; [28915]

  (2) what is the total amount that has been (a) offered and (b) accepted in government grants by schools to subsidise the cost of standard assessment tests; [28914]

  (3) what was the total projected cost of total funding supply cover during standard assessment tests (a) nationally (i) for seven-year-olds and (ii) for 11-year-olds and (b) in Nottinghamshire schools for (i) seven-year-olds and (ii) 11-year-olds. [28916]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave him on 6 June,Official Report, columns 10–11.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the projected cost of assessing pupils of too low an academic standard to take the formal standard assessment tasks. [28917]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 6 June,Official Report, column 10. No information is available at present in respect of the projected costs of the national curriculum tasks to be used in the 1995–96 school year.

  Civil Service Retirement
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 2 May,Official Report, columns 153–54, if she will provide comparable details on Civil service early retirement packages on grounds of inefficiency. [29289]

  Mr. Boswell
  Inefficiency is a ground for dismissal. There have been no departures from the Department for Education on inefficiency grounds with retirement packages in the last five years.

  St. James School, Farnworth
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much public money has been paid to St. James school, Farnworth, since it opted out; what effect there has been on spending from public funds as a result of problems in financial management at the school; and if she will make a statement. [28963]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  St. James is a grant-maintained school. Responsibility for payment of grants to the school and for monitoring its financial management therefore rests with the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the agency's chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the forecast for expenditure on mandatory awards and loans given to students from Wales during the current year; and if she will make a statement. [29028]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department's plans for expenditure in the 1995–96 financial year on mandatory awards and on student loans are £2,095 million and £644 million respectively. The plans relate to expenditure for students domiciled in England and Wales; separate forecasts are not made for students from Wales.

  LEA Finances, Hampshire
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total amount of local education authority holdback in Hampshire in 1994. [29561]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A total of £125,952,000. This figure is derived from the budget statement for 1994–95 published by the local education authority under section 42 of the Education Reform Act, and relates to all planned expenditure on mandatory and discretionary "excepted items".

  Mature Students Allowance
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many continuing students commencing a degree course or post-graduate teacher training course in the autumn of 1995 will he eligible for the mature students allowance(a) in England and (b) in Wales. [29249]

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth of 12 June,Official Report, column 415, if she will give details of the 20 countries that send most students to the United Kingdom to study in advanced education. [28926]

  Mr. Boswell
  The requested information is given in the table.

  Full-time higher education students from overseas 1992–931

  (thousands)

  Rank

  Countries

  Postgraduate

  Undergraduate

  Total higher education

  1.

  Malaysia

  1.7

  6.9

  8.5

  2.

  Germany2

  1.4

  5.6

  7.1

  3.

  Irish Republic

  0.9

  5.9

  6.8

  4.

  Hong Kong

  1.3

  5.3

  6.6

  5.

  France

  1.2

  5.1

  6.3

  6.

  Greece

  2.4

  3.5

  5.9

  7.

  USA

  1.6

  3.5

  5.2

  8.

  Singapore

  0.6

  2.8

  3.4

  9.

  Spain

  0.7

  2.1

  2.8

  10.

  Italy

  0.6

  1.5

  2.1

  11.

  Japan

  0.9

  1.1

  2.0

  12.

  Cyprus

  0.3

  1.6

  1.9

  13.

  Norway

  0.3

  1.5

  1.9

  14.

  China

  1.3

  0.1

  1.4

  15.

  Netherlands

  0.3

  1.1

  1.4

  16.

  Kenya

  0.3

  0.9

  1.3

  17.

  Canada

  0.8

  0.5

  1.3

  18.

  Belgium

  0.3

  0.9

  1.2

  19.

  Pakistan

  0.7

  0.4

  1.1

  20.

  India

  0.7

  0.4

  1.1

  Source:

  Education Statistics for the United Kingdom, 1994 Edition, HMSO.

  Notes:

  1 Enrolments.

  2 Includes the former East Germany.

  School Safety
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Health regarding the safety of schools with fewer than five pupils, with particular reference to schools in Coventry; and what proposals she has for the registration of private preparatory schools with a class of up to four pupils. [29008]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the responsibility for registration of independent schools; she works closely with the Secretary of State for Health who has responsibility for registration of other services for young children, including those with fewer than five full-time pupils of compulsory school age who by law are not independent schools. They keep under regular review the arrangements for ensuring appropriate standards of child care and education for young children in all settings.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the pupil teacher ratio in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools for the first six months of 1995; and if she will make a statement. [28995]
  24
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information about pupil-teacher ratios in maintained schools in England in January 1995 will be published in a statistical press notice on 29 June.

  Autistic Children
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of London education authorities provide educational support services for children with autism; and if she will make a statement. [29086]

  Mr. Forth
  All LEAs are required to arrange any special educational provision specified in a statement of SEN for a child for whom they have responsibility. They have the power to provide support services for children with special educational needs in their or any other area. How these services are organised is a matter to be determined by each LEA.

  Innovation Grants
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to provide innovation grants to universities to fund innovation projects in their communities. [29152]

  Mr. Boswell
  Under the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act my right hon. Friend provides grants to the Higher Education Funding Council for England to distribute to universities and colleges to fund teaching and research. She has asked the Council to take into account in its funding for research the Government's policies on competitiveness, including those concerned with innovation. Separately the HEFCE provides HE institutions with grants to promote innovation areas such as: teaching, learning and technology, teaching practices; the organisation of the academic year; improving access to local groups traditionally under represented in HE; and providing continuing professional development for local employers.

  School Meals
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what nutritional quality standards are regulated by her Department in respect of school meals; and when was the last change in these standards. [28819]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Under the Education Acts, the nutritional quality of school meals in England is the responsibility of local education authorities or, where applicable, the governing bodies of schools, and is not subject to regulation by the Department.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the net expenditure on free school meals for each year since 1987 broken down by county. [28820]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Confectionery Sales (Schools)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education under what authority the selling of confectionery in schools may be prohibited; and which schools have prohibited its sale. [28830]
  25
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Decisions about the sale of confectionery are the responsibility of local education authorities or, where applicable, the governing bodies of schools in England. We do not collect information on school which have prohibited the sale of confectionery.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Facilities for Honourable Members
  Mr. McShane
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the adequacy of facilities for hon. Members to carry out their duties. [27635]

  Mr. Newton
  In the structure introduced following the Ibbs report at the start of the 1991–92 Session the facilities available to hon. Members are generally a matter for the domestic committees and the House of Commons Commission. A number of further improvements are in hand, for example, to provide additional office accommodation and to enhance the availability of information technology.

  Short Money
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what studies he has made of the accounting for, and application of, Short money following the Nolan report.

  Mr. Newton
  The present procedures by which a party claims financial assistance and subsequently accounts for these sums to the House, are set out in the Resolution of the House of 4 November 1993. I have made no study of these procedures since the Nolan report.

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to propose the membership of the Select Committee to consider the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. [27637]

  Mr. Newton
  The Select Committee on Standards in Public Life was nominated on 13 June.

  All-night Sittings
  Harry Greenway
  41. Mr. To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to seek a ban on all-night sittings of the House; and if he will make a statement. [27640]

  Mr. Newton
  One of the aims of the current experiment with revised sitting arrangements, which the House approved on 19 December 1994, is to avoid late sittings wherever possible. There have been no all-night sittings since the experiment began, and only one occasion when the House has sat after 1 am. The experiment is at present being reviewed by the Procedure Committee.

  European Union (Parliamentary Scrutiny)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny of the activities of the European Union. [27641]
  26
  Mr. Newton
  Our scrutiny arrangements are amongst the most rigorous in the European Union, and generally work well. However, they continue to be kept under review.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many Select Committee reports have been debated on the Floor of the House during the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [27639]

  Mr. Newton
  Since 19 June 1991 222 Select Committee reports have been debated on the Floor of the House. A further 84 reports have been "tagged" on the Order Paper as relevant to a debate.

  Written Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Lord President of the Council 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. Newton
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  BMARC
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that all the documents(a) seized by the Ministry of Defence police from the offices of British Manufacture and Research Company in April 1990 and (b) held by the receivers of Astra Holding and British Manufacture and Research Company are made available to the Scott inquiry.

  Mr. Newton
  Pursuant to the answer I gave on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 4 April 1995,Official Report, column 987. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces earlier today.

  Public Access (Debates)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what financial provision exists to increase the number of seats available to members of the public to observe House of Commons debates. [27630]

  Mr. Beith
  None.

  Recalling the House
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the direct cost of recalling the House for its special sitting on Wednesday 31 May.

  Mr. Beith
  The cost of provision of the papers in the Vote Bundle and the Official Report was £11,500.

  27
  Travelling expenses and overtime payments relating to the sitting are expected to produce further costs. To date, claims totalling some £1,000 have been made.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Judicial Committee
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what discussions he has had with the Commonwealth countries as to the current make up of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. [27638]

  Mr. Newton
  None.

  UN Conference on Women
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress he hopes to achieve in his Department over the next three months to push forward the declaration signed in October 1994 at the Vienna conference in preparation for the fourth UN conference on women; and if he will agree to incorporate a section on equal opportunities in his department's annual report.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government are committed to the principles set out in the regional platform for action agreed at the conference in question, and have pursued these through a wide range of programmes and initiatives. As indicated in my reply to the hon. Lady of 4 May, 60 per cent. of staff in my Department are women. I am considering the recommendation in the White Paper "Taking Forward Continuity and Change" regarding the publication of material on equal opportunities.

EMPLOYMENT

  Social Charter
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assurances he has given to the committee of independent experts in respect of the Government guaranteeing in practice complete and effective protection against anti-trade union discrimination based on trade union membership or activities. [27657]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government, in reporting to the Council of Europe in respect of the Council's social charter, have on a number of occasions, most recently in its 15th report which was submitted in 1994, provided information on the provisions in UK law which protect:

  (a) employees against dismissal or action short of dismissal on grounds related to trade union membership or activities; and

  (b) people against refusal of employment on grounds related to union membership.

  Under the Council's reporting procedures, the committee of independent experts will give their opinion on the 15th report in 1996. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has given to the committee of independent experts concerning(a) the
  28
  proportion of the working population employed under atypical contracts, including fixed-term contracts, casual short-term work, part-time work and home-based work and (b) the entitlement to paid annual holiday of such workers. [27659]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information was provided in 1994 in the UK Government's 15th report to the Council of Europe in respect of the Council's social charter, on the number of part-time workers in Great Britain. The report states that the seasonally adjusted level of part-time employment in December 1993 was 6,789,000 million, to the nearest thousand, of which 5,297,000 were women.

  The experts have now asked for information on the proportion of the working population employed under fixed-term contracts, in casual, home-based and part-time work and the entitlements to paid annual holidays of such workers, and in line with the current reporting procedures the UK will seek to provide this information in its 17th report in 1996.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of(a) boys and (b) girls leaving school and not continuing in full-time education or training became unemployed in the Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area in 1993 and in 1994. [27914]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 15 June 19951: The information is not available in the form requested. Figures are available only by the areas covered by the Rotheram careers service and the Doncaster careers service. The information is taken from figures published by the local authority associations.

  The following table shows the total number of statutory school leavers in both Rotherham and Doncaster in 1993 and 1994, and the numbers who at the date the information was collected were known to have been unemployed.

  Total number of school leavers

  Known to have been unemployed

  Date information collected

  Boys

  Girls

  Boys

  Girls

  Rotherham

  October 1993

  1,537

  1,460

  97

  60

  November 1994

  1,617

  1,524

  112

  75

  Doncaster

  November 1993

  1,622

  1,657

  112

  74

  November 1994

  1,790

  1,618

  129

  80

  Transsexuals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what employment protection is specifically available for transsexuals; and if he will make a statement. [29548]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Transsexuals have the same employment protection rights as other employees.

  Cheetham Jobcentre
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what positions in rank order of employment service offices has been achieved by the Manchester Cheetham employment service office in respect of the number of people successfully removed from benefit. [29340]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Ken Eastham, dated 19 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding the number of people disallowed benefit at the Cheetham Hill Employment Service Jobcentre, and how this office compares with other offices.
  Clients may not receive Unemployment Benefit (UB) for a number of reasons. Some people through their own actions disqualify themselves to benefit by leaving their employment
  30
  without good cause, or because of misconduct, or because they refuse employment. Others are disallowed because they fail to satisfy conditions of entitlement because they are not available for, capable of, or actively seeking work.
  Decisions to stop UB being paid are made by independent Adjudication Officers appointed by the Secretary of State for Employment. Decisions to disallow other Social Security benefits are made by officers of the Department of Social Security and its various executive agencies.
  It is the responsibility of my people to refer client claims to the Adjudication authorities when they have doubts about their entitlement, or that they may qualify for benefit payments.
  In the period 1 April 1995 to 31 May 1995 the total number of decisions to disallow UB made by the Adjudication Officers for offices in the Manchester Employment Service District were 628. Of these, 89 were referred from the Jobcentre at Cheetham Hill and 2 have subsequently been allowed on review.
  We do not rank order our offices on the basis of the number of people whose benefit is stopped. This is because many variables need to be taken into account when looking at office performance in this area, for example the size of the office. However, I can tell you that of seven offices in Manchester district Cheetham Hill Jobcentre was fourth in the number of disallowances made.
  I hope this is helpful.

DEFENCE

  BMARC
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date his Department took possession of documents taken from the company BMARC; on what date these documents were handed over to the Scott inquiry; and if he will list the Ministers who had access to these documents within his Department. [18300]

  Mr. Soames
  [pursuant to his answer, 4 April 1995, Official Report col 1097–98]: The Ministry of Defence Police announced on Saturday 17 June 1995, that they had found additional documents, which the force obtained in 1990 during the course of an investigation into corruption involving Astra Holdings and its subsidiaries, including BMARC. This investigation was with regard to corruption in MOD procurement contracts and resulted in successful prosecutions. The discovery was made during the course of a re-sorting of all the property stores at the MDP's headquarters at Wethersfield in Essex, which commenced in January 1995, following its relocation there. Some of these items were documents which previously belonged to Astra/BMARC. These were returned to the liquidators for Astra Holdings, to whom they belong, on 15 June 1995. Additional documents belonging to the liquidators were discovered on 16 June and will be sent to the liquidators. Other documents found, which were obtained during the original investigation, belong to the Ministry of Defence and to companies other than Astra/BMARC. The latter are being examined to verify their rightful ownership. HM Customs and Excise and the Scott inquiry have been informed. This was an operational matter for the Ministry of Defence police. A copy of their statement of 17 June 1995 is being placed in the Library of the House.

  The deputy chief constable has also made it clear that he has initiated an immediate inquiry to ensure that no further documents relating to the corruption investigation remain in MDP custody; to establish how the documents came to be wrongly located and why their retention by the MDP was not recognised; and to establish what action needs to be taken to ensure that similar mistakes do not recur.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of British nuclear test participants with a blue book entry in records currently held show a zero dosage of radiation. [27943]

  Mr. Soames
  Of the 14,290 UK nationals with entries in the blue books, 3,865 fall into the lowest category of measured dose. This includes all doses from zero to 0.2 millisieverts. A further 8,340 entries concern UK nationals for whom no measurements were entries concern UK nationals for whom no measurements were recorded but who are assessed as having zero dose.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what number of service personnel, present at British nuclear tests, were treated during their service after 1965 for skin disorders. [27972]

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  32
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been conducted to investigate potential effects on human immune systems arising in British nuclear test participants who had a recorded level of contamination. [27973]

  Mr. Soames
  Although high levels of radiation exposure have been shown to affect the human immune system, there is no scientific evidence of any detrimental effect arising from exposure to the low radiation levels experienced by British nuclear test participants. It has therefore not been necessary to conduct any specific research in this area.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of whether grounds exist for an investigation into genetic effects and deformities arising from British nuclear tests and medical conditions in participants' families. [27974]

  Mr. Soames
  We consider there to be no grounds for such an investigation.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information is available on the health monitoring activities of Mr. Frank Morgan at Aldermaston for participants invovled in British nuclear tests. [28001]

  Mr. Soames
  The late Dr. Morgan worked in the chemistry division at Aldermaston until the mid-1980s and was involved in radiochemical aspects of British nuclear tests. He had no responsibility for health monitoring programmes.

  Devonport
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated additional cost of continuing hunter-killer refitting at Rosyth due to the unavailability of drydock facilities at Devonport. [28238]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) on 17 May 1995,Official Report, column 229. Discussions with the dockyard companies are on-going and costs will be one of the considerations taken into account before any final decisions are made.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the deadline for nuclear installations inspectorate approval of the Trident submarine refitting drydock facility at Devonport. [28236]

  Mr. Freeman
  The nuclear installations inspectorate is involved during all stages of approval and the aim remains to have the necessary approvals in place in time to meet the Trident refit programme, around the turn of the century.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the accepted price of the construction of drydock facilities for Trident refitting at Devonport when the contract was awarded; what is the current estimated total cost of building the facilities; and what is the permissible margin for increased costs on the contract. [28237]
  33
  Mr. Freeman
  No contract has yet been awarded for the construction of the Trident refitting facilities. Negotiations are continuing and it would be inappropriate to speculate on the outcome in respect of costs, details of which remain commercially confidential.

  RAF Harrier (Crash)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which unit the Royal Air Force Harrier which crashed in the Solway firth on 1 June belonged; what was the nature of the trial in which it was engaged at the time; and if the aircraft was operating in concert with other aircraft or on its own. [28239]

  Mr. Soames
  The aircraft, from the strike attack operational evaluation unit, Boscombe Down, was on a singleton sortie to trial a new ground proximity warning system. It is not yet known whether the equipment was in use at the time of the crash.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the same consideration and help will be given to(a) the staff and (b) the local community of Royal Air Force Finningley when it is closed as is available to the staff and local communities of the Royal Air Force stations to be closed in Lincolnshire; and if he will make a statement. [28277]

  Mr. Soames
  In accordance with normal departmental practice, careful and sympathetic consideration is being given to the individual preferences of staff at RAF Finningley, and every effort is being made to find them alternative employment elsewhere in MOD or in other Government Departments. Any staff who are made redundant will be compensated under the appropriate regulations, and the MOD redundancy, counselling and outplacement service will be available to help those concerned to identify new work opportunities.

  No final decision has yet been made on alternative military uses for RAF Finningley. However, my officials have recently held their second meeting with Doncaster metropolitan borough council at which local aspirations for the site were discussed, and a joint planning brief will be prepared which takes these into account.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [28494]

  Mr. Soames
  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 Minister by letter. The chief executive's letter is published in Hansard below the Minister's reply.

  Training Areas
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the weapons which are permitted to be fired in the Garelochhead training area; and what changes have occurred to the list of permitted weaponry since 1990;

  (2) how many training man-days were spent on the Garelochhead training area in each of the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95;

  (3) how many training man-days have been spent in each financial year since 1989–90 on (a) Tighnablair training area, (b) Cape Wrath training area, (c) Auchallater training area, (d) Barry Buddon training area, (e) Dreghorn training area, (f) Milton Bridge training area, (g) the Galloway training area and (h) Cambusbarron training area. [29072]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary 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.

  HMS Roebuck
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Roebuck was commissioned; when she is to be decommissioned; what factors led to the decision to decommission her; what is to be the future strength of the Royal Navy's hydrographic service; what proportion of such ships is to be taken up from trade or newly constructed; and what decision has been taken as to where new orders are to be placed. [29552]

  Mr. Soames
  HMS Roebuck was commissioned on 3 October 1986. On current plans, she will be withdrawn from service around the end of the century, as the capability of the hydrographic service is upgraded with the introduction of new vessels. We envisage that the future hydrographic surveying squadron will comprise five survey vessels, including the new ocean survey vessel, HMS Scott, an order for which was placed in January. No decisions have yet been taken on the procurement of further vessels.

  Civil Service Retirement
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 200, if he will provide comparable details on civil service early retirement packages on grounds of inefficiency. [29286]

  Mr. Freeman
  Inefficiency is a ground for dismissal. Early retirement packages are not offered to staff leaving the Department on the grounds of inefficiency, although an immediate lump payment of up to two years' salary may be made where the Department judges that the payment of compensation is appropriate. Where compensation is agreed and the person dismissed is over the age of 55, this may be forgone in favour of immediate payment of the accrued superannuation benefits which would otherwise be preserved for payment at retiring age.

HEALTH

  Dental Services
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each of the last five years(a) the number of dental practitioners, (b) the number of NHS patients registered with dental practitioners and (c) the proportion NHS patients were of the total numbers of patients treated, for (i) City and East London FHSA and (ii) the London borough of Newham. [27337]

  Mr. Malone
  Patients are free to visit or register with dentists outside their family health services authority area. Therefore the total number of patients resident in City and East London Family Health Services Authority who visit dentists either privately or on a national health service basis is not known. The available information is shown in the table.

  General Dental Service: number of dentists1 and the number of patients registered with a dentist practising in City and East London Family Health Services Authority at 30 September2 from 1990 to 1994

  Dentists

  Patients registered

  1990

  189

  —

  1991

  173

  166,940

  1992

  175

  281,951

  1993

  169

  288,397

  1994

  168

  282,484

  1 Some dentists have contracts in more than one Family Health Services Authority. These dentists have been counted only once.

  2 Prior to the introduction of the new contract in October 1990, patients were not required to be registered, therefore the figures for September 1991 are not strictly comparable with later years.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was funding per capita on NHS dentistry for each year since 1990. [28090]

  Mr. Malone
  Information for the general dental services is shown in the table.

  General Dental Services: Gross and net cost per capita from 1988–89; to 1994–95.

  England

  £

  Year

  Gross expenditure

  Net expenditure

  1989–90

  19.87

  12.19

  1990–91

  21.74

  13.80

  1991–92

  25.85

  17.47

  1992–93

  26.99

  18.83

  1993–94

  25.17

  17.61

  1994–95

  26.42

  18.49

  Expenditure for 1994–95 is provisional.

  Population estimates at June.

  Emergency Admissions
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the reasons for the increase in emergency hospital admissions in recent years. [27387]

  Mr. Sackville
  Studies are currently being undertaken within the national health service and associated organisations looking at the numbers and causes of emergency admissions. The NHS Executive will be circulating details of these and will, later this year, be issuing good practice guidance on contracting for emergencies, drawing on the work currently being done in five sites.

  Managers (Termination Payments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the individual termination payments made to general and senior managers in health authorities in the most recent years for which figures are available. [27502]

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many termination payments have been made by health authorities and FHSAs to(a) chief executives, (b) general managers and (c) senior managers; and what was the total amount for each authority over the last two years. [28448]

  Mr. Malone
  a Information is not available centrally in the form requested. The available information for 1994–95 relating to ex-gratia and contractual severance payments is shown in the table.

  £

  South Thames RHA

  23,575

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  14,000

  North Thames RHA

  75,435

  Barking and Havering HA

  106,808

  North West RHA

  108,089

  North West Lancashire HA

  64,549

  Lancashire FHSA

  26,079

  Trent RHA

  73,435

  Nottingham HA

  49,611

  Anglia and Oxford RHA

  74,482

  Walsall HA

  51,033

  NHS Supplies

  72,881

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 2 February,Official Report, columns 840–41, if she will update the information on termination payments made to trust chief executives and managers. [27533]

  Mr. Malone
  The table shows the latest information about termination payments made since April 1994 which national health service trusts have notified to the National Health Service Executive, under the arrangements in TEL(94)3, copies of which are available in the Library.

  4,487

  7,323

  Broadgreen Hospital NHS Trust

  31.078

  23,128

  63,039

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  1

  25,400

  Burnley Health Care NHS Trust

  1

  245,000

  Burton Hospitals NHS Trust

  1

  7,053

  Cheviot and Wansbeck NHS Trust

  10,086

  6,329

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  1

  28,749

  Cornwall and Isles of Stilly Learning

  Disabilities NHS Trust

  1

  11,000

  37,222

  Dudley Priority Health NHS Trust

  7,481

  9,639

  East Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  1

  22,500

  East Surrey Learning Disability and

  Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  1

  36,677

  Enfield Community Care NHS Trust

  1

  35,522

  Epsom Healthcare NHS Trust

  1

  15,000

  Fosse Health NHS Trust

  1

  19,500

  37

  NHS Trust

  Number of payments

  Amount £

  Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust

  1

  6,328

  Hammersmith Hospital NHS Trust

  47,616

  75,073

  Herefordshire Community Health NHS

  Trust

  1

  28,416

  Healthlands Mental Health NHS Trust

  1

  25,008

  Hertfordshire Health Agency NHS

  Trust

  3,000

  3,000

  3,000

  55,573

  Kings Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,005

  23,627

  10,261

  Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

  4,365

  14,903

  7,873

  12,991

  The Medway NHS Trust

  12,803

  13,501

  Mid Anglia Community Health NHS

  Trust

  1

  5,449

  Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  1

  31,549

  New Possibilities NHS Trust

  1

  65,199

  North East Essex Mental Health

  Service NHS Trust

  1

  26,188

  North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  1

  30,000

  North Mersey Community NHS Trust

  1

  11,300

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  1

  11,328

  North Tees Health NHS Trust

  1

  27,764

  North West London Mental Health

  NHS Trust

  1

  6,500

  Northern Birmingham Mental Health

  NHS Trust

  45,155

  29,372

  Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  1

  25,000

  Northampton Community Healthcare

  NHS Trust

  20,259

  19,540

  Northgate and Prudhoe NHS Trust

  1

  6,500

  13,814

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  23,642

  13,556

  3,948

  Nottinghamshire Ambulance Service

  NHS Trust

  1

  17,500

  Pilgrim Health NHS Trust

  1

  7,864

  Plymouth Hospital NHS Trust

  7,865

  21,900

  Queens Medical Centre Nottingham

  University NHS Trust

  1

  77,715

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  1

  35,295

  47,355

  Royal Liverpool University Hospital

  7,242

  28,384

  Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust

  18,466

  12,122

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital

  NHS Trust

  1

  7,130

  Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

  1

  19,343

  Salford Mental Health Services NHS

  Trust

  1

  15,874

  South Bedfordshire Community

  Healthcare NHS Trust

  1

  17,771

  South Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  1

  37,740

  South Downs Health NHS Trust

  1

  8,727

  South Kent Community Healthcare

  NHS Trust

  1

  30,636

  South Kent Hospitals NHS Trust

  1

  8,626

  South Warwickshire General Hospital

  NHS Trust

  1

  34,829

  43,908

  Southend Healthcare NHS Trust

  29,901

  7,031

  Southmead Health Services NHS Trust

  1

  30,649

  Stockport Healthcare NHS Trust

  1

  21,940

  38

  NHS Trust

  Number of payments

  Amount £

  Teddington Memorial Hospital NHS

  Trust

  1

  18,750

  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS

  Trust

  1

  30,000

  Walsall Community NHS Trust

  1

  35,000

  Walsall Hospital NHS Trust

  1

  6,926

  West Herts Community Health NHS

  Trust

  2,633

  2,276

  29,505

  40,000

  Wiltshire Ambulance Service NHS

  Trust

  1

  27,314

  Winchester and Eastleigh NHS Trust

  1

  19,504

  Worcester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  1

  22,167

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals

  NHS Trust

  34,547

  18,200

  York Health Services NHS Trust

  1

  55,000

  Secure Residential Care
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will add the police to the list of those persons the local authority must notify before a child is placed in secure residential care under the Arrangements for Placement of Children (General) Regulations 1991, Regulation 5, where that child is a known offender. [27986]

  Mr. Bowis
  If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me to set out reasons for such a change, I should be happy to consider them.

  NHS Management Costs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she proposes to take regarding the management costs of the national health service benevolent fund. [28268]

  Mr. Malone
  I am unaware of this organisation.

  Minocycline
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases have been recorded of severe rheumatic side effects from the use of acne tablets containing the drug minocycline. [28347]

  Mr. Sackville
  Since the introduction of minocycline in 1973, 119 cases of rheumatic symptoms suspected as associated with minocycline have been reported through the United Kingdom's spontaneous adverse drug reaction scheme. A report of a suspected adverse reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the drug. Rheumatic reactions are a well-recognised side effect of minocycline, but are uncommon in relation to the wide usage of the product.

  The majority of the patients experienced transient joint pains which resolved when minocycline was stopped. Systemic lupus erythematosus, a multi-system condition which may present with severe joint pains, was reported in

  39
  13 cases. The current product information for minocycline provided to doctors includes joint pain and SLE as side effects.

  "The Patient's Charter and You"
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of preparation, production, printing and distribution of "The Patient's Charter and You", (F82/005 1687 1P 25m Jan 95). [28546]

  Mr. Malone
  The cost of producing, printing and distributing "The Patient's Charter and You" was £376,000.

  Naltrexone
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what tests have been carried out on the use of naltrexone to treat heroin addiction and avoid death from heroin misuse; and when naltrexone will become available under prescription for such treatment. [28544]

  Mr. Bowis
  In the United Kingdom naltrexone is not recommended by the British National Formulary in the treatment of patients who are currently addicted to heroin, although recent studies, mainly in the United States of America, have used naltrexone in combination with other drugs to assist rapid detoxification. In the United Kingdom, naltrexone may be prescribed to prevent relapse in detoxified, formerly opiate dependent, addicts. Its prescription is a matter for individual clinicians in discussion with their patients.

  Pregnant Women (Diet)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific research her Department has commissioned into food purchasing and food consumption patterns of pregnant women in receipt of income support. [28805]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Marriages
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to control the level of charges for the performance of civil marriage services by registrars away from their normal offices; what recent estimate she has made of these charges; and what representations she has received on this subject since 1994. [28833]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to control the level of charges levied by local authorities for the attendance of registration officers at civil marriage ceremonies on approved premises under the Marriage Act 1994, beyond the provisions of The Marriage (Approved Premises) Regulations 1995 which limit such fees to an amount, determined by local authorities, as reasonably representing the costs to them of providing a registrar and superintendent registrar to attend at a solemnization. Difference fess may he set for different cases and circumstances.

  No information is available centrally about these charges, and. to date, one representation has been received on this subject.
  40
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has(a) to regulate and (b) to review the charges made by local authorities for inspection of premises under the Marriage Act 1994. [28835]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Regulations made under the provisions of the Marriage Act 1994 empower local authorities to charge a fee for a particular application for the approval of premises or for applications generally. The fee charged shall not exceed the amount which reasonably represents the costs incurred in the former case or which reasonably represents the average costs incurred in the latter.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the highest and lowest charge made for inspection of premises under the Marriage Act 1994. [28834]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information about the fees charged by local authorities in respect of applications for the approval of premises under the Marriage Act 1994 is not available centrally.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average charge made by a registrar for a wedding service(a) in their own offices and (b) at licensed premises outside. [28832]

  Mr. Sackville
  The fee payable for the attendance of a registrar at a register office wedding is set centrally and currently stands at £23.

  The fee payable for civil ceremonies conducted on premises approved under the Marriage Act 1994 is one determined by each local authority as reasonably representing all the costs to it of providing both a registrar and superintendent registrar to attend the solemnization. The local authority may set different fees for different cases and circumstances. Information about the level of fees set by local authorities is not available centrally.

  Miscarriages
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the rates of miscarriages(a) in terms of total numbers and (b) as a percentage for the individual groups for (i) pregnant women in receipt of income support and (ii) pregnant women not in receipt of income support. [28802]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Food Safety
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of food poisoning notifications to the Office of Populations Censuses and Surveys in each year since 1982 and for 1995 to date. [28614]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the numbers of food poisoning cases reported to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is published annually in the MB2 series, communicable disease statistics, copies of which are available in the Library. For the years 1982–94, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 26 October 1994 at cols.684–85.
  41
  The final figure for 1993 and provisional figures for 1994 and 1995 to date are given in the table:

  Numbers of cases of food poisoning in England and Wales reported to OPCS

  Number

  1993 (final)

  68,587

  1994 (provisional)

  82,587

  1995 (provisional) to 12 May 1995

  22,275

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what financial assistance will be given to local environmental health officers to ensure that additional training measures are met to comply with the Food Safety (General Food) Regulations 1995; [28591]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the total administrative costs in enforcing the new Food Safety (General Food) Regulations 1995. [28593]

  Mr. Sackville
  We expect there to be no net cost for local authorities arising from the introduction of the new regulations, since they will replace broadly similar existing regulations. The Department has provided training seminars, free of charge, for local environmental health officers to learn the content of the new regulations.

  £30 million, which was index-linked, was added to the revenue support grant on a continuing basis following the passage of the Food Safety Act 1990. The new regulations will be enforced under the provisions of the Act.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that training regulations are met by food handlers handling high-risk foods following the introduction of the new Food Safety (General Food) Regulations 1995. [28595]

  Mr. Sackville
  The regulations will require food handlers to be"supervised and instructed and/or trained in food hygiene matters commensurate with their work activities"

  The Department is preparing detailed guidance on this, including a revision of Food Safety Act code of practice No. 9 on food hygiene inspections and a free booklet, to explain the requirements of the Regulations.

  In addition, voluntary industry guides to good practice, which are being developed by sectors of the food industry in consultation with Government. enforcement and consumer interests will provide guidance on the level of training required by staff engaged on various duties.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines have been issued in respect of additional training for environmental health officers which she will be required to meet in order to comply with the new Food Safety (General Food) Regulations 1995. [28592]
  42
  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health has held a series of training seminars on the new regulations. Two environmental health officers were invited from each environmental health department in England and Wales. One lecturer from each academic establishment running courses leading to qualification as an environmental health officer was also invited.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding the introduction of the new Food Safety (General Food) Regulations 1995. [28594]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department issued the draft regulations for consultation on 18 February 1994 and received representations from 225 organisations and individuals. The vast majority welcomed the proposed regulations.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines have been issued to outline what requirements hygiene hazard analysis systems should meet in food businesses following the introduction to the new Food Safety (General Food) Regulations 1995. [28596]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is preparing a revision of Food Safety Act code of practice No. 9 on food hygiene inspections and a free booklet explaining the requirements of the regulations. In addition, voluntary industry guides to good hygiene practice, which are being developed by sectors of the food industry, in consultation with Government, enforcement and consumer interests will provide more specific guidance.

  Environmental Health Officers
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many environmental health officers were employed in England and Wales(a) for each year since 1979 and (b) at the latest available date; [28589]

  (2) how many trainee environmental health officers there were in England and Wales (a) for each year since 1979 and (b) for the latest available date. [28590]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally.

  Salmonella
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many laboratory reports of salmonella in foodstuffs have been received by the Public Health Laboratory Service in England and Wales for 1995; and what was the final figure for 1994. [28615]

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1994, the Public Health Laboratory Service identified 2076 salmonella strains from foodstuffs. In the first five months of 1995, 451 salmonella strains were identified.

  Breast Cancer
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the mortality and five-year survival rates for women diagnosed as having breast cancer for each year since 1989. [28089]

  Mr. Sackville
  The mortality rates for England and Wales are shown in the table.
  43

  Mortality, from malignant neoplasm of the female breast (ICD1 174): deaths per 100,000 women 1989–1993.

  1989

  54.0

  1990

  52.4

  1991

  52.8

  1992

  52.2

  1993

  49.5

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  The latest available information for England and Wales indicates that in the mid-1980s the five-year relative survival was 63 per cent.

  Epilepsy
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people suffer from epilepsy in the Dulwich constituency; and what is the average national incidence. [28091]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally, for particular or average constituencies.

  Richmond House
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many car parking spaces are available at Richmond house for(a) disabled employees and (b) disabled visitors. [28099]

  Mr. Sackville
  Two parking spaces at Richmond house are designated as being for disabled people, whether staff or visitors. If more spaces are needed on a particular day they will be found.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names, positions and declared personal interests of the current membership of the Committee on Safety of Medicines; and if she will make a statement. [28913]

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

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children had tuberculosis in each health authority area in England and Wales for each of the last three years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [28714]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys receives reports of cases of tuberculosis notified to proper officers of local authorities. Information is not available on notified cases by district health authority. The approximate numbers of cases for regional health authorities are published in the series "MB2: Communicable Disease Statistics" and are placed in the Library. A table giving the number of reports of tuberculosis in children aged under 16 by local authority in England and Wales has been placed in the Library.

  BCG immunisation to protect against tuberculosis is normally given to children between the ages of 10 and 14
  44
  but is recommended at birth for children born into high-risk families.

  NHS Bodies
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS bodies have a publicised system of informing staff whom they should contact if they suspect wrong-doing; what measures are in place to encourage NHS bodies to offer such advice; and if she will make a statement. [28719]

  Mr. Malone
  The codes of conduct and accountability for national health service boards, published in April 1994, make plain that all NHS boards are responsible for ensuring that staff have a proper and widely publicised procedure for voicing complaints or concerns about maladministration, breaches of the code and other concerns of any ethical nature. The NHS executive's guidance to staff on relations with the public and the media—EL(93)51—clearly indicates the manner by which staff concerns about health care issues should be raised. Copies of all documents are available in the Library.

  NHS Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for how many appointments within the NHS she has direct responsibility; if she will express the number of appointments per title of the position and if she will make a statement. [28721]

  Mr. Malone
  A number of appointments for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has direct responsibility if listed in the table:

  Chairmen

  Non-executives

  Executives

  Regional Health Authorities

  8

  40

  —

  District Health Authorities

  104

  —

  —

  Family Heath Services Authorities

  90

  —

  —

  National Health Service Trusts

  440

  1,291

  —

  Special Trustees

  —

  137

  —

  National Blood Authority

  1

  5

  —

  National Health Service Supplies Authority

  1

  5

  —

  Special Hospital Services Authority

  1

  4

  —

  United Kingdom Transplant

  Support Services Authority

  1

  4

  1

  Dental Vocational Training Authority

  1

  40

  —

  Dental Practice Board

  1

  6

  —

  Mental Health Act Commission

  1

  90

  —

  Prescription Pricing Authority

  1

  6

  —

  Health Education Authority

  1

  7

  2

  Microbiological Research Authority

  1

  4

  —

  Special Health Authorities for London Postgraduate Teaching Hospitals

  2

  11

  —

  Pharmaceuticals
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for changing the arrangements whereby the public is precluded under the amended
  45
  National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992 from making representations on appeals against applicants to the pharmaceutical list. [29017]

  Mr. Malone
  None. Members of the public can make their views known through the community health council which the family health services authority is required by the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992 to consult on applications for entry to the pharmaceutical list. Community health councils can also comment on appeals that are made against FHSAs' decisions under the regulations.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out the procedures by which Newchurch was awarded the contract to advise the NHS executive on the private finance initiative. [29016]

  Mr. Sackville
  Newchurch and Company was awarded the contract to provide a private finance database service which brings the national health service and potential private sector together. Registration on the database and searches are free of charge to NHS users.

  Nine companies and the NHS Supplies authority were invited to tender. They were sent details of the aim and objectives of the private finance database project, the main tasks to be undertaken, the performance criteria and a specification of tenders.

  Six tenders were received. These were considered and three of the bidders were shortlisted for interview. A selection panel of four conducted the interviews at which Newchurch was successful.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were subject to a guardianship order under the Mental Health Act 1983 for each of the past 12 years. [29556]

  Mr. Bowis
  The centrally available information on the number of orders at the end of each financial year and the number of cases opened and closed during the year, was published in "Guardianship under the Mental Health Act (1983) Year Ending 31 March 1994, England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures by region for the number of doctors approved under section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983 currently working within the NHS per head of population; and what proportion of these are registered psychiatrists. [29558]

  Mr. Bowis
  Regional directors of public health are responsible for ensuring that sufficient suitably trained and experienced doctors are approved under the Act and we are satisfied 'that this requirement is being properly met.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to reply to the letter sent to her on 3 April by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton 46
  with regard to Mr. K. McGeever, a further copy of which was sent to her on 11 May. [29346]

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied today.

  Transsexuals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the availability of treatment in the NHS for transsexuals. [29549]

  Mr. Sackville
  Transsexualism is a clinically recognised condition for which, in certain cases, gender reassignment is considered appropriate. A system of referral exists within the national health service for patients to be seen by specialists through the recommendation of their general practitioner. The decision on whether a particular course of treatment should be given is based on the assessment made by the consultant in charge of each case.

  Charter Week
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the cost to her Department, to health authorities and to NHS trusts of the current year's Charter Week celebrations, including the costs of publicity. [29557]

  Mr. Malone
  Health authorities and national health service trusts already inform their local communities about performance against the patients charter initiative and about local services more generally. The fourth anniversary of the citizens charter gives them an opportunity to further strengthen this important communication process. We do not collect data on the cost of these local management initiatives centrally.

  Gender Dysphoria
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ensure that patients undergoing treatment for gender dysphoria benefit from the same medical confidentiality as other patients; and if she will make a statement. [29547]

  Mr. Sackville
  All involved in the treatment of patients in the National Health Service have a legal duty, reinforced by their contracts of employment, of confidentiality in respect of their patients.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage pursuant to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 169, if he will provide comparable details on civil service early retirement packages on grounds of inefficiency. [29287]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Inefficiency is a ground for dismissal. An immediate lump sum payment of up to two years salary may be made where a Department judges payment of compensation to be appropriate. Where compensation is agreed and the person dismissed is over 55, this may be forgone in favour of immediate payment of the accrued
  47
  superannuation benefits which would otherwise be preserved for payment at retiring age. There have been no departures on inefficiency grounds from the Departments of National Heritage since its creation in April 1992.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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 only be obtained 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 he will list each question along with the name and constituency of the right hon. or hon. Member who originally tabled it. [28512]

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

  Mount Grace Priory
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what research and action he had taken in conjunction with English Heritage over the archaeological findings at Mount Grace priory, near Northallerton, North Yorkshire on the making of liqueur by the Carthusian monks at the priory; and if he will make a statement. [27934]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Mount Grace priory is an historic property managed by English Heritage. I understand that, using general archaeological evidence, English Heritage has planted a herb garden which, for 1995, contains many of the plants likely to have been used in the manufacture of herbal beverages in the 15th century, but that there is no direct archaeological evidence for the manufacture of any particular liqueur by Carthusian monks at Mount Grace priory.

  Broadcasting Sponsorship Unit
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the membership, aims and strategy of broadcasting sponsorship unit. [27361]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 13 June 1995]: I established a new division in my Department in April to sponsor the broadcasting and audiovisual industry.

  The recent White Paper "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead" (Cmd 2867) set out the Government's principal aim for, and general approach to, industrial sponsorship: working with UK industry to help it compete more effectively at home and abroad. Over the coming months, the new division, in consultation with the industry, will be developing a detailed strategy for its work with the broadcasting and audiovisual sector.

  The division is headed by a grade 5 on loan from the Department of Trade and Industry who currently has two other staff in post. Further staff are being recruited. I envisage a mix of officials and those with practical experience of the industry.

  Island Games
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which Minister will be attending the Island games in Gibraltar in July. [28609]

  Mr. Sproat
  No Ministers will be attending the games.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which islands of the United Kingdom will be represented at the Island games to be held in Gibraltar in July. [28607]

  Mr. Sproat
  Alderney, Guernsey, isle of Man, Isle of Wight, Jersey, Orkney, Sark, Shetlands and Ynys Môns, Anglesey.

  Office of the National Lottery
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what was the cost of the move of the office of the National Lottery to 2 Monck street, London SW1; [28265]

  (2) if he will list by month since its inception the cost of (a) rent, (b) rates and (c) staff for the office of the national lottery; and if he will make a statement. [28267]

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is an operational matter for the Office of the National Lottery I have therefore asked the Director General of the National Lottery, to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what facilities are provided and arrangements made for the well-being and comfort of staff who(a) smoke and (b) do not wish to be affected by smoking at (i) the workstation and (ii) rest, recreation and refreshment facilities at the Northern Ireland Office, Whitehall, London. [27085]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Office in Whitehall has a smoking policy which states that staff are not allowed to smoke anywhere in the accommodation occupied by the Department, other than in the smoking room provided. This ensures a smoke-free environment for non-smokers. Line managers are responsible for ensuring that the smoking room facility is not abused. The smoking room is equipped with a desk and telephone as well as easy chairs to enable smokers to carry on working.

  The refreshment facilities are shared with other Government Departments and have separate smoking and non-smoking areas.

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the businesses in which the Northern Ireland tourist board has taken the preference share options and indicate(a) the amount of each investment, (b) which of these businesses have received within the past three years development grants from schemes directly administered by the hoard from

  49
  European Union funds, (c) the amount of grant awarded in total and expressed as percentage of the approved cost of each development, (d) the number of additional jobs created in each of the businesses which benefited from the preference share option scheme or the development grants; and what monitoring he has carried out to ensure that these businesses have not received any more preferential support or advice in the marketing and promotion of their activities from the Northern Ireland tourist board, either directly or indirectly, to that which is available to other hotels in Northern Ireland. [26629]

  Mr. Ancram
  The businesses in which the Northern Ireland tourist board has taken preference share options are:

  1. Clandeboye Lodge Hotel, Bangor: £250,000

  2. Radisson Roe Park Hotel, Limavady: £550,000

  3. Manor House Hotel, Killadeas: £330,000

  Of these businesses, the following accepted offers of assistance under European Union funds:

  Radisson Roe Park Hotel, Limavady: £1,250,000

  Manor House Hotel, Killadeas: £200,000

  The amount of grant awarded in total from NITB and EU sources and expressed as a percentage of approved costs is as follows:
  Clandeboye Lodge Hotel, Bangor: £450,000, representing 30 per cent. of approved costs and 13.5 per cent. of approved costs on redemption of the preference shares, ignoring any redemption premium.
  Radisson Roe Park Hotel, Limavady: £3,450,000, representing 41 per cent. of approved costs and 34.7 per cent. of approved costs on redemption of the preference shares, ignoring any redemption premium.
  Manor House Hotel, Killadeas: £630,000, representing 34 per cent. of approved costs and 16 per cent. of approved costs on redemption of the preference shares, ignoring any redemption premium.

  The number of jobs created in each of the businesses is as follows:

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Clandeboye Lodge Hotel, Bangor

  22

  15

  Radisson Roe Park, Limavady

  60

  50

  Manor House Hotel, Killadeas

  20

  34

  Applications for support for marketing and promotional activities are considered by NITB on an individual basis and on ability to meet the established published criteria. Companies which have not been financially assisted through the NITB are equally able to apply for support or advice on marketing or promotional activities.

  Firearms
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many weapons are currently on issue for personal protection purposes in Northern Ireland. [28224]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The total number of firearms held at 30 April 1995, on foot of firearms certificates issued by the Chief Constable under article 28 of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. for personal protection purposes, was 10.418. Firearms certificates for personal 50
  protection weapons are issued only where the Chief Constable judges that the individual's life is at serious risk, and where other legal criteria have been satisfied.

  Framework Agreement
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if any unqualified commitment has been given to the Government of the Irish Republic to incorporate(a) some or all of the principles set out in the new framework for agreement. [28365]

  Mr. Ancram
  The proposals in "A New Framework for Agreement" are"A shared understanding between the British and Irish Governments to assist discussion and negotiation involving the Northern Ireland parties".

  The proposals are based firmly on the principle of consent of the people of Northern Ireland to any political settlement negotiated with the parties. There is therefore no predetermined outcome.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action his Department is taking to prevent organophosphate poisoning among those involved in sheep dipping. [28452]

  Mr. Ancram
  The controls in Northern Ireland on the sale and supply of organophosphorous sheep dip products are similar to those in Great Britain. From 1 April 1995, such products can be sold only to people holding a certificate of competence in the safe use of sheep dips or the representatives of those people. A one-day training course on the use of sheep dips is available at the Department's agricultural colleges free of charge to farmers. The Department of Agriculture has written to sheep farms providing information about the certificate of competence scheme and has issued a leaflet on the Health and Safety aspects of using organophosphorous sheep dip products.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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 of 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 he will list each question along with the name and constituency of the right hon. or hon. Member who originally tabled it. [28507]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [28488]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Ministers are accountable to Parliament for all matters concerning their agencies. Written parliamentary questions concerning matters
  51
  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 below the Minister's reply.

  Health
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he operates upon the World Health Organisation definition of health in carrying out his health responsibilities in Northern Ireland. [28543]

  Mr. Moss
  The regional strategy for the Northern Ireland health and personal social services 1992 to 1997, with its emphasis on the promotion of health and the prevention of disease, is based on the principles of the World Health Organisation's "Health for All" concept.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much national lottery money is expected to be distributed by the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and the Sports Council for Northern Ireland in the current financial year. [28542]

  Mr. Ancram
  Based on current forecast information, the proceeds in the national lottery distribution fund for each council are expected to be in the region of £7 million in 1995–96.

  Landfill Project, Magheramorne
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if a decision has been taken within the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment to support landfill at Magheramorne prior to the public inquiry. [29172]

  Mr. Moss
  No.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the US Trade and Development Agency or Louis Berger International Inc. was advised that the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment had announced that a public inquiry would be held into the Blue Circle, Magheramorne quarry landfill application later in 1995 when briefed by the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment town and country planning service prior to the Washington conference; [29176]

  (2) if Louis Berger International Inc. was advised of the likelihood of a public inquiry into the suitability of the limestone based quarry at Magheramorne, Country Antrim and of its timing; [29174]

  (3) what information the US Trade and Development Agency or Louis Berger International Inc. was given by the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment officials on their assessment of the viability of the Blue Circle landfill proposed project; [29173]

  (4) what advice was given by the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment to (a) the US Trade and Development Agency or (b) Louis Berger International Inc. regarding the Magheramorne quarry landfill project prior to the White House conference held in Washington on 24 to 26 March. [29171]
  52
  Mr. Moss
  The chief scientist, Louis Berger International Inc. (Engineers, Scientists, Economists, Planners) was part of a trade delegation from the United States of America visiting Northern Ireland prior to the Washington conference. He met an official of the town and country planning service of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment to discuss environmental information, including prospective developments.

  Arising from the general discussion the chief scientist expressed interest in the Blue Circle Magheramorne landfill project and was then shown the environmental statement which accompanied the planning application relating to the project. The environmental statement is a document available for public scrutiny. He was told that a local public inquiry would be held later this year. No further advice was given either on the likely outcome of the application nor on the viability of the project.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the town and country planning service will complete its environmental impact assessment of the magheramorne quarry landfill project. [29175]

  Mr. Moss
  Assessment of the environmental effects of the proposal will not be completed until after the local public inquiry into the planning application and consideration of the report of the Planning Appeals Commission which is not expected until late spring 1996.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students were attending Northern Irish higher education institutions in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [29022]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number of students

  1993–94

  32,608

  1994–95

  37,247 (provisional)

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the proportion of students obtaining(a) first class and (b) upper second class degrees at Northern Irish higher education institutions in (i) 1991–92 and (ii) 1992–93; and if he will make a statement. [29025]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Per cent.

  Year

  First class honours

  Upper second class honours

  1991–92

  5.5

  44.6

  1992–93

  6.4

  42.3

  Student Grants and Loans
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the forecast for expenditure on mandatory awards and loans given to students from Northern Ireland during the current year; and if he will make a statement. [29029]
  53
  Mr. Ancram
  Expenditure for the 1995–96 financial year is estimated at £118.3 million.

  Civil Service Retirement
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, columns 161–62, if he will provide comparable details on civil service early retirement packages on grounds of inefficiency. [29288]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Inefficiency is a ground for dismissal. An immediate lump sum payment of up to two years' salary may be made in respect of non-industrial personnel where a Department judges payment of compensation to be appropriate. Where compensation is payable and the person dismissed is over age 55, the compensation payment may be forgone in favour of immediate payment of accrued superannuation benefits which would normally be preserved for payment at retiring age. The latter would usually be more beneficial to the officer.

  For staff departures from the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office the relevant information is not available for the financial years 199091 and 1991–92. The information of subsequent years is as follows:

  Year

  Number of departures

  Total compensation paid £

  1992–93

  5

  38,395.07

  1993–94

  9

  41,233.15

  1994–95

  6

  60,494.90

  Training and Employment Agency
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what targets have been set for the Training and Employment Agency for Northern Ireland for the period 1995 to 1998; and if he will make a statement about the agency's future. [29852]

  Mr. Ancram
  The following targets have been set for the agency:

  1. Within the company development programme to increase the percentage of companies using national vocational qualification based training to raise the competence of their work forces from 35 per cent. at March 1995 to 75 per cent. by March 1998.

  2. To encourage the commitment of Northern Ireland industry and commerce to the Investors in People standard with the aim of increasing the number of recognitions from 20 in March 1995 to 50 in March 1996, 100 in March 1997 and 150 in March 1998. At least 50 per cent. of the companies to be in manufacturing and tradeable services.

  3. To provide a range of relevant. high quality management development programmes and to achieve a customer satisfaction rating of at least 80 per cent. as reviewed at the end of each year, that such provision will increase individual and/or business performance.

  4. To support the IDB's objective of attracting 20 inward investment projects with 4.500 job promotions by 31 March 1996 and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board's aim of attracting strategically important investment which strengthens the tourism and hospitality infrastructure.

  5. In the first year of operation, 1995–96, 25 per cent. of mainstream participants in lobskills will achieve NVQ level 2
  54
  or above, increasing to at least 35 per cent. in 1996–97 and 45 per cent. in 1997–98.

  6. To provide an average of 9,400 temporary employment places with training through the ACE programme with the aim of increasing the number of leavers into jobs, training or further education within three months of leaving from 41 per cent. in 1994–95 to 43 per cent. in 1995–96 to 45 per cent. in 1996–97 to 47 per cent. in 1997–98.

  7. By 1998 to agree and implement at least 40 modern apprenticeships frameworks with the appropriate sectoral representative bodies—20 in 1995–96, 15 in 1996–97 and five in 1997–98.

  8. To carry out a full evaluation of the community work programme pilots by March 1997.

  9. Over the next three years the agency will place a total of 114,000 people into jobs—36,000 in 1995–96, 38,000 in 199697 and 40,000 in 1997–98.

  10. The agency will review its customer service standards, publish a revised customer charter by December 1995, have identified appropriate areas for entry for the nation-wide Chartermark competition for services in the public sector by March 1996 and have reached the standard in these areas by March 1998.

  11. To revise by March 1997 the agency management accounting system to provide full cost management accounts and improve the integration of unit costs with performance measures.

  12. To achieve Investors in People national standard for employers by September 1995.

  13. To achieve annual efficiency savings of at least 4 per cent. over the period 1995 to 1998.

  14. To complete by end 1995 the equality and equity benchmarking of the agency's programmes and services, set targets for action to redress imbalances, and by March 1998 to demonstrate progress by meeting the targets established.

  15. To ensure that the objectives of the targeting social need and policy appraisal and fair treatment initiatives are reflected in all reviews of the agency's programmes and services carried out over the period of this plan.

  Copies of the agency's published corporate plan, 1995–98, will be placed in the Library.

  In accordance with next steps principles, the agency has been subject to an evaluation review and the case for its continuaton assessed. The evaluation report confirms that, since its inception in 1990, the agency has been a success, both in terms of bringing together a central operational focus for training and employment services and as a next steps agency. It will continue as a next steps agency with the same operational responsibilities. Work is presently in hand to revise its framework document in the light of the findings of the evaluation report and changes in next steps policy and procedures.

  A copy of the evaluation report will be placed in the parliamentary Library.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland in 1995–96. [29851]

  Mr. Moss
  For 1995–96 the following performance targets have been set for Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland:

  1. to survey 32,000 house units in the continuous revision programme:

  2. to complete 850 data capture units representing 1,630 basic scale map sheets converted to digital format:

  55

  3. to update the digital topographical database with 91 per cent. of the surveyed change within seven days of receipt of the field data;

  4. to dispatch, within seven working days, 91 per cent. of orders for folded and basic scale maps;

  5. to reduce unit costs so that the weighted mean percentage reduction of selected representative activities is three per cent.; and

  6. to recover from the supply of goods and services, 28 per cent of the total cots incurred by OSNI.

  Gross Indecency
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were convicted of gross indecency in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [28222]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information in respect of persons found guilty of gross indecency, attempted gross indecency and gross indecency with a child, is as follows:

  Offence

  Year 1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Gross indecency

  35

  7

  2

  9

  3

  Attempted gross indecency

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gross indecency with a child

  17

  12

  10

  4

  7

  Total

  54

  19

  12

  13

  10

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [28650]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 15 June 1993]: The Crown is not bound by any NI legislation unless the contrary intention is clearly stated, or there is a necessary implication that the Crown is to be bound.

  Whether Crown immunity applies to statutory bodies other than Government Departments and agencies depends on whether they are carrying out functions on behalf of the Crown. The legislative provisions establishing many statutory bodies expressly state that they are not emanations of the Crown and shall not act or he treated as servants or agents of the Crown. For such bodies, no question of Crown immunity arises.

  The Government's policy on Crown immunity, as set out in the Cm 1599, "The Citizens 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.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Military Exports
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as PL 5020 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27487]

  (2) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 1 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27460]

  (3) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 5 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27464]

  (4) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 9 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No.3092; [27468]

  (5) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 14 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27472]

  (6) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 16 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI. 1992 No. 3092; [27474]

  (7) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 23 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27478]

  (8) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as PL 5021 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27483]

  (9) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as PL 5028 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27491]

  (10) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 26 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27480]

  (11) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as PL 5002 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27481]

  (12) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as PL 5001 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27490]

  (13) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 3 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27462]
  57
  (14) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 7 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27466]

  (15) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 11 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27470]

  (16) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 18 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27476]

  (17) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as PL 5029 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27485]

  (18) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as PL 5017 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27488]

  (19) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 2 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27461]

  (20) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 6 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27465]

  (21) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 10 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092; [27469]

  (22) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 15 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of S.I. 1992 No. 3092; [27473]

  (23) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 17 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of S.I. 1992 No. 3092; [27475]

  (24) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 24 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of S.I. 1992 No. 3092; [27479]

  (25) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as PL 5006 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of S.I. 1992 No. 3092; [27484]

  (26) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 20 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of S.I. 1992 No. 3092; [27477]

  (27) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as PL 5018 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 or S.I. 1992 No. 3092; [27482]
  58
  (28) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as PL 5027 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of S.I. 1992 No. 3092; [27489]

  (29) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 4 in group 4 of part III of schedule 1 of S.I. 1992 No. 3092; [27463]

  (30) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 8 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of S.I. 1992 No. 3092; [27467]

  (31) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as ML 13 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of S.I. 1992 No. 3092; [27471]

  (32) how many export licence applications, by country, were approved in 1993 for the export of goods defined as PL 5014 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of S.I. 1992 No. 3092. [27486]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that his questions involve a very large quantity of statistical information. I shall provide the information which he has asked for, to the extent that it is available on my Department's databases. However, the task involved in gathering and collating the data is a considerable one. I shall therefore send the information, in tabular form, to the hon. Gentleman. I shall also arrange to have a copy placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 24 May,Official Report, column 676, if he will state the number of cases in which end-use certificates, end-use statements or international import certificates were not insisted upon for military list goods; if he will identify the companies concerned; and if he will make a statement. [27701]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: A full answer to the hon. Member's question could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, some work has been done on this issue in my Department on a sample basis. I refer the hon. Member to my answer given today to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) for further details of the sample survey commissioned last month by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade into the supporting documentation supplied with export licence applications for military list goods during the period 1986–90.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how may occasions between 1985 and 1990 his Department received representations from right hon. or hon. Members in support of applications for export licences in respect of military list goods for export to Iran and Iraq. [27550]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: It would be possible to determine on how many occasions between 1985 and 1990 my Department received representations from right hon. or hon. Members in support of applications for export licences in respect of military list goods for export to Iran and Iraq only by combing a very large number of files, and each individual export licence over the period. This exercise could be undertaken only at seriously disproportionate cost.
  59
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 24 May,Official Report, column 676, how many applications for export licences in respect of military list goods to Iran and Iraq between 1985 to 1990 were specifically drawn to the attention of Ministers; and how many of those approved by Ministers did not provide end-use certificates, end-use statements or international import certificates. [27702]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: It would be possible to determine how many applications for export licences, in respect of military list goods to Iran and Iraq between 1985 and 1990, were specifically drawn to the attention of Ministers only by combing a very large number of files, and each individual export licence over the period. This exercise could be undertaken only at seriously disproportionate cost and time.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many military list export licences applications were the subject of his recent internal inquiries into the possible absence of full documentation; and if that sample was focused on particular countries or types of product. [29166]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The full results are set out of the sample survey commissioned last month by the President of the Board of Trade into the supporting documentation supplied with export licences.

  The survey was set up as follows. A randomly selected sample was taken of 10 per cent. of all military list export licence applications for the following destinations: Pakistan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Portugal, Thailand and Cyprus. There was no focus on particular types of product. The figure of 74 per cent. quoted in the President's statement was an average of the figures for 1986 to 1989.

  Military list licences 1986–90

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Government applications

  19

  24

  20

  23

  7

  Private applications

  25

  37

  45

  29

  25

  Total

  44

  61

  65

  52

  32

  Number supporting documents (Governments)

  13

  19

  12

  7

  4

  Number supporting documents (private)

  25

  30

  40

  19

  22

  Number supporting documents (total)

  38

  49

  52

  26

  26

  Percentage of applications with no supporting documents

  86

  80

  80

  50

  81

  The results are also set out of a similar survey commissioned last month by the President of the Board of Trade for all BMARC export licence applications between 1986 and 1989. The figure of 36 per cent. quoted in the President's statement is an average of the figures for BMARC for 1986 to 1989.
  60

  BMARC licences 1986–89

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989 (BMARC)

  1989 (ASTRA)

  Government applications

  59

  96

  70

  31

  24

  Private applications

  65

  73

  58

  15

  13

  Total

  124

  169

  128

  46

  37

  Number of supporting documents (Government)

  14

  8

  4

  5

  3

  Number of supporting documents (private)

  43

  46

  42

  9

  9

  Number of supporting documents (total)

  57

  54

  46

  14

  12

  Percentage of applications with no supporting documents

  46

  32

  36

  30

  32

  Mr. Miller
  to ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral statement of 13 June,Official Report, columns 595–606, if he will list those cases amongst the 74 per cent. of the applications to which he referred which have subsequently been discovered to have an end use in a nation with which his Government have an arms embargo. [29102]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer given today to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) for further details of the sample survey commissioned last month by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade into the supporting documentation supplied with export licence applications for military list goods during the period 1986–90.

  All licence application forms contain a question requiring a statement of end use and the ultimate consignee.

  The purpose of my officials in examining this relatively small random sample of 254 export licences was to take a quick check on the state of export licence administration in the DTI over the period 1986–90. They were not asked to investigate the final destination of the goods covered by the licences. This would not have been part of their duties. The investigation of alleged breaches of export controls is a matter for Customs and Excise in its role as an independent prosecuting authority of the Crown.

  There are boxes on the export licences application forms which ask the applicant to state both the end use and the end user of the goods in question. My Department has no evidence to suggest that the goods relating to any of the licences sampled ended up anywhere other than as stated on the application form. It would be entirely wrong to assume from the figure of 74 per cent. given in my right hon. Friend's oral statement on 13 June that a large proportion of exporters misled my Department.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Minister, former Minister or civil servants in his Department have sought independent legal advice in assisting their response to draft extracts from Sir Richard Scott's report; in each case from whom the advice has been sought; and what limit has been placed on the cost of such advice to public funds. [28384]
  61
  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 13 June 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14 June 1995, Official Report, column 530.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria for determining increased effectiveness apart from the issue of benchmarking costs, will be applied in awarding contracts for work currently carried out by civil servants in his Department. [29191]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The criteria vary depending on the particular exercise but commonly include the quality of service offered, the bidder's understanding of the Department's needs, their ability to bring new innovative approaches to the delivery of the services, the continuity of service offered on taking over the work, their commitment to developing a co-operative partnership with the DTI, and the overall value for money offered.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the projected cost of the Insolvency Service's local office ledger accounting computer system. [29245]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The set-up cost of the LOLA—local office ledger accounting system—is estimated to he £1,543,000.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he proposes taking to ensure creditors' meetings take place in areas affected by particular insolvencies in the event of official receivers' offices being closed as a result of contracting out. [29189]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The venue of a creditors meeting will still be governed by rules 4.60 and 6.86 of the Insolvency Rules 1986, which states:"the person summoning the meeting is to have regard for the convenience of persons (other than the chairman) invited to attend".

  There is no obligation to hold meetings at official receivers' offices; and they may be held at any convenient venue considered appropriate.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he plans to take to conserve the training investment in the specialist accountancy staff in the organisation in the event of the work of the Insolvency Service being contracted out. [29192]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In the event of any contracting out of official receiver's functions, the residual work of the Insolvency Service would require the continued employment of the bulk of its specialist staff.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, following the implementation of current proposals to contract out the work of the Insolvency Service, which offices he proposes to close. [29190]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No decisions have yet been taken in relation to the size and location of the Insolvency Service. It is not expected that such decisions will be made until conclusions on contracting out have been reached.
  62
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to raise the standards of conduct for private insolvency practitioners to(a) the current performance level and (b) the current targets set for official receivers' staff as condition for proceeding further with contracting out proposals for the Insolvency Service. [29186]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The requirement scoping document recently issued to potential bidders set out levels of experience and competencies of staff that will be required. Any provider, who may or may not be an insolvency practitioner, must satisfy these requirements. In addition, the performance of contractors would he closely monitored to ensure that standards were being consistently maintained to an equal or better level than the standards of expertise and performance currently achieved by the Insolvency Service.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) bankruptcy orders and (b) winding up orders were dealt with by the Sheffield official receiver's office during each of the last five years. [28797]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The total numbers of bankruptcy orders and winding up orders dealt with by the official receiver's Sheffield office in each of the last five years were as follows:

  Financial year

  Bankruptcy

  Winding up

  1990–91

  288

  102

  1991–92

  570

  110

  1992–93

  640

  120

  1993–94

  559

  94

  1994–95

  488

  98

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what plans the Insolvency Service has to administer those cases not finalised by 31 March 1996 following contractorisation of the official receiver. [28799]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Official are exploring arrangements which would enable existing cases at 1 April 1996 to be transferred to contractors to complete their administration.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if staff of the official receiver's office transferred to the private sector will have their salaries enhanced to compensate for the absence of non-contributory pensions for the purpose of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. [28827]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Although TUPE does not cover the transfer of occupational pension rights, a new employer will be required to provide broadly comparable pension arrangements. These arrangements would be considered by the Department as part of the preparations for any transfer. The Government Actuary will provide an independent analysis of comparability and will need to approve the new arrangements as offering broadly comparable benefits. The Government Actuary will assess the arrangements as a whole to ascertain their comparability to the principal civil service pension scheme and these arrangements may
  63
  include compensation, for example, for employee contributions or different levels of benefit.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many permanent staff were employed by the Insolvency Service in the Sheffield office on 31 March for each year since 1990. [28795]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Numbers of permanent staff employed at the official receiver Sheffield office as at 1 April in each of the last five years were as follows:

  Year

  Number of permanent staff

  1 April 1990

  24

  1 April 1991

  23.5

  1 April 1992

  22.5

  1 April 1993

  23.5

  1 April 1994

  21.5

  1 April 1995

  20

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many members of the Insolvency Service are solely engaged on work surrounding the contracting out proposals; and what is the cost of their work. [28803]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  There are currently five members of the Insolvency Service solely engaged in work concerning the proposed contracting out of the functions of the official receiver. Other members of staff spend varying proportions of their time dealing with the issues associated with this work.

  It is estimated that the cost to the Insolvency Service of the options exercise will be approximately £1.35 million in the 1995–96 financial year.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the effects the contracting out of the administrative functions of the official receiver will have on the Sheffield office. [28798]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Any decisions and any effects of contracting out in relation to the Sheffield office of the official receiver will be known only once decisions are reached regarding the whole of the Insolvency Service.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many directors were disqualified from managing a limited company under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 in the courts covered by the official receiver's office, Sheffield during the past eight years. [28794]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The numbers of disqualification orders made under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 in the Sheffield, Doncaster, Chesterfield and Barnsley courts covered by the official receiver Sheffield office in each of the last eight years were as follows:

  Financial year

  Number of orders made

  1 April 1987–31 March 1988

  0

  1 April 1988–31 March 1989

  3

  1 April 1989–31 March 1990

  1

  1 April 1990–31 March 1991

  6

  1 April 1991–31 March 1992

  2

  1 April 1992–31 March 1993

  3

  1 April 1993–31 March 1994

  0

  1 April 1994–31 March 1995

  1

  64
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many members of the Sheffield office will be surplus of requirement following contractorisation of the functions of the functions of the official receiver. [28826]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Any decisions in relation to the staff in the official receiver's office in Sheffield will be made in the light of decisions taken on contracting out.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many firms or companies resident in Sheffield have expressed an interest in bidding for some of the functions of the official receiver. [28800]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No firm responding to the advertisements calling for expressions of interest in the contracting out of functions of the official receiver listed a Sheffield address.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans his Department has for providing information to staff regarding their future employment options following contractorisation of the functions of the official receiver. [28824]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  A communications strategy is currently in place within the Insolvency Service with the aim of keeping the staff as up to date with the status of contracting out as possible. The intention is to provide information on the options available to staff as it becomes known.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many casual and short-term contract staff were engaged at the official receiver's office in Sheffield in each of the past four years. [28796]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The number of casual and short-term contract staff employed at the official receiver Sheffield office as at 1 April in each of the last four years was as follows:

  Year

  Casual staff

  Staff on loan from other Government Departments

  1 April 1992

  3

  0

  1 April 1993

  1

  0

  1 April 1994

  2

  2

  1 April 1995

  0

  2

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what additional resources the Insolvency Service has been given to enable the contracting out process to be completed. [28804]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Approximately an additional £1.3 million has been allocated to cover the Insolvency Service's costs for the contracting out exercise.

  Departmental Grants
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the amounts received by each organisation which receives a grant from his Department for each of the last five years. [28967]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of potential(a) conflicts of interest and (b) breaches of confidentiality in respect of the contractorising of functions of the Patent Office. [28684]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Patent Office is looking at the potential for contractorisation where that is compatible with its statutory role and good value for money. Issues such as possible conflicts of interest and risks to confidentiality are considered when areas which might in principle be handled by the private sector are assessed and, if appropriate, will he addressed when detailed specifications are drawn up.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if all areas within the Patent Office apart from the core functions will be considered for contractorisation; and if he will make a statement. [28688]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade stated in his announcement of 14 December 1994,Official Report, columns 657–58 about the Patent Office review, the Patent Office will be encouraged to contract out activities wherever this is compatible with its statutory role and good value for money.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations he has received during the last six months on the question of the contractorisation of the Patent Office; of those, how many were(a) in favour and (b) against the proposals; and if he will make a statement. [28682]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Since my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced the outcome of the Patent Office review on 14 December,Official Report, columns 657–58, he has received 11 letters specifically referring to the contractorisation of Patent Office functions. Of these, three asked for information about the process of contractorisation, and eight covered correspondence from the Patent Office trade unions expressing their concerns.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, how many members of staff are currently employed in the registration of trademark section of the Patent Office; what was the figure for 1991; and if he will make a statement. [28686]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  A total of 237 Patent Office members of staff are currently engaged in the administration of trademarks. The equivalent figure in June 1991 was 308.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many members of staff were employed in the core functions of the Patent Office in 1990; and if he will make a statement. [28681]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In June 1990 the Patent Office employed 1,134 staff. The number of staff in branches which award intellectual property rights under statutory powers was 851.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many members of staff are currently employed in the core function activities of the Patent Office. [28685]
  66
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In June 1995 the Patent Office employs 954 staff. The number of staff in branches which award intellectual property rights under statutory powers is 673.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what factors precluded the staff at the Patent Office from eligibility to form an in-house bid; and if he will make a statement. [28689]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Since bids for contracted-out services will be assessed against benchmarks for the forecast cost and quality of service from in-house provision, staff already have the opportunity to prove that they can match or beat the private sector if the services remain in-house. Additionally, staff may choose to enter a bid on the same basis as the private sector, with the corollary that they will cease to be civil servants if their bids is successful.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many members of staff are employed in the patents and deigns section of the Patent Office; what was the figure for 1992; and if he will make a statement. [28687]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  A total of 436 Patent Office members of staff are currently engaged in the administration of patents and designs. The equivalent figure in June 1992 was 474.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the private consultants engaged in respect of the Patent Office; what are their precise terms of reference and their agreed remuneration for carrying out those functions; and if he will make a statement. [28683]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Three firms of private sector consultants are currently engaged by the Patent Office.

  Apex Planning and Design is advising the office on accommodation issues, and in particular on means to accommodate within the principal building—Concept house—staff currently housed at two smaller locations.

  Marketing Improvements plc has been retained to explore market potential for Patent Office services, focusing on demand for non-statutory serves such as commercial searches and technical advice, and means of realising it. Coopers and Lybrand has been retained to advise on the feasibility of contracting out the Patent Office's front office in London, which receives, logs and forwards incoming mail, and the terms on which such contractorisation might take place. In neither case have specifications to tender for the work involved yet been drawn up.

  Levels of remuneration associated with these individual consultancy contracts are commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many letters were received by the Patent Office during 1994; how may of these were replied to within seven days; and if he will make a statement. [28699]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Patent Office does not hold central records of individual letters received except in the case of letters from Members of Parliament to the chief executive, and letters of complaint under its chartermark procedures. The target for response in both of these cases is 10 working days. In 1994 six letters from Members of Parliament were received and five were answered within the deadline. Fourteen letters of complaint were received and all were answered within the deadline.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [28500]

  Mr. Heseltine
  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 President of the Board of Trade 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 he answered now 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. [28517]

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

  Chernobyl Nuclear Plant
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information Her Majesty's Government possess on the current safety of the Chernobyl nuclear plant; and if he will make a statement. [28603]

  Mr. Page
  The safety of the Chernobyl nuclear plant is the responsibility of the relevant Ukrainian authorities. Only they would be able to provide detailed information on the current safety situation at the plant.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much contaminated debris is estimated to he present inside the concrete sarcophagus built around the remains of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor number 4; [28604]

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the time necessary to clean up the Chernobyl nuclear plant. [28605]

  Mr. Page
  A recent interim report from an on-going EU funded study estimated that 500,000 cu m of short-lived radioactive waste and 40,000 cu m of long-lived high level waste, including over 200 tonnes of the reactor's original fuel, lie inside the sarcophagus built over the destroyed unit 4 at Chernobyl.

  While no precise estimate of the time necessary to clean up Chernobyl has been made, the same report indicated that it could take up to 100 years to complete the segregation, treatment, conditioning, storage and ultimate disposal of all the radioactive arisings from the remains of unit 4. Copies of the executive summary of this report—"Stabilisation of the existing shelter and the containment
  68
  of both the existing shelter and the damaged remains of reactor 4 at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant"—have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Post Office
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made with the Post Office performance review and if he will make a statement. [28705]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 15 June 19951: Work started on the performance review on 22 May and is on schedule for completion by 31 August 1995.

  Nuclear Industry Privatisation
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions he intends to impose on any foreign Government, corporation or individual purchasing shares in a privatised nuclear industry. [28665]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: The full details of the sale have yet to be finalised. It is, however, the Government's intention to hold special shares in the holding company and in its two subsidiary companies, Scottish Nuclear and the successor to Nuclear Electric.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what considerations led to the exclusion of Smart mines from the Government's recent mine export ban. [28229]

  Mr. David Davis
  I have been asked to reply.

  Our moratorium bans the export of non-self-destructing and non-detectable anti-personnel mines, which are the most dangerous to civilians. It also prohibits the export of any anti-personnel mines to countries which have not ratified the UN weaponry convention, thereby ensuring that even self-destructing mines are acquired only by responsible countries.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 142, if he will provide comparable details on civil service early retirement packages on grounds of inefficiency. [29293]

  The Attorney-General
  Inefficiency is a ground for dismissal. An immediate lump sum payment of up to two years' salary may be made where a Department judges payment of compensation to be appropriate. Where compensation is agreed and the person dismissed is over age 55, this may be forgone in favour of immediate payment of the accrued superannuation benefits, which would otherwise be preserved for payment at retiring age. There have been 15 departures on inefficiency grounds in the past five financial years in the Departments for which I am responsible. Of these, there were four cases when no compensation payment was made. The remaining 11 cases are shown in the table:
  69

  Year

  Compensation payment £

  1991–92

  4,000

  1992–93

  2,436

  3,220

  18,384

  19,798

  31,634

  1993–94

  7,492

  9,608

  11,044

  1994–95

  3,037

  10,403

  Mr. Roger Levitt
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has anything to add to his answer to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) of 9 December 1993,Official Report, columns 332–33, concerning the conduct of the case against Mr. Roger Levitt. [27886]

  The Attorney-General
  The Serious Fraud Office and prosecuting counsel have been asked to re-examine the events that led up to Mr. Levitt's plea in the light of recent media reports and questions from hon. Members.

  Various counsel-to-counsel discussions about possible pleas, of the sort indicated to the hon. Member for Hendon, South in my answer on 17 December 1993, Official Report, column 1046, took place before 22 November. Such informal discussions are not unusual and would normally be confidential. They were not fully noted and there is no agreed record of what took place. I am, however, informed by prosecuting counsel that the discussions were initiated by counsel for only one of the defendants—not Mr. Levitt—and, following a later approach by counsel for another defendant, not Mr. Levitt, were necessarily expanded by counsel for the Crown to cover the position of all the defendants by 2 November 1993.

  The discussions consequential on these initial approaches from the defence included a discussion which is believed to have taken place between leading counsel for the Crown and for Mr. Levitt around 5 November and a discussion between junior counsel for the Crown and leading counsel for Mr. Levitt on 9 November 1993 stating what the Crown's attitude was likely to be if Mr. Levitt tendered particular pleas. Prosecuting counsel continues, however, to reject the notion that it at any stage "suggested" that Mr. Levitt plead guilty to only some of the charges.

  The Serious Fraud Office was aware of the discussions that were taking place. The Director of the Serious Fraud Office and prosecuting counsel have now considered together a copy letter from the solicitor for Mr. Levitt to his client dated 5 November 1993, which was handed to the director in the course of his appearance before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on 12 June 1995. They have recalled that the director and case controller had a meeting with prosecuting counsel on 5 November 1993. The joint recollection of all present is that the director was then informed of possible pleas which leading counsel for the Crown advised should, in the event that they were tendered, be accepted. The director and prosecuting counsel inform me that, although the director was minded to accept such pleas, he did not give instructions that the pleas should be accepted if tendered and would have needed to consider the position
  70
  further in that event. He expected discussions on a counsel-to-counsel basis to continue. The director is writing to the Select Committee about this and to offer to give further evidence if requested.

  The plea ultimately accepted from Mr. Levitt was in the judgment of prosecuting counsel and the Serious Fraud Office significantly different from those under consideration on 5 and 9 November in that it did not include Mr. Levitt's admitting knowledge of, and participation in, any of the false valuations sent to private investors in TLG Ltd.

  Prosecuting counsel and the Serious Fraud Office have again assured me that the Crown did not know the sentence which the judge was minded to impose for the relevant offence at the time it committed itself to accepting this plea on 22 November, prior to the visit to the judge, and did not know whether or not Mr. Levitt intended to proceed with the plea if the judge indicated an intention to impose a custodial sentence. As was made clear by the director in his evidence to the Select Committee, it would not in any event have been open to the Crown to resile from its acceptance of the plea because the judge indicated an intention to impose a non-custodial sentence.

WALES

  NHS Administration Costs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the administration costs incurred by(a) NHS purchasers and (b) NHS providers in Wales in each year since 1990–91, in cash prices and real terms. [27776]

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is as follows:

  Administrative costs of the NHS in Wales

  £000

  NHS Trusts

  Other health bodies

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  1991–92

  —

  —

  107,018

  114,685

  1992–93

  4,188

  4,316

  119,964

  123,635

  1993–94

  50,107

  50,107

  91,214

  91,214

  Source: Annual accounts/Financial returns of DHA's, SHAs, FHSA's, NHS Trusts and Welsh Office records.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the total budget spent and (b) the total administrative budget spent for the environmentally sensitive area grants. [28305]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  (a) Total grants paid under the environmentally sensitive area schemes in 1994-95 was £1,533,000; (b) precise administrative costs are not available, because staff combine work on this area and others schemes. However, the costs of relevant administrative work alone will have amounted to around £276,000. In addition, professional ADAS staff provided scientific and technical advice at a cost of around £1,965,000. Most staff time was devoted to developing detailed rules and regulations for the new scheme, in preparing scheme literature, and in providing farmers with assistance in drawing up whole farm plans and preparing their management agreements.
  71
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales(a) what percentage of the total land area of Wales was designated as environmentally sensitive; (b) what financial provision his Department allocated to environmentally sensitive areas in the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96; (c) what percentage of the total land area of Wales will be designated as environmentally sensitive; and (d) what financial provision his Department will allocate to environmentally sensitive areas in each of the years 1996–97 and 1997–98. [29327]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) 25 per cent.

  (b) Total payments for years:

  1993–94: £5.8 million

  1994–95: £6.9 million

  1995–96: £7.0 million

  (c) 25 per cent. There are no plans at present to designate further areas of Wales as environmentally sensitive.

  (d) 1996–97: £6.9 million

  1997–98: £6.9 million

  These are planned figures which may be subject to change.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the(a) total annual budget (b) annual budget for administration and (c) number of administrative staff for the environmentally sensitive area grants. [28301]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The total programme budget for 1995–96 is £6,971,000. Precise administrative staff figures and costs cannot be given, because staff combine work on this area and other schemes. However, relevant administrative work alone is likely to account for approximately 18 staff years at a cost of around £264,000. In addition, professional ADAS staff are expected to provide scientific and technical advice at a cost of around £1,798,000. Most staff time in 1995–96 will be devoted to advising farmers on the key habitats to be included in their agreements; in drawing up maps of their farms showing the relevant features; and in negotiating and preparing their written management agreements.

  Housing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh households are on local authority and housing association waiting lists. [28444]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  European Council of Ministers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he now has to attend the Council of Ministers; on what occasions in the past he has planned to do so; and if he will make a statement. [28698]

  Mr. Redwood
  I shall be attending the next Transport Council meeting on 19 June for one day and previously, as a Department of Trade and Industry Minister, I have attended some 22 other Council meetings.

  School Meals
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage and number of children receiving(a) free school meals and (b) parentally paid for school meals for the last 10 years. [28443]

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

  Percentage of pupils receiving1

  Number of pupils receiving2

  Free meals

  Paid meals

  Free meals

  Paid meals

  1984–85

  22.8

  36.3

  97,437

  155,132

  1985–86

  21.3

  33.0

  90,739

  140,416

  1986–87

  22.1

  32.6

  92,416

  136,020

  1987–88

  21.7

  33.1

  89,550

  136,290

  1988–89

  14.6

  37.4

  59,802

  153,539

  1989–90

  14.1

  38.0

  58,303

  156,675

  1990–91

  14.4

  38.1

  59,338

  156,951

  1991–92

  16.6

  34.6

  70,088

  145,938

  1992–93

  18.5

  35.3

  79,934

  152,299

  1993–94

  20.7

  35.8

  90,875

  157,481

  1 The number of pupils taking meals as a percentage of all pupils present on enumeration day.

  1On enumeration day.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the net expenditure on school catering services(a) in total and (b) in respect of free school meals for each year since 1987 broken down by county. [28822]

  Mr. Richards
  The available information is given in the following tables. Separate information on the costs of free school meals is not held centrally.

  Net current expenditure on school meals and milk1

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Clywd

  4.4

  3.0

  3.2

  Dyfed

  3.5

  3.1

  3.4

  Gwent

  5.7

  4.3

  4.9

  Gwynedd

  2.9

  2.8

  2.3

  Mid Glamorgan

  7.5

  5.8

  7.5

  Powys

  1.1

  1.1

  1.1

  South Glamorgan

  2.1

  1.9

  1.8

  West Glamorgan

  2.9

  2.9

  2.9

  Total Wales

  30.2

  24.7

  27.1

  1990–1991

  1991–1992

  1992–1993

  Clywd

  3.3

  3.8

  4.0

  Dyfed

  4.5

  6.3

  6.1

  Gwent

  5.3

  5.1

  5.5

  Gwynedd

  3.0

  3.6

  3.9

  Mid Glamorgan

  8.3

  9.2

  10.1

  Powys

  1.3

  1.5

  1.4

  South Glamorgan

  2.2

  2.9

  4.8

  West Glamorgan

  2.7

  3.2

  3.5

  Total Wales

  30.5

  35.6

  39.9

  21993–94

  21994–95

  21995–96

  Clywd

  2.2

  2.7

  2.7

  Dyfed

  5.7

  5.6

  5.7

  Gwent

  6.2

  6.0

  5.7

  Gwynedd

  3.5

  2.9

  2.9

  Mid Glamorgan

  9.8

  10.1

  10.2

  Powys

  1.3

  1.2

  1.2

  South Glamorgan

  3.9

  3.7

  3.8

  73

  21993–94

  21994–95

  31995–96

  West Glamorgan

  3.4

  3.4

  3.3

  Total

  35.9

  35.7

  35.4

  Source: Local authority.

  Notes:

  1 Excludes grant maintained schools.

  2 Revised Estimates.

  3 Budgets.

  Countryside Council For Wales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make available the results of the financial management policy review of the Countryside Council for Wales initiated in 1994, and if he will make a statement. [28477]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 15 June 19951: The financial management policy review of the Countryside Council for Wales was overtaken by the review of the council's functions which I announced in my response to the question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) on 3 November 1994, columns 1331–32. The action plan resulting from that review has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Charter Week
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the total cost to public funds to Charter Week in Wales in 1995; [28637]

  (2) how many civil servants are engaged in preparations for Charter Week; what are their grades; and in which sections of his Department they are working; [29237]

  (3) what was the total cost of Charter Week in Wales. [29229]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 15 June 19951: A number of public service events have been timed to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the charter programme, including the publication of NHS performance tables. In Wales there will be no significant staff or cost implications, apart from the work on NHS performance tables which would have taken place anyway.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the length of time his office takes to reply to letters, what difference there is in the time taken to respond to letters written in the Welsh language, and if he will make a statement. [28479]

  Mr. Redwood
  From time to time my Department receives representations about delays in answering letters. The Welsh Office target for replying to letters to Ministers is 12 working days. The target for replying to all other correspondence is 15 working days. These targets apply to letters in Welsh and in English.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) of 12 June, column 483 if he will list(a) the calculations and (b) the assumptions he has made in arriving at his estimated cost of the Labour party's proposed directly elected Welsh Assembly. [28879]
  74
  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the information I put out in my press notice on Friday 16 June.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) of 12 June,Official Report, column 483, what information he has sought from the Labour party Wales concerning the detail of its proposed Welsh Assembly. [28878]

  Mr. Redwood
  I have seen a copy of the Labour party proposals for a Welsh Assembly, and have often asked the hon. Member to clarify matters.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) of 12 June,Official Report, column 483, if he will make a statement in the work carried out by his departmental officials on the likely cost of the Labour party's proposals for a directly elected Welsh Assembly. [28880]

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Thursday 15 June, column 660.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) of 12 June,Official Report, column 483, if he will list those organisations in Wales he has consulted on the desirability of creating a directly elected Welsh Assembly. [28877]

  Mr. Redwood
  It is not Government policy to create an assembly.

  Earnings
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average wage for(a) full-time manual males, (b) full-time non-manual males, (c) full-time manual females and (d) full-time non-manual females in (i) Wales and (ii) each county in Wales for the last two years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [28720]

  Mr. Redwood
  Average gross weekly earnings in each of the requested categories and for each county of Wales are published in part E of the "New Earnings Survey", published annually by the Employment Department, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Council of Europe Chapter
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 269, if he will list the Government Departments with an interest in the Council of Europe charter for regional or minority languages which are involved in the consideration of its implications; and if he will make a statement. [28871]

  Mr. Redwood
  Apart from the Welsh Office, the Departments which have an interest in the charter are the Northern Ireland Office, the Scottish Office, the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the consultation with
  75
  the members of the Cardiff bay coalition about proposals to acquire suitable land for the creation of wetlands in the Severn estuary to compensate for the loss of the Cardiff bay site of special scientific interest; and if all members of the coalition were consulted. [29254]

  Mr. Redwood
  This is an operational matter for the corporation and I have asked the chief executive to reply.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made on the monitoring exercise of United Kingdom populations of the dunlin and redshank and their use of estuarine mud flat habitat as part of the compensatory measures agreed with the European Commission in respect of the Cardiff bay barrage project. [29232]

  Mr. Redwood
  The United Kingdom population of dunlin and redshank are constantly monitored under programmes coordinated by the wetland bird surveys which are endorsed by the Government. Good progress is being made by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology on its long-term study on wading birds and their use of estuarine mud flats.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much is remaining of the money allocated for the creation of wetland habitat in the Severn to compensate for the loss of the Cardiff bay SSSI; and if he will report progress on the acquisition of suitable coastal land and mud flats for this purpose. [29233]

  Mr. Redwood
  About £350,000 has been incurred on expenditure related to the bird compensation/mitigation measures for the loss of the Cardiff hay habitat out of the £5.7 million provision. On progress I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 22 May 1995, column 461.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 12 June,Official Report, col. 414, if his Department received the application for authorisation from the Welsh Development Agency for the redundancy costs to be approved separately from the other elements of the package agreed by his Department on 27 March 1990. [29250]

  Mr. Redwood
  Separate agreement to elements of the transfer cost was not sought.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of identifiable Government expenditure on education in Wales, including mandatory loans and awards to students, is devoted to(a) primary education, (b) secondary education, (c) further education and (d) higher education; and if he will make a statement. [29024]

  Mr. Richards
  Identifiable Government expenditure on education in Wales in 1993–94, the most recent year for which complete data are available was £1,688 million, of which £165 million was expenditure by Department for Education on mandatory student awards for further and higher education. I will write to the hon. Member with further details of the breakdown of Welsh Office expenditure between sectors, and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  NHS Performance Tables
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the arrangements for informing the media of(a) the publication of the 1995 NHS performance tables and (b) ancillary events during Charter Week. [29230]

  Mr. Redwood
  The media have been given the opportunity to receive advance embargoed copies of the performance tables on 30 June. A press release will also be issued by my Department. It will be for local service providers to publicise any events held during Charter Week.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the chief executives of health authorities and trusts requesting the provision of good news stories about patients charter achievements in connection with the publication of the 1995 performance tables during Charter Week. [29236]

  Mr. Redwood
  Chief executives of health authorities and trusts have been asked to announce to the press and public what action they are taking to improve performance where this is needed and to take this opportunity to set out their successes, where this is merited. I have not asked them to spend extra money on publicity or advertising.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his current estimate of the total cost to public funds of the NHS 1995 performance tables publication and the media exercise connected with it during Charter Week. [29228]

  Mr. Redwood
  The total Welsh Office budget for the 1995 NHS comparative performance tables is £45,000.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his current estimate of the number of doctors and nurses to be involved in the press launches for the publication of the NHS patients charter 1995 performance tables during Charter Week; and how much time they will be required to spend(a) in total and (b) away from their regular medical duties. [29231]

  Mr. Redwood
  The degree to which health professionals are involved in publicising some of their achievements, as illustrated by patients charter comparative performance tables, is an issue for each NHS trust.

  Dr. Audrey Giles
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) pursuant to his answer of 18 May,Official Report, columns 374-75, what was the grade of the civil servant who signed the acknowledgement of receipt of the recorded delivery package of documents sent by Dr. Audrey Giles on 10 March 1992 to his Department for the purposes of the appeal hearing subsequent to her forensic examination of those documents; what record his Department still holds of acknowledgement of the receipt of the package sent by the forensic scientist; and if he will make a statement; [29252]

  (2) if he will list the documents contained in the recorded delivery package sent to his Department by Dr. Audrey Giles on 10 March subsequent to her forensic examination of them; and on what date they were received in his Department. [29251]
  77
  Mr. Redwood
  I am advised that no such package was received by my Department on or around this date.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the proportion of young people from Wales entering HE in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [29012]

  Mr. Richards
  Information for Wales for 1993–94 and 1994–95 is not yet available. The most recent data show that in 1992–93 an estimated 26 per cent. of young persons from Wales entered higher education.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students were studying at a Welsh higher education institution in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [29100]

  Mr. Richards
  Information on the number of students studying at Welsh higher education institutions in 1993–94 and 1994–95 is shown in the following table.

  Students studying at Welsh Higher Education Institutions

  11993–94

  21994–95

  University of Wales

  36,390

  39,499

  Open University

  4,376

  n/a

  Other publicly funded higher education institutions:

  higher education courses

  30,538

  38,900

  further education courses

  4,205

  n/a

  Sources: 1 Welsh Office Further Education Student Record, Universities Statistical Record, Open University. At November for publicly funded higher education institutions, December for University of Wales and January for Open University. Data provisional pending publication.

  Source: 2 Higher Education Statistics Agency. Data are provisional and exclude students on further education and open university courses. At December.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of Welsh higher education departments received a research rating of(a) three or above and (b) five during the recent research assessment exercise; and if he will make a statement. [29027]

  Mr. Richards
  Sixty-three per cent. of Welsh higher education departments assessed during the 1992 research assessment exercise received a research rating of three or above; 4 per cent. of the departments received the top rating of five. The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales has as one of its objectives to "double the units of assessment graded four and five in the research assessment exercise conducted every four years".

  The HEFCW has been allocated an additional £2 million in support of this objective in each public expenditure survey round since 1992. The next research assessment exercise is to be undertaken in 1996.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 139, if he will provide comparable details of civil service early retirement packages on grounds of inefficiency. [29294]

  Mr. Redwood
  Inefficiency is a ground for dismissal. An immediate lump sum payment of up to two years'78
  salary may be made where a Department judges payment of compensation to be appropriate. Where compensation is agreed and the person dismissed is over age 55, this may be forgone in favour of immediate payment of the accrued superannuation benefits which would otherwise be preserved for payment at retiring ages. Three people have left the Welsh Office on inefficiency grounds during the last five years. Details are as follows:

  Compensation lump sum

  £

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  —

  6,926

  —

  —

  4,162

  —

  1,683

  —

  —

  —

  Welsh Office Buildings
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total running cost of Gwydyr house in the last year for which figures are available. [29554]

  Mr. Redwood
  The cost for 1994–95 was £334,780.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many meetings he hosted in the last year in(a) Gwydyr house and (b) Cathays park and what are the associated costs of these meetings. [29553]

  Mr. Redwood
  I have hosted a wide range of meetings throughout the year including delegations from Members of Parliament, local authorities and representatives from industry and other groups. A precise breakdown of the figures is not available. The cost of these meetings is small. My office provides tea or coffee or occasionally cold drinks to all visitors.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the European Fisheries Council meeting of 15 June. [29594]

  Mr. Jack
  I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 15 June with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).

  The Council agreed unanimously ceilings on fishing effort in western waters as required by the agreement reached in December on the integration of Spain and Portugal into the common fisheries policy. The figures agreed reflect actual recent fishing effort and will enable UK fishermen to continue their normal patterns and levels of fishing activity without new restriction, provided effort does not increase. Limitations on the disposition of the Spanish fleet in the Irish box were also introduced with the result a maximum of eight vessels are allowed in the northern part and a maximum of 32 in the south.

  The Commission presented to the Council its proposals for monitoring and inspection arrangements in western waters. These measures are important because they will provide the basis for enforcing effort controls. I confirmed to the Council that these proposals must be both practicable and realistic in terms of their application. The

  79
  Council agreed to consider them urgently so that they can be adopted before the end of this year and come into operation along with the effort controls from 1 January 1996.

  Most member states indicated they could agree to a presidency compromise concerning a proposal for funds from the existing financial instrument for fisheries guidance to be used to support national early retirement schemes for fishermen and for compensation payments to crews of decommissioned vessels. The Commission's original proposals relating to bad weather payments and additional support for market price fluctuation were excluded. The United Kingdom continued to argue that such measures should be covered by national social polices and were not appropriate use of FIFG funds.

  There was a discussion of drift net fishing and, once again, no conclusions were reached on the Commission's proposal, dating from last year, to phase out the use of drift nets. I emphasised the importance of drift net fishing to British fishermen. I also set out the arrangements, which we have in hand to ensure compliance with the rules in this summer's tuna fishery in the north-east Atlantic, and to discourage any possible disruption of fishing. The Council noted with satisfaction the measures being implemented by member states and the deployment of a vessel carrying Commission inspectors.

  The Council discussed progress in the United Nations conference on straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. This conference is looking at ways of improving co-operation between states in the management of international fisheries. I stressed the importance of achieving a binding convention which will lead to more effective conservation of fish stocks in international waters and should reduce the risk of disputes. The Council agreed that the Community should continue to play a constructive role in the negotiations and decided that further work should he done in defining its position before the next session of the Conference.

  The Council confirmed its commitment to the full implementation of the April agreement reached between the Community and Canada on fishing in the north-west Atlantic, including the important new provisions to secure effective enforcement. It agreed unanimously to adopt a regulation fixing the 1995 Community quota for Greenland halibut at 5,013 tonnes for the period from 16 April onwards.

  The Council unanimously agreed a presidency compromise setting quotas for imports of fish into the Community at reduced rates of import duty for the remainder of 1995. The quotas on cod and haddock were set lower than proposed by the Commission, reflecting concern about weak market prices.

  I drew the Council's attention to a Commission proposal to be considered by the Agriculture Council which would introduce harmonisation of inspection charges for fish. I said that, in the absence of distortion of the market, this is an unnecessary measure which could increase costs. I pressed my colleagues to look at the proposal critically, involving fisheries experts to the full.

  I also took the opportunity of this meeting of the Council to invite Fisheries Ministers to consider a proposal made by the Government's panel on sustainable development that there should be an intergovernmental
  80
  panel on the oceans. The panel would be set the task of examining the science, assessing the human impact and putting in place a framework for the responsible management of the world's oceans. It would cover fish stocks, other marine resources and measures to cope with pollution. The Government are currently studying this proposal and wish to take into account the views of other member states before reaching conclusions.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the total land area of England was designated as environmentally sensitive; what financial provision his Department allocated to environmentally sensitive areas in the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96; what percentage of the total land area of England will be designated as environmentally sensitive; and what financial provisions his Department will allocate to environmentally sensitive areas in each of the years 1996–97 and 1997–98. [29326]

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  The 22 currently designated English environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) cover 1,149,217 hectares. This is 8.8 per cent. of the total land area of England, excluding inland waters, and includes approximately 10 per cent. of agricultural land in England. Provision for payments to farmers was £30 million in 1993–94, £31 million in 1994–95 and is £43 million per annum for 1995–96 to 199798. There are no plans at present to increase the area designated.

  Soya Milk
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the levels of oestrogen in soya milk. [29457]

  Mr. Jack
  MAFF has commissioned two projects and a further project is under discussion. All these projects include measurement of plant oestrogens in soya milk, but no results from them are available for evaluation at present.

  Spitzbergen (Spanish Fishing Rights)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how long Spain has been fishing off Sptizbergen; and what considerations underlie the different allocations for Spain and the United Kingdom. [29207]

  Mr. Jack
  Spain, like the United Kingdom, is a signatory to the Treaty of Paris 1920, which determined the status of Spitzbergen and Bear Island—Svalbard—and has been fishing at Svalbard since before her accession to the European Community in 1986. The relative stability keys for cod at Svalbard were laid down in 1987 and reflects historic track records in the fishery.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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

  81
  consideration he has given to removing this; and if he will make a statement. [28655]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: The Government's 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, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, its agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which it has responsibility, behave as though bound by regulations.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms in England are still affected by restriction notices imposed due to contamination following the Chernobyl nuclear accident; what land area these farms constitute; and what percentage of available farmland in England this represents. [28600]

  Mrs. Browning
  When restrictions were first introduced, they covered about 197,000 hectares which affected over 1,670 holdings. Restrictions now apply to 66 farms occupying a land area of around 14,568 hectares, which represents about 0.1 per cent. of available farmland in England. An intensive survey is taking place this summer to establish the scope for further derestrictions.

  Agricultural and Food Research Council
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many commissions his Department entered into with the Agricultural and Food Research Council for each year since 1979; how many such commissions he expects to make this year; and what is the value of those commissions in(a) cash and (b) constant prices. [28598]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My Department issued a single commission each year for its research and development requirements from the institutes of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. Details of the amounts spent in cash and constant prices are set out in the table:

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  Constant prices1

  1979–80

  30.4

  74.6

  1980–81

  37.4

  77.6

  1981–82

  44.3

  83.8

  1982–83

  48.6

  85.8

  1983–84

  51.3

  86.6

  1984–85

  52.8

  84.9

  1985–86

  51.8

  78.9

  1986–87

  47.9

  70.8

  1987–88

  44.2

  62.1

  1988–89

  46.4

  61.1

  1989–90

  46.0

  56.6

  1990–91

  45.6

  51.9

  1991–92

  34.5

  37.0

  1992–93

  34.8

  35.9

  1993–94

  36.0

  36.0

  MAFF Commission with BBSRC

  1994–95

  34.6

  33.9

  1 Using the GDP deflator (1993–94 - 100).

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [28504]

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

  Tobacco Industry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what level of financial support has been given to the Italian and Greek tobacco industry over the last five years from the European Community, and what is the forecast of funding for each of the next three years. [28156]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 13 June 1995]: Details of expenditure on the tobacco regime by the EU, broken down by member state, are contained in annex 2 of the annual financial reports of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund—EAGGF—guarantee section, copies of which have been deposited in the Library of the House. The latest report available relates to 1993. Figures for 1994, taken from the draft annual financial report are set out in the table.

  Greece: 426.06 mecu (£326.481)

  Italy: 394.53 mecu (£302.321)

  The CAP budget is drawn up only a year in advance and is set in relation to forecast expenditure throughout the Community and not on the basis of allocations to individual member states. The figures for 1995 and 1996 are as follows:

  1995: EU 15 1,132 mecu (£914 million1)

  1996: EU 15 1,087 mecu (£909 million1)

  Since 1992, the Commission has been conducting a detailed investigation into EC tobacco expenditure in member states. Disallowance—costs not being met from the EC budget—has been applied to Greece and Italy to the value of 16 mecu—£12 million—and 8 mecu—£6 million—in respect of the 1990 budget, and 35 mecu£28 million—and 22 mecu—£17 million—respectively, with regard to 1991, the last year where the accounts have been cleared. Concerns about tobacco expenditure have, of course, been covered in European Court of Auditors special report 8/93. Earlier this year, the Commission undertook to submit a report on the operation of the new regime agreed in 1992, together with an account of irregularities and fraud committed, and of measures already taken or to be taken in the clearance of accounts procedures.

  1 £1 = 1.3050 ecu. 2 £1 = 1.2389 ecu. £1 = 1.1960 ecu.

  Goosanders
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of
  83
  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of the conditions attached to a licence to shoot goosanders, as an aid to scaring, as issued by his Department, together with a specimen of the sample daily return issued by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service. [27440]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have arranged to be placed in the Library of the House information as to the conditions that might be attached to a licence to shoot goosanders under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. No licences to shoot goosanders were issued in 1994–95 by MAFF.

  An example of the daily return issued by ADAS has also been placed in the Library of the House.

  Structural Fund
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his ministerial counterpart in Northern Ireland about the grant allocations from the European Community structural funds for infrastructure and fish diversification projects; and if he will make a statement. [27150]

  Mr. Jack
  Northern Ireland is a designated objective 1 area for EC structural purposes. A breakdown of the 15.12 mecu—£12.72 million at 15 May green rate prices—allocation for infrastructure measures and other fisheries measures is set out in the Northern Ireland single programming document 1994–99, a copy of which is available in the Library. The Northern Ireland expenditure on these measures is also set out in the UK fisheries sectoral plan 1994–99 required under EC regulation No.3699/93, which I am arranging to be placed in the Library. These documents were the subject of normal inter-departmental consultation and reflect an agreed view.

  Northern Ireland plans on PESCA initiative for fish diversification projects were subject to similar consultation and are contained within the UK integrated operation programme 1994–99 which has been submitted to the European Commission for approval. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Quotas
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will undertake a review of the quota situation for first-time applicants who wish to participate in the dairy and sheep sectors of the industry, and if he will make a statement. [27149]

  Mr. Jack
  The quota schemes in the sheep and dairy sectors are based on EC legislation and the Government's ability to review operational aspects of those schemes is constrained by the requirements of the legislation. There are no plans to review the quota provisions for first-time applicants for sheep annual premium, who are able to apply to the national reserves of quota under one of three categories: newcomers to farming under 40; newcomers to farming over 40; other first-time applicants for premium. Nor do the Government have any plans to make special provision for new entrants under the milk quota system. We have, however, indicated that we would be prepared to consider any plans that the NFU and others may have for assisting new entrants to the dairy industry.

  Disposal at Sea
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what responsibilities his Department has for monitoring sites where military chemicals and surplus explosives have been disposed at sea. [26699]

  Mr. Jack
  The Ministry has a major monitoring programme with a network of locations at which samples of biota, sediments and the water column are taken. Measurements are made of a wide range of substances and biological responses to assess the impact on the marine environment of human activities, on land and at sea. The results of this monitoring are published annually.

  Pest, Disease and Weed Control
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of the costs of(a) bio-control, (b) mechanical weeding and (c) use of pesticides for the needs of agriculture in the United Kingdom. [26329]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 13 June 1995]: The needs of agriculture are addressed in the research and development programmes of the agriculture departments, which include examination of various methods of pest, disease and weed control. The results are widely published and help guide agricultural and environmental policy and practice. I will write to the hon. Member shortly with details of work on integrated crop management.

  Multi-annual Guidance Programmes
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the maritime member states of the European Union which have met their obligations under the terms of the multi-annual guidance programmes in the past five years; which such nations have failed to match the criteria specified in the programmes; and if he will make a statement. [26193]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 7 June 1995]: At their inception, multi-annual guidance programmes involved member states setting objectives in agreement with the Commission in order to help re-establish the balance between resources and their exploitation. These objectives were subsequently made mandatory as a result of Council decision 94/15/EC, which set a deadline of 31 December for compliance

  The Commission report to the Council and to the European Parliament on the progress of MAGPs for the fishing fleet at the end of 1993, a copy of which is in the Library of each House, showed that Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain and Portugal had achieved their interim targets at that date. France had done so for tonnage, but not for vessel power. Documents had been submitted showing that the Italian targets had been met, but the Commission was unable to verify this prior to publication. Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom had not met their interim targets.

  Compliance with interim targets is not mandatory. A further report, detailing the position at the end of 1994, is expected to be published soon.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disabled People
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to assist disabled people. [27611]

  Mr. Hague
  Substantial help is given to disabled people through the social security system. Expenditure on disability living allowance, attendance allowance and disability working allowance for 1993–94 was more than £4.5 billion and estimated expenditure for 1994–95 is more than £5 billion. In excess of £530 million was spent on benefits for those caring for disabled people in 1994–95.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent discussions he has had with people with disabilities on the level of benefits. [27623]

  Mr. Hague
  No such discussions have taken place recently. Benefit levels are kept under review and we are confident that current policies are targeting available resources where they are most needed.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new measures the Government are taking to help disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [27971]

  Mr. Hague
  The Government's Disability Discrimination Bill, currently being considered in another place, will do much to end discrimination against disabled people. The Bill will give disabled people new rights of non-discrimination in employment and access to goods and services as well as creating a National Disability Council to advise the Government on the elimination of discrimination. The Government have extended their proposals to protect people who have had a disability but since recovered; to set access standards for taxis; and to place extra duties on schools and colleges to have regard to their arrangements for disabled pupils and students. We also propose a power in the Bill to set accessibility standards for land-based public transport vehicles.

  Funded Pension Schemes
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what other EU countries have funded pension schemes. [27616]

  Mr. Lilley
  All other EU countries have some funded pension provision. The UK has more assets invested in pension funds than the rest of Europe put together. Many EU countries are taking steps to develop further their funded pension provision.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from right hon. and hon. Members on(a) the future of the Child Support Agency and (b) the efficiency of its present administration. [27619]

  Mr. Burt
  I have received a large number of representations from hon. Members over time on all matters relating to the CSA, although in recent months there has been a reduction in the numbers of such representations.
  86
  On the future of the agency, I can assure the hon. Member that the agency is here to stay. We shall, of course, continue to monitor and evaluate the effects of the Child Support Act 1991 and continue to listen.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are presently in receipt of means-tested benefits; and what was the comparable figure 10 years ago. [27621]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The latest available information indicates that an estimated 8.53 million people were in receipt of an income-related benefit in May 1993, after taking into account those receiving more than one benefit. The earliest directly comparable data is for May 1989, which indicates that an estimated 6.65 million people were in receipt of an income-related benefit.

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to prescribe chronic bronchitis and emphysema in respect of industries other than the coal industry. [27622]

  Mr. Hague
  We have no such plans. The Secretary of State is advised on the prescription of diseases under the industrial injuries scheme by the independent Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. The council has recommended prescription of chronic bronchitis and emphysema only in respect of underground coal mining.

  Social Security Card
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on his plans to introduce a social security card for the payment of benefits. [27625]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It was announced last year that a new system would be developed to automate the payment of benefits at post offices. Order books and girocheques will be phased out and replaced by a benefit payment card which will allow access to payment information held electronically. This will reduce costs for taxpayers, be more secure for customers and support the future of the post office network.

  This important project is being taken forward under the private finance initiative. In December 1994, five companies or consortia were invited to develop their proposals and all five have now submitted detailed plans. These are being evaluated by a team of experts from both Post Office Counter Ltd. and the DSS to determine which of the suppliers will be invited to take part in the next stage of the development; detailed demonstrations and contractual negotiations.

  Post Office Payment of Pensions
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the means by which pensioners will be able to choose to have their benefits paid through the Post Office. [27627]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Pensioners will continue to be able to choose to have their benefits paid directly into their bank
  87
  or building society accounts by automated credit transfer or to collect it at the post office.

  Plans are well advanced to automate the system for paying benefit at post offices. This will mean the phasing out of orderbooks and giros, and replacing them with a benefit payment card. It is envisaged that the pensioner will hand his card to the post office clerk who will use it to access information about benefit entitlement which will be held electronically on a database. The customer will sign a receipt at the counter to confirm receipt of the cash.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the most recent estimate he has made of the cost of fraud by benefit claimants. [27608]

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington).

  Mortgage Arrears
  Ms Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next intends to meet the Council of Mortgage lenders to discuss the current level of arrears. [27620]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have regular meetings with the council in order to discuss issues of mutual interest.

  Performance Measurement
  Mrs. Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what performance indicators and performance targets there are for measuring the performance of his Department in(a) answering letters from members of the public and (b) answering telephone calls from members of the public; how performance is monitored; and what are the latest figures for performance measured against the target set; [26227]

  (2) what policy and procedures exist for dealing with complaints against his Department by members of the public; when his Department last updated its policy; what time limit and target for dealing with such complaints his Department has; and what follow-up procedure exists where complaints are not satisfied with his Department's response to a complaint. [26211]

  Mr. Hague
  DSS headquarters aims to answer all correspondence within 20 working days of receipt. For the period 1 January 1995 to 31 May 1995, a total of 12,317 replies to letters from members of the public were sent, of which 83 per cent. were answered within this target. The public inquiry line handles telephone calls from members of the public. It aims to provide good quality answers to customers' inquiries rather than process a set quantity of telephone calls. Quality performance is continually monitored by electronically tracking the number of calls dealt with and by a supervisor routinely listening in to a number of calls. Staff also receive continuous training on information available in addition to regular specific assessment of their individual performance.

  The responsibility for day-to-day operations, including the handling of letters, telephone calls and complaints from members of the public, rests with the chief executive
  88
  of each agency. Each of them will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Paul Winstanley to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 19 June 1995:
  I have been asked by the Department's Parliamentary Branch to provide you with further information about the Resettlement Agency's handling of telephone calls and letters from members of the public.
  Before answering the specific questions that you raise I should explain that in terms of this Agency members of the public are the residents of our resettlement units.
  On arrival at resettlement units residents are advised that if they are not satisfied with the service or feel that they have been treated unfairly they should tell a member of the management team who will investigate and report back to them the same day.
  If they are still unhappy, the are invited to contact the Chief Executive who undertakes to acknowledge any letter and reply within ten working days. Telephone complaints to the Chief Executive care answered either on the same day or the next.
  All residents receive a pamphlet on arrival that explains the procedures. The message is reinforced by Standards of Service posters and posters that deal exclusively with the complaints procedure. These are situated prominently in all units.
  The achievement is monitored through records kept at Headquarters on behalf of the Chief Executive. In 1994/95 100% of letters and telephone calls were answered within the prescribed time limits.
  The last independent Customer Care Survey (1944) found that 84% of residents were satisfied with the complaints procedure.
  Where a customer is not satisfied with the outcome of a complaint dealt with by the Chief Executive they may ask their Member of Parliament to submit the complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for investigation and review.
  The Resettlement Agency complaint procedure was last reviewed in June 1994.
  If I can be of any further assistance do not hesitate to contact me.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 19 June 1995:
  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, I have responsibility for answering questions about operational matters relating to the Agency and the National Insurance scheme. I have been asked to reply to your questions concerning performance indicators, targets for answering letters and telephone calls, and the Agency's policy and procedures for dealing with complaints. In view of the nature of the questions I have combined the responses.
  The Contributions Agency Charter standard for written enquiries is to despatch either a full reply, or an informative response to 95% of customer enquiries within 10 working days of receipt.
  Performance in answering written enquiries is measured using information from the Agency's management information systems which is subsequently independently validated using sampling techniques. In 1994/95 the target was met in 90.8% of cases.
  In the case of telephone enquiries, we aim to answer these immediately where we can. Where this is not possible we will advise why and inform the customer when a full reply can be expected. Our target is to provide an overall level of customer service considered to be satisfactory by at least 90% of our customers. We measure this by an annual customer satisfaction survey and this showed that in 1994 a satisfaction rate of 83% was achieved.
  With regard to your second question, in April 1995 the Contributions Agency updated its policy and procedures for dealing with complaints from members of the public.
  Our system is publicised in a new complaints leaflet for customers entitled "Unhappy with Our Service?" The leaflet is displayed in all Social Security and Contributions Agency offices and I enclose a copy for your information.
  Customers can use any method (letter, telephone, fax) to make a complaint and it can be made to anyone in Contributions Agency

  89
  who will immediately pass it on to the person dealing with that area of work. All expressions of dissatisfaction are recorded and dealt with immediately where practical. An interim response is issued to the customer if the query cannot be resolved quickly. If it relates solely to another Government Department it is acknowledged and passed to the appropriate area. Managers are encouraged to review cases locally to identify trends/problems and to record any changes or improvements made.
  Agency staff in Contributions Agency aim to deal with customer complaints within 5 working days. They will provide information on the next stage in the complaints procedure if the complainant is not satisfied. Those customers who are still dissatisfied may complain directly to me and I will normally reply within 10 working days.
  From 1 June 1995, customers who have had their cases investigated by myself but feel that it has not been satisfactorily resolved can have it investigated by an Independent Adjudicator.
  Where the customer is still not satisfied with the outcome, they may ask their Member of Parliament to submit the complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for investigation and review.
  There is a separate route of complaint to the Office for the Determination of Contribution Questions (ODCQ) in the case of disagreements with a Secretary of State decision or a ruling on a contribution question.
  I hope that you will find this information useful. If I can be of any further assistance please let me know.

  Letter from K. C. Caldwell to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 19 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about:

  performance indicators and targets for measuring performance in answering letters and telephone calls from members of the public and

  what policy and procedures exist for dealing with complaints from members of the public; when this policy was last updated; what time limit there is for dealing with complaints and what follow-up procedure exists where complainants are not satisfied with the given response.

  The Information Technology Services Agency provides computer systems and support to all DSS Agencies, DSS Headquarters, Employment Services and the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency, to enable them to provide services to their direct customers. Contracts, in the form of Service Agreements, are in place to cover the supply of these services to our internal customers and to enable them, in turn, to meet their performance targets.
  If a member of the public had an enquiry or complaint this would be addressed to the branch of the Department that handles their business. For example, the Benefits Agency, Contributions Agency, Employment Service, would have lead responsibility and, if the topic involved information technology, we would be asked to provide comment and support. We would do this within timescales and targets that are set by the branch taking the lead for the Department.
  This Agency participates in Open Government and has one point of contact for this, ITSA Public Relations.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 19 June 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency's procedures and performance in dealing with correspondence and telephone calls.
  The Agency's Charter includes standards to be achieved in responding to letters and telephone calls from clients.
  Performance on telephone calls is measured by the British Telecom call handling service, and we aim to respond to 80 per cent. of telephone calls to the National Enquiry Line (NEL) or Child Support Agency Centres (CSAC) within 20 seconds. NEL is a
  90
  dedicated service which provides advice and information on more straightforward enquiries. More detailed and case specific enquiries are generally referred to the CSACs. During the year ending 31 March 1995, over 90 per cent. of telephone calls to NEL and 66 per cent. to CSACs were answered within 20 seconds.
  We aim to reply to clients' written enquiries within 10 days and performance is monitored centrally within the Agency. During the year ending 31 March 1995 the Agency replied to 34 per cent. of written enquiries within 10 days.
  We aim to acknowledge clients' complaints within 2 days and to send a full response within 10 days. Complaints procedures were reviewed in January 1994. Customer Services Managers record correspondence received from clients or their representatives indicating dissatisfaction with the Agency's service or procedures. If the complainant is not satisfied with the response, they may write to the CSAC Manager, or, in field offices to the Divisional Manager. If, following their response, the complainant is still not satisfied, our Charter invites them to write to me at the Child Support Agency, Room 2420, Millbank Tower, 21–24 Millbank, London SW1 4QU.
  Clients may, of course, also request their Member of Parliament to submit their complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for investigation and review.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 19 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about what performance indicators and targets there are for measuring the performance of his Department in answering letters and telephone calls and what policy and procedures exist for dealing with complaints by members of the public. I will explain the performance and target indicators and the policy and procedures that exist for the Benefits Agency (BA).
  As stated in the BA Customer Charter, we aim to reply to correspondence within 10 working days. The BA carries out an annual National Customer Survey which includes a question about the length of time customers have had to wait for a reply to their letters. The 1994 National Customer Survey showed, on average, that customers waited 12 days compared to 13 days in 1993. The BA is continuing to look at ways of improving the service provided in order to fully meet our Charter commitment.
  All BA offices have their own standard for how quickly they answer telephone calls. As BA customers increasingly prefer to conduct their business by telephone, traffic volumes have risen. The capacity of many office switchboards has not been adequate to keep pace with the increase and a programme is under way to replace or upgrade all switchboards to provide easier and faster access. The programme is scheduled for completion during the year beginning April 1997 when National guidelines will be set.
  Telephone performance is currently monitored by Area Directors' staff who telephone every office in their area 20 times a quarter. The aim is to measure response times and quality of greeting; in addition one of these calls asks a question and measures staff knowledge. Results show that the average response time is 8 rings for an office to answer the telephone and three rings for an extension within the office to respond.
  The complaints system is also explained in the BA's Customer Charter as well as the Tell Us About It leaflets. I enclose a copy of both leaflets for your information and they have also been placed in the Library. They are available in eleven languages including Urdu, Punjabi, Turkish, Chinese and Welsh.
  The BA's complaints policy was revised in 1991 with the appointment of Customer Service Managers.
  If a customer is dissatisfied with the level of service they receive from the BA they can complain to the appropriate Customer Service Manager. The Customer Service Manager's name and telephone number is displayed in the public caller area of each BA office. The customer will receive a response within 7 days.
  If the customer remains dissatisfied, they can write to the District Office Manager whose name will be provided by the office on request.

  91
  You may also be interested to know that the BA is currently reviewing its complaints procedures and we expect to have completed this by July 1995.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 19 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about our performance targets for answering telephone calls and letters, and our complaints procedure.
  Over the past two years we have made many improvements in the service we can give to war pensioners. The launch of the War Pensions Agency in April 1994 included the publication of our first Charter Standard Statement, which defines service targets and standards including a complaints procedure if we fail to deliver the service we promise. Our published targets are:

  Telephone calls to War pensions Helpline answered within 30 seconds. If we cannot answer the question straight away, we will call back at a time convenient to the pensioner.

  letters from the public acknowledged within 5 working days followed by a full response by letter or telephone within 10 working days.

  The War Pensions Agency telephone Helpline provides the main point of contact for the whole of the Agency and is the number quoted on all correspondence and publicity material. It includes a new automatic call distribution system which amongst other things provides statistics for monitoring and target purposes.
  Six months after Helpline was set up, we started a rolling programme of customer perception surveys. In December 1994, these showed that 93% of those asked said the service they received was either very good or good. In 1994/5 calls were answered with an average wait time of only 6.9 seconds and 95% of calls were answered within 30 seconds.
  As part of our continued drive to improve standards of service, the use of customer satisfaction surveys are reflected in our business plans. We are currently awaiting results of the 1995 survey, including the area of correspondence, which will be carefully examined and improvement initiatives coordinated by the Total Quality Management team.
  In 1994/95, 1,781 replies were sent by our operational sections in respect of letters addressed to Ministers or myself within 95 per cent. being sent within the 10 day target. The complaints system we now have in place, including a database of information, will enable us to monitor our targets for acknowledgement and replies in other areas of correspondence.
  Turning to our complaints system, pensioners with concerns can telephone the War Pensions Helpline on 01253 858858, the Helpline staff will be only too pleased to answer the query.
  Our Charter Standard Statement states that if things go wrong, any written complaint will be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a full reply sent within 10 working days. If we think it will take longer than this, we will write or telephone the person concerned to explain why and let them know when to expect a full reply to their complaint.
  If a person is dissatisfied with the way the complaint has been dealt with, they can contact our Customer Service Manager. If, however, they are still not satisfied they can get in touch with me. Details of how to do this are contained within the Charter Standard Statement. In addition to this, a person can also ask their MP to refer their case to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for investigation and review.
  In addition to the formal complaints procedure, pensioners can discuss any concerns with the many ex-service organisations and we fully investigate any matters referred to us as a result. People can also, if they wish, discuss their cases with their local War Pensions Committee (WPC). These are independent of the Agency and are made up of members who are disabled ex-service persons, some of whom work for voluntary associations. Again, any recommendations mady by the WPCs are fully considered. Information on how to contact ex-service organisations or the WPCs is contained in leaflets
  92
  available from the Agency and our national network of War Pensioner's Welfare Service offices.
  I hope you have found this information useful.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many invalidity benefit awards have been(a) reviewed, (b) disallowed following review and (c) reinstated on appeal in each of the last 12 months in the Doncaster and Mexborough area of the Benefits Agency. [28262]

  Mr. Hague
  This is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Invalidity Benefit (IVB) awards in Doncaster and Mexborough in each of the last 12 months. As you may know, Incapacity Benefit (IB) replaced IVB on 13 April 1995.
  The Benefits Agency's (BA) Doncaster District has offices on two sites at Castle House and St Peters House. Unfortunately, statistics of IVB decisions reviewed, and IVB decisions disallowed on review at Doncaster District are not available for the period June 1994 to September 1994 because they have been destroyed.
  Mexborough BO is part of the BA'S Rother and Dearne District which comprises offices at Rotherham, Goldthorpe, Mexborough and Rotherham North. Reviews of IVB/IB cases for customers of Mexborough BO are dealt with at that office.
  The available information is provided in the table at Appendix 1.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Appendix 1

  Month

  IVB/IB awards applications for review/awards reviewed

  IVB/IB awards disallowed following review

  IVB/IB awards reinstated on appeal

  June 1994

  Doncaster DO

  1—

  1—

  24

  Mexborough

  BO

  49

  30

  14

  July 1994

  Doncaster DO

  1—

  1—

  17

  Mexborough

  BO

  28

  22

  7

  August 1994

  Doncaster DO

  1—

  1—

  21

  Mexborough

  BO

  42

  23

  9

  September 1994

  Doncaster DO

  1—

  1—

  26

  Mexborough

  BO

  49

  43

  7

  October 1994

  Doncaster DO

  107

  67

  31

  Mexborough

  BO

  25

  11

  5

  November 1994

  Doncaster DO

  124

  89

  28

  Mexborough

  BO

  37

  22

  6

  93

  Appendix 1

  Month

  IVB/IB awards applications for review/awards reviewed

  IVB/IB awards disallowed following review

  IVB/IB awards reinstated on appeal

  December 1994

  Doncaster DO

  75

  54

  23

  Mexborough

  BO

  18

  4

  2

  January 1995

  Doncaster DO

  161

  127

  14

  Mexborough

  BO

  37

  16

  0

  February 1995

  Doncaster DO

  93

  68

  22

  Mexborough

  BO

  45

  19

  0

  March 1995

  Doncaster DO

  177

  125

  8

  Mexborough

  BO

  40

  18

  0

  April 1995

  Doncaster DO

  36

  26

  1

  Mexborough

  BO

  7

  0

  0

  May 1995

  Doncaster DO

  4

  2

  0

  Mexborough

  BO

  3

  3

  0

  1 Records not available.

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals applied for benefit in respect of chronic bronchitis or emphysema by Benefits Agency area directorate for the year 1994–95; how many

  Appendix A September 1993–October 1994

  Area

  Claims

  Successful

  Failed (20 year rule)

  Per cent.

  Scotland and Northern Territorial Directorate

  AD1 Tyne Tees

  7,142

  583

  148

  2

  AD2 South Yorkshire and Humberside

  6,521

  773

  171

  3

  AD3 North and West Yorkshire

  2,676

  420

  90

  3

  AD4 Glasgow

  242

  8

  20

  8

  AD5 North, Central and West Scotland

  1,895

  60

  93

  5

  AD6 East Scotland

  2,394

  94

  86

  4

  Wales and Central Territorial Directorate

  AD1 East Midlands

  5,685

  611

  135

  2

  AD2 Midlands South West

  652

  55

  29

  4

  AD3 West Mercia

  3,668

  381

  217

  6

  AD4 Wales

  9,388

  1,316

  616

  7

  AD5 Merseyside

  501

  49

  25

  5

  AD6 Greater Manchester

  328

  31

  15

  5

  AD7 Lancashire and Cumbria

  2,270

  147

  148

  7

  Southern Territorial Directorate

  AD1 Anglia

  25

  3

  5

  20

  AD2 Chilterns

  22

  4

  6

  27

  AD3 South London and West Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  AD4 West Country

  144

  3

  11

  8

  AD5 East London and Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  94
  of those claims have been successful; how many of the claims were refused on the basis of (a) insufficient lung function loss; (b) insufficient length of service and (c) non-diagnosis of class 1 pneumoconiosis; and what were the percentages of those whose claims were refused by each directorate. [28261]

  Mr.Hague
  The administration of industrial injuries disablement benefit is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about claims made for chronic bronchitis and emphysema in each Benefits Agency (BA) area directorate in 1994–95.
  Information about the number of claims, their success rate and the number disallowed for various reasons is not available in the exact format requested. This is because figures for the number of claims made in the 6 months since the end of the initial 12 month take-on period, September 1993–October 1994, have been collected separately and in a slightly different format. This is because during the take-on period some claim details were collected by the BA's Disability Benefit Centres for ease of reference.
  The available information is shown at Appendices A, B and C. Appendix A outlines the numbers of claims made, those successful and the numbers and percentage refused on the basis of insufficient length of service ie 20 year rule. This information was collated at Area Directorate (AD) level and covers the period from September 1993–October 1994. Appendix B outlines the numbers and percentages of claims disallowed as a result of insufficient lung function loss and non-diagnosis of Class 1 pneumoconiosis. This information was collated by the Disability Benefit Centres.
  Since October 1994, information on the number of customers who did not meet the criteria for lung function loss and category 1 pneumoconiosis has been collated by the AD's. Appendix C details information about the number of claims made, those successful and the claims disallowed as a result of the three categories. This information covers the 6 month period October 1994 to March 1995, the end of the 94/95 statistical year.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  95

  Appendix A September 1993–October 1994

  Area

  Claims

  Successful

  Failed (20 year rule)

  Per cent.

  AD6 South East

  470

  32

  35

  7

  AD7 Wessex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All tables include claims received but not decided within the period.

  Source: 100 per cent. Count and subject to amendment.

  Appendix B September 1993–October 1994: Claims disallowed due to insufficient lung function loss or less than category 1 pneumoconiosis—by disability benefit centre

  DBC

  Failed lung test

  Per cent.

  Less than category 1

  Per cent.

  Edinburgh

  1,296

  49

  1,113

  42

  Glasgow

  855

  48

  754

  43

  Leeds

  6,551

  50

  3,957

  30

  Leeds (Appeals)

  780

  40

  1,161

  59

  Llanishen

  2,142

  49

  1,358

  31

  Manchester

  1,187

  48

  900

  36

  Euston

  221

  46

  204

  42

  Stoke

  1,926

  51

  2,250

  60

  Newcastle

  3,965

  53

  2,598

  35

  Appendix C: October 1994–March 1995

  Area

  Claims

  Success

  20 year rule

  Fail (reason) Lung test

  Pneumo. category

  Scotland and Northern Territorial Directorate

  ADI Tyne Tees

  185

  31

  5

  81

  65

  AD2 South Yorkshire and Humberside

  214

  33

  9

  127

  95

  AD3 North and West Yorkshire

  121

  21

  9

  59

  23

  AD4 Glasgow

  5

  0

  1

  9

  10

  AD5 North, Central and West Scotland

  24

  1

  6

  20

  10

  AD6 East Scotland

  29

  2

  1

  20

  24

  Wales and Central Territorial Directorate

  AD1 East Midlands

  223

  53

  11

  109

  96

  AD2 Midlands and South West

  8

  1

  3

  0

  4

  AD3 West Mercia

  100

  9

  11

  55

  35

  AD4 Wales

  387

  92

  54

  332

  206

  AD5 Merseyside

  14

  0

  6

  9

  7

  AD6 Greater Manchester

  14

  1

  0

  2

  0

  AD7 Lancashire and Cumbria

  53

  6

  13

  37

  18

  Southern Territorial Directorate

  AD1 Anglia

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  AD2 Chilterns

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  AD3 South London and West Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  AD4 West Country

  8

  3

  1

  4

  3

  AD5 East London and Essex

  42

  0

  3

  1

  0

  AD6 South East

  17

  1

  4

  15

  8

  AD7 Wessex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All tables include claims received but not decided within the period. Similarly some claims received in the earlier period will have been decided later. For this reason percentages of unsuccessful claims are not included as they would be misleading.

  Income Support
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the outcome of the audit of the administration of income support discretionary severe hardship payments to persons aged 16 and 17 years and what changes in policy or practice have resulted. [28303]

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

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 15 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the outcome of
  96
  the audit of the administration of Income Support discretionary severe hardship payments to persons aged 16 and 17 years.
  Prior to 3 May 1994, all decisions on claims for Income Support from 16/17 year olds, under the severe hardship provision, were made by the Severe Hardship Claims Unit (SHCU) in Glasgow. These decisions, with the exception of likely nil and complex decisions, were devolved during April 1994 to the District Offices. I have attached, at Annex A, a list of the cases that are now referred to SHCU.
  During May 1994, the Benefits Agency Internal Audit carried out a review of the procedures for dealing with claims for Income Support from 16/17 year olds under the severe hardship provision. Their report was produced in July 1994. Annex B outlines the main findings.
  As a result of the report the Benefits Agency has introduced one procedural change involving the introduction of a register of officers

  97
  who are authorised by the Secretary of State to make decisions under the severe hardship provisions. We have also reminded staff of previously issued advice on best practices to follow in administrating claims from 16/17 year olds.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  ANNEX A

  Cases to be referred to SHCU for decision

  1. Likely nil decisions

  2. Likely revocations

  3. Where a care order is currently in force

  4. Partner cases

  5. If payment is not appropriate from the date of claim

  6. If backdating because of good cause is appropriate

  7. If severe hardship payments have been made for 16 weeks continuously

  8. All cases if an authorised officer is unavailable

  9. If a young person has not registered for Youth Training after a short term direction has expired

  ANNEX B

  Findings of the Benefit Agency Internal Audit Report on Income Support for 16/17 year olds

  1. Development of decision making in the pilot exercise was extremely successful and there is no reason to doubt effective national devolution.

  2. From the sample of cases examined, the average time from receipt of claim to interview was 2.74 days. This delay was compounded by the number of claims which were not identified on receipt.

  3. Audit established a payment accuracy rate of 93.17 per cent. from the cases examined which was in line with Agency targets despite the devolution of some of the decision making from the Severe Hardship Claims Unit (SHCU).

  4. Development of decision making has produced an administrative saving for the Agency.

  Changes in the proportion of lone mothers in employment 1977–79 to 1991–93

  Percentage

  1977–79

  1979–81

  1981–83

  1983–85

  1985–87

  1987–89

  1989–91

  1991–93

  Working full—time

  22

  23

  19

  17

  18

  17

  18

  17

  Working part-time

  24

  25

  23

  22

  24

  23

  24

  23

  All working

  47

  49

  42

  39

  42

  40

  43

  41

  Notes:

  Part-time work is defined as work for less than 30 hours per week.

  Source:

  1. Table 5.9 General Household Survey 1993.

  2. Policy Studies Institute, "Changes in Lone Parenthood 1989 to 1993" (awaiting publication). General Household Survey 1977–79 and 1991–93.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to assist families in the private rented sector whose levels of housing benefit have been restricted. [28307]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  As a part of the October changes to housing benefit, we have proposed that local authorities should have discretion to pay more than the restricted rent in cases where they believe failure to do so would cause exceptional hardship. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, together with representations received from the local authority associations.
  98

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research he has undertaken into the halving of the population of single parents who work rather than draw income support; and if he will make a statement. [27220]

  Mr. Burt
  Research commissioned by this Department on changes in lone parenthood between 1989 to 1993, due to be published shortly, suggests that the proportion of lone parents in work is now increasing steadily and that the increase is directly associated with the 1992 change in the qualifying hours condition in family credit. Benefit statistics show that in 1988 there was one lone parent on family credit for every 10 on income support; by 1994, this ratio had improved to around one for every four.

  The Department commissions extensive research on lone parenthood and the barriers to working for all those on income support. A large part of the reduction in the proportion of lone mothers in employment since the 1970s is accounted for by an increase in the proportion of lone mothers with a child below school age. The introduction of assistance with child care costs in family credit housing benefit and council tax benefit in October 1994 should help to address changes caused by changes in the composition of lone parenthood.

  The table shows that the proportion of lone mothers in work fell from 47 per cent. in 1977 to 1979 to 41 per cent. in 1991 to 1993—general household survey data. These figures include those working part time within the rules of income support and supplementary benefit. However, the number of lone parents in work is now actually increasing—from around 375,000 in 1980 to around 500,000 in 1992.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from landlords about the impact of the proposed housing benefit changes on the availability of private rented accommodation to people on housing benefit; and if he will make a statement. [28304]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Department has received a number of representations from landlords. These have expressed concerns about a number of aspects of the proposals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, together with representations received as a result of consultation with the local authority associations.
  99
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reconsider his plans to tighten restrictions in housing benefit rent levels. [29084]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently considering the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the proposed changes. He is also considering views expressed by the local authority associations.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of children who live in a family which is in receipt of(a) income support and (b) family credit. [28807]

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

  Benefit

  Number of children1

  Income Support

  23,185,000

  Family Credit

  31,180,000

  1 Figures include dependent children up to the age of 18.

  2 Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry May 1994.

  3Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry October 1994.

  Refugees and Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) refugees and (b) of those seeking refugee status are in receipt of one or more social security benefits; and what is the cost of (a) and (b). [28882]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In May 1994, there was 42,140 asylum seekers in receipt of income support. The estimated annual cost of providing income support and housing benefit is £210 million. Information about asylum seekers receiving other social security benefits is not collected. Information is not available in respect of refugees who are not separately identified within the social security scheme.

  Motability
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for

  £ per week

  less than 58

  58 to 104.99

  105 to 149.99

  150 to 204.99

  205 to 439.99

  Above 440

  Number in millions

  3.1

  1.8

  1.7

  2.6

  8.9

  3.3

  Source: Government Actuary's Department

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the total revenue yield from employers' national insurance contributions for 1994–95. [29009]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The total yield is estimated at £23.4 billion.

  Source: Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the revenue which would be raised by charging employers national insurance contributions at 20 per cent. for weekly incomes in excess of £1,500. [29011]
  100
  Social Security (1) if he will institute an independent review of the necessity and size of the contingency reserve held in respect of car leasing facilitated by Motability; and if he will make a statement; [28715]

  (2) what is the current level of the contingency reserve held in respect of car leasing facilitated by Motability; and if he will make a statement; [28716]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the arrangements for the financing of car leasing for disabled people via Motability; and if he will make a statement; [28717]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the relationship between Motability and Motability Finance Ltd. in connection with the provision of mobility services for disabled people to whom mobility allowance is paid. [28718]

  Mr. Hague
  The level of the contingency reserves held by Motability Finance Ltd. are a matter for discussion between MFL and Motability, an independent charity. When Motability and MFL reviewed the level needed early last year they agreed that £25 million, including tax credit, should be transferred by way of gift aid into Motability charitable funds. MFL states that the current level of the combined contingency reserves for car leasing and hire purchase schemes is £37.1 million. The level required is currently being considered as part of an annual review of financial arrangements by Motability and MFL. The Department and Motability have recently finalised a financial memorandum, the aim of which is to ensure that Motability can continue to build on its success in providing some 5,000,000 vehicles to disabled people at good value for money.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of employees for whom employers' national insurance contributions are paid in the ranges of weekly earnings from(a) below £58, (b) £58 to £104.99, (c) £105 to £149.99, (d) £150 to £204.99, (e) £205 to £440 and (fi above £440. [29010]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information in respect of the 1995–96 year is in the table:

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The additional revenue is estimated at £650 million in a full year.

  Source: Government Actuary's Department.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances his Department or the Contributions Agency is informing people in receipt of invalidity or incapacity benefit that they have insufficient national insurance credits or contributions to entitle them to the retirement pension; for what reasons; and if he will make a statement. [29015]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Fifteen months after the end of each contribution year, the Department's national insurance recording system examines more than 59 million records
  101
  to identify those accounts where it appears that insufficient contributions have been recorded to make the year a qualifying one for retirement pension purposes. When this happens, a computer-produced letter is issued to the contributor.

  The purpose of this letter is to keep contributors informed of their national insurance contribution record position and, in particular, to advise them of the deficiency. If they feel that their record should reflect more contributions that those recorded, it invites them to let the Contributions Agency know so that it can investigate the matter. Alternatively, it gives contributors the opportunity to pay sufficient voluntary contributions for the year to count towards their retirement pension.

  Additionally, the Benefits Agency provides a retirement pension forecast service to all customers on request provided that the customer is not within six months of state retirement age.

  Funeral Expenses
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to reply to a letter from Mr.

  Public expenditure on housing (including new towns)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  (a) Gross including capital receipts + NLF repayments

  698.9

  781.0

  703.4

  727.2

  836.4

  704.7

  693.6

  710.4

  887.5

  913.4

  (b) Net of capital receipts + NLF repayments

  660.2

  706.6

  717.5

  687.8

  717.4

  523.8

  517.4

  558.5

  658.3

  589.6

  (c) Gross capital investment

  421.0

  477.0

  480.1

  561.3

  706.0

  583.0

  565.7

  605.1

  791.4

  800.7

  Public expenditure on housing (including new towns)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  (a) Gross including capital receipts + NLF repayments

  1,122.4

  11,082.5

  11,212.9

  11,303.9

  1,047.7

  1,040.0

  992.2

  954.2

  926.6

  (b) Net of capital receipts + NLF repayments

  602.5

  662.4

  710.7

  665.2

  654.5

  690.9

  623.0

  608.8

  600.7

  (c) Gross Capital Investment

  954.8

  942.7

  954.2

  947.5

  965.0

  963.3

  908.6

  871.1

  847.7

  1Figures are high due to large National Loans Fund repayments by Scottish Homes in 1991–92 and 1992–93

  Primary School, Grangemouth
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what health and safety constraints apply to any application from Central regional council or its successor to build a school to replace Zetland primary school in Dalgrain park in Grangemouth. [27669]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Any new school building work is subject to planning permission requirements; the provisions of building regulations; regulations relating to the general requirements and standards for school premises; and to general health and safety legislation.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the percentages of contracts, both by number and by value, won by in-house direct service organisations in Scotland since 1988, in the areas of(a) building cleaning, (b) refuse collection, (c) other
  102
  Derek Case, president of the Birmingham Funeral Directors' Guild, on his proposals for the capping of funeral expenses for social security claimants. [29450]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  A reply was sent today.

SCOTLAND

  Housing Expenditure
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the outturn public expenditure on housing in Scotland for each year since 1979–80, expressed as(a) a gross figure, including capital receipts, (b) net of capital receipts and (c) gross capital investment only, combining local authority non-housing revenue account, local authority HRA, Scottish Homes/Housing Corporation development programme, Scottish Homes/Scottish Special housing association own stock and new towns; and what is the planned public expenditure on housing in Scotland for each year between 1995–96 to 1997–98 expressed in the same way. [27930]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The available information is set out in the table.

  cleaning, (d) vehicle maintenance, (e) catering, educational and welfare, (f) catering other, (g) grounds maintenance and (h) sports and leisure; and what where the average percentages for each category for Scotland as a whole. [28122]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My Department does not collect this information. However, the CCT information service survey report No. 10 December 1994 published by the Local Government Management Board provides information in this area. This report shows the following in relation to current contracts:

  Per cent.

  Activity

  Number of contracts won-in-house

  Value of contracts won-in-house

  Building

  Client

  cleaning

  authority's DSO Other

  87.9

  97.9

  authority's DSO

  0.9

  —

  103

  Per cent.

  Activity

  Number of contracts won-in- house

  Value of contracts won-in-house

  Refuse collection

  88.7

  1100

  Other cleaning2

  100

  100

  Vehicle maintenance

  Client authority's DSO Other

  86.3

  97.4

  authority's DSO

  2.7

  0.5

  Catering (education and welfare)

  91.1

  397.4

  Other catering4

  29.7

  571.7

  Ground maintenance

  Client authority's DSO Other

  77.5

  94.3

  authority's DSO

  9.1

  2.6

  Sports and leisure management

  98.0

  99.4

  Notes:

  1 The contracts won by private contractors were won by individuals and have an average value of £2,186 pa. As such, DSOs have won effectively 100 per cent. of work by value.

  2 In 23 contacts other cleaning has been packaged in by authorities with refuse collection.

  3 This figure does not take account of one contract held by the private sector, for which the value is unknown.

  4 In a number of cases other catering may be packaged in with catering (education and welfare).

  5 Many of the contracts held by the private sector are held by individuals and are of relatively low value.

  A copy of the LGMB report is available in the library.

  Civil Servant Secondment
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which senior Scottish Office official is currently on secondment with the British Linen Bank Group; what position that official has within the Scottish Office; and what is the purpose of the secondment. [27931]

  Mr. Lang
  Dr. W. Moyes began a two years' secondment with the British Linen Bank in October 1994. He is a grade 5 officer and prior to his secondment was head of the purchasing strategy division in the NHS management executive. This move is part of a civil service-wide initiative to encourage interchange between Government, commerce and industry; its purpose is to develop staff by widening their skills and experience, and to promote greater understanding between these sectors.

  Food Safety
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases before Scottish courts have been dismissed by reason of a successful due diligence defence in relation to the Food Safety Act 1990. [28291]

  Sir Hector Monro
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what United Kingdom industry guides to good hygiene practice will be approved prior to the introduction of the New Food Safety (General Food 104
  Hygiene) Regulations to assist enforcement authorities in the application of the legislation. [28283]

  Sir Hector Monro
  In line with the EC food hygiene directive, UK Government Departments have encouraged the food industry to set up working groups to draft voluntary guides for different sectors of the industry in collaboration with enforcement and consumer interests. To date, 10 sectors of the UK food industry have indicated their willingness to prepare such guides. It is not possible to forecast how many guides will have been recognised by the time the regulations are expected to come into force. One guide—on catering—has already been subject to full consultation and is likely to be submitted for recognition shortly.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when legislation in Scotland will be brought into line with that in England and Wales in respect of the temperature control requirements for food. [28287]

  Sir Hector Monro
  There are no plans to align the present Scottish legislation on food temperature controls with that in England and Wales. It may, however, be necessary to amend the Scottish provisions when the European Community harmonises legislation in this area.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce legislation, in accordance with the requirements of the Food Safety Act 1990, in relation to the licensing by enforcement authorities of premises for the purpose of a food business. [28289]

  Sir Hector Monro
  There are no plans to amend the current legislation made under the Food Safety Act 1990 relating to the licensing of food premises.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many emergency prohibition notices and prohibition orders have been imposed in Scotland in respect of premises in terms of the Food Safety Act 1990 since the Act came into force. [28285]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The number of emergency prohibition notices or orders and prohibition orders that have been imposed in Scotland since the Food Safety Act 1990 came into force are as follows:

  Year

  Emergency prohibition notices or orders

  Prohibition orders

  1991

  10

  1

  1992

  13

  1

  1993

  9

  0

  Information prior to 1991 is not held centrally and figures for 1994 are not yet available.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the proposed date for the introduction of the new Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations in Scotland. [28288]

  Sir Hector Monro
  We aim to introduce these regulations within the next few weeks.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons in Scotland have been prohibited from
  105
  managing a food business in terms of the Food Safety Act 1990 since the Act came into force. [28286]

  Sir Hector Monro
  This information is not held centrally.

  Food Labelling
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases have been successfully prosecuted in Scotland since 1990 with regard to offences in relation to the food labelling legislation; and what has been the average fine in such cases. [28284]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not separately identifiable within the Scottish Office Home and Health Department's classification of crimes and offences.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation which will make it an offence to sell food after the best-before date relating to it. [28290]

  Sir Hector Monro
  Best-before dates do not relate to the safety of food but indicate how long the quality of the food can reasonably be expected to be retained. My right hon. Friend does not believe that there is any need to change the existing provisions prohibiting the sale of food which is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser or where the use-by date has expired.

  Hospices
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he, or any of his Ministers last visited a hospice in Scotland. [28554]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State visited the Prince and Princess of Wales hospice in Glasgow on 18 February 1994. I am due to visit St. Columba's hospice in Edinburgh next month.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names and locations of hospices in Scotland; which of them have been required to pay for prescriptions for terminally ill patients since the introduction of the new funding arrangements; what are the reasons for this; what plans he has to review these arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [28532]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The adult voluntary hospices in Scotland, and their locations, are as follows:

  Health board area

  Hospice

  Argyll and Clyde

  Accord, Paisley Ardgowan, Greenock St. Vincent's Johnstone

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Ayrshire, Ayr

  Forth Valley

  Strathcarron, Denny

  Greater Glasgow

  Hunter's Hill Marie Curie

  Centre, Glasgow Prince and Princess of Wales, Glasgow St. Margaret's Clydebank

  Highland

  Highland, Inverness

  Lanarkshire

  St. Andrew's, Airdrie

  Lothian

  Fairmile Marie Curie Centre, Edinburgh St. Columba's, Edinburgh

  Western Isles

  Bethesda, Stornoway

  106
  From 1995–96, each health board's general allocation contains funding for purchasing specialist palliative care of the type provided by the voluntary hospices, including an element in respect of the cost of medication. Information is not held centrally on the arrangements for the provision of pharmaceutical services which have been entered into by health boards and hospices under the new arrangements.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which elements of public expenditure are excluded from his calculation of identifiable public expenditure per head in Scotland. [28553]

  Mr. Lang
  Chapter 7 of the statistical supplement to the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", which gives figures for identifiable public expenditure per head by country, illustrates those elements of general Government expenditure which cannot be separated between individual countries. A breakdown of the 1993–94 total is as follows:

  £ billion

  Defence

  22.9

  Overseas Services

  3.5

  Current transfers abroad (excluding above)

  1.8

  Nationalised Industries EFLs

  4.4

  Law, order and protective services

  1.0

  Other unidentifiable expenditure

  11.2

  Of which:

  Agriculture market regulation and production support

  1.1

  Scientific and technological assistance

  0.4

  Functioning of the labour market

  0.2

  Arts

  0.2

  Higher and further education

  0.3

  Non-contributory pensions benefits

  0.7

  Unemployment, incapacity and other benefits

  0.7

  Contributory family benefits

  0.4

  Parliamentary and Privy Council

  0.3

  Economic and financial administration

  3.3

  Central Management of Civil Service

  1.3

  44.8

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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 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 the name and constituency of the right hon. or hon. Member who originally tabled it. [28508]

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

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of parliamentary questions
  107
  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. [28489]

  Mr. Lang
  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, following the Minister's reply.

  Local Government Allowances
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the(a) allowances, (b) special responsibility payments, (c) travelling allowances, (d) subsistence rates and (e) other allowances payable to elected members of (i) regional, (ii) district and (iii) unitary authorities; how any changes will extend to civic heads, deputy civic heads, majority leaders, deputy majority leaders, majority group officers, committee chairpersons, committee vice-chairpersons, minority leaders and those with special responsibility in minority parties; and if he will make a statement. [28525]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The annual uprating of allowances for members of existing regional and district councils has been carried out and implemented by the Local Authorities etc (Allowances) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1995. Allowances for members of the new unitary authorities are set down in the Local Authorities etc (Allowances) (Scotland) Regulations 1995.

  Local authorities already have discretion to determine the amounts paid to chairmen and vice-chairmen. This principle is retained for conveners and depute conveners of the new councils. The new councils will also have discretion to determine the level of special responsibility allowance. The obligation upon authorities to pay special responsibility allowance to at least one member of a minority group is retained. Guidance on suggested levels of special responsibility has been issued by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  Travel and subsistence allowances have been revised and, where possible, aligned with the rates available for officials. The revised rates came into effect from 1 April 1994.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision exists for objectors to a planning application to appeal against planning approval if it is granted; and if he will make a statement. [28578]

  Mr. Kynoch
  No provision exists in planning legislation for objectors to a planning application to appeal against a planning consent.

  Comments on such third party appeals were received in some of the responses to the review of the planning system in Scotland and these are under consideration.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on how the role of the new unitary authorities is likely to differ from their predecessor authorities in seeking and obtaining funds from the European regional development fund and European social fund; how the additionality rules will apply; and if he will make a statement. [28566]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The role of the new unitary authorities will not differ from that of their predecessor authorities in seeking and obtaining funds from the European regional development fund and European social fund. The same additionality rules will apply.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will list in rank order the population of each unitary authority in Scotland. [28568]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested is as follows:

  Population

  City of Glasgow

  623,850

  City of Edinburgh

  441,620

  Fife

  351,200

  North Lanarkshire

  326,750

  South Lanarkshire

  307,100

  Aberdeenshire

  223,630

  Aberdeen City

  218,220

  Highland

  206,900

  Renfrewshire

  176,970

  City of Dundee

  153,710

  Dumfries and Galloway

  147,900

  West Lothian

  146,730

  Falkirk

  142,610

  North Ayrshire

  139,020

  Perthshire and Kinross

  130,470

  East Ayrshire

  123,820

  South Ayrshire

  113,960

  Angus

  111,020

  East Dunbartonshire

  110,220

  Scottish Borders

  105,300

  Dumbarton and Clydebank

  97,790

  Argyll and Bute

  90,550

  Inverclyde

  89,990

  East Lothian

  85,640

  East Renfrewshire

  86,780

  Moray

  86,250

  Stirling

  81,630

  Midlothian

  79,910

  Clackmannanshire

  48,660

  Western Isles

  29,410

  Shetland Isles

  22,830

  Orkney Isles

  19,760

  Source: "The New Councils-Statistical Report" May 1995.

  EU Committee of the Regions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) name, (b) nominating organisation and (c) attendance record of each full and substitute member of the European Committee of the Regions; and if he will make a statement. [28572]

  Mr. Lang
  The name of each Scottish member and alternate of the Committee of the Regions is given in the
  109
  table. In accordance with article 198a of the Maastricht treaty, members are nominated by member states and appointed by the Council for a period of four years. Members were elected representatives from both tiers of Scottish local government.

  Member

  Alternate

  Charles Gray

  Keith Geddes

  Rosemary McKenna

  Jean McFadden

  Brain Meek

  Marcus Humphrey

  Duncan McPherson

  Peter Peacock

  Daniel Coffey

  Clive Sneddon

  Details of members' attendance at meetings is not notified to the Scottish Office and is a matter best taken up with the Committee of the Regions secretariat at the following address: Committee of the Regions, Rue Ravenstein 2, 1000 Brussels, telephone Brussels 00 32 2 546 2211.

  Tourism
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Scottish tourist board on the potential for joint promotions with the Northern Ireland tourist board; and if he will make a statement. [28552]

  Number of justices by politics

  Commission area

  Com

  Con

  Ind

  Lab

  Lib Dem

  SNP

  Not known

  All

  Aberdeen City

  0

  39

  0

  43

  15

  1

  26

  124

  Angus

  0

  29

  17

  3

  1

  7

  16

  73

  Annandale and Eskdale

  0

  20

  3

  2

  5

  3

  8

  41

  Argyll and Bute

  0

  35

  9

  13

  9

  2

  24

  92

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  0

  6

  6

  3

  10

  1

  3

  29

  Banff and Buchan

  0

  47

  37

  6

  4

  9

  15

  118

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0

  10

  14

  5

  3

  3

  5

  40

  Berwickshire

  0

  22

  1

  6

  6

  2

  0

  37

  Caithness

  0

  17

  14

  7

  11

  3

  10

  62

  Clackmannan

  0

  7

  5

  17

  1

  2

  7

  39

  Clydebank

  0

  6

  2

  20

  2

  4

  6

  40

  Clydesdale

  0

  31

  1

  29

  3

  1

  9

  74

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0

  10

  10

  26

  2

  1

  13

  62

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0

  6

  2

  21

  0

  6

  10

  45

  Cunninghame

  0

  37

  15

  43

  6

  3

  7

  111

  Dumbarton

  0

  20

  1

  21

  2

  1

  12

  57

  Dundee City

  0

  32

  18

  34

  5

  2

  11

  102

  Dunfermline

  2

  9

  15

  39

  3

  4

  14

  86

  Edinburgh

  0

  59

  12

  68

  19

  6

  40

  204

  East Kilbride

  0

  5

  10

  25

  1

  2

  8

  51

  East Lothian

  0

  29

  7

  23

  4

  2

  35

  100

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0

  13

  9

  1

  9

  1

  6

  39

  Eastwood

  0

  12

  8

  3

  4

  0

  2

  29

  Falkirk

  0

  6

  19

  30

  2

  7

  16

  80

  Glasgow City

  0

  48

  13

  125

  3

  2

  45

  236

  Gordon

  0

  57

  29

  5

  31

  1

  15

  138

  Hamilton

  0

  16

  3

  36

  3

  1

  9

  68

  Inverclyde

  0

  14

  9

  19

  14

  0

  6

  62

  Inverness

  0

  13

  26

  4

  9

  0

  5

  57

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  0

  14

  5

  16

  1

  2

  13

  51

  Kincardine and Deeside

  0

  26

  6

  5

  11

  1

  8

  57

  Kirkcaldy

  0

  18

  25

  33

  5

  1

  6

  88

  Kyle and Carrick

  0

  37

  18

  19

  2

  1

  15

  92

  Lochaber

  0

  9

  11

  7

  8

  1

  5

  41

  Midlothian

  0

  20

  19

  19

  1

  1

  9

  69

  Monklands

  0

  15

  6

  35

  1

  1

  10

  68

  110
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions.

  Magistrates
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the political balance of magistrates in each Scottish district; and if he will make a statement. [28573]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The office of magistrate was removed in Scotland by the District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975. Magistrates in office in 1975 became justices of the peace and that is the office which predominately administers the lay justice system in Scotland.

  JPs are appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland on the basis of nominations by local authorities for ex officio appointment of elected members or on the recommendation of local advisory committees. JPs are not paid and are not compelled to declare their political views. The primary consideration in the appointment of a JP is the individual's personal suitability for the office.

  The District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975 also provides for the appointment of stipendiary magistrates. There are nine stipendiary magistrates in Scotland operating in Glasgow district court. Their political views are not known.

  The table shows the political affiliations, declared at the time of their appointment, of all justices of the peace in Scotland by each commission area.
  111

  Number of justices by politics

  Commission area

  Com

  Con

  Ind

  Lab

  Lib Dem

  SNP

  Not known

  All

  Moray

  0

  57

  4

  16

  7

  15

  51

  150

  Motherwell

  0

  17

  2

  53

  0

  3

  12

  87

  Nairn

  0

  4

  7

  1

  1

  1

  6

  20

  North East Fife

  0

  27

  18

  11

  12

  1

  10

  79

  Nithsdale

  0

  12

  13

  7

  2

  2

  15

  51

  Orkney

  0

  12

  4

  5

  28

  2

  15

  66

  Perth and Kinross

  0

  76

  3

  21

  13

  10

  81

  204

  Renfrew

  0

  38

  5

  45

  9

  7

  15

  119

  Ross and Cromarty

  0

  33

  22

  2

  12

  0

  12

  81

  Roxburgh

  0

  16

  10

  2

  4

  0

  9

  41

  Shetland

  0

  11

  7

  7

  22

  0

  7

  54

  Skye and Lochalsh

  0

  9

  8

  7

  5

  1

  3

  33

  Stewartry

  0

  13

  2

  3

  4

  1

  14

  37

  Stirling

  0

  33

  22

  20

  6

  7

  8

  96

  Strathkelvin

  0

  17

  4

  21

  2

  1

  17

  62

  Sutherland

  0

  9

  6

  2

  15

  2

  17

  51

  Tweeddale

  0

  7

  10

  2

  7

  0

  2

  28

  Wigtown

  0

  16

  14

  5

  7

  5

  10

  57

  Western Isles

  0

  13

  25

  12

  6

  10

  20

  86

  West Lothian

  0

  5

  13

  21

  2

  10

  18

  69

  All Scotland

  0

  1,219

  604

  1,074

  380

  163

  791

  4,233

  Rent Assessment Panel
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the arrangements in Scotland corresponding to the English system of rent assessment panels; what salary and allowances are payable; who serves on such a body in Scotland; what are the expected time commitment of such appointees, including presidents, vice-presidents, chairmen, professional members and lay members; and if he will make a statement. [28577]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The rent assessment panel for Scotland was established under the Rent Act 1965 which is now consolidated in the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984. The purpose of the panel is to provide chairpeople and other members for rent assessment committees. The duties of a rent assessment committee are set out in:

  (i) Section 48(1) of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984;

  (ii) Sections 25 and 34 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988;

  (iii) Statutory Instrument 1980 No. 1665 (S.129) The Rent Assessment Committee (Scotland) Regulations 1980

  (iv) Statutory Instrument 1989 No. 81 (S.12) The Rent Assessment Committee (Assured Tenancies) Scotland Regulations 1989.

  The 62 members of the rent assessment panel are appointed by my right hon. Friend and are solicitors, surveyors and lay people. The members are:

  Chairmen

  J. M. Barton WS

  Mrs. L. J. M. Campbell BL

  Mrs. J. Catto LLB NP

  Miss A. Chisholm LLB

  Miss Carol A. Cooper

  Miss M. Crighton

  C. J. Forrest WS

  J. R. Gardiner BL NP WS

  Miss S. T. Givens MA LLB

  J. M. D. Graham LLB NP

  The Hon. Simon E. G. Guest LLB WS

  112

  Miss C. S. Henderson MA LLB NP

  E. G. Kennedy LLB NP

  Miss D. McGhie LLB

  J. G. Malcolm-Smith

  Mr. E. Mochar

  N. J. A. Robertson BL

  J. G. L. Robinson BA LLB

  E. O. St. John BL WS

  O. H. Speirs MA

  Mrs. M. L. J. Walker MA LLB NP (Vice-President)

  B. C. T. Wood BL

  Professional members

  Mrs. Lesley Anderson ARICS

  J. M. Bennet FRCIS ARVA

  Miss Karen Gillies BSc ARICS

  F. M. Halliday FRICS

  Mrs. U. L. Heaney MA FRICS

  M. Kay FRICS

  A. C. Love FRICS

  E. Milne FRICS

  W. W. Mitchell FRICS FRVA

  J. B Pettinger FRICS ARVA

  J. D. O. Ramsay FRICS FFS

  G. F. Robertson FRICS FCIArb (President)

  G. Scott FRICS FRVA

  J. G. Smith FRICS

  I. D. Sutherland

  J. T. Sutherland FRICS

  Lay members

  Mrs. P. Bolton

  S. J. Boyd AIPD

  Mrs. H. Charlton

  Ms A. S. Daghlian

  I. S. Davidson

  M. Fleming

  J. Forbes

  113

  Mrs. C. K. Fraser

  W. G. Fyfe MA BD STM

  A. Gray

  Mrs. E. R. Innes

  A. McQuaker

  Mrs. S. B. Mathieson

  J. S. Methven

  Mrs. J. Murray

  Mrs. E. Park

  Mrs. D. Rankin

  Mrs. S. Ritchie

  R. C. Robinson

  Mrs. M. M. Roxburgh

  J. I. Stevenson

  Mrs. A. Tankel

  J. Thomson MBE JP

  Mrs. A. Woodward-Nutt

  The president and vice-president are part-time appointments. The president is expected to spend one and a half days a week on duties relating to his position as president. The vice president is expected to spend one day a week on hers. Both are also required to serve on a set number of rent assessment committees a year. Other panel members are normally asked to serve on rent assessment committees on average once every three weeks. This does, however, vary from area to area.

  Net expenditure on school meals service in Scotland in each financial year

  £000

  Education Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Borders

  558

  548

  744

  732

  756

  789

  789

  Central

  2,692

  2,905

  2,546

  2,810

  2,305

  2,250

  2,502

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,287

  1,245

  1,240

  1,585

  1,793

  1,962

  1,979

  Fife

  2,665

  2,341

  3,081

  4,305

  4,135

  4,144

  4,452

  Grampian

  2,579

  2,376

  2,911

  2,821

  3,041

  3,051

  3,013

  Highland

  1,992

  1,919

  2,164

  2,485

  2,507

  2,735

  2,802

  Lothian

  6,797

  6,304

  7,136

  7,620

  8,664

  8,819

  8,606

  Strathclyde

  23,491

  24,032

  24,489

  25,770

  29,469

  30,710

  30,881

  Tayside

  3,005

  2,995

  4,446

  3,965

  4,412

  4,992

  4,849

  Orkney

  282

  258

  295

  413

  425

  394

  453

  Shetland

  448

  478

  334

  n/a

  1,084

  1,143

  1,147

  Western Isles

  657

  645

  733

  836

  812

  796

  800

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what nutritional quality standards there are for school meals; and when was the last change in these standards. [28811]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Specific nutritional standards for school meals are not prescribed in Scotland. The Government's policy is that education authorities should be responsible for the school meals service which they administer, including nutritional aspects.

  Schools (Confectionery Sales)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Sctoland under what authority the selling of confectionery
  114
  Details about panel members' remuneration are published in the annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies".

  These arrangements are broadly similar to those affecting English rent assessment panels.

  Witness Costs
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases under summary procedure in the most recent(a) three and (b) five years for which figures are available have involved (i) a witness, (ii) the travelling costs of a witness and (iii) the accommodation costs of a witness being paid to come from waters furth of the British Isles to attend a court hearing, and if he will make a statement. [28633]

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

  School Meals
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the net expenditure on school catering services(a) in total and (b) in respect of free school meals in each year since 1987, broken down by country. [28821]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Net expenditures on the school meals service by each education authority in Scotland from financial year 1987–88 to financial year 1993–94—the lates year for which actual expenditure figures are available—are given in the table. Separate information on expenditure on free school is not held centrally.

  in schools may be prohibited; and which schools have prohibited its sale. [28829]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The sale, or prohibition of Sale, of confectionery in schools is entirely a matter for each education authority. The information on the police of individual authorities is not held centrally.

  Scottish Court Service
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment techniques he has employed to evaluate the benefits and operational efficiency of the Scottish Court Service as an executive agency; what are the specific responsibilities and duties of this agency;
  115
  whom he appointed as the chief executive of this agency; and if he will make a statement. [28631]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Court Service was established as an executive agency on 3 April 1995. The key performance targets for the agency were set out by my right hon. Friend in his reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) on 31 March 1995,Official Report, columns 804–5. The responsibilities and duties of the agency are set out in the framework document, which is available in the Library. The chief executive of the agency is Michael Ewart, who was appointed following open competition for the post.

  Glasgow Regeneration Alliance
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the members of the board of the Glasgow Regeneration Alliance; and which organisation each member represents. [29276]

  (2) what parliamentary representation there is on, and input to, the board of the Glasgow Regeneration Alliance; and if he will make a statement. [29277]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  While the Scottish Office has recently accepted an invitation to attend, as observers, the executive officers group of the Glasgow Regeneration Alliance, the composition and workings of the various groups of the alliance are matters for its four member organisations; Strathclyde regional council, Glasgow district council, Glasgow development agency and Scottish Homes.

  Mature Students
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many continuing students, commencing a degree course, or postgraduate teacher training course, in Scotland in the autumn of 1995, will be eligible for the mature students allowance. [29194]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available at this time. The Student Awards Agency for Scotland, which is responsible for offering assistance to Scottish domiciled students undertaking full-time courses of higher education of the kind referred to, is still receiving student award applications for session 1995–96.

  The mature students allowance is a supplementary, age-related, means-tested, allowance administered as an integral part of the student allowances scheme. In session 1995–96, it will be available to those students who commenced a continuous programme of assisted full-time study before session 1995–96, and who meet all the other criteria of the scheme, provided they are continuing with their current course or proceeding direct to another eligible course in session 1995–96 without a gap. The allowance will not be available to new students who commence a programme of full-time study in session 1995–96.

  The responsibility for the provision of student support for those students domiciled in England and Wales and Northern Ireland who may be attending institutions in Scotland rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, respectively.

  RMAS Salmaster (Fatality)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the fatal accident inquiry into the death of a crew member of the RMAS Salmaster to be held; and where it will take place. [27917]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The procurator fiscal at Lochmaddy is inquiring into the death of Philip John McPate who died on board RMAS Salmaster off the coast of South Uist on 16 May 1995. A decision on whether to hold a fatal accident inquiry and, if so, on the place at which any inquiry would be held, will be taken by Crown counsel, to whom the procurator fiscal will report when he has completed his inquiries.

  Sexual Deviancy Testing
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to introduce the penile plesythmograph as a means of testing sexual deviancy in prisoners who have been convicted of serious sexual offences; and if he will make a statement. [27918]

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

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 19 June 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question about any proposals to introduce the penile plesythmograph as a means of testing sexual deviancy in prisoners who have been convicted of serious sexual offences.
  There are no proposals to introduce such tests in Scotland. The sex offender treatment programme in Peterhead Prison encourages prisoners to address their offending behaviour and to recognise the consequences of their actions for their victims. Emphasis is placed on recognising the cycle of offending and on developing relapse prevention strategies to reduce the number of victims in the future.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the accident and emergency departments in Scotland. [28164]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table lists NHS establishments with 100 or more accident and emergency attendances in the year ending 31 December 1994. Not all hospitals listed will have full accident and emergency departments.

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  Aberfeldy Cottage Hospital

  Aboyne Hospital, Aboyne

  Adamson Hospital, Cupar

  Arbroath Infirmary

  Arduthie Hospital

  Arran War Memorial Hospital

  Lamlash, Isle of Arran

  Aviemore Health Centre

  Balfour Hospital, Kirkwall

  Belford Hospital, Fort William

  Blairgowrie Cottage Hospital

  Borders General Hospital

  Brechin Infirmary

  Caithness General Hospital Wick

  117

  Campbeltown Health Centre

  Campbeltown Hospital

  Castle Douglas Hospital

  Chalmers Hospital, Banff

  Coldstream Cottage Hospital

  Crieff Cottage Hospital

  Crosshouse Hospital

  Daliburgh Hospital

  Davidson Cottage Hospital

  Dr. Gray's Hospital

  Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary

  Dunbar Hospital, Thurso

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  Dunoon and District General Hospital

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  Fleming Cottage Hospital, Aberlour

  Forfar Infirmary

  Fraserburgh Hospital

  Garrick Hospital, Stranraer

  Gilbert Bain Hospital, Lerwick

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School

  Glasgow Eye Infirmary Out-patient Clinic

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride

  Hawick Cottage Hospital

  Hay Lodge Hospital, Peebles

  Huntly Jubilee Hospital

  Ian Charles Hospital, Grantown on Spey

  Insch and District War Memorial

  Hospital, Insch

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  Inverurie Hospital

  Irvine Memorial Hospital, Pitlochry

  Islay Hospital

  Kello Hospital, Biggar

  Kelso Hospital

  Kirkcudbright Hospital

  Knoll Hospital, Duns

  Lady Home Hospital, Douglas

  Lady Margaret Hospital, Millport

  Law Hospital, Carluke

  Lawson Memorial Hospital, Golspie

  Leanchoil Hospital

  Mackinnon Memorial Hospital, Broadford, Skye

  Mid Argyll Hospital, Lochgilphead

  Monkslands District General Hospital

  Montrose Royal Infirmary

  Nairn Town and County Hospital

  Newton Stewart Hospital

  Ninewells Hospital, Dundee

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  Peterhead Cottage Hospital

  Portree Hospital

  Queen Margaret Hospital, Dunfermline

  Raigmore Hospital

  Ross Memorial Hospital, Dingwall

  Rothesay Victoria Hospital

  118

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley

  Royal Hospital Sick Children, Edinburgh

  Royal Hospital Sick Children, Glasgow

  Seafield Hospital, Buckie

  Sister Margaret Cottage Hospital, Jedburgh

  Southern General Hospital, Glasgow

  St. Andrew's Memorial Hospital, St. Andrews

  St. John's Hospital at Howden

  St. Margaret's Hospital, Auchterarder

  Stephen Cottage Hospital, Dufftown

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  Stobhill Hospital

  Stonehouse Hospital

  Stracathro Hospital

  The Ayr Hospital

  Turner Memorial Hospital, Keith

  Turriff Cottage Hospital, Turriff

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital

  Victoria Cottage Hospital, Kilsyth

  Victoria Cottage Hospital, Kilsyth

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  West Highland Hospital, Oban

  Western General Hospital, Edinburgh

  Western Infirmary, Glasgow

  Western Isles Hospital, Stornoway

  Chief Social Work Officers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those persons appointed to the position of chief social work officer by the 29 new unitary authorities under the terms of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 with their salaries and present occupational positions and employers; and if he will make a statement. [28092]

  Lord James Douglas- Hamilton
  Of the 32 new unitary authorities only one has officially confirmed the appointment of a chief social work officer. Angus council has appointed Mr. William B. Robertson. Mr. Robertson is currently deputy director of social work with Tayside regional council. His salary will be £59,571. Details of the outstanding appointments will be reported to the Secretary of State in due course.

  Disabled People
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has recently taken to ensure access for disabled citizens to(a) cinemas (b) theatres and (c) sport grounds; and if he will make a statement. [28093]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Scottish Arts Council and the Scottish Sports Council are already committed to helping to remove physical barriers and increase access for disabled people. Furthermore, in issuing directions to the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Sports Council under the National Lotteries etc. Act 1993, my right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that they should seek to ensure suitable access for those with physical or other disabilities to assets or facilities acquired through lottery funding. The provisions in the Disability Discrimination
  119
  Bill would require service providers, including those who operate cultural and entertainment facilities and sports stadiums, to remove physical barriers, where reasonable, in order to improve access for disabled people to their service.

  Ambulance Service
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made on the frequency of 999 emergency ambulance calls in the past seven years in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole; and if he will make a statement. [28096]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Regular monitoring of the performance of the Scottish Ambulance Service NHS trust by officials in the Home and Health Department includes an assessment of levels of demand. This information is also available to health boards as purchasers of the accident and emergency ambulance service. Figures for the last seven years are as follows:

  Strathclyde1

  Scotland

  Year

  Number of calls

  Variance (per cent.)

  Number of calls

  Variance (per cent.)

  1988–89

  79,876

  —

  156,813

  —

  1989–902

  82,633

  +3.5

  167,981

  +7.1

  1990–912

  83,503

  +1.1

  163,704

  -2.5

  1991–92

  99,909

  +19.6

  190,608

  -16.4

  1992–93

  105,410

  +5.5

  203,415

  +6.7

  1993–94

  107,212

  +1.7

  209,146

  +2.8

  1994–95

  111,101

  +3.6

  216,562

  +3.6

  Notes:

  1 Information is not held in this form. These figures cover Ayrshire and Arran, Argyll and Clyde, Greater Glasgow and Lanarkshire Health Boards.

  2 The Industrial dispute had an unquantifiable effect on the volume and accuracy of records in these years.

  Noisy Neighbours
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to deal with the problem of noise nuisance by neighbours; if he intends to introduce legislation on the issue; and if he will make a statement. [28094]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Environment Bill will extend to Scotland part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which covers all forms of statutory nuisance, including neighbour noise.

  Service type

  Contractor

  Number of contracts

  Start date

  Previous cost (£000)

  Tender value (£000)

  Catering

  In-house

  1

  1 August 1995

  1,337

  1,324

  Hospital Beds
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dedicated private wards have opened in NHS hospital trusts in each of the past three years. [28098]
  120
  The conclusions and recommendations of a UK interdepartmental working party on the effectiveness of current neighbour noise controls were issued for consultation in March. They include a proposal for a new night-time noise offence. We will consider the comments received before deciding if further legislation for Scotland would be appropriate.

  Homeless Mentally Ill
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made about the number of mentally ill citizens who are currently homeless in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole; and if he will make a statement. [28095]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  In 1993 the Chief Medical Officer wrote to health boards asking them to assess the health needs of homeless people within their resident populations and to develop strategies to meet the identified need. Their progress in doing so will be monitored through the annual NHS accountability review process.

  Homelessness is also a national priority issue for housing authorities and for Scottish Homes. An aim of the Chief Medical Officer's initiative was to establish inter-agency arrangements to ensure homeless people who have health problems, including mental health problems, are referred for help to appropriate health agencies. However, homeless mentally ill people cannot be compelled to accept assistance unless their condition justifies compulsory detention under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering Scheme
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he holds centrally in respect of contracts for health and hospital services awarded by health boards and NHS trusts under the compulsory competitive tendering scheme; and if he will make a statement. [28097]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 29 March 1995,Official Report, column 581 which stated that the information requested had been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Since that date information has been received on the award of a catering service contract by the Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS trust. The details of that contract are as follows:

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no dedicated private wards in any NHS trust hospital in Scotland. A number of trusts have beds which may be made available for use by private patients provided that they are not required for NHS patients.

  Health Service Pay Negotiations
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many officials of(a) Shetland health board and (b) Orkney health board have received formal training in conducting wage negotiations with representations of nursing staff; and if he will make a statement. [29020]

  Mr. Lang
  Two senior officials from Shetland health board and one from Orkney health board attended a seminar on local pay bargaining in May. These seminars were part of a programme offered to all health boards in Scotland.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department issued guidance to the Orkney and Shetland health boards in respect of the local negotiation with nursing staff and other professions allied to medicine concerning 1995–96 wages and salaries. [29019]

  Mr. Lang
  No such guidance has issued.

  My Department is in regular contact with all health boards on a range of issues including local pay bargaining.

  Civil Service Retirements
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 396, if he will provide comparable details on civil service early retirement packages on grounds of inefficiency. [29282]

  Mr. Lang
  Inefficiency is a ground for dismissal. An immediate lump sum payment of up to two years' salary may be made where a Department judges payment of compensation to be appropriate. Where compensation is agreed and the person dismissed is over age 55, this may be forgone in favour of immediate payment of the accrued superannuation benefits which would otherwise be preserved for payment at retiring age. There have been seven departures from the Scottish Office on inefficiency grounds in the past five financial years. Details are as follows:

  1 in 1990–91

  2 in 1991–92

  2 in 1992–93

  2 in 1993–94

  0 in 1994–95

  Of the seven, compensation was agreed for only one officer and paid as a lump sum compensation payment approximately equivalent to two years' salary.

  Drug-related Deaths
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what arrangements have been made to improve the collection of information about drug-related deaths in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [29765]

  Mr. Lang
  The General Register Officer for Scotland, in consultation with forensic pathologists, the Crown Office and my Department, introduced new arrangements in 1994 for checking and classifying such deaths. The improved procedures are described in a publication issued today by the General Register Office for Scotland. The publication also gives information about drug-related deaths in 1994, collected under the new system, and, for 122
  comparative purposes, provides available data for 1992 and 1993. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  The new arrangements have significantly improved the collection and reliability of information on drug-related deaths in Scotland. The figures tragically illustrate the dangers of misusing drugs and underline the importance of the concerted action now being taken to tackle drug misuse on the basis of the report of the drugs task force, led by my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State. The improved data now available will help inform the development of policy and services within the framework of the task force report.

ENVIRONMENT

  Territorial Waters
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he plans to take to protect(a) the North sea and (b) all United Kingdom waters, out to the 200-mile limit of territorial waters. [28116]

  Mr. Atkins
  Under international law, territorial waters, and their accompanying jurisdiction, only extend to a maximum of 12 nautical miles from the baseline—that is, the coast or in certain circumstances a line drawn between two headlands. More limited jurisdictions can be claimed in a region up to 200 nautical miles from those baselines. With the other North sea states, the Government set out their intention in the 1992 Paris declaration of extending jurisdiction in this way in respect of shipping. The Government therefore will make regulations under the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994 to extend our coastal state jurisdiction over pollution from shipping. In exercising these jurisdictions, the Government comply with the United Kingdom's obligations under the comprehensive system for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic contained in the Oslo, Paris and OSPAR conventions and applies the policies agreed in the North sea conferences, both to the North sea and other UK waters.

  Council Estates
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further plans he has for greater private sector involvement in the management and ownership of council estates; and if he will make a statement. [28885]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We wish more local authorities, especially in urban areas, to consider the benefits which they and their tenants can obtain from transferring the ownership of council housing to new landlords; and we wish a wider range of bodies to be involved in receiving such transfers. We hope to announce soon our proposals for bringing this about. We have put in place the legislative framework extending our compulsory competitive tendering to housing management. The first contracts are due to be in operation from April 1996. I am pleased to say that local authorities are making good progress with their preparations.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a list of all reports
  123
  carried out by his Department's pollution inspectorate, or its consultants, which include reference to Nirex's research and safety analyses. [28583]

  Mr. Atkins
  I have asked the chief inspector to prepare a list of the reports and to make it available on request. A copy of the list will be placed in the House Library.

  Atmospheric Pollution
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide the most recent figures on levels of ozone and nitrogen dioxide in Britain and each other country in the European Union. [28584]

  Mr. Atkins
  The most recent figures on levels of ozone and nitrogen dioxide are available as part of the Department of the Environment's air quality bulletin service. Information from the national automatic monitoring sites is used to provide air quality bulletins to the public, giving daily information on these and other air pollutants in both urban and rural areas across the United Kingdom via a freephone helpline, Ceefax, Teletext and a variety of other news media. The bulletin includes information on levels of pollutants together with a forecast and health advice on what to do should levels become high. The Ceefax and Teletext bulletin services have recently been upgraded and now provide hourly updates on nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulphur dioxide and benzene and 1,3—butadiene. In addition, information from the Department's non-automatic and automatic monitoring sites is published regularly.

  Information on levels of pollutants in other European countries is not held centrally.

  Local Authority Area Committees
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the rules on political balance set out in his reply to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. MacKinlay) on 21 July 1994,Official Report, column 464, apply to area committees established exclusively to discharge the authority's functions or to advise the authority in respect of the area and where all voting members are from wards wholly or partly within the area and either the area does not exceed two fifths of the authority's whole area or the population of the area does not exceed two fifths of the authority's total population. [28881]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The political balance rules would not apply in this case.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have established area committees exclusively to discharge the authority functions. [28823]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We do not hold information about which authorities have chosen to organise themselves in this way.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what restrictions there are on the functions which a local authority may devolve to area committees which it may set up to discharge council functions. [28818]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The area committee will be subject to the general limitations imposed by Local 124
  Government Act 1972 on all authorities arranging for discharge of their functions, in particular by section 101 of that Act. The committee's authority will also be restricted in terms of area.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of States for the Environment what is the total number of families in temporary bed and breakfast accommodation paid for by public funds; and what is his Department's budget for this. [28809]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  At 31 March 1995, 4,480 households were accommodated in bed-and-breakfast hotels by English local authorities in connection with their duties under the homelessness legislation. Provision for local authority expenditure on such matters is included within the all other services standard spending assessment, and is not separately identified.

  Local Authority Devolution
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to allowing district and borough councils greater flexibility in devolving functions to parish and town councils. [28817]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 already gives principal authorities considerable scope to delegate functions to any other local authority, including parish councils.

  Sainsbury Superstore Application, Stoke Mandeville
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive his inspector's report on the application by J. Sainsbury plc to build a superstore at Lower road, Stoke Mandeville; and if he will make a statement. [28627]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The inspector's report was received on 3 April. The Secretary of State refused planning permission for the proposals on 14 June.

  Energy Saving Campaign
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what is the estimated amount of energy saved, to date, as a result of his Department's "Wasting Energy Costs the Earth" campaign. [28619]

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated amount of energy saved, to date, as a result of his Department's "Wasting Energy Costs the Earth" campaign. [29161]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The "Wasting Energy Costs the Earth" campaign, launched in October last year, aims to raise public awareness and encourages action to save energy in the home, as part of the United Kingdom's climate change programme. A full assessment of the campaign's effectiveness will be made when it is completed.

  EU Funding, Merseyside
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names together with the previous and present jobs of the monitoring committee and technical committees appointed to assist with the
  125
  objective 1 funding of Merseyside; and if he will make a statement. [28703]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: Following is a list of the members both of the monitoring committee and of the two technical panels for, respectively, industrial development and the people of Merseyside, together with present positions. Details of the members' previous positions are not readily available.

  The membership reflects a wide-ranging partnership of public and private sector organisations on Merseyside.

  MONITORING COMMITTEE

  GO-M

  John Stoker—Chair, Regional Director

  Peter Houten, Director

  Pat Jackson, Director (T and I), DOE (ERP Division) Andre Bayer

  Employment Department

  Maureen De Viell

  MAFF

  Robert Bettley-Smith

  Local Authorities

  Councillor Harry Rimmer, Liverpool City Council

  Councillor Mike Storey, Liverpool City Council

  Councillor D. Knowles, Sefton BC

  Councillor Ron Watson, Sefton BC

  Councillor J. Keight, Knowsley BC

  Councillor T. J. Lyons, Knowsley BC

  Councillor Dave Jackson, Wirral BC

  Councillor John Hale, Wirral BC

  Councillor Dave Watts, St. Helens BC

  Councillor Mike Doyle, St. Helens BC

  MDC

  Bob Lane, Assistant Chief Executive

  Private Sector

  David Railton, MDHC Accounts Manager

  Terry Atherton, National Westminster Bank Plc, Regional Head of lending

  John Sharpley, Champion Spark Plugs, Director, Europe

  Ian Meadows, RS Clare, Managing Director

  Albert Mandell, GPT Ltd, Manager Customer Communications

  TRAINING ENTERPRISE COUNCILS

  Alan Moody, Chief Executive, CEWTEC

  Linda Bloomfield, Chief Executive, Merseyside Tec

  Peter Hulmes, Chief Executive, Qualitec

  Voluntary Sector

  Audrey Young, Liverpool 8 Law Centre, Management Committee

  Andy Churchill, Merseyside Coordinator, NW Network

  Further Education

  Tony Holloway, Assistant Director of Finance, Further Education

  Funding Council

  George Sweeney, Principal, Knowsley Community College

  English Partnerships

  Jim Gill, Regional Director

  MerseyTravel

  Roy Swainson, Chief Executive

  126
  Higher Education Sector

  Professor Philip Love, Vice-Chancellor, The University of Liverpool

  National Rivers Authority

  Chris Newton, Regulation Environmental Quality Manager

  TECHNICAL PANEL FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

  Pat Jackson: Chairman, Government Office for Merseyside, DTI Directorate

  Peter Ramsden: European Commission. DGXV1

  Alan Chape: Assistant Chief Executive, Liverpool City Council

  James Wilkie: Director of Planning and Economic Development, Wirral Borough Council

  Bob Hepworth: Assistant Chief Executive, St. Helens Borough Council

  Graham Smith: Director of Planning and Development, Knowsley

  Borough Council

  Chris Williamson: Head of European Affairs, Sefton Borough Council

  Peter Hey: Corporation Services Man. QUALITEC

  Richard Merritt: Deputy Chief Executive, CEWTEC

  Peter Fell: Director European Affairs, MERSEYTEC

  Jim Gill: Regional Director, English Partnerships

  Bob Lane: Assistant Chief Executive, External Affairs, Merseyside Development Corp.

  Paul Bunnell: Corporate Planning, Merseytravel

  David Railton: Accounts Manager, Mersey Docks and Harbour Company

  Dr. David Prior: Director, Research Support and Industrial Liaison, Higher Education Institutions

  Audrey Young: Liverpool 8 Law Centre, Man. Committee

  Ian Lobley: Director, 3i Plc

  Muriel Downs: Managing Director, Daryl Industries

  Alan Ruddock: Managing Director, Giddings and Lewis

  Pat Collins: EPR Division, DoE

  TECHNICAL PANEL FOR THE PEOPLE OF MERSEYSIDE

  Peter Houten: Chairman, Director TEED, GO-M

  Dirk Meganck: European Commission, DGV

  Maureen De Viell: ESF Unit, DoE

  Nigel Tubman: ESF Unit, DoE

  Colette Turner: Objective 1 Secretariat, GO-M

  David Barrie: Head of Client Support, Education Department,

  Liverpool City Council

  Paul Lally: Senior Education Officer, Sefton Borough Council

  David Rigby: Director, Education Department, Wirral Borough Council

  Peter Wylie: Director, Education Department, Knowsley Borough Council

  Brian Mainwaring Director, Education Department, St. Helens Council

  Peter Fell: Director, European Affairs, MERSEYTEC

  Richard Merritt: Deputy Chief Executive, CEWTEC

  Cath Boullen: Training Services Manager, QUALITEC

  Joe West: Principal, St. Helens College

  Terry Jeves: Associate Development Director, Liverpool John Moores University

  Any Churchill: Merseyside Coordinator, NW Network

  Alex Murray: Operations Director, Contract Chemicals Knowsle

  Ltd.Chris Benson: Managing Director, Benson Signs Ltd.

  Bob Mottram: Chairman, Business Link Wirral

  Graham Helling: European Operations Manager, Liverpool Chamber of Commerce

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. [28649]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: 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's 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.

  In accordance with this policy, we have announced our intention to introduce legislation to place on a statutory footing the requirement for the Crown to observe town and country planning controls.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a regional breakdown of the number of public housing and housing association construction orders in the first quarter of 1995, together with a regional breakdown for the corresponding figures for 1994. [29197]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information is published in table 4 of the information bulletin No. 224, "Orders for New Construction: March 1995", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a regional breakdown of the figures for output and employment in the construction industry in the first quarter of 1995, in the Department of Environment information bulletin 276, together with a regional breakdown for the corresponding figures for 1994. [29196]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Provisional contractor's output figures for 1994 are published by region in table 2.5 of the quarterly "Housing and Construction Statistics: Part 2: December quarter 1994", a copy of which is in the Library. Corresponding figures for the first quarter of 1995 will be published in the next issue. Regional figures for output by direct labour organisation and for total employment in the construction industry are not available.

  MINIS Return
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary for the Environment when he plans to publish his Department's annual MINIS return. [29154]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  It is planned that the MINIS returns for my Department will be published during July.

  Planning Policy Review
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State or the Environment what representations he has received regarding his review of planning policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have received a number of representations about PPG6, to which I assume that the hon. Member is referring. A consultation draft of the revised planning policy guidance will be issued before the summer recess.

  Lower Severn Estuary
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his current estimate of the completion date of the classification of the lower Severn estuary special protection area pursuant to article 4 of directive 79/409/EEC. [29234]

  Mr. Atkins
  I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is his policy that chief executive posts in unitary authorities established under the Local Government Act 1992 should be filled by open competition. [29097]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Under the Local Government Changes for England (Staff) Regulations 1995, appointments to chief officer posts in unitary authorities established under the Local Government Act 1992 must be made by open competition.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he last met the chairman of the Local Government Commission; [29098]

  (2) whether he will call for a report from the Local Government Staff Commission on the steps being taken by shadow unitary authorities to appoint their chief executives. [29099]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Following my last meeting with the staff commission on 23 may 1995, I am satisfied that there is no need at present for fuller investigation of the appointment of chief executives by shadow unitary authorities.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of his Department's new draft guidance to the Local Government Commission, on the application of the South Hams district council for unitary status; and if he will make a statement. [29021]

  Mr. Curry
  There is none. The guidance will apply to the reviews of those districts which are selected for review, but it does not have any bearing on the selection process.

  Civil Service Retirement
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 126, if he will provide comparable details on civil service early retirement packages on grounds of inefficiency. [29296]
  129
  Sir Paul Beresford
  Inefficiency is a ground for dismissal. An immediate lump sum payment of up to two years' salary may be made where a Department judges payment of compensation to be appropriate. Where compensation is agreed and the person dismissed is over age 55, this may be forgone in favour of immediate payment of the accrued superannuation benefits which would otherwise be preserved for payment at retiring age. There have been six departures on inefficiency grounds in the past five financial years. Details are as follows:

  Lump sum compensation payment

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  None

  1991–92

  None

  1992–93

  17,468

  1993–94

  None

  1994–95

  33,354

  National Park Authorities
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of the representations he has received about the composition of new national park authorities. [29101]

  Mr. Atkins
  Yes, provided that the respondents have no objections.

  Water Companies (Windfall Profits)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the conclusion of the Director of Water Services on who should decide whether windfall profits should be distributed in the form of rebates to customers. [29353]

  Mr. Atkins
  This is a matter for the Director General of Water Services, who has published his views.

  EU Urban Initiative
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has selected the areas to be included in the urban community initiative of the European structural funds.

  Mr. Curry
  Further to my right hon. Friend's answer of 29 March to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald),Official Report, columns 645–46, announcing the six non-objective 1 areas in England to participate in the urban community initiative, I have now selected the three areas from Merseyside—Liverpool Central, North Huyton—Knowsley—and Netherton—Sefton—which will be considered by the European Commission for funding the Urban initiative.

  Originally, five areas put themselves forward, but the Commission requirements meant that only three could be included on the final list, which I chose after consultations with the local authorities and careful consideration of all the evidence.

  The urban community initiative will bring an additional 80 million ecus—approximately £64 million—of European funding to Britain of which £13.5 million will go to the three Merseyside areas. The money will be used for new urban regeneration projects carried out by local partnerships, which will complement existing
  130
  programmes such as the single regeneration budget and the structural funds objectives 1 and 2.

  My announcement today means the programme of nine British non-objective 1 areas, three Merseyside objective 1 areas and the objective 1 area in Northern Ireland is now complete, and the first projects should start this summer.

  Council House Sales
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to implement measures to assist leaseholders of former council flats who are facing difficulties with high service charges and resale. [29857]

  Mr. Curry
  Recent research has shown that while nine out of 10 people who bought their flats under the right to buy were satisfied with their purchase, a small proportion was in particular difficulties with service charges, and an even smaller proportion has had difficulty in reselling because prospective buyers could not obtain a mortgage.

  Following public consultation, I am introducing three measures to assist local authority leaseholders:
  first, a wide-ranging good practice guide, to help councils improve their management of service charges in flats which they have sold. This will help to avoid leaseholders being presented with unexpectedly or unreasonably high bills;
  second, a more flexible form of mortgage indemnity agreement, which councils can use to guarantee commercial mortgages, including lending on ex-council flats. Mortgage indemnities can enhance councils' housing policies and encourage lending in areas where a resale market is not yet fully established;
  third, an exchange sale scheme, to help leaseholders who need to move from flats bought under the right to buy but cannot resell on the open market because of mortgageability problems. The scheme will help the authority to buy back the flat at the right-to-buy price, and to sell the leaseholder another property at a discount of up to 40 per cent.

  These measures, the first two of which are available now, will help local authorities to assist those leaseholders who face particular difficulty. The third measure requires regulations which I have laid before Parliament today. Subject to its views, the exchange sale scheme will come into effect on 10 July.

  We are issuing advice to local authorities today on these measures and how to use them to boost the local housing market in general, and help owners of former council flats in particular.

  North Sea Conference
  Sir Kenneth Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the main achievements of the recent North sea conference.

  Mr. Gummer
  The fourth international conference for the protection of the North sea was held in Esbjerg, Denmark on 8 to 9 June 1995. Ministers and senior officials from Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, together with the members of the European Commission responsible for the environment, took part, under the chairmanship of the Danish Environment and Energy Minister, Mr. Svend Auken. I represented the United Kingdom.

  Since so much progress has been made since the third North sea conference, in 1990, in converting policy

  131
  commitments into binding international agreements and European legislation, the nature of the conference was different from its predecessors. It was more a question of reviewing progress and fine-tuning than of breaking new ground.

  The progress report for the conference showed how difficult it is to compare what is happening in the different states because of different methods of measuring or estimating the basic data. We therefore agreed to put emphasis in future on getting transparent, reliable and comparable reports on what is actually happening, making the fullest possible use of work in other international bodies.

  The most important problem facing the North sea that was identified by the recent quality status report was the impact of over-fishing. We achieved a commitment to the development and strict enforcement of a system of controls for fish stocks of all kinds, including the industrial fisheries, to keep exploitation rates within safe biological limits. Measures will now be brought forward in the appropriate forums to implement this commitment. We also agreed that North sea Fisheries and Environment Ministers will meet before the end of 1996 to review the progress of these measures.

  We also agreed to ask the Oslo and Paris Commission for the Protection of North East Atlantic to assess what measures are needed to improve the protection of wildlife in the areas beyond territorial waters—territorial waters being already covered by the EC birds and habitats directives—and to work out how best to harmonise such measures by the different North sea states.

  Since the 1990 North sea conference, the European Community has adopted measures which provide a comprehensive framework for controlling hazardous substance. At Esbjerg, we agreed on various actions within that framework to give priority to certain specific problems connected with hazardous substances. We also discussed the setting of a target for the cessation of all inputs of hazardous substances to the North sea within one generation—that is, 25 years. It made clear that the United Kingdom shares the ideal of such aims but does not consider them currently practicable.

  We confirmed support for the adoption and implementation by OSPAR of a strategy to combat and prevent eutrophication of the sea. Some North sea states wanted to see the whole of the North sea treated as a sensitive area for the purposes of the EC urban waste water treatment directive and its catchment as a vulnerable zone for the purposes of the EC nitrates directive, which would imply additional investment in sewage treatment to remove nutrients, and additional restrictions on agriculture. France and the United Kingdom took the view that the implementation of the Directives as they stand will address the problems that exist and that the suggested blanket approach would waste resources by installing plant and imposing restrictions that would have no practical effect on eutrophication problems.

  We reached agreement on how to proceed on the creation of a special area in the North sea under the Marpol convention to control discharges of oil from shipping; on completing the work on tightening the Marpol annex on air pollution from shipping to the problems of sulphur oxides in the North sea.
  132
  To reduce the impact of the offshore oil and gas industry, we agreed to ask OSPAR to revise its guidance on the management of produced water, to limit the use of oil-based muds to cases where this is necessary for geological or safety reasons and to get OSPAR to adopt a harmonised mandatory control system for the use and discharge of chemicals offshore. Some North sea states expressed their concern about the decision to permit the disposal of the Brent Spar at sea. I explained the reasons why we considered this the best practicable environmental option and reminded them that we were following the procedure agreed by all North sea states in 1992. France, Norway and the United Kingdom recorded their reasons for rejecting a commitment to dispose of all disused offshore installations on land; the other North sea states, which who do not have to consider the disposal of deep-sea installations, recorded their commitments to land disposal of all offshore installations.

  We confirmed our commitment to the safety fundamentals for the management of radioactive waste adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency in March and agreed to support the IAEA work to seek agreement for a global convention on this subject.

  Finally, we agreed that Norway should host the fifth North sea conference in 2000 to 2002, but that this should be much more closely integrated with OSPAR ministerial meetings.

  Local Government Ombudsman
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for reviewing the local government ombudsman service; and if he will make a statement. [29855]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We have today appointed Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield to carry out a fundamental review of the Commission for Local Administration in England. The review, which is part of a programme of reviews of bodies sponsored by the Department, will be conducted in two stages. During the first stage, Sir Geoffrey will consider fundamental questions about the necessity for the Commission and the functions it undertakes. Depending on the results of that stage, Sir Geoffrey will then look in more detail at the commission's internal organisation and procedures. Sir Geoffrey will report his findings to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the commission; he has been asked to do this for stage one by the end of November 1995.

  To assist Sir Geoffrey, we are establishing an advisory group on which we are inviting representatives of the local authority associations and citizens advice bureaux to serve; departmental officials and the chairman and secretary of the commission will also serve on the group. In addition, Sir Geoffrey will be seeking comments from a wide range of interested parties, and would welcome written representations from anyone who has views on the Commission and its work.

  The local government ombudsman service was established in 1974 to provide independent and impartial investigation of complaints by members of the public who felt that they had suffered injustice because their local council had done something wrong. After 20 years, it is now timely to review the ombudsman's role and the effectiveness of the service provided.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Tributes to Baroness Hylton-Foster
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, before we begin the usual business, I hope that the House will allow me to divert it for a second and to draw its attention to the historic day that today represents. The noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, is retiring as Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. I think I am right in saying that the noble Baroness is so far the only holder of that post. It is a post which is perhaps even more exacting than the demands that are put upon the leaders of parties in your Lordships' House. The Convenor of the Cross-Benches has to be strictly impartial, and his or her flock—in this case her flock—is above all a flock which, perhaps more than anything else, encapsulates the true spirit of your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness has had over the past 21 years—I think I am right in saying—to juggle the political views of people who come traditionally from the left of the political spectrum, from the right of the political spectrum, from the centre of the political spectrum, and from that indefinable reservoir of knowledge and talent which we call the great and good who sit habitually on your Lordships' Cross-Benches.
I think it is fair to say that the noble Baroness has set a stiff example to the noble Lord who is to follow her, and I should like to pay tribute to the remarkable job that she has done; to wish her well in the future; and to hope that she will not, because she has retired, fail to attend your Lordships' House and to continue to give us the benefit of her views, both in public and in private, and to wish her successor the very best of good fortune in the times to come.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Richard: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition, perhaps I may join in the tribute that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has paid to the noble Baroness. She has achieved something which is unique in your Lordships' House. Having been the Convenor of a group that is not a group, she has succeeded in establishing the group that is not a group as if it were a major group in your Lordships' House. That is especially true, because she has fought very hard for members of a group that is not a group in terms of accommodation and in its participation in terms of its proper share of the time of the House when it has been available.
It is a remarkable achievement that she has for so long managed to guide—I hesitate to use the word "lead" in connection with the Cross-Benchers—such a disparate and talented group of people in the way that she has. Speaking for the Opposition, we have had an extremely good working relationship with the noble Baroness. She has been invariably courteous and invariably prepared to listen. She has not always been prepared to change her position after listening, but nevertheless she has been a force for good in the House, and we wish her well in her retirement.
Perhaps I may also join in what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House had to say in conveying our good wishes to her successor. How someone who has been a Speaker will do, having had the experience of discipline and firmness when dealing with an unruly flock, in dealing as gently as he will have to with the group that makes up the Cross-Benchers, we shall see. But we wish him well.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we shall all miss the noble Baroness as the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. My whole parliamentary life has been, as it were, punctuated by her family. When I made my maiden speech in the House of Commons 47 years ago, her father was in the Chair; when I made my first speech as a Minister 31 years ago, her husband was in the Chair; and, when seven years ago, I, a somewhat inexperienced

3
Member of your Lordships' House, took over leadership of my party here, she was already a well-seasoned vis-à-vis and a very good exemplar.
Her family has a most remarkable record of service to the institution of Parliament. She has fully kept up the tradition and made a most notable contribution. We thank the noble Baroness for her contribution to our proceedings and wish her well in her retirement. We extend our good wishes to her successor.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, only those who, like myself, have had a seat in your Lordships' House for very much longer than the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, has been our Convenor can be aware of how much we owe to her. She filled what had hitherto been a great vacuum. As your Lordships know, we are not a party in the political sense of having anything corresponding to a party line. We are a group united only on the basis of not being a party. But that does not mean that we do not have common interests. There is a need to have weekly meetings in order to exchange views, to find out what is going on in the House and, more importantly, to find out what is going to go on in the House the following week. Weekly meetings and weekly newsletters are invaluable services to us all.
Those of us who are taking our seats for the first time need a guide, philosopher and friend to help us on our forward way and to teach us something about the procedures in the House of Lords. Of course, there is the Companion to the Standing Orders but we need to be told where it is and how to find it. When we are contemplating making a maiden speech, we need a companion, guide and philosopher to tell us how not to be controversial without inflicting on your Lordships a long succession of bromides. We also want a clearing house for information. In the case of a political party in the strict sense of the phrase, all that is laid on by the Whips' offices. They have the satisfaction of knowing that they have behind them a coherent and, it is to be hoped, well disciplined party as a result; a party with a high morale.
However, we on the Cross-Benches are not a party; we are a group whose only characteristic is independence of the party system. Therefore, the functional equivalent of the Whips' office is a service to be laid on by an individual whose satisfaction arises out of doing just that; providing a service without any reward except the thanks of her friends. For nigh on 22 years the noble Baroness has done just that for all of us, and we are deeply in her debt.
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, the noble Baroness is not a stranger to a life of service. She began as a trainee nurse with the Red Cross and worked her way up the hierarchy until she was helping to organise the British Red Cross at national level. Her father was a Speaker of the House of Commons, which is service. Her late husband too was a Speaker of the House of Commons, which again is service. Her whole life has been dedicated to performing services for one interest or another as part of a family of national public servants.
During those years she has organised the Cross-Benches into a prototype of what I believe your Lordships' House may become in future; that is a life-Senate of the professional classes dedicated to
4
political service rather than political power. On behalf of all those whom she has served for so long in your Lordships' House, I thank her for all that she has done and seek to send her on her way with the blessing and good will of us all.
Finally, I too welcome her successor, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, who succeeds her in that service; service to which he is not unaccustomed.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, it is my pleasure from these Benches to endorse all that has been said so fully and eloquently by others in your Lordships' House. The Archbishops and Bishops have been grateful for the kindness and support unfailingly offered by the noble Baroness. We very much appreciate being included in the meetings that are held and the notices that are issued by the Cross-Bench Peers. It can be lonely in this corner of the House, sandwiched between the parties. However, there is great reassurance in being welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, and her noble friends. I express sincere thanks for that.
In common with all noble Lords, I warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, as the new Convenor and congratulate him on assuming the responsibility. My pleasure in expressing congratulations is also personal. It is the greater because of his family's connections with Bishop's Waltham, which is in my diocese. They live there in the shadow of the Bishop's Palace, which was ruined centuries before his lifetime or mine.
We on these Benches thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, and welcome the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. We look forward to our continuing association with the Peers without a party and their Convenor.

VJ Day Commemorations
2.49 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to follow the successful VE Day celebrations with a similar programme of events to commemorate the end of the war against Japan.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the Government are organising a programme of commemorative events over the weekend of 19th and 20th August and envisage participation from all nations which fought under the Crown from 1939 to 1945. On Saturday 19th August, the programme includes an open-air service outside Buckingham Palace, a parade of veterans and servicemen and evening entertainment on the River Thames. On Sunday 20th August, we hope that there will be events throughout the nation, with church services and Beating Retreats in the four capital cities.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that Answer. Is he aware that the events of VE Day, in which he played such a notable part, were regarded as an enormous success in the way in which they brought together the ideas of celebration and reconciliation? Is he aware that many of us hope that the events which will commemorate the end of the war itself will be conducted in a similar spirit? Are the Government

5
taking advantage of the services of a professional organiser or impresario in the way that they did so successfully for the events commemorating VE Day?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his kind remarks about my part in those matters. I was very happy for others to do the work while I took the credit. With regard to reconciliation, I should refer the noble Lord to an article by Air Vice-Marshal Sir Bernard Chacksfield in the Independent on 13th June 1995 in which he very much supports the line taken by the noble Lord. He will be aware, as I am, that Sir Bernard Chacksfield is chairman of the Burma Star Association.
With regard to the services of an impresario, the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that Major Michael Parker, whose astonishing feats of imagination were at the root of any success that there was on VE Day, has once again been advising the steering group on what should be done on VJ Day. I am sure that his magic touch will be apparent to us all on that weekend.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the ceremony on VE Day was a great and moving national occasion. But is the Leader of the House aware that, in his reply to my Question, it was confirmed that the Government organised five events in England to celebrate VE Day to which were invited 92 Members of Her Majesty's Government and only eight representatives of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition? Will the noble Viscount inform the House whether the events for VJ Day will be conducted on a similar basis or, bearing in mind that the majority of Her Majesty's Armed Forces in 1945 voted Labour, will they be conducted on the basis of an all-party national celebration?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I was happy to try to answer as best I could the noble Lord's Question for Written Answer on 25th May. I hope that the noble Lord will accept from me that we aimed to ensure that the nation as a whole was represented at the VE Day events including different regions, occupations and political groupings. The noble Lord will he aware that Members of both Houses of Parliament were invited in a number of capacities and the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and leaders of other parties were invited to represent their parties. Others, such as veterans of the Second World War were invited because of their backgrounds and, in a number of cases, Members of the Government were invited in view of the wartime contribution made by their area of responsibility. Agriculture is a good case in point and it was sensible to invite the Minister responsible for agriculture. Had I been opposition spokesman for agriculture I am sure that I should have had no complaints to make about that.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, as the Japanese surrender was signed aboard both the American flagship in Tokyo Bay and aboard the British Pacific Fleet flagship, HMS "King George V", will my noble friend say whether anybody who took part in those ceremonies will be invited to attend the ceremonies here on 19th and 20th August?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will be aware that the far eastern fleets of the Royal Navy have often come to be called the "forgotten
6
fleets". It is extremely important in the view of Her Majesty's Government—and I associate myself strongly with this—that the Royal Navy and the merchant marine, in particular the forgotten fleets as well as the other allegedly forgotten armies, should play a prominent role. I can give my noble friend the assurance that he seeks.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister used the word "reconciliation". Is he aware that relatives of those who were prisoners of the Japanese for considerable periods and who have relatives buried on the railway of death find it extremely difficult to follow the road of reconciliation?
Bearing in mind that, to a large extent, victory over the Japanese was achieved by great numbers of men and women from the Commonwealth and our American allies, in addition to our own forces, will the Minister give an undertaking that those people will be represented adequately in any of the celebrations that take place?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it may be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, who I know takes a close and justifiable interest in such matters, if I read out from the draft order of service the phrase which has attracted a great deal of attention. The phrase reads:
"Let us pray for the people of all nations and their leaders that those divisions that remain may be healed".
I hope that your Lordships may feel that, particularly in a Christian service, those sentiments are not exceptionable. I am happy to find that the Burma Star Association, in particular, has expressed its full support for that. Forgive me, I have forgotten the other part of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister give an undertaking that the American and Commonwealth forces, who played a magnificent part in the defeat of the Japanese, will be adequately represented?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I should emphasise that this is very much a British and Commonwealth event and deliberately so. But we are extremely keen to make sure that there should be full representation by all members of the Commonwealth and all those forces who fought under the Crown because that enables us to make very clear that the final act of remembrance 50 years after what was the most destructive war in history should be a solemn act of thanks to those who fought, died and saved our country and Commonwealth. I emphasise to the noble Lord that we shall be careful in that regard. I have been assisted greatly—notably by my noble friend Lady Flather—to remember that the greatest volunteer army which helped the Allies in the Second World War was the Indian Army.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, as one who was also present with Her Majesty's Armed Forces in South East Asia at the time, perhaps I may express the hope that the events that take place will not exclude an expression of sorrow and regret about the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would not be out of keeping with the magnanimous spirit which is desirable on this occasion that we should express words of regret about the terrible events which ushered in the nuclear age.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, many people owe their lives to the fact that that difficult and morally impossible decision was taken by President Truman. The noble Lord was there and I was not, but it is clear that we were expecting many thousands of casualties—Britishmen and women—which would undoubtedly have occurred if the bomb had not been dropped. It is an equilibrium which is difficult to maintain. I am glad that I did not have to take that decision but, nevertheless, I believe that it was the right decision.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I too was in the 14th Army. I was involved in the invasion of Port Swettenham, which it was hoped would assist in defeating the Japanese. While on board we heard that the war was over. I have never prayed so hard nor been so grateful for anything as I was for that atom bomb. It was the finest thing that ever happened that we should have dropped it on those villains. When we reached Port Swettenham, the ramifications would have been unbelievable. Thousands of lives would have been lost and, at the time, I thanked God for the atom bomb.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have nothing to add to the noble Lord's experience, which he so eloquently expressed.

ECOFIN: Fraud against Community Funds
3 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will provide particulars of the proposals for new rules presented by the European Commission at the meeting of the Economic and Financial Council (ECOFIN) on 22nd May last in connection with fraud against Community funds, whether they supported the proposals, and whether they will provide copies of them to Parliament in good time before the forthcoming European Union summit in Cannes.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in another place, on 22nd May the Council agreed to further discussion at the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) of the proposed regulation on the protection of the Community's financial interests, on which an explanatory memorandum was originally submitted to Parliament on 5th October of last year.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am happy to congratulate the Government on having provided your Lordships' House with the document requested in my Question, which arrived at the Select Committee some 10 days after I tabled the matter. In view of the fact that ECOFIN is meeting tomorrow and the next day to consider the memorandum, will the Minister bear in mind that the draft convention contains an extended definition of fraud which I entirely applaud, but what it omits is the relationship between the member states and the Commission? It should also be borne in mind that
8
prima-facie evidence already exists that the European Parliament and the Commission have in fact been guilty of fraud within the definition in Article 1 of the proposed convention. Therefore, will the Minister ensure that the institutions concerned give full and immediate access to the police of the countries in which they are situated so that some of those allegations can be investigated?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is a matter of satisfaction that the Government have given such pleasure to the noble Lord. Once the law is in place the noble Lord can rest assured that the processes of law will take their course in an impartial and proper manner.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I have much sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. However, is the Minister aware that we are discussing a complicated issue which relates to immunities granted to international bodies generally? There is a big question as to whether one can make an exception for the Commission and its role and distinguish it from other international bodies. It is an issue which the European Communities Committee has taken up in a recent letter to the Home Secretary. Can the Minister assure us that the letter will be considered in that context?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out how technically complicated the matter is. It lies on the cusp between administrative law and criminal law and between the responsibilities that are vested in the Community under Pillar l and those dealt with under the third pillar of the Maastricht Treaty. I assure the noble Lord that the matters he raised will be given the most serious consideration.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that an effective attack on fraud in the Community requires that greater powers to investigate national dispersion of Community moneys be given to the central authorities of the Community?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the important point is that proper investigation is carried out and that those responsible are brought to book. Inevitably that will involve a partnership among all parties. It is not possible to say that there is a paramount party involved in the transactions. It involves member states, national governments and Community institutions.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what has happened to the task force of outside experts which was so firmly recommended by your Lordships' Select Committee after six years of studying the problem? Further, does my noble friend agree that the only way to win the battle against this fraudulent Euro-monster is to remove the money from the grasp of the fraudsters, possibly by repatriating the common agricultural policy which costs £30,000 million a year and abolishing the structural funds which cost a further £10,500 million a year?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his opening remarks. However, I am not in a position to give him the detailed response that he seeks. Nevertheless, I am willing to write to him to inform him of the up-to-date position. My noble friend proposes the

9
most drastic solution to achieve the ends that he seeks. We believe that it is possible to achieve the same results without such drastic measures.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an undertaking that the matters that I ventured to lay before your Lordships today will receive the careful consideration of the Ministers participating in ECOFIN both tomorrow and the next day?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the attack on fraud, waste and mismanagement has been a major theme of British-European policy for many years. As the noble Lord pointed out, ECOFIN is meeting to deal with the matter, as also is the Justice and Home Affairs Council. By the end of the month I am hopeful that we shall have a much stronger regime in place than we have at present.

Tourist Hotel Accommodation
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce a system whereby a national recognisable minimum standard for tourist hotel accommodation is registrable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, the English Tourist Board is conducting a review of the crown accommodation classification and grading scheme, which is a voluntary scheme. Our aim is to improve the scheme so that consumers are given adequate information to enable them to select accommodation of the type and quality that they seek. We intend to publish our proposals for the crown scheme for consultation with the industry this summer. Our final proposals will be announced by the end of the year.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, I am concerned about my noble friend's suggestion that it should be a voluntary scheme. Is he aware that most countries have an identifiable minimum standard and that tourists visiting from other countries are thereby assured? In view of the very high earnings of the tourist industry in this country and the present slow growth in London compared to other continental capitals, does my noble friend not think it is time to bring in a proper registration scheme?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have to say that the case for introducing a mandatory scheme for such regulation has not been made. Moreover, it is not supported by the industry. The Government do not totally rule out compulsion, but the clear message from industry is the less regulation the better so as to allow people to do the job, and not more regulation. It is important that there should be a scheme. However, what is really important is that it should be a scheme that consumers use and understand. In that way, it would also have the laudable effect of raising standards in the industry.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that a registration system works very well in France and has done so for many years; and, indeed, ensures a good standard of accommodation, particularly in the more moderately priced hotels?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the scheme in France is entirely based on classification with no grading. The clear message both from the industry and from consumers in this country is that they want to know about grading; in other words, they want to know about the quality just as much as they want to know what the accommodation is. That is where the scheme is different. It is also noticeable in France that the scheme is not used by industry as it might be because the rate of VAT that one pays depends on one's classification.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is time that we had harmonisation of star ratings throughout the Community? It is not a regulation; it is something which enables consumers to make a choice and which provides them with information. At present there are so many conflicting star ratings across the whole Community which is especially bad for this country as a major destination for tourists. Therefore, surely we should have a level playing field in that respect.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the star system is indeed used by the AA and the RAC in this country; and indeed by some European countries. Of course, it means entirely different things in each European country. We believe that the best system for the Government to back, through the English Tourist Board, is the crown accommodation classification and grading scheme. It is twice as popular, in terms of the number of hotels that have signed up to it, as the AA scheme and it is well used. However, we believe that it needs some improvement to make it more understandable for consumers. We also believe that a voluntary scheme which is backed and used by the industry is much more preferable than a statutory scheme imposed by government on an industry which is extremely important for our economy.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the Minister said that no case had been made for a statutory grading scheme. However, is it not the case that the McKinsey Report, as reported in the press, had as its first finding the fact that the hotel industry itself believed that the main solution to the problems of quality in the industry lay in having a compulsory grading scheme?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, ought to know by now never to believe everything that he reads in the press. But I have to say that his attitude is entirely to be expected from a party which believes that regulation improves industry and does not hamper it. That is why we believe that our deregulation initiative is so important in helping industry thrive in this country.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, regardless of what I read in the press, is it not the case that the first conclusion of the McKinsey Report

11
commissioned by his own department was, as I have said, that the industry believed that the main solution to its problems would lie in a statutory grading scheme?
Viscount Astor: No, my Lords. That is not the case. What is entirely clear is that the majority of people do not believe that there should be a statutory scheme for the hotel industry. However, some sections of the travel agency industry, particularly the incoming travel agents associations, believe that there should be a statutory scheme as that would enable their businesses to sue either hotels or members of the tourist board if the accommodation for their members did not come up to scratch. That is the danger of a statutory scheme. It is just a charter for lawyers to make money. We believe that it would be much better to devote energies to improving the industry. I am sorry that noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite no longer believe in industry.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a cause for shame that some people come to this country believing that they will receive reasonable accommodation and find that it simply does not comply with the lowest standards of health or safety? The noble Lord really should think seriously about this.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I disagree with my noble friend. The tourism industry in this country is extremely important. It provides £33 billion in income for this country and 1½ million people work in the industry. It is an extremely successful industry. I do not believe that we should talk it down.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, does the Minister agree that his department's own document on tourism entitled Competing with the Best states on page 9 that over 30 per cent. of all visitors to this country are very dissatisfied with the hotel accommodation they receive, and states on page 14 that our hotel industry is not internationally competitive? How can the Minister's own statements this afternoon be reconciled with the statements made by his department?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the tourist industry in this country is growing at about 6 per cent. a year; the European average is 8 per cent. a year. Therefore, there is competition and we need to improve. I believe that the industry in this country produces good value for money. It is perfectly true that there are areas, particularly in London, where some hotels do not offer the quality of accommodation that they should for the price that they charge. That was clear in the survey in which 30 per cent. of visitors said they would like to see an improvement. However, 70 per cent. said they were happy with the situation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords—
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I know that this Question arouses a great deal of interest, but I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has been extremely patient. As always I am in your Lordships' hands, but I think that perhaps we should move on.

Barings
3.13 p.m.
Lord Desai Lord Desai asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to receive the report of the Board of Banking Supervision and Control on the Barings collapse.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Board of Banking Supervision will complete its work as soon as it can. The Governor of the Bank of England has told my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it may be able to submit its report in the early part of July, depending on the nature and timeliness of preliminary responses by those named in it and progress by the board in drawing out the lessons and implications from the Barings episode.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that when the Barings collapse occurred one reason given for conducting the inquiry in private was that it would be speedy? Is it not astonishing that despite that there has been a long delay in submitting the report? Would it not have been better if the inquiry had been open to the public so that we could have seen the evidence as it was gathered by the Board of Banking Supervision and Control?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, one of the principal reasons why the inquiry was constituted in that manner was in order that it should be quick and that we should have a report rather quicker than we did in the case of the BCCI inquiry. I do not believe that the suggestion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, would have assisted in achieving that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the importance of the credit of the British banking system to the whole of the British economy, is my noble friend aware that many of us strongly support his insistence on an early receipt of this report, and if necessary action on it?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments on the seriousness of this matter which is. of course, a view which the Government share. However, it is also important, first of all, to be thorough in this inquiry so that the facts are properly established and the lessons that can be learnt from it are the right lessons. Secondly, it is important that we operate within the proper legal constraints which stop a precipitate helter-skelter rush to 4 conclusion.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, as the Minister who was responsible for the creation of the Board of Banking Supervision and Control, may I ask my noble friend whether, despite the Governor's aspirations to produce a report by the beginning of July—I am sure that at the time those aspirations were given in good faith—there will be no pressure whatever, either from the Governor of the Bank of England or from any other quarter, on the independent members of the Board of Banking Supervision to produce their report into this highly complex and important matter before they are fully ready to do so?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful for that comment from my noble friend Lord Lawson. I can confirm what he asked.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the credibility of the investigation into the Barings affair has been compromised by entrusting the investigation of the behaviour of the Bank of England in this respect to a board which operates under the authority of the Bank of England? To enhance the credibility of the report will he ensure that the evidence given to the board is published in full?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I have no evidence to support the allegation about the taint of this particular Inquiry to which the noble Lord opposite referred. I can assure the House that the matter will be reported as fully as is possible.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, are the Government giving any consideration to the fate of the former Barings employee who seems to be destined to spend an indefinite time incarcerated in Germany?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the general law applies and we will deal with the predicament in which Mr. Leeson finds himself in the same way as we would with any other British citizen in such circumstances.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, as the report may well be highly critical of certain individuals does not my noble friend agree that it is right and just that it should be thorough even if it takes longer than many of us would have hoped?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, of course that is absolutely right.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, as the Bank of England is an interested party in this matter does not the Minister agree that the report would be more thorough if it was undertaken by someone other than an interested party?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is important to be clear on the role of the Board of Banking Supervision's independent members. We have every confidence that we will receive an impartial, thorough and properly argued analysis of what occurred and that the proper results and conclusions can be drawn from it.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does not the Minister agree, given all the difficulties we have heard about this afternoon, that it would be better if the task of banking supervision was taken away from the Bank of England and given to an independent body?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, that is not the conclusion that the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of the House of Commons reached when looking into this matter. The committee concluded—the Government agree with this—that there is no overwhelming case for separating out the responsibility for prudential supervision to a separate body. It was interesting to note the evidence given to that inquiry by Professor Sir Charles Goodhart who argued that the distinction was, perhaps, more of form than of substance.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, given the obvious great interest in this matter in your Lordships' House, will the Minister undertake that when the report is available time will be allocated to consider it fully in a debate in the House?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is intended there will be a Statement made to the other place. It is then up to those on the Benches opposite if they wish the Statement to be repeated here, and that is a matter for the usual channels.

Business
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Halifax Summit.

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.19 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is the first of a package of four consolidation Bills on the Order Paper in my name. With the leave of the House, I shall speak briefly to all four together and then move the remaining Bills formally.
The purpose of the four Bills is to consolidate legislation on criminal matters in Scotland. The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill is the largest measure. It effects the first consolidation of criminal procedure since 1975. The opportunity has been taken to present the law in a more coherent and better structured form.
The Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Bill contains the particular procedural provisions which apply to confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds of crime.
The Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Bill draws together a number of enactments dealing with substantive law which were included in the procedural statutes which are to be repealed on consolidation. The opportunity has also been taken to bring together a number of other statutory offences so that all may be found more conveniently.
Finally, the Criminal Procedure (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Bill makes amendments consequential on the consolidation package and provides for transitional matters and savings.
If your Lordships are content to give the Bills a Second Reading, they will be referred, in the usual way, to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I commend the Bills to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, these four Bills are greatly welcomed by the legal profession in Scotland. It is perhaps an overdue consolidation of the criminal law to date. I am sure that the Bills will be of great value to practitioners and, perhaps more importantly, to the courts in the efficient administration of justice and to clients who will be able to obtain advice from their advisers without

15
the need for the complicated research which has been required up till now in order to establish what the up-to-date law is. This will make great inroads in the saving of time and research in the presentation of cases in the criminal courts in Scotland. All four Bills are welcome.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Criminal Procedure (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

National Health Service (Amendment) Bill
3.22 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 14 [Short title, etc:]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege) moved the following amendment:
Page 11, line 12, after ("2") insert (", 3").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as the Bill stands, Clause 14(5) provides that references to a health authority or authorities in Clauses 2 and 6 shall, until 1st April 1996, be construed as references to a family health services authority or family health services authorities. The intention is to allow those clauses to come into force before the Health Authorities Act comes into force.
However, there is also reference to health authorities in Clause 3. Under the present law only family health services authorities administer lists of practitioners undertaking to provide those services. Family health services authorities are not health authorities within the meaning of the National Health Service Act 1977. Therefore, the effect of passing the Bill unamended would be to make any tribunal directions on disqualification from lists meaningless from the commencement of the Act until 1st April 1996.
It is true that Clause 14(3) of the Bill would allow the Secretary of State to make a separate order to bring the Act into force and to appoint different days for different clauses. If the Bill is not amended and Clause 3 is not commenced until April 1996, the effect would simply be to maintain for the time being a practitioner's unrestricted
16
right of appeal to the Secretary of State against a tribunal direction that he or she be disqualified. However, we believe that it is desirable to make the correction now to preserve in full the intention of the sponsors. The amendment merely brings Clause 3 within the ambit of Clause 14(5). I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, this amendment was obviously required to the Bill as drafted. I dealt with the matter from this Dispatch Box at Second Reading, and I am happy to say that we agree with the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with an amendment.

Road Traffic (New Drivers) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Child Support Bill
3.26 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTES in the Chair.]
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
Clause 1 [Applications for departure directions]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert:
("(2A) Once an application for departure is made under subsection (2), the other party shall receive notification of that application and can on request be allowed to submit further information or evidence which is relevant to that application.
(2B) The other party can request permission to submit further evidence under subsection (2A) either—

(a) in writing; or

(b) at a hearing either with or without the other party present; or

(c) at a hearing with the other party present.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3. Both amendments relate to the departure directions which are a feature of the first nine clauses of the Bill.
Amendment No. 2, if accepted, would ensure that parents with care and absent parents are made aware of departure applications and the circumstances surrounding such applications. It would also give them the right to submit their own evidence and comments on the application before a decision is made.
The departure process outlined in the Bill allows the parent with care no opportunity to see or comment on the evidence being submitted by the absent parent who is applying for departure. Monitoring by the National Council for One Parent Families shows that there are cases where absent parents have their maintenance payments reduced following normal reviews of changes of circumstances. In that case the parents with care are not told why that has happened and are informed that the information they need is confidential. If they want to know why their maintenance has been reduced, they have to go to an appeal tribunal to find out. The purpose of Amendment No. 2 is to ensure that that situation does not arise with the departure system, as we believe that it would lead to yet more applications for appeal and increased levels of frustration on both sides.
In addition, if the departure officer is to make a fair and equitable decision which takes into account the financial circumstances of both parties and the welfare of any children involved it is important that he involves the parent with care in the process.
I believe that in Committee in the other place the Government said that they did not want to notify the parent with care at too early a stage as the departure application might fail, and also that if the application succeeded the parent with care might not even be notified. That seems to us to be a weakness in the departure process, which could lead to the problems I described, which arise with change of circumstance reviews. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 2.
The effect of Amendment No. 3 would be to allow applications for departure from a current maintenance assessment at any point. We believe that frustration will be caused to applicants who are refused simply because of a time limit. That will not be seen as justice, particularly as the time given is only 28 days.
The amendment removes the time limit on the period during which a person can apply for a departure. The objective of the amendment is to ensure that all parties to an assessment will be satisfied that their circumstances have been' properly considered by the agency. We do not want them to feel that they have been unfairly denied the opportunity to use the departure process.
The way in which the agency operates, the timescale available, and the understanding of the information provided by the agency all have an effect upon the speed at which a person may be able to consider most carefully that information and determine for himself whether or not he should seek a departure.
Unless that process is dealt with sensitively and without undue restraint, we think that the people concerned are likely to feel worry and anger that they have been denied the opportunity to use the new procedures which are so clearly set out in the Bill.
Some problems would be caused by backdating changes in the assessment resulting in the later application for departure. The amendment deals with the issue by allowing the revised assessment only to be backdated where there is good cause for the delay. In other cases, any revision would apply only from the date of the application for a departure. Liability before that date would remain unchanged.
The ability to seek departure applies to parents with care as well as absent parents. Therefore, that change would not always advantage the absent parent. As it stands, Clause 1 does not include any time limit for applying for departure after a change of circumstances. Therefore, the Government's argument about uncertainty for the recipient applies equally in that case.
I believe that what we seek to achieve with the two amendments is clear. It is to deal with the nature of the departure process, to improve its quality in the provision of information, and to seek a degree of justice in the way in which time limits are applied. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: Amendment No. 2 draws attention to a real mischief. I had not intended to speak at this stage, but it is possible that we may save a little time at a later stage of the Bill. The difficulty is whether the amendment is the best way to tackle the mischief. I shall listen to the Minister with care and think further afterwards.
Clearly, when an absent parent succeeds in obtaining a departure, and pays less, there will be a constant problem that the parent with care will immediately find herself receiving less and therefore will suffer. On the other hand, there is a problem between ex-spouses about confidentiality. Relations between ex-spouses are not always quite as amicable as, in a perfect world, one would wish. There are circumstances in which people may object rather strongly to having their private affairs drawn to the attention of ex-spouses.
What is important is that the maintenance should continue to arrive in one form or another; and that if, because the maintenance from the absent parent is reduced there is a hiatus, it should be met smoothly and efficiently by the restoration of benefit. I hope that the Minister may tell us that he has something up his sleeve to help with the problem. In the process, it may save me moving a later amendment.
In this context, I should like the Minister to explain the effect of Clause 25 of the Bill. Am I right in believing that the clause helps to ameliorate the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, draws attention? That information could possibly be of assistance to the Committee. I appreciate that what is described as the process of osmosis by which information reaches Ministers in this House may take a certain amount of time. However, it may be time well spent because it may save us time in the course of the evening. That is something for which we may all be grateful later.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The two amendments have been taken together as they relate to the procedures for dealing with departure applications.
Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 2. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, explained, the amendment gives the other party to a departure application the right to make representations before the application is decided. It is most certainly our intention that that will happen. The regulation-making powers in paragraph (2) of the new Schedule 4A will be used to ensure that that is achieved. On receipt of a departure application, all of the information, subject to security and data protection requirements, will he passed to the other party. The other party will be advised of its right to make representations and those representations will be taken

19
into account in arriving at a decision. That will normally be a paper-based exercise, but an interview will be offered where appropriate.
I should point out that the right of appeal against a departure order extends to both parties and that both parties are entitled to attend appeal tribunal hearings.
I hope that with that explanation, and my assurance about our firm intention to introduce the measures outlined in the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 2.
Amendment No. 3 would add (I believe that that is the best way to put it in shorthand) to the outside limit of 28 days that a person would have before making an appeal. The amendment raises some interesting issues. I have read it carefully and have listened to what the noble Lord said. I should like to consider the matter further. I am sorry to say that since it appeared in the Marshalled List we have not had sufficient time to consider the matter carefully before today's Committee stage. Although Members of the Committee will understand that I cannot make any commitment about the result of my deliberations, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that I shall consider further the point that he makes.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that osmosis is a little slow today. Therefore, I am afraid that we shall have to return to the issue at a slightly different stage. In my defence, perhaps I may point out that Clause 25 is for tomorrow's business, and sufficient unto the day—or words to that effect.
Lord Carter: It is an encouraging start. We have had a most helpful answer to the first amendment and a promise to consider the second.
Perhaps I misheard the Minister when he referred to Schedule 4A. However, there are only three schedules to the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to help. I admit that the same confusion occurred to me earlier this morning. Schedule 4A is to be inserted in the 1991 Act. It is in Schedule 1 of the Bill.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Halifax Summit, 15th-17th June
3.37 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the Halifax Summit on 15th to 17th June.
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the Halifax Summit, which I attended with my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Treasury. I have placed the communiqués in the Library of the House.
"As last year, the summit was in two parts. We started with a G7 meeting focusing on economic matters and were then joined by President Yeltsin for a G8 meeting on wider political issues.
"In the G7 countries, growth averaged 3 per cent. last year, with the United Kingdom growing somewhat faster. The issue of most concern is the continuing high levels of unemployment, particularly in continental Europe. For example, unemployment across the European Union is currently at 11 per cent. We are all agreed on the policies needed to tackle that. They are the ones set out in the G7 Jobs Conference last year, and taken forward in the recent OECD study: more flexible labour markets; deregulation and the scrapping of restrictive practices; and better training and education. These are just the policies being pursued by the British Government and which have led to unemployment falling by more than 600,000 over the past two years.
"We agreed to hold another jobs conference in France next year to review progress on these issues. All countries will be represented by finance and employment Ministers; further consideration will be given to including others—such as education and trade Ministers—as well.
"Last year at Naples we agreed to conduct a review of international institutions. At Halifax, we have drawn up a series of specific proposals to strengthen the Bretton Woods institutions and the United Nations.
"We all agreed that the most effective way to tackle exchange rate instability is the pursuit of sensible economic policies at home. Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors will maintain close co-operation on economic surveillance and on exchange markets. We also agreed on a range of measures to strengthen co-operation between the world's financial regulators and supervisors on such matters as prudential standards and transparency. Among the proposals for the international financial institutions, I would single out those aimed at improving the IMF's early warning mechanisms and its ability to handle crises where prevention fails.
"The summit also discussed the problems of poverty and sustainable development. We agreed in particular to encourage better use of all existing World Bank and IMF resources to tackle the substantial

21
burden of multilateral debt faced by some of the world's poorest countries. This is an area where the UK has taken the lead in pressing for action. All G7 countries have now agreed to explore the option of pledging some of the IMF's gold, and we and some others will continue to argue the case for modest outright sales of gold to help reduce the debt burden.
"This year is the 50th Anniversary of the United Nations. We all want to see a strong and purposeful UN, able to play the full role envisaged under its charter. We agreed that reform is essential if the UN is to continue to meet demands placed upon it. We have made a number of proposals for eliminating duplication and waste, and consolidating and streamlining the UN's economic and social bodies.
"We shall be actively pursuing these proposals in partnership with the rest of the UN's membership, since decisions on these are not just for the G7. We also recognised the need for the UN to be properly financed. All UN member states should meet their financial obligations and agree to reform the system of assessment. The G7 gave a strong push to the next stage of liberalising world trade. There is unfinished business from the Uruguay Round, as well as new areas to be tackled including non-tariff barriers, investment and government procurement.
"We dealt with a number of other issues including the environment where we agreed on the need to review and, where appropriate, strengthen the commitments we made at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. We also discussed international crime, where the G8 have taken up our suggestion to establish a high level group to look at existing arrangements for co-operation against crime and to make practical proposals to improve them.
"President Yeltsin played a full part in the political discussions. He described the tragic consequences of the taking of hostages by Chechen guerrillas in Budyonnovsk. The crisis, which has claimed many lives, has taken a new turn today. The guerrillas are now reported to be leaving, by agreement, with a large number of hostages as well as Russian deputies and journalists. I hope there will be no further loss of innocent lives, but the wider problem of Chechnya remains. We urged President Yeltsin to do all he could to find a political solution.
"Terrorism has been a problem in many of our countries, and we agreed to set up a better system for exchanging information about terrorist incidents and methods of dealing with them. We also agreed to President Yeltsin's proposal to hold a special summit in Moscow next year to discuss a range of issues on civil nuclear safety.
"On Bosnia, Security Council Resolution 998 on the reinforcement of UNPROFOR was adopted on 16th June. The summit supported the new Rapid Reaction Force which the United Kingdom and France have helped to establish. President Clinton said that he had not yet secured Congressional approval for this force to be funded from UN assessments, but made clear that he wanted the United States to share in the financing. Following new offensives in Bosnia, summit leaders
22
called for an immediate moratorium on military operations so that political negotiations based on the contact group proposals could resume.
"Over the past day, the remaining UNPROFOR hostages have been released and the level of fighting has decreased. There has so far been no significant change in the military situation as a result of the latest offensives, and we continue to believe that this question will not be solved militarily.
"Bosnia clearly remains in a dangerous phase. Mr. Carl Bildt, the former Swedish Prime Minister, is about to begin his mission as the European Union's negotiator. He will do so with the strong support of the eight summit nations. This was a summit that addressed a range of long-term and short-term issues: growth and employment; the reform of international institutions; the debt problems of the poorest countries; pushing forward free trade; the conflict in Bosnia; and terrorism.
"The people of Nova Scotia gave the summit a conspicuously warm welcome. This helped to make it a friendly and productive meeting without the over elaborate formalities that have characterised some previous summits. That is something I have pressed for some time, and I hope we can take the process further forward next year."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. I am glad to hear that the summit was friendly and productive; it may have been friendly, but I am not sure how productive it was. It was certainly not particularly earth-shattering. I read the communiqué and it seemed to me, even judging it by the normal pallid standards of such documents, that it was a pretty thin one.
We welcome the progress that may have been made and may be made on jobs and the fact that there is an agreement to meet next year in France. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the main impact of the summit was made by President Chirac, the new president of France? It was said in the press today that he brought a fresh face and fresh voice. Did he bring any fresh ideas? Perhaps the Leader of the House could help us on that.
The reform of the international financial institutions seems to have played a major role in the summit. I agree that they need looking at and it may be that the IMF early warning mechanism proposals are important. However, the UN economic institutions—UNCTAD, UNIDO and some of the others—provide independent voices in international economic policy which perhaps the IMF and the World Bank do not particularly like. Will the Leader of the House confirm that those institutions will be supported?
Concerning the war against world poverty, I was interested in a passage that appears at the top of page 6 of the communiqué. In relation to Sub-Saharan Africa, we are apparently now to,

23
"work with others to encourage relevant multilateral institutions to: focus concessional resources on the poorest countries, especially those in Sub-Saharan Africa, which have a demonstrated capacity and commitment to use them effectively, and take trends in military and other unproductive spending into account in extending assistance".
Presumably that means that if countries spend a great deal on arms, they will not do too well as regards aid. I wonder whether the Leader of the House takes the point that it is a little rich that that appears in the communiqué from the nations who are doing their best to persuade those very poor countries that they should buy more and more arms rather than concentrating on other matters.
As regards the United Nations, is there any sign that the United States is yet prepared to pay its dues? I note what was said about the new assessment as concerns Bosnia, but was anything said about the fact that the United States of America is unfortunately still massively behind in its payments to the United Nations budget, and that that is causing difficulties with the UN?
The statement of the chairman rather than the communiqué itself, contains quite a lot about the United Nations and how it could possibly be strengthened. I cannot help pointing out that if what is said in the chairman's statement is to take place in practice, it will give the United Nations a greater capacity to intervene more quickly in international areas of tension. That is something that we on this side of the House would strongly support. I should be grateful for the Lord Privy Seal's confirmation that that is what is intended.
I note that in the chairman's statement the Government and the whole G8 call upon the warring parties in Bosnia to impose a moratorium on the fighting. If there is no moratorium, where do we go then? Merely calling for a moratorium and then saying that, nevertheless, we recognise that the only real way to deal with the problems is by negotiation and that we hope that the contact group's proposal will be accepted, begins increasingly to look like a doctrine of despair. Do the Government have any statement to make about discussions that may have taken place in Halifax, perhaps on a rather longer term basis, about what is to happen in Bosnia if the war there continues?
We give the Statement, the summit communiqué and the documents emerging from it, a reasonable welcome. I am not going overboard in their favour because I do not find very much in the communiqué and the Statement that would lead us to jump ship. Nevertheless, so far so good. We look forward to the jobs conference next year.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. It is, on the whole—I would not put it higher than that—desirable that the summit communiqué Statement should habitually be repeated in this House. It would be difficult to pretend, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, that this was a hard decision making or ground breaking summit. To be honest, I do not have much in the way of comment to make or questions to ask upon it. The communiqué reflects, inevitably, its somewhat anodyne quality.
I remember being told, and subsequently finding it a very good working rule, that a test of whether a Statement is interesting is whether you can imagine a sane man (or a group of, presumably, seven sane men) in the same
24
context stating the reverse. If you can, the Statement is interesting. If you cannot, then it is not. It would be difficult to imagine the statement being made: "We had a notably unconstructive meeting in Halifax, and were very disaffected at the lack of welcome given to us by the Canadians". That statement would be remarkable, but it would be an interesting one. On such a test, very few parts of the communiqué pass. Nonetheless, as an old summiteer—going back, not to the very first but to the third, fourth, fifth and sixth summits, though on a somewhat unwelcome foot-in-the-door basis (at any rate at the third)—I believe that, on the whole, summits serve a useful purpose and are not to be justified only by their hard decisions. They serve to focus the minds of the world's foremost leaders in the few days of the run-up, in the 36 or 48 hours there and, one hopes, for a week or so afterwards, on a more international context and in a less inward-looking direction than would otherwise be the case. That in itself is worthwhile. But if that is the reasonably limited objective, then it is much better that the atmosphere should be more like the fireside chats—although that was always a slightly romantic vision—of the original Rambouillet gathering, rather than the extravagant jamborees of Versailles, Williamsburg and one or two others. To that extent, I congratulate the Canadians on having given a useful lead on this occasion in that direction.
I end with one question. Is it intended that the G7 should continue to exist alongside the G8? Or is it likely that the G7, as expanded (it began as a group of five), will become a group of eight in the future?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Richard, are united at least in one thing; namely, in finding the summit pretty unexciting. It is one of the features of good management that things do not happen, rather than that things obviously do. The absence of crisis sometimes offers more evidence of good management than do crises. In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, as to whether the summit was productive, I can do no better than repeat to him the remarks, which I believe I noted down correctly, of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead; namely, summits perform a useful purpose if they focus minds on a more international rather than an inward-looking context. From that point of view it would be safe to say that the summit was a success.
However, I should hate the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to go away with the thought that nothing useful was achieved. Progress was achieved in a number of areas, and indeed on initiatives taken in previous .summits and in previous international forums. To that extent it was useful. Also, my right honourable friend made reference to a number of new initiatives—a notable number of which originate from the United Kingdom—which will become matters of considerable moment in what is, after all, an increasingly interdependent world.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, asked me whether the G7 will continue to exist, or whether it will be transmogrified into the G8. I think I can reassure the noble Lord that we look forward in due course to Russia joining the G7. But a great deal has to happen yet before it is possible to see Russia as a fully fledged member. Nevertheless, it is perfectly clear that President Yeltsin's

25
presence was not only welcome, but was extremely useful when G7 became G8, which it did from the evening of the first day.
On United Nations institutions, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, quite rightly asked me about UNCTAD and UNIDO. Her Majesty's Government are wholly committed to the United Nations and its various agencies. It is perfectly clear that those agencies have an extremely useful role to perform. However, a number of them could patently perform their role more cost-effectively and better. One of the positive aspects of the summit was the unanimous view that action should be taken to try to ensure that that happens. Certainly, so far as the financing of UN agencies is concerned, it is clear from the communiqué, and indeed my right honourable friend's Statement, that the United States is not paying its dues. The communiqué calls upon all United Nations members to meet their financial obligations clearly. That is a call with which Her Majesty's Government are pleased to associate themselves.
On the matter of world trade and the poor countries, it is superfluous to remind the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the United Kingdom is still the fifth biggest provider of international aid to what used to be called the third world. My noble friend Lady Chalker has a notable record in trying to focus that aid and ensure that the British taxpayer gets better value for money, and in trying to ensure that the recipients of aid see that it is used to their most constructive and long-term advantage.
Noble Lords will also take considerable comfort from paragraphs 29 and 30 of the communiqué, and particularly from paragraphs 39 to 42, headed "Creating Opportunities Through Open Markets". It has been the feeling of many of us over the years that trade is very often—indeed, almost always—better than aid. There is a very strong determination, which became clear during the course of the Halifax Summit, that open markets throughout the world are crucial to accelerated economic growth in the developing countries. That is the phrase used at paragraph 30. The World Trade Organisation will monitor and review the Uruguay Round. It is clear too that we are talking not only about tariffs but also about non-tariff barriers which are very often more difficult to deal with.
With regard to Bosnia, I merely remind the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that, unless one wants to go to war and intervene in a civil war, peacekeeping is only possible if there is a peace to keep. The noble Lord has delivered himself of that important observation a number of times. It has become clear in what was central Bosnia that, where the Croats and the Bosnian Moslems have wanted to make peace, the UN and particularly the British forces, who are strong in that area, have been able to help very much in the establishment of what, for the past 15 months, has been a relatively peaceful period.
I am afraid that Bosnia is a subject to which your Lordships will want to return all too frequently over the coming weeks and months. It is clear that the decisive action taken by Her Majesty's Government has had an immediate effect. Our hostages have been released, as have other UN hostages. It has been made clear that the Rapid Reaction Force can be used to reinforce any necessary action to enable the UN forces to deliver the
26
task that they are there to do. Equally, if that task becomes impossible, there Is no doubt that we shall have to withdraw. If I may say so, the unanimous support which both Houses of Parliament gave in the debate that took place a couple of Wednesdays ago played an important part in making sure that the world at large and the Bosnian Serbs in particular realised that we meant what we said.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. Particularly in the light of certain observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, it seems to me at any rate that it is a matter of major importance to the whole standing and operation of this House that when such Statements are made in another place, they should always and indeed automatically be repeated in your Lordships' House. I believe that if this House is to function as a House of Parliament, it is essential to insist on that.
I want to ask my noble friend only one question. In the light of the decision of the American House of Representatives on the financing of the Bosnian exercise, what will happen now in respect of United States' participation with France and ourselves in Bosnia? As I understand it, the President of the United States has been denied financial provision for that by the House of Representatives. I should like my noble friend to tell us what will happen. Is all support from the United States to be given, as it were, on tick; or will some other method be found of financing the quite expensive operation in Bosnia?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on his first point. I have frequently observed to your Lordships—perhaps more frequently under questioning from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale than from anyone else—that this place is not a gentleman's club. It is a House of Parliament. If your Lordships ask for Statements to be repeated in this House, that is entirely proper and Her Majesty's Government are only too delighted to comply, particularly in view of the extraordinarily well informed nature of your Lordships' questioning. I sometimes feel that I would rather repeat Statements in another place than here.
With regard to the United States, as usual, my noble friend puts his finger very much on the nub. It is perfectly clear that the United States Administration has given its strong political support for Resolution 998 and President Clinton himself would very much like to pay his whack. But, as my noble friend made clear, the president has difficulty with Congress. It is important that discussions should continue between the United Nations and all troop contributors as a matter of urgency. We hope that a satisfactory resolution can be found, because without money it is difficult to see how troops can be maintained.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Viscount was justifiably very modest in his claims about the results of this conference. He said that one of the advantages was that it enabled the individual statesmen who attended the conference to allow their minds to roam over the field of international affairs. We are all relieved about that. Indeed, it must have been a great boon to a number of statesmen, apart perhaps from Monsieur

27
Chirac, to be free from the troubles that most of them are experiencing in their own countries, including our own Prime Minister.
Perhaps the noble Viscount will answer my question with regard to the first point. If the principal achievement is to focus the attention of the various Prime Ministers on international affairs, to what extent were the proceedings of the summit in excess of the information that could be derived from an intelligent reading of The Times newspaper for about a week? That seemed very adequately to cover the whole spectrum of events.
One of the truly disappointing things about the summit is that the conference followed exactly the same form as the one held in Naples: "We are urging this; we are strengthening that and considering the other" and all the rest of it. Why bother once again to repeat the platitudes relating to unemployment? Those platitudes are contained both in the communiqué and in the speech that the noble Viscount was good enough to read to us. All that has happened since the last summit is that all the member states have followed exactly the same economic policies as they have followed for the past 10 years, the result of which has been a growth in worldwide unemployment.
The noble Viscount may claim credit for a certain decline in unemployment in this country—which may be not wholly due to a decline in numbers but more to statistical manipulation. But the fact of the matter is that those who are concerned with unemployment in the world, in our own country and in Europe deserve a far better result from the heads of state at the G7 meeting than is contained in the quite vapid and meaningless communiqué that was issued after it.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, had the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, drafted the communiqué, I am sure that it would have been greatly improved. Nevertheless, I hope that he will not underestimate the purport of the content of what he feels is a collection of platitudes.
His reference to President Chirac enables me to attempt to answer a question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, which I am conscious that I failed to answer when I took up his other points. The answer is that President Chirac was indeed a most welcome new influence in the counsels of the G7. He is full of ideas. I cannot say that they are necessarily fresh ones because they mirror very closely the ideas that Her Majesty's Government have been deploying on the central matters of growth and employment in this country for 16 years. But it is extremely refreshing to find that one of our longest standing allies in Europe is taking up the approach to encouraging growth and employment that we ourselves have long advocated. We refreshed ourselves most distinctly with that. It is very much reflected in the extremely good relations that have been established between my right honourable friend and President Chirac not only in Halifax but also in Paris the weekend before last.
I look forward to those ideas being combined and put into operation throughout Europe. As the noble Lord observed, the unanimous view was expressed that the economic route we have taken is the right one. Perhaps he will see that we are not talking of platitudes, but of a
28
distinct difference—a difference between us and the party opposite in this country and between President Chirac and the experience of the French Republic between 1981 and 1983 when they attempted to put some of their ideas into operation.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, perhaps I can make a point in relation to the rapid reaction force. I understand what has been said; the Americans are not yet paying their whack. Is its deployment being delayed on that account? What is the state of play? If it is being deployed without any money, how will it be paid for?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, there is no delay in the deployment. The financing must urgently be sorted out. I have made that clear. However, I hope my noble friend will appreciate that the sums of money involved are substantial. They will have to be found and if we are to remain in Bosnia, the discussions will have to be urgent and fruitful.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I can ask the Minister two questions. First, in relation to international crime, the Prime Minister referred to a British initiative when it was proposed that a high-level group to look at the issue be set up. Who will provide the secretariat for that group? Will it be a meeting of Ministers of the Interior and the United States Attorney-General? What is involved in that passage of the Statement? Secondly, on the question of terrorism, the Prime Minister referred to a better system for exchanging information in relation to terrorist incidents. We welcome that, but there is already substantial co-operation between the security services. What is involved in that passage of the Prime Minister's Statement?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will agree with me that that passage of the communiqué was of anything but a bland nature. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, rightly points to those important issues. The secretariat, and what I am told are called the "modalities" of these things, have not yet been agreed. However, they will be addressed as a follow-up to the summit on crime and terrorism as a matter of urgency. As the noble Lord said, there is already a good exchange of information on terrorism between interested parties and with the Russians. There is clearly room for improvement and he will be aware more than most that the technical advances of the past few years have been taken up to a marked extent by international criminals and terrorists. It is important that the government agencies that have to respond to those developments should at least be ahead of those they are trying to catch.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it is characteristic of summits that they are a long way away from the plain. Perhaps I can suggest to my noble friend one comment from the plain on the matter of Bosnia. When one asks ordinary people about Bosnia, what strikes them most is that the city of Sarajevo has been under siege for three years. The United Nations is prevented from delivering even the basics of humanitarian aid to its inhabitants and those who venture from their cellars in order to secure water for their families risk death from mortar fire. I agree with my noble friend the Minister that that does not mean that the United Nations should go to war with the Bosnian Serbs, but

29
surely a meeting of leaders who claim to represent the major civilised countries of the world could at least have expressed their horror and grief at the sufferings of the inhabitants of Sarajevo. People on the plain do it; why cannot the summit?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend feels that those sentiments were not expressed by the leaders who met in Halifax. It would be fair to say that all the leaders who met there, in all they did, expressed implicitly and explicitly the horror which my noble friend expressed so eloquently and which I take the opportunity once again of expressing on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the Minister rightly paid tribute to the contribution of President Chirac in these affairs and to the new relationship that appears to be developing between France and ourselves following his election. One disappointing feature is that it was almost on the eve of the summit that the announcement came that France is about to resume testing nuclear bombs. From today's newspapers it appears to have encouraged the United States to make a similar declaration. That follows the signing of the non-proliferation treaty only last month. I wonder whether the leaders of the countries concerned, during this meeting, discussed either the security or environmental aspects of this new development.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the question of the conference covering a non-proliferation treaty review and extension was discussed. The decision to extend the treaty indefinitely was greatly welcomed. It has been a good outcome for all and there has been close co-operation between the G7 members who played an important part in securing that result. The membership of the non-proliferation treaty is approaching almost universal membership worldwide. There are now 178 parties to the treaty and we urge all states which have not yet acceded to the treaty to do so and to allay international suspicions about their nuclear activities.
French nuclear testing was not directly discussed. The important international objective is the early agreement of a comprehensive test-ban treaty and all members of the G7 reaffirmed their commitment to it. It is a decision for the French. It is not for us to comment on French requirements and how it decides to meet them. However, we are pleased to find that French commitment to a complete test-ban treaty is well known and has been reaffirmed. In relation to the United States, it is alleged that Secretary Perry made remarks of the kind reported by the noble Lord. We have not yet had confirmation of that and there is no evidence so far that the United States intends to resume nuclear testing. We must be aware that testing covers not only new nuclear weapons, but can be a most effective way of securing the safety of existing ones.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I was interested to hear my noble friend say that the G7 leaders discussed the problem of unemployment. My noble friend alluded particularly to the fact that unemployment is running at some 11 per cent. in the European Community. All leaders agreed on what needs to be done about that. My noble friend alluded to lowering social costs, for instance,
30
and perhaps increasing international free trade. It is good news that the new President of France agreed with those conclusions.
Perhaps my noble friend can tell the House what effect that kind of agreement will have on the European Commission and other countries of the European Community, who show no sign of having understood the wisdom dispensed at the Halifax G7 meeting.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it has long been an objective of Her Majesty's Government to bring about the sort of labour market conditions which I understand my noble friend would welcome. Both at Essen before Christmas and at this G7 summit not only were those objectives and methods endorsed, but they were endorsed unanimously. I hope that my noble friend will therefore be a little less sceptical. Progress is being made and the free market, which he and I greatly welcome not only within the community but also world-wide, can deliver jobs far more effectively than can regulations.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the Statement mentioned reform of UN economic institutions. One of the problems with the G7 is that although the leaders meet once a year, nothing happens in between. I believe that the report of the Commission on Global Governance suggested some time ago, as did the UNDP in its human development report, that an Economic Security Council should be constituted. Perhaps the G7 could form the core of that body, adding other members. Has any thought been given to making the G7 a body with a permanent secretariat and expanding it to include other leading nations of the United Nations?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I understand the predictable justice of the diagnosis which the noble Lord has given. In the context of the Mexican crisis, which I am sure is a good example of the sort of thing that the noble Lord described, the G7 particularly considered the slightly banal dictum—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will forgive me for saying that—that prevention of financial crisis is better than cure. That is why sound domestic policies matter. However, rather than the body which the noble Lord proposed, the G7 thought that there was already such a body to hand in the form of the International Monetary Fund, and that more effective surveillance by the IMF might be a more cost-effective way of dealing with this, combined with measures to improve the transparency of markets worldwide. I am sure that the noble Lord, with his great knowledge of the subject, will want to return to this.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton:. My Lords, will the noble Viscount comment on whether government policy will change with regard to the balance underpinning our trade with developing countries through export credit guarantees moving away from military sales towards sales in other areas in line with the statement that was made following the summit and in keeping with encouraging such countries to develop their non-military trade?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, in no way do I apologise to the House or to the noble Baroness for the fact that this country has a highly developed and efficient arms industry. Indeed, under the United Nation's Charter,

31
it is the right of every country to defend itself. However, the best way to reduce demand for weapons is to make sure that the world is at peace and that threats are defused. One of the very best ways of ensuring that in the long term rather than merely by patching is to increase the volume of international trade generally. It is for that reason that I particularly welcome the paragraphs to which I referred earlier. The noble Baroness will be aware that although this does not always seem to be the case from the headlines, with the end of the Cold War, the overall size of the international arms market has declined. It has declined as a proportion of overall international trade also. I am sure that both the noble Baroness and I greatly welcome that fact.

Child Support Bill
4.23 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, leave out lines 14 to 17.
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 4, I should like to speak also to Amendment Nos. 23, 26, 29, 33 and 35. This group of amendments is designed to give me the opportunity to make a general speech on the drafting methods of the Bill, which might have been considered in some circumstances as giving me a rope with which to hang myself. However, I shall attempt not to oblige on that point.
It might help the Committee if I draw attention first to the words that I wish to delete. Those words are:
"If the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so, he may by regulations provide for the question whether a change of circumstances is material to be determined in accordance with the regulations".
In querying regulation-making powers, I do not always intend to assert that they should be put in primary legislation. The provisions to which I have referred seem entirely inappropriate for primary legislation. The question that I want to ask is why this is regarded as an appropriate matter for legislation at all. I cannot see how one can regard a change of circumstances as material or immaterial until one knows the facts of the case. If one attempts to set out in advance a list of all the circumstances which shall be regarded as material, the first thing that will happen is that circumstances will arise which are clearly material but which the draftsman, unfortunately, did not foresee. That is another sub-species of the familiar rule that in politics, the unexpected always happens.
I should have thought that the question of what change of circumstance is material should be determined either by a child support appeal tribunal, a commission or by the courts (depending on the fate of later amendments to the Bill) rather than be specified in regulations by the Secretary of State. This is an example of what I described when we discussed the Disability Discrimination Bill as the "mother-hen school of legislation".
Amendment No. 23 relates to Clause 6(3). It is a central amendment in the construction of the whole Bill because it deals with the grounds on which departures from the formula are to be allowed. The clause states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a) for factors which are to be taken into account in determining whether it would be just and equitable to give a departure direction in any case;

(b) for factors which are not to be taken into account in determining such a question."

That is the very centre of the whole Bill.
I have read the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which argues that this is not a skeleton Bill. I respect that verdict and understand the grounds for it, but this specific provision appears to me to be a skeleton provision because it does not give Parliament any satisfactory means of addressing the grounds for departures. Surely in legislation which has produced as much mess as this—if it had not produced a mess, we would not have had this amending Bill before us—there must be some room for parliamentary input.
I understand why the Government feel the need for flexibility in this area, but they need to understand that their flexibility is our inflexibility. Indeed, the mess has arisen almost entirely because the Government did not listen to advice in 1991. Plenty of advice was offered to the Government by this House. It seems to me that if you have made a mess because you did not listen to advice, it is a rather peculiar response to provide that you shall not be in a position to get such advice or at least for it not to have any forcible effect. That seems to be potentially in conflict with the provision that Parliament makes the law. In fact, the more I look at the Department of Social Security's methods of legislation, the more they seem to be based on the proposition that Parliament's role in making legislation should be reduced as much as possible.
I must declare an interest in not sharing that view, but it is an interest which must be widely shared in this Committee as a whole. We need a chance to look at the grounds for departure to decide whether they are good enough or whether they can be improved in any way. As a revising chamber, that function seems to be denied us by those words.
Amendment No. 24 relates to Clause 6(4) and raises a much smaller point. It is the de minimis rule. I have no objection whatever to such a rule. I do not want the Secretary of State necessarily involved in immense administrative labour in paying back the sum of one penny. However, I object that it is entirely at the Secretary of State's discretion to decide how big the de minimis cut-off point shall be. For all I know, under the vires laid down here, he could decide that it shall be £20,000 a week. I am quite sure that the Minister has no intention of doing that. But the power to fix an upper de minimis cut-off point, and to fix it as high as possible, gives this matter something of the quality of a Henry VIII clause. In effect, it allows a future government the power to repeal the whole provision simply by setting the de minimis level so high that it becomes useless. I can foresee a government, strapped for parliamentary time, using that power on some future occasion to precisely that effect. It is something about which this Committee should hesitate before allowing it.
Lord Carter: The noble Earl mentioned Amendment No. 24 which has not been grouped with the amendments we are now discussing. That particular amendment is listed separately, but it is on this subject.
Earl Russell: Yes, it is. I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps we may take that amendment in this group because the issues to which it gives rise are similar, if that causes no inconvenience.
In Amendment No. 26 we are back with our old friend Humpty-Dumpty. It refers to Schedule 2, paragraph 2(2) which states:
"'Special expenses' means the whole, or any prescribed part, of expenses which fall within a prescribed description of expenses".
In other words, departure may be allowed for whatever special expenses the Minister believes to be suitable. It really is our old friend whereby the Secretary of State may do whatever he likes. If we are to address it and to move amendments to it, we need to know what that means.
Amendment No. 29 deals with debts incurred in relation to a child and,
"any other child falling within a prescribed category".
Here I am back to the basic principle of Amendment No. 4. I do not believe that it is a proper matter for legislation. There are all kinds of different circumstances in which people are responsible for children who are not biologically their own. For example, one may have a nephew who has been orphaned and for whom one might take responsibility. As often happens, one may have a friend who leaves a will bequeathing guardianship of the children to a friend if he or she should die. I did that myself and, mercifully, it was unnecessary. The person may then die and the child may become the full financial responsibility of someone else.
There is an infinite number of these categories which the Secretary of State may not remember to prescribe because he simply may not have thought of them. Again, it seems to me far better to use a statement of general principle to the effect that this is a child for whose maintenance and welfare the parent concerned is responsible and leave to judicial determination the question to whom that eventually applies.
I do not believe that this Government really understand what is meant by flexibility. They believe that it consists of changing general rules all the time. That is not what flexibility means. It means adapting general rules to particular circumstances. That is the way life happens and that can be done only in relation to a particular case. So if this definition of flexibility is carried far enough we shall end up making a new regulation for every case that arises. That would lead to chaos. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: I shall speak very briefly on this group of amendments. The noble Earl has, as always, explained them extremely well. He said that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has said that this is not a skeleton Bill. The difficulty is that once the noble Earl begins to remove the references, in order to fit his argument he has to remove all of them throughout the Bill. I am not sure that that is the correct thing to do in every instance. There is a need for flexibility which is given by regulations. I can see the problem which the noble Earl outlined of the
34
danger of leaving something out if matters are left to regulations. That is a danger which applies just as much to regulations as to having something on the face of the Bill. The noble Earl has highlighted the real concern which exists and it will be interesting to hear how the Government propose to deal with it.
Lord Renton: The Government had a very difficult task when they decided to try to put maintenance and some other provisions of the 1991 Act into better perspective through this particular legislation. I feel sorry for the Government because the 1991 Act had broad support and was a splendid attempt to provide for what had become a real social problem. But, for one reason or another, and perhaps because the 1991 Act attempted too much—instead of leaving enough to discretion for those who had to decide cases under it—it worked out in ways which caused resentment and sometimes injustice. This Bill is an attempt to put right what has proved to be a very difficult task.
I believe that the noble Earl has done a service by drawing attention to the methods which we are attempting to use in this Bill. I feel sorry for my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish who, I presume, will answer this debate, because I do not believe that he had any say in the formulation of the provisions of the Bill, but he has to defend them. Therefore, I do not want to make his task any more difficult than it is bound to be already. Perhaps I may try to be constructive. I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is in his place. About 20 years ago it was suggested by a committee which reported to Parliament that it was best for Parliament to state the principles on which Parliament intended legislation should be based.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that it was many more than 20 years ago.
Lord Renton: The report was published in 1975. My simple arithmetic makes that 20 years ago but the noble and learned Lord was at school a little more recently than I was. Ever since that time there has been a reluctance on the part of those responsible for advising parliamentary counsel on the drafting of legislation to instruct them as to what the principles should be. There has been an endlessly futile attempt to include in legislation a mass of hypothetical circumstances, to deal with matters in detail, sometimes leaving them to delegated legislation for the provision of still further detail.
I am sorry to have to say that in all those 20 years legislation has become, broadly in my opinion, worse, despite the advice offered to Parliament by that committee, of which I happened to have had the honour to be chairman. What do we find now? We find that instead of leaving a good deal to the discretion of those who will have to decide the cases that will arise under the Bill, the Bill itself goes into a large amount ofdetail. But where it does not reach any conclusions on some of the details that might arise, it makes provision in half a dozen places, to which the noble Earl has referred, for the making by the Secretary of State of regulations containing further guidance, which are bound to be detailed. The circumstances which will arise in those cases are so

35
infinitely variable that it will be a difficult task for the Secretary of State even to get his regulations right and completely to cover every case.
I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say in reply to this short debate, but it is an occasion when we should take note of the practice, which is now becoming prevalent, of assuming that there will have to be more and more detail provided for the people who have to obey statutes, and that the ever-increasing detail shall be contained in secondary legislation. Of course it must be approved by Parliament, as with Clause 2 last week, when the Government gracefully gave way on the proposition that the Secretary of State could give guidance without getting it approved by Parliament, or giving Parliament an opportunity to disapprove.
I hope that throughout Whitehall, one day before long, people will realise that they are creating difficulties for themselves and for other people by continuing with this exceedingly complex method of legislation, which does not necessarily lead to justice and must inevitably lead to uncertainty.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I apologise for being a few minutes late. I had hoped to be present at the beginning of the debate on the clause relating to the oversight by someone else of the work of the department and of the Secretary of State in making regulations under the Bill.
Following the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I believe that we are approaching something of a crisis in our method of legislation. When one thinks of the Jobseekers Bill, the Child Support Bill, and the Disability Discrimination Bill, the mountain of regulations that someone has to produce is most forbidding. They are presented to Parliament, to be disturbed only on a prayer to do something with them as a whole, or on the sanction of both Houses of Parliament in a positive way, in which case it is assumed that in giving positive approval Parliament will at least read them and try to understand them.
But to have to make detailed regulations following the statement of principles in an Act of Parliament may be inescapable when one is dealing with public expenditure. After all, when people are entitled to benefits, and when they add up to large sums of public expenditure, Parliament has to be satisfied that the scheme is a workable one and that adequate, although not fastidious, care will be taken to safeguard the public purse, and that the public approves the benefits that they see being paid out.
In the case of the Child Support Bill, however, many of the regulations will apply to the division of spoils between the father and the mother of his children. It has nothing to do with the state. There will be no state money in it. There will be state expenditure in administering it, but it will not be a matter of state concern.
The Bill goes into a field of public relations, and, in particular, relations between husband and wife, man and woman, children and parents. It goes into a field of extreme complexity and great sensitivity. It is small wonder that the child support legislation fell on evil times and the Child Support Agency into an awful mess.
36
I believe that we imposed on the agency more than it could possibly cope with in the 1991 Act. We did not provide anything in the formula decisions which went beyond the formula itself. Now in this Bill, we are having to erect another formula in addition to the old one to provide for the cases that the old formula did not reach, or produced a result which was fantastic nonsense to the parties concerned. The result is that we have a whole page, if not more, of detail as to what expenses a father might regard as a charge on his income before the formula decides what he shall contribute to the maintenance of his children who are with the former wife or mother of his children. That is an astonishing situation.
The Bill directs us to provide for regulations to be made to look at income which may be invested by the father on behalf of the children, but which may not be invested to the best advantage. Regulations may provide for the income which will be notionally received on the investment, but which, because it is not sensibly invested, is not being received, and not the actual money at the disposal of the family concerned.
What are we to do with all that? I am very much in sympathy with what I heard the noble Earl, Lord Russell, say on his amendment. I thought that the first amendment on the Marshalled List was placing an additional burden on the parliamentary system somehow, and I was not sure whether we had the resources to deal with it. I am more attracted to the amendment on the Marshalled List in the name of my noble friend Lord Carter—Amendment No. 54—which provides for the appointment of an advisory committee.
I believe that there is a model comparable with this one; that is, the national insurance legislation. That was of extreme complexity over a wide field. A national insurance advisory committee was appointed, made up mainly of outside persons, to look at and comment upon draft regulations, and generally to express an opinion upon the equity or wisdom of something that the Secretary of State was proposing. It could undertake its advisory function almost at any stage. It could pick up either proposals or final decisions and was free to comment on them in the public interest and in the interest of the beneficiaries. I believe that that is an idea worth pursuing. Perhaps the advisory committee could be given sufficient resources to study draft regulations. It would probably do so better than we could. Perhaps we should be justified in employing parliamentary staff to do it for us.
I do not believe that the way in which we deal with the Committee stage of complicated Bills is sensible. My health will no longer stand sitting up until the House adjourns in the middle of the night. Therefore, the next morning I look at the Minutes of Proceedings to see when the victims of the system left their task to go to bed. Some time ago there was talk of adopting methods to shorten the long proceedings that your Lordships' House has suffered in its duties. Indeed, we were told that often the House of Lords sits later than the House of Commons. If the representatives of the people can go home and get to bed at a reasonable hour what are we doing sitting up half the night altering commas and full-stops, inserting the word "and" instead of "for", or whatever, in order to get the Bill right? We cannot be assumed to be the final word in

37
parliamentary draftsmanship in reflection of the view of the House of Commons, or determining what it should be like if we were directly serving the public.
I believe that in those circumstances the Committee stage should be on a smaller scale. Committees appointed on the lines of the House of Commons are well worth considering. We experimented on one occasion but, whether we like it or not, we must come to the stage of having only a selection of amendments debated on the Floor of the House. The Commons have to put up with it and I believe that we shall have to put up with it.
We must realise that every amendment on the Marshalled List can be moved, debated and voted upon and that the Government must set a timetable to get the Bill passed in so many days. They say to the House, in effect, "Well, if you want to sit until breakfast time that's your look out but we are going to get to Amendment No. 52 before we finish tonight". Short of us all walking out and leaving the Chamber unmanned, one can put no difficulties in the way.
I see that the digital clock reads 29 minutes. The amendment has been under discussion for that time. I know that time goes very fast but I am sure that there would be some protest if I spoke for 29 minutes, although occasionally I have come pretty close to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised issues of principle dealing with complicated Bills of this kind and I thought it worth uttering a few comments on the tasks upon which we now embark. It is likely that considerable time will be spent long after the hour when we should have given up work. Not all of us are in a position to tolerate those hours. With the co-operation of those who have tabled amendments, we should try to shorten our Committee proceedings on the Floor of the House. We should more seriously consider the setting up of a Standing Committee to deal with much of the detail of complicated Bills, while reserving debates and decisions on matters of major importance to the full Committee on the Floor of the House. That is done in the Commons. I do not believe that we should be loath to see what the Commons does and whether it is successful. Certainly, the public will wonder what we are doing starting another Bill in respect of which there are hundreds of regulations. Someone must define the word "available" and it is in such detailed consideration of Bills that hairs are split left, right and centre.
I hope that we can be more sensible about the way in which we are carrying out our work because, in my humble opinion, we cannot go on like this. Members a good deal younger than me can become fed up with sitting up half the night to settle regulations on the Child Support Bill as regards the division of resources between husband and wife at state auspices and state authority when, surely, they ought to be able to do it for themselves.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: This important amendment was introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Russell in an important and profound speech. His was followed by other important speeches. I apologise to the noble Lord. Lord Renton, because I understood him to be referring to a report in which he and I participated more than 30 years ago. For the purposes of this amendment, that report has a significant title—The Rule of Law.
38
Until the passing of the 1991 Act, the jurisdiction which was taken over by the Child Support Agency was in the hands of the Justices of the Peace; the lay magistrature. There are thousands of them all over the country. They are unpaid, devoted to their work and close to the people who come before them. They have intimate knowledge of the circumstances and the locality and a far better insight than Whitehall can possibly have into the infinite variety and circumstances of those parties.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, indicated some of the issues that would have fallen for decision. They are sensitive, complicated and infinitely varied. It is not surprising that magistrates' decisions vary from case to case. Indeed, if that had not been so they would have been gravely at fault.
Furthermore, the magistrates considered wife support and child support together. It was perfectly ludicrous to suppose that they could ever be decided separately. Yet the 1991 Act took the jurisdiction for child support away from the magistrates and put it into the hands of a government agency of paid officials applying a series of incomprehensible and inflexible formulae which your Lordships must again consider. I have yet to meet anybody outside the Treasury Bench who thinks that it was a sensible proposal to put that into the hands of Whitehall while leaving in the hands of the magistrates jurisdiction over wives' maintenance. In fact, it was perfectly ludicrous. One has only to state it to see how ludicrous it was.
The jurisdiction being placed into the hands of the Child Support Agency applying a series of formulae led to disaster. Unless that is recognised, further mistakes will be made. It led to administrative chaos, to widespread injustice and to a sense of resentment which was actually dangerous to our political system.
The letter boxes of Members of Parliament had never been so full of indignant cases, not even in relation to the poll tax. Therefore, there has had to be a change; and the change is to give some flexibility, as it is put, to the decisions of the Child Support Agency applying the formulae to allow departures. Such departures would have been considered and implemented every day in the magistrates' courts before 1991.
There it is: there has been nothing for it. If the Child Support Agency and the formulae were to be retained, there was nothing for it but to give wide discretionary power to the Secretary of State. In the provisions which the noble Earl seeks to leave out, there are two phrases which occur in almost every clause of the Bill. They are:
"The Secretary of State may, by regulations",
and:
"In such circumstances as may be prescribed".
Over and over again, we find those phrases. What is the flexibility?
On Second Reading, I cited one of the criteria of the rule of law of the great Professor Dicey in his study of the constitution. Of course, that phrase—the rule of law—provided the title for the venture in which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I participated. But Professor Dicey said something else. He said:
"In this sense the rule of law is contrasted with every system of government based on the exercise by persons in authority",

39
I repeat—persons in authority—
"of wide, arbitrary or discretionary powers of constraint".
Therefore, there again, those two measures offend against the rule of law.
I had always thought that members of the Conservative Party were the inheritors of the Whig tradition of upholding the rule of law. I am bound to ask what they are doing with these Bills. Are they so busy intriguing against the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they no longer have any time to uphold the rule of law?
Therefore, I am very glad that the noble Earl has introduced this debate. It has produced a number of important suggestions. I agree profoundly with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that we try to deal with these matters in far too much detail and in doing so, we give wide, arbitrary and discretionary powers of constraint to those in authority.
Lord Carter: I merely wish to comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Before doing so, I thank my noble friend Lord Houghton in doing his part to ensure that we are not in fact kept up all night, as he said.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said—and I was on the Opposition team which dealt with the Child Support Act in 1991—that we supported in principle the idea of parental responsibility for maintenance, and so on. But I am sure that he will remember the many warnings which we gave the Government at that time about the formulae and the problems which have now arisen.
However, on a general point, since all the mistakes have come to light, of the recommendations which have been made by outside agencies and two Select Committees of the other place—the Social Security Committee and the Select Committee of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—only half have been accepted and included in the Bill. The danger is that there may be a need to return with another Bill at some stage in the future to put right the omissions which have not been addressed in this Bill.
The Earl of Perth: I had no intention of entering into this debate, but as I listened to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and other eminent speakers, I became more and more worried that if the Bill goes through without the amendment, we shall reach the point at which Parliament really cannot manage its business. It is no good saying that the regulations will receive parliamentary approval because Parliament will not be able to handle all those matters. The idea of changing things by regulation gets us into more and more trouble all the time.
I was struck by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, saying that somewhere or other in this, there is a Henry VIII angle. It is all very well to say that matters will receive parliamentary approval, but Parliament will not be able to handle all the business. Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will think about what has been said by one and all this evening and consider whether he should not try to make a fundamental change in the approach to this matter.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have had an interesting debate. My noble friend Lord Lucas has worked out for me that I have been given some sage advice—and I really mean that—by four noble Lords whose average age is about 90. Therefore, I must think very carefully about what they are saying to me.
I was almost tempted by two of the points made. One was made by my noble friend Lord Renton who asked why government legislation could not comprise a few statements of principle and the matter be left at that. Those who have accompanied me through this legislative Session will appreciate that perhaps there are others besides the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who feel like that. It would be quite pleasant to have a few statements of principle and leave it at that. But the problem is that as legislation and the issues which we attempt to address become more complex, that simply will not do. It will not do on the Floor of this House and it will not do on the Floor of the other place. Members of this Chamber and the other place constantly ask the Government about one example and then another example. They say that if all examples have not been covered, then there is something wrong with the legislation. Amendments are tabled to try to cater for all possible examples, some of which are real and some of which are totally imaginary. Therefore, it is difficult to see how we could return to a simpler era when a statement of principle is sufficient in relation to a Government Bill. On occasions I have been in trouble when I have brought forward clauses which have been thought to be far too much statements of principle without sufficient detail.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I wonder whether he realises that the alternative to stating the principles which should underlie the decisions made in the Bill is to attempt to go into all the possible hypothetical circumstances which might arise. Indeed, Parliament has been doing that now far too often for far too long. Frequently, it has failed to deal with circumstances which actually do arise.
When the Committee on the preparation of legislation to which I referred earlier was sitting, the top judges on both sides of the border came along and said, "We are sometimes in great difficulty when deciding cases in court because cases come before us which do not exactly fit the hypothetical circumstances stated in statutes. But if you stated the principles in those statutes, then all circumstances would almost certainly be covered". Therefore, the alternative is either to state the principles or to go into endless hypotheses without being successful in doing so.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: What can I say? However, I can agree with my noble friend to the extent that one has to be careful that one does not go down the road of trying to cover totally hypothetical situations. One should try to keep one's feet on the ground and remain in the real world when it comes to dealing with putting on the face of Bills, or indeed in secondary legislation, the more specific help and guidance which is needed.
However, I return to my point. Perhaps it is particularly true as regards the question of social security because the taxpayer is involved. We must try to ensure that we lay down some pretty clear guidelines and definitions as to

41
who should and should not be eligible for many of the benefits paid out by, for example, my department—indeed, with some trepidation, I go a little further into, say, Home Office matters.
There seems to be continual complaint from the public, the press and, indeed, from Members of both places if it appears that judges or magistrates in different parts of the country are actually imposing totally different sentences for what seems, on the face of it, to be the same crime. Indeed, there is a constant cry for such discretions to be fettered so that the position in one part of the country is largely the same as in any other. Therefore, there are considerable difficulties, although there is clearly a temptation to be attracted by the idea of setting a few general principles and then virtually leaving the matter there.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, suggested to me—as, I suspect, a by-product of the general principle that we have just discussed—that the division of resources between husband and wife should be left to them. That is fine. However, the problem is that taxpayers are also drawn into the matter if the division of those resources is such that there is insufficient money for the parent who has care of the child to look after it. As I said, the taxpayer has an interest in such matters and no doubt I shall return to that aspect on a number of occasions. I see that the noble Earl wishes to intervene. I give way.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. However, is it the noble Lord's contention that the taxpayer has actually benefited from the 1991 Act?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We shall come to discuss such issues shortly; but, yes, taxpayers have benefited, though perhaps not as much as some of us had hoped they would. It is to be hoped that when the legislation is passed there will be less of an excuse for absent parents to decline to pay their fair share of the responsibility for looking after the interests of the children of their former marriage and that the taxpayer will have less of a burden than is the case at present. As I said, I believe that we shall be returning to discuss that matter as we progress through the Bill. That is all I wish to say about the general discussion regarding the way that legislation ought to be framed.
I turn now to the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Apart from the main point of his amendment, which is to query what we intend to do by the various regulation-making powers—and I shall deal with that aspect in a moment—the noble Earl made two further points. Although I am perhaps trying to shorthand the matter too much, I believe that the first of those points was that he believes that the proposed way of dealing with the problem is not right and that we should leave it all to the courts to decide; or, alternatively, to some form of tribunal. That was the case in the past and, as I said on Second Reading in response to one of my noble friends, I believe that anyone who thinks that that system worked well so far as concerns the parent with care—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. First, does the noble Lord really think that it worked worse than the Child Support Agency has worked under the 1991 Act? Secondly, does not the Minister think that the magistrature might have been
42
improved by a little effort; in particular by the institution of a family court, which has been widely advocated by knowledgeable people? Indeed, I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], is nodding her head in approval.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord and I will agree on the matter. Of course, the number of cases has increased over the past 20 or 30 years. That is an unfortunate fact. Certainly, as it said in the White Paper Children Come First in October 1990, the decisions about how maintenance is to be paid were based largely on discretion used in hundreds of courts and in hundreds of social security offices. There was a great deal of inconsistency in the decisions taken. Moreover, not only was there inconsistency in those decisions, but I suspect that there was also an unwritten kind of view held by many people who made such decisions that, if the absent parent was not asked to pay or did not bother to do so, it did not really matter because the taxpayer would come in and pay through the benefit system. Therefore, they did not really need to pursue the absent parent. That was one of the other problems; namely, that the payment of awards in that system, which we are invited to think of as an excellent system, fell into arrears at a very considerable rate. Indeed, a great deal of effort had to be made by the caring parent to return to court and ask for court action in order to re-establish the payments.
As the White Paper pointed out, the full amount of arrears was recovered in only 23 per cent. of cases where the DSS took action. That was the equivalent of only 5 per cent. of the total value of the arrears. Therefore, the blunt fact of the matter is that many parents with care did not receive the amount of money to which they were entitled from the absent parent. That was the background against which the Government decided that something had to be done to address the problem. I see that my noble friend wishes to respond. I give way.
Baroness Faithfull: I am much obliged. It is perfectly true that from about 1984 until 1990 great arrears arose in that regard because the men who were supposed to collect the money were taken off that work and put on counter duty as so many unemployed people needed attention. When those men carried out the will of the courts, there were no such great amounts owing. I wonder whether it would have been better to have developed that system, instead of having a completely new one. which is bound up with the social security system. I know that it is water under the bridge now, but there was no great amount of arrears in the early days when that unit of men collected the money.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: One certain aspect of that would be far fewer cases. Unfortunately, the instance of divorce has greatly increased, as indeed has the number of children whose parents have parted. That aspect must also be taken into consideration. I should tell my noble friend that I asked one of the people who fulfilled that role and not, I may say, a man; I asked a woman who actually undertook such a role. I am afraid that she did not share

43
my noble friend's view that it was a system which worked well. In fact, quite the contrary—she did not think that it had worked particularly well.
Before I turn to the detail of the amendments, I should like to deal with the noble Earl's question—and it is one that he often raised during the proceedings on the Jobseekers Bill—regarding the parliamentary scrutiny which secondary legislation receives. I know that the noble Earl has considerable doubts about it.
However, if I put that on the record at this point it may prevent my having to say it just about every time regulation-making powers arise in the Bill.
As the Committee knows, all secondary legislation must be submitted to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which has the power to report to the Chamber subordinate legislation where it appears to make unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made. The committee also reports provisions which exceed the powers of the enabling statutes. As regards this Chamber, secondary legislation can be debated and by the force of the argument the Government could be persuaded to take the matter away, amend and return. Although this Chamber does not as a matter of practice vote down statutory instruments, there are means at its disposal to amend or delay such legislation. The Government have no intention of bringing to this Chamber any statutory instrument made under powers in this Bill which would call for such measures, but they are there. Underlying it all is the simple safeguard of the ballot box and the fact that no government can bind their successor.
I now discuss the detail of the amendments in front of us rather than the debate which surrounded them. I am sorry to have to speak at some length but it is important that I try to address as many of the points made in the debate as possible. I hope to be able to reassure the noble Earl and other Members of the Committee who have spoken that, as the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has reported, the Child Support Bill does not inappropriately delegate powers. The Committee will be aware that the scrutiny committee commented that it was difficult to see how substantially greater powers could be written into the Bill. This is particularly so in the field of the departure system. During the course of the Committee and in later considerations I shall explain clearly the way we intend the departure system to work. The Committee may also like to look at the exposition of my department's view in the memorandum which we submitted to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and which is printed in the committee's report.
It simply would not be possible to provide in primary legislation for all the circumstances which the departure system is intended to meet. Some provisions also build on aspects of the formula which are already in delegated legislation and in certain areas we have intentionally taken a cautious approach knowing that we can widen gateways through secondary legislation should that be necessary. I wish to illustrate that by referring to the powers which Amendment No. 29 seeks to remove. The amendment relates to the provision for special expenses departures, in this case on the grounds of previously incurred debts. As the Committee will be aware, debts of
44
the former relationship between the parents which are the responsibility of one of the parents will be one of the grounds for a departure from the formula. A departure will be considered where the debt was incurred while the absent parent was still living with the parent with care and the child to whom the assessment relates, and the debt was incurred for certain specified purposes. A departure can be made if a debt was incurred for the joint benefit of both the parents or was for the benefit of any children to whom the current maintenance assessment relates.
The amendment tabled by the noble Earl does not affect these situations but relates to a further situation where debts may be incurred and for which we want a departure to be allowed. This is the situation where the debts incurred were for the benefit of other children not subject to the current maintenance assessment. The principal situation we have in mind is where debts were incurred for the benefit of a child who was a dependant at the time but is no longer dependent and is therefore not included in the current assessment. However, we recognise that there may be a number of further situations where we would—
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister. If that was the Government's intention, why did they not say so and spare us this amendment?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think there is at least some detail in the memorandum to the scrutiny committee but one of the objects of the Committee—not only this Committee but most Committees—is to give Members the opportunity to ask the Government the purposes behind the delegated legislation and what their thinking is. That is what I am discussing; I have done it on many an occasion in this parliamentary Session. I cannot see where else I might have chosen to explain to the noble Earl what we intend by the powers that we seek in this part of the Bill.
I was saying that we recognise that there may be a number of further situations where we would want to provide for departure directions to be given. These would be too complex to detail in primary legislation and that is why the provision contains a power to make regulations. For example, we might want to provide for a departure in certain circumstances where debts were incurred in respect of step-children. As step-children are not allowed for in the maintenance assessment except by virtue of a departure direction this amendment would exclude debts incurred for their benefit. The provision which the noble Earl wishes to amend, together with its delegated power, is one that seeks to widen rather than narrow the scope for departures on the grounds of previously incurred debts. Secondary legislation is essential because of the many different circumstances that can arise.
I return to Amendment No. 4. A departure may be requested here either at the time an assessment is made or at a later date if there has been relevant change of circumstances. For example, an absent parent may be content with the travel-to-work provisions in the formula but may later have to move his place of work with resulting higher travel costs and therefore may want to ask for a departure. This regulation-making power enables the Secretary of State to provide that the question of whether a change of circumstances is material should be determined in accordance with regulations. We do not

45
expect that it will be necessary to provide a definition of "material" for this purpose. A reserve power is needed in case there prove to be circumstances in which it is not clear whether or not a particular change of circumstances is material. It is sensible to take such a power for the avoidance of doubt and to prevent the scope for inconsistencies of approach.
Amendment No. 23 concerns Clause 6 of the Bill and seeks to remove the power to make regulations clarifying certain factors which should or should not be taken into account in considering whether it would be just and equitable to give a departure direction. In exercising his discretion to give such a direction the Secretary of State must consider whether it would be just and equitable to do so. He must look at all the circumstances of the case and particularly the financial circumstances of the absent parent and the person with care. He must bear in mind the welfare of any children to be affected. We do not pretend that these decisions will be easy. The issues will be many and varied. Some absent parents may well be able to show that they have quite high levels of special expenses and many parents with care will be able to demonstrate that in comparison to the absent parent they are financially worse off. Deciding what is fair in any given situation will involve some difficult decisions and questions will arise about the sort of factors it is right to take into consideration. The power conferred by subsection (3) of new Section 28F is intended to allow the Secretary of State to specify particular factors to be taken into account, or not to be taken into account, when making these difficult judgments.
Question 24—that is, Amendment No. 24, although it is question 24!—which the noble Earl suggested we might include in this grouping we are discussing, would remove the provisions in new Section 28F for a departure direction not to be made if the result would be to change the current assessment by less than a specified amount. The result would be that where, after due consideration of all the facts, the Secretary of State considered that a case had been made for allowing special expenses, he would instruct a child support officer to make a fresh assessment even if the changes in the assessment were as little as a penny.
The Committee will be familiar with the concept of the de minimis rule which currently exists in relation to reviews of maintenance assessments for changes of circumstances. It may be helpful if I discuss the reasons for using this type of control mechanism and explain why we wish to introduce a similar provision for departures. The de minimis rule restricts the number of times an assessment is changed by providing that where the amount payable will vary by less than a stated amount no reassessment will be made. It is designed to ensure that once an assessment is made it will be changed only by significant amounts. We believe that it is important both for the person with care to know how much income she can expect and equally for the absent parent to know what his commitments are. Frequent changes would not be helpful in either case. Moreover, the need to make constant reassessments for small amounts would place an unmanageable administrative burden on the agency.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am sorry to intervene. I have probably missed a beat or two. When the noble Lord refers to the Secretary of State and the difficult decisions the Secretary of State must take, he is of course referring to the staff of the Secretary of State. Since there are thousands of cases there will be a need for a great many staff, who will be of different types and ages, with different training and different approaches to the problem and who will apply varying degrees of wisdom in their discretion. What staff are likely to be in post to reach all these difficult decisions? The root of a great deal of the troubles of the agency is that it has not had the staff. I do not know where they came from or what training they had. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that decisions will be taken by people capable of taking them?
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As with all the agencies of the Department of Social Security, there is a considerable number of staff to deal with these issues. Of course the training of those staff, the guidance given to them and the regulations which Parliament lays down are all important matters. We shall recruit and put in place senior, well-trained staff to make the difficult decisions on departures. Via regulations and guidance sent out to staff on how to operate the rules, we shall try to ensure that they are as highly trained as possible. However, every system is human. Even the courts, which some Members of the Committee seem to think was the infallible system of yesteryear, did not exactly produce a totally consistent method of dealing with individuals when they came before them. That is why we propose that there should be a de minimis rule. It is good common sense.
The effect of Amendment No. 26 would be to allow an application for a departure direction from an absent parent who had an expense not taken into account in the formula assessment. The departure system is intended to allow some flexibility for the small number of cases where the application of the maintenance formula causes genuine difficulty. It is important that we are able to prescribe the circumstances in which a departure can be requested. Without it we shall return to a totally discretionary system under which it would be possible to place virtually any expense before the duty to pay child support maintenance.
In accordance with the affirmative procedure, any regulations made under the departure provisions under Schedule 4B of the 1991 Act will be brought before Parliament for further consideration. If, when the system of departures is up and running, the gateways need adjusting that can be done.
During the Committee stage in another place some members of the Opposition indicated that there were one or two items that they would like to see included in the list. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, Mr. Alistair Burt, gave an undertaking that we would keep the list of special expenses under review and would make adjustments if that proved necessary in the light of the pilot exercise.
Perhaps I can explain the purpose of the regulation-making power which the noble Earl proposes to delete in Amendment No. 33. The purpose of the power is to avoid uncertainty as to when disability and illness—

47
terms which themselves will be defined in regulations—are to be regarded as being long term. Our intention is to introduce regulations to the effect that a long-term illness or disability is one which is expected to last for at least 52 weeks. That would be consistent both with the definition used for incapacity benefit and that in the Disability Discrimination Bill. The regulation-making power is subject to affirmative resolution and therefore Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the contents.
The effect of Amendment No. 35 would be to remove the delegated power which is required to define the circumstances in which a child may be considered to be part of the family for the purposes of considering a departure direction. Defining the circumstances in which children are considered to be part of the family is best left to regulations, an approach which is consistent with provisions for income-related benefits.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister. I did not ask him to explain why the power should be in regulations rather than in primary legislation. I asked him to explain why it should be a legislative matter at all.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think that I am coming to that. I hope that I am. The Committee will also hope that I am coming to the end of my remarks on these amendments.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is not often that I receive such universal agreement on this subject.
If it is not possible to define in regulations what we mean by a child being part of a family, it could lead to this provision being extended well beyond the type of expenses it is designed to take into account. For example, expenses incurred on behalf of nephews and nieces could be cited in support of a departure application even if those children were not resident in the household. Even if—and I am by no means confident of this—we could rely on "family" being interpreted as meaning people who live together, there would still be a need to define it in this context. For example, parents could apply for departures where they were acting as foster parents. We shall come to the subject of foster children later today. Foster children are not taken into account for child support purposes because their costs are met by the fostering allowance. Therefore, it would not be right to consider a departure in such circumstances.
I apologise if I have gone on a bit, but perhaps I can say in my defence, as the man said after listening to a long speech after dinner, at least I have shortened the summer for your Lordships.
I hope that the explanation I have given of each of those amendments shows why we believe the powers are needed and what we shall bring forward in regulations. I hope that the Committee will accept that regulations, added to the Bill, will allow the agency to do what I believe the majority of people in this country want it to do: namely, to make sure that an absent father pays the proper amount of money to look after the children which his ex-wife—because it is usually that way round—is now having to look after on her own. I hope that with that explanation the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken. This subject has clearly raised a great deal of interest in the Chamber. The amendments have enjoyed a powerful body of support around the Chamber.
First, I shall take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, about time. He described us as victims of the system. I understand what he means. Our spouses understand what he means. However, it takes two to save time.
I read carefully the Renton Report on the Sittings of the House. That suggested that a great deal more should be done by consultation before a Bill comes before us. That was a good suggestion. It takes two to put it into effect. I shall ask the Minister a serious question to which I should like to know the answer. If I had come to him when the Bill was published asking for a meeting to persuade him to alter these points of drafting, am I right in believing that I would have been wasting his time and the department's time because no meeting of minds would have taken place? If I am wrong in that then I was perhaps mistaken in bringing these amendments forward, and I apologise. However, if one cannot make progress by meetings, then one has to bring the matter to the Chamber.
We might also make progress faster if we could all refrain from making general Second Reading points. I have resisted the temptation to rise to the Minister's claim that the taxpayer has benefited from the Act. However, I tell him that if he continues to make that claim, I shall put down an Unstarred Question and ask him to justify it. Points of that kind, which are widely unacceptable in many quarters of the Chamber, do not move us along faster.
The Minister made a serious point when he argued that the approach to legislation which I propose would not do on the Floor of the House. We had the same exchange on the Jobseekers Bill. The Minister may remember that I suggested that he meet me halfway and outside the Chamber, to which he replied by inviting me to name my weapons. Now that the Minister has drunk my weapons, he may consider that I accepted a self-criticism in making that suggestion. In the past I have myself sometimes pressed for too much detail in a Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has sometimes pulled me up and has made me think. I did not know that the Government were that bad at resisting pressure. I wonder why they did not tell me; I might have pressed a little harder on a few occasions. It seems to me that governments are perfectly capable of resisting pressure when they wish and that many amendments which seek to add detail to a general principle are put forward either because the general principle is unacceptable or is not sufficiently clear.
On parliamentary control, I understand all the points about the joint committee, and so on. The committee is confined to considering the values. I have read and welcome the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. However, by its terms of reference it is confined to considering whether a delegated legislation clause properly delegates legislated power. A provision may not be improper, but it may be unwise, ineffectual and unnecessary.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. He realises that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee is mainly, although not entirely, concerned with Henry VIII clauses; that is, the danger of previous primary legislation being altered by subsidiary legislation without the consent of Parliament.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I recall them, the terms of reference contain two points: whether any enactment improperly delegates legislative power—that is the issue with which we are concerned now—and whether delegated powers are subjected to a sufficient degree of parliamentary control. Having touched on the first and having pointed out that a delegation of power may be unwise in many ways that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee may find beyond its terms of reference, I come now to the question of parliamentary control.
It appears to me that control is essentially a matter of voting. One does not actually have to vote in order to exercise control, but one has to be able to do so. I was most interested in the provisions of the new Companion to the Standing Orders on voting on delegated legislation. Page 187 is worth particularly careful scrutiny. If it is acceptable to all parties that we shall vote, and do so in force, in ways given sanction by the Companion to the Standing Orders on page 187, I might then be able to be slightly less careful in restricting the use of delegated power. However, until this House has the power of voting, and is willing to exercise it, so long must I continue to be careful about the extent of regulation-making powers.
The Minister gave me much detail. I am not entirely sure that he understood exactly what was worrying me. On Amendment No. 4, the question is: what is a material circumstance? I still do not understand why that has to be a legislative and not a judicial matter. I do not understand why the decision has to be taken by the Secretary of State, who does not have the facts, rather than by a court, which does. In some circumstances, for example, a child in higher education, the factor may be material in cases where there is no other provision but not material in others where there is adequate provision. Therefore the issue depends on the circumstances, and I do not think that regulation can provide for that.
We shall need to return to Amendment No. 23. I understand the case for allowing the Secretary of State to be involved. But what of allowing Parliament to take some part in the matter? I heard no answer to that question. I do not see why the Minister regards step-children, for instance, as quite such an extraordinary event. The situation arises quite often. It might have been more effective to provide for stepchildren in the formula rather than a complicated system of departures to recognise a normal fact of existence.
On Amendment No. 29, the Minister misinterpreted me. I am grateful to him for stating his policy intention. He believed that I was unaware of it. I have read the excellent and extremely helpful memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. What I sought to say to him was this. If his intention was as outlined, why did he not say so in the Bill? There would then have been no trouble.
50
Because the memorandum is so much more intelligible than the Bill, I wonder whether, under the principles of Pepper v. Hart, it might not be used by the courts as a guide to understanding the legislation and in fact whether the memorandum may slowly usurp the position of the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, shakes his head. I shall be very relieved if he is right. However, it seems to me that other people seeking to find the Government's intention would be wise to go to that memorandum and not to the Bill. There is a danger of Parliament's functions being usurped.
The Minister's reply on Amendment No. 35 fascinated me. He was afraid of courts going beyond the Government's intention. I did not bring my copy of the Renton Report with me today. The noble Lord may remember the passage that I have in mind. I spoke to it on the Jobseekers Bill when referring to precisely that legislative approach. The noble Lord said that for perfectly good reasons the amendment does not work. I should like to ask the Department of Social Security to consider the matter very seriously indeed.
We are considering a real issue here. However, in the light of the strictly non-partisan, non-party debate that we have had, I would be abusing the spirit of the support that I have had if I were to ask the opinion of the Committee. I shall need to return to Amendment No. 23 in a different context with a different line of argument at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, with thanks to all those who have spoken, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert:
("(7) Schedule 4A has effect in relation to departure directions.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment will help me to restore the balance of the average time of my speeches. It is a minor but necessary drafting repair which picks up a stitch which was dropped by the draftsman. It inserts a new subsection into the new Section 28A as introduced by Clause 1 of the Bill.
The new Schedule 4A to the 1991 Act is inserted by subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill but no mention of it is made, as it should be, by the new Section 28A of the 1991 Act that has been inserted by subsection (1) of Clause 1. The amendment rectifies the omission. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that this is not an inconvenient moment to make a short intervention on a technical point. By virtue of the office of the noble Lord, we have had today a most helpful document completing the 1991 Act with this Bill and with the intermediate regulations.
My question is: would it not be possible and desirable for some such document to take its place in the Bill as a Keeling schedule? Perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to discuss the matter with the draftsman. It is true that it would incorporate regulations as well as the 1991 Act. But I do not think that that is really a conclusive argument against the Keeling schedule. Perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to say that he will take the matter up with the draftsman.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that I shall discuss his specific point with the draftsman. I thank him for the welcome he gave to the document that we produced in order to show the complete picture, if Members of the Committee agree. The only slight problem is that I do not seem to have brought my copy with me.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule I [Departure Directions]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 24, line 36, at end insert:
("() Where a departure application is referred to a child support appeal tribunal under section 28D(1) (b) and the application is heard by a chairman sitting alone, any qualifying person aggrieved by the decision may appeal under section 28H as though the decision were a decision of the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 6, we deal with the situation where the tribunal chairman sits alone. The amendment's effect is to give a right of appeal on the facts where a single child support appeal tribunal (CSAT) chairman takes the place of the CSA officer. The amendment would build in a necessary safeguard and would give a right of appeal on the facts when a single child support appeal tribunal chairman takes the place of the child support agency officer. The purpose of the amendment is to provide the assurance that a right of appeal will be available.
Although we understand the Government's wish for flexibility and speed in the appeals process, we are concerned that natural justice may be sacrificed to achieve administrative convenience. The entire outcome of a departure application should not depend on the discretion of one individual. The exercise of discretion by different people can result in different decisions. A tribunal of three is less likely to give inconsistent and maverick decisions. Although one-person tribunals would cost less, that should not be the overriding factor in setting up the departure procedure. Adequate resources need to be made available to the Independent Tribunal Service and all members provided with detailed training, including a grounding in family law.
In principle, we do not oppose the introduction of one-person tribunals, although it is a significant change from other tribunals run by the independent tribunal service. It would be helpful if the Minister could give examples of the use of one-person tribunals in other fields. We ask that the Government give an assurance that the use of one-person tribunals will be the exception rather than the rule.
The amendment proposes a safeguard. Although there is no legal distinction between the decision being considered by a CSAT on referral or on appeal and they are both looked at de novo, there is a practical distinction. When an application is referred to a CSAT, it is considered only once, not twice, on the facts. Therefore, in effect, there is no right of appeal from the first decision on the facts.
We do not feel that it is sufficient for only one person—even though that person is legally qualified—to consider the case from beginning to end. The amendment would
52
produce a system whereby, if it were felt necessary by the CSA staff, a legally qualified chairperson could take the place of the CSA departure officer, but that decision would not remove the applicant's right of appeal.
I believe that in the Standing Committee in the other place the Government made the point that there is no need for a second opinion and that an appeal on a point of law is sufficient. The Government argue that providing an appeal on the facts would prolong the procedure. Up to five people can consider a child support officer's decision: the original CSO, another CSO on review and three members of a tribunal. In the usual route for departure, four people will consider the case: the CSA departure officer and then the three tribunal members. However, in the case of a departure decision referred to the ITS, only one person could end up considering the case. The amendment would prevent that happening. It is even more important in the case of a discretionary decision that at least two people consider the facts.
The Government argue that there is no need for a right of appeal from the first decision taken on departure, in which case I ask the Minister why the Government propose a right of appeal on the facts against a CSA departure officer. Indeed, the cases which are referred to the ITS for an initial decision will, by definition, be the more complex cases and therefore it is even more important that a second opinion be allowed. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, explained, the Secretary of State, rather than himself determining an application for a departure, may instead refer it directly to a child support appeal tribunal. The tribunal limy, on occasion, consist of a chairman sitting alone rather than the normal panel of three. I hope that my use of the words "may" and "normal" indicates that we expect that the panel of three will be normal but that there will be occasions on which the chairman might sit alone. The purpose of the amendment is to allow applicants whose case has been handled in that way—in other words going direct to the tribunal—a further right of appeal to a three-person tribunal if the first tribunal consisted of only the chairman.
I am sure that the Committee will be aware that the chairmen of child support appeal tribunals are both independent, being appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and legally qualified. They have considerable experience in child support and can be relied upon to come to fair and considered judgments. I should add that tribunal hearings are informal where all parties are assisted and, indeed, encouraged to put their case to ensure that they are being treated correctly according to the law. I therefore consider it unnecessary to build in a further step, prolonging the process by providing for another right of appeal. That would leave the absent parent in doubt as to his liability and the parent with care unsure of her income. An additional appeal stage would add to the cost of administering the scheme, in my view quite unnecessarily.
As the noble Lord said, the amendment is clearly directed at only those cases which are dealt with by a tribunal consisting of a chairman alone. I do not believe that the noble Lord is making an implication that the tribunal chairman on his own cannot be trusted to come to a fair decision and that a second opinion is needed.

53
However, I have full confidence in the ability of tribunal chairmen, given that they are independent of the department or agency, are appointed by the Lord Chancellor and are legally trained and legally qualified. I believe that they can exercise their judgment in an impartial and unbiased way and I do not believe that such a decision requires further qualification.
The Committee will be aware that the system already provides a further route to challenge the decision of an appeal tribunal. There is a right of appeal on a point of law to the child support commissioners. Should a decision be grossly unreasonable or breach natural justice, it may be challenged through the courts by way of judicial review.
In my view, the system already has sufficient safeguards and to provide for a further appeal stage such as the amendment proposes is quite unnecessary. I hope that, having heard my explanation of how we envisage that the system will work and my assurance that the people who operate it are well qualified legally—they are independent and appointed by the Lord Chancellor—the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister. He uses words with care; he said that this "may" happen on occasion. One would hope to find a device for ensuring that that would be the case and that it did not become a habit. The Minister's example was helpful. As my noble friend Lord Gladwin pointed out, a one-person tribunal is a contradiction in terms of language. However, I shall read the Minister's explanation, I hope we shall not have to return to the matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Preliminary consideration]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 23. after ("may") insert ("refer it to a departure review panel, which shall be made up of not less than two legally qualified officers who will").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 7, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 which are consequential. This group of amendments is intended to ensure that the important area of departure which will introduce a substantial element of discretion into the work of the Child Support Agency is carried out by appropriately trained and qualified personnel.
The amendment was not discussed in the other place in terms, but there have been discussions in Committee in the other place which relate to it. The Government have given assurances that staff dealing with departures will be appropriately trained. On the second day in Standing Committee E in the other place, the Minister stated at col. 55:
"Staff employed on those duties will receive special training and the process of deciding applications for departures will be independent of the normal maintenance assessment process carried out by child support officers. Those staff will form a separate group".
The Government also suggest that the staff will be appointed from within the agency. Also in Standing Committee E, the Minister said:
"We decided that staff from the Child Support Agency should do the job, rather than staff from an outside body, because we believed that that would be the best way to deal with preliminary decisions".
Although we appreciate that staff have developed expertise in certain areas, the whole new area of departure introduces a great deal of discretion and, I think we all agree, will require high levels of skill if staff are properly to recognise and interpret complex information, documents and papers and then make a fair judgment as to the degree of departure which should be granted.
To refer again to the second sitting of the Committee in the other place, the Minister stated that the Government had thought about the procedure that was adopted in Australia, using an independent review officer. They quoted the opinion of the Australian select committee, which preferred the option of internal organisation to deal with departures rather than the use of an outside body. However, they did not mention that the Australian system employs qualified lawyers who have to have considerable tribunal experience or a background in family law for the job of deciding departure. In our view, the UK system needs a similar standard if the departure system is to work and be seen to be fair by all parties. We are saying that if the staffing is to come from within the agency, not from outside, then the departure review panel should, in the words of the amendment,
"be made up of not less than two legally qualified officers".
I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: This is a useful amendment. I am happy to support it. This is also as appropriate a moment as any other to ask a question about which I have wondered since the Bill was first published. Why have the Government chosen to use the word "departures"? It sounds dreadfully like British Rail. When we come to the term "departure direction" and one begins wondering about all the things that may go wrong, and when one begins talking about a "mistaken departure direction", one really is into the territory of "Beyond the Fringe". Could the Government use slightly less risible terminology?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: To answer the last point, the term "departure" is used because it refers to a departure from the formula. That is why the term was chosen.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, explained that his intention was to introduce the concept of a departure review panel to consider applications rather than to have them considered by the Secretary of State or a child support appeal tribunal. The Committee will have recognised that the effect of these amendments to the new Section 28B, as introduced by Clause 2.of the Bill, is to require the preliminary consideration of an application to be carried out by a departure review panel. Following that, the Secretary of State, or occasionally a child support appeal tribunal, will determine those applications which have not lapsed or been withdrawn. This would be a rather curious arrangement, although perhaps it was not intended that way. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said.
The purpose of the preliminary check is to avoid processing those applications which cannot succeed because they do not meet even the basic conditions for application; that is, either they do not fall within the cases in Part I of Schedule 4B, as introduced by Schedule 2 to

55
the Bill, or any departure direction which might be given would not vary the current assessment by a significant amount. In other words, they may not fall to be considered as one of the departures in any case. Even if they do, they might not vary the current assessment by a significant amount. The preliminary check is therefore both a management tool to ensure that staff resources are not expended unnecessarily, and a means of managing people's expectations in that, where there can be no hope of an application succeeding, those concerned are not left too long in the dark, harbouring hopes or even fears as to the possible outcome of an application.
It is our intention that this will be a quick, straightforward check of application forms, involving no discretionary judgments, and will be carried out by officers at a lower grade than those who will determine the applications and give departure directions on behalf of the Secretary of State. To have this check carried out by a panel of no less than two legally qualified officers seemed to be rather over-egging the pudding. Clearly, however, it was not the noble Lord's intention that the review panel should deal with just the preliminary consideration of applications, and I shall therefore go on to address the question of a panel to deal with full consideration of departures.
This seems also to be unnecessary. There are numerous precedents, both within child support itself and elsewhere within the social security system, where discretionary decisions are taken by individual adjudicators. The Child Support Act already has areas of discretion which are exercised by individual child support officers or agency staff on behalf of the Secretary of State. There is no reason why the departures scheme should be any different. On the matter of whether those taking decisions need to be legally qualified, I would say to the Committee that it is common for staff in the agencies of the Department of Social Security to work successfully from quite complex legal provisions without themselves being legally qualified.
Furthermore, if the noble Lord is concerned about the standard of decision making that will result from individual officers exercising their discretion in accordance with the Act and regulations, I should like to reassure him that staff involved in this work will, as I mentioned earlier, receive special training and departure directions will be given by senior staff. Furthermore, of course, we shall be monitoring the scheme closely to ensure that decisions are fair and, so far as is possible within a discretionary scheme, consistent.
Finally, and very importantly, I remind the Committee that any decision of the Secretary of State in relation to a departure application carries the right of appeal to an independent appeal tribunal. The tribunal, as discussed, will always consist of a legally qualified chairman and, will normally have two members who may or may not be legally qualified.
The noble Lord cited the Australian review officer procedure as a precedent. In fact, that system is something of a halfway house between the Government's proposals and the system that would result from this amendment. The review officers in Australia are legally qualified people, employed by the Australian Child Support
56
Agency. An individual review officer considers each case and reaches a decision, in the same way that we propose for our system. But the only avenue of appeal is to the courts. In other words, there is not the equivalent of a tribunal. Noble Lords may be interested to know that a joint select committee of the Australian Parliament has just published a comprehensive report on its scheme which is not entirely enthusiastic about how well the review officer system works. It describes it as having "an unnecessary legalistic structure" and criticises,
"the inflexibility of the procedures and the lack of an effective and simple internal review mechanism".
As a better approach, the committee suggests that initial decisions on departures be taken by staff within the agency, with an appeal to a new independent "child support claims tribunal"—exactly the approach that we suggest in the Bill.
We gave careful consideration to the best way to administer the departures scheme, and we concluded that the one set out, using the already experienced and knowledgeable staff in the Child Support Agency, is the best way forward—with, of course, the tribunals behind them to deal with any appeals to the decisions made by them. I believe that that is the best way to proceed. With that explanation of how we envisage that the system will work, and a small look at our friends on the other side of the world, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The original legislation was introduced by the Government in 1991 in an ethos of hostility towards a body of citizens who were prima facie in default. There was an assumption behind the Bill, and in the Act, that we were dealing with undesirable people who had forsaken their responsibilities to their own children and had escaped the duties that should have fallen upon them.
We talk about justice in this context. I am not sure that the Prime Minister intended any justice at all. I believe that she had in mind making this a penal Act. That was the spirit behind it. We have only to look at its terms and the pursuance of the statute in observing the conditions that can be imposed upon a person. We have spoken to an amendment in a group of amendments that propose to delete from the Act the rules about distraint. That was Amendment No. 35. I am in sympathy with that amendment. In the British system of recovering a debt, distraint is imposed on persons without some justification. There was a time when one could not find collectors of taxes to distrain. It was such an unpleasant thing to do. It seems unjust to go round a person's house and stick labels on items, acquiring ownership of the property in the house in the name of the state. That kind of action is disturbing.
I must say—I hope that noble Lords will forgive me—that in 1991 there was another Act which was full of hostility; namely, the Dangerous Dogs Act. In fact, 1991 was a year of legislative hostility and we are reaping the ill rewards of that at the present time. I see that some noble Lords wish to interrupt me but I have in fact finished.
Lord Carter: I shall try to bring my mind back to what we were talking about; namely, Amendments Nos. 7, 9 and 10. I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out not

57
that the drafting was wrong but the way in which the amendment would work in the unlikely event that the Government accepted it. I believe that I accept his explanation but obviously I want to study it in Hansard and take advice. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 8 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 9.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Imposition of a regular payments condition]:
Baroness Hollis Baroness Hollis moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 20, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: I shall be extremely brief. The amendment provides for a regular payments condition in all cases—hence, we are seeking to change "may" to "shall". We believe that that would be reasonable because, under subsection (6), there is discretion to allow this application to continue, even if the condition is broken. We presume that the regular payment could be as low as the minimum payment of £2.35 a week.
The amendment was won in the other place. There the Government argued that a regular payment would usually be required from those who wanted to use the departure system, but a condition would not always be necessary as some parents would already be making payment. However, it seems to us that if an absent parent is already making payments, the level of those payments could itself be the regular payments condition.
We believe that this protection is important for the parent with care. It treats both parents similarly in the context of departures. I have pleasure in moving it.
Earl Russell: I am not particularly happy with this amendment. On the last amendment, when the Minister referred to "our friends on the other side of the House", I wondered for a moment whether he and the noble Baroness were committing "Butskellism". I was mistaken. It seems that the noble Baroness has now moved to the right of the Government. She is demanding an even more restrictive interpretation of the formula than the Government themselves.
I am sure that the Minister is about to point out that the Government have already said, in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, that they intend the gateway to the departure system to be very narrow. It sounds more than ever like British Rail.
I believe that the Government are mistaken in that; but as they are doing it, the noble Baroness's amendment is, in the first place, unnecessary. It is also unjustified.
The noble Baroness argued that it was perfectly all right because there was a discretion to allow the application to continue even if people were not making payments. But many of the people who are subject to this Bill are naturally law abiding people. It is all very well saying that they can break the law. Many of them do not like to be forced to think like that or to behave like that. They are ashamed when they are pushed into that position.
58
Nor is there any point in having a departure direction unless it is possible for it to result in a zero assessment: for example, where there are very high travel-to-work costs; cases where, for example, it is essential for the person to own a car or he cannot go to work. I shall return to that point in a moment. There, the insistence on a regular payments condition may, in the end, mean that the person will have to give up work. Then all payments will necessarily cease; the taxpayer loses, the Government lose and the children lose.
There are a great many other situations where this amendment may do a great deal of harm: for example, where an 18 year-old is receiving a parental contribution to go to university. Without a departure direction, that payment cannot continue. So, if there is not a discretion to vary the regular payments condition—I have tabled an amendment to which I speak now allowing for an appeal where the regular payments direction is too high—there will be all kinds of harmful effects, just like those that result from the 1991 Act. The damage will be done before a departure direction is ever arrived at and the whole departure system will become nugatory.
Those who put down this amendment simply do not know what is going on out there. They have no idea of the kind of hardship that is being proposed. This is a stupid amendment. I hope that the Minister will reject it. If it goes to a Division, I and my noble friends will vote against it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There is some temptation to see this matter through in order to see what kind of company I get. But I shall resist that temptation.
As the noble Baroness explained, the amendment is intended to ensure that, in order to qualify for a departure direction, an absent parent must he keeping up with his current maintenance payments or at least paying such reduced rate as agreed by the Secretary of State. By that, I mean that the absent parent should be paying either his current maintenance liability or—this may help to explain the matter to the noble Earl—a reduced rate enabling a safe rate (if I may so call it) to be set, which is the amount that the absent parent would be liable to pay if his departure application were to be successful. It seems to me that that is a perfectly fair way to go about the matter and—dare I say it'?—does not merit the attack made by the noble Earl on this particular part of the system.
I accept the intention behind the amendment. It is important that an absent parent should show some commitment to meeting his maintenance liability in order to qualify for a departure direction. However, I hope that I can persuade the noble Baroness that the amendment is not in fact needed. Where the absent parent is already paying his current maintenance, there is no need for the Secretary of State to require him formally to do so. If this amendment were accepted, it would involve the agency in a great deal of unnecessary work, imposing regular payments conditions where the absent parent was already meeting his liability. The power in the Bill was made permissive so that such conditions need be imposed only where compliance is a problem.

59
With that assurance of the way in which we envisage the system working, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for his thoughtful and well considered reply. As he said, I consider much of the noble Earl's comment was beside the point of the amendment. As I understand it, the amendment would—as indeed the noble Earl said—emphasise the continuity of payment. The figure that the absent father might pay would not necessarily be higher than he would have paid under the departure. So much, indeed the bulk, of the noble Earl's criticism was simply beside the point. He has misunderstood the amendment.
My second point is also in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He assumes that all the hardship falls on the absent parent. I agree that that can happen and that there can be situations of real hardship. But perhaps I may remind him—I am sure he is aware—that in no case under this Bill would the absent parent ever be worse off than the parent with care and that in no circumstances under the Bill will the absent parent ever retain less than 70 per cent. of his income. Would that the parent with care were as fortunate. The amendment sought to ensure that the parent with care, who will often be in a situation of fluctuating maintenance when we come to issues of family credit and so forth, would be protected with continuity of contribution while the appeal procedure is progressing. However, in the light of the Minister's comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Earl Russell: No.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Earl Russell: No.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In that case I shall put the Question. The Question is that Amendment No. 11 be agreed to. As many are of that opinion will say Content.
Noble Lords: Content.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: To the contrary, Not Content. I think the Not Contents have it. The Not Contents have it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Determination of applications]:
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 15, at beginning insert ("in exceptional circumstances,").
The noble Baroness said: This is a brief amendment which would add the words "in exceptional circumstances". The usual route for deciding a departure application is an initial decision by the Secretary of State. Referring decisions direct to a tribunal does not give the
60
parties a right of appeal on the facts if they are dissatisfied with the initial departure decision. We believe it is especially important, as we discussed in a previous amendment, that some of the refusals may be heard by a single person sitting as a tribunal.
The Government may well argue that the great majority of decisions should be taken by the CSA. In that case, we see no reason why they should not appear on the face of the Bill. Such an amendment would ensure greater consistency throughout the country. In other words, the amendment gives effect on the face of the Bill to the Government's intentions. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, explained, this amendment seeks to clarify that only in exceptional circumstances will the Secretary of State pass a case direct to a child support appeal tribunal for determination, rather than determine it himself, and then it can be subject to appeal. I note, however, that the amendment does not attempt to define "exceptional circumstances".
It may be helpful if I explain that it is our clear intention that the majority of cases will be dealt with, in the first instance, by the Secretary of State, with a subsequent right of appeal to an independent appeal tribunal. Only where a case raises novel or particularly complex issues, and will clearly benefit from an oral hearing or the input of a legally qualified chairman, will it be referred to a tribunal for determination.
We do not feel it necessary to include a description of those circumstances in primary legislation. Indeed, achieving an 4ppropriate definition would be difficult (as no doubt the noble Baroness discovered when devising the amendment) and could potentially exclude those we wished to include and vice versa. The Secretary of State's guidance, on the other hand, will allow some flexibility in this area, enabling adjustments to be made if we find too many or too few cases are being referred.
With that explanation and the assurance I have given that the normal route will be the route where the Secretary of State makes the decision—the person claiming the departure will then be able to appeal to the tribunal—I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Earl Russell: Before the Minister sits down, does he think that the CSA has the resources, the people and the time to deal with all that extra work?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I responded to that point in an earlier amendment when I said that the CSA will be forming a team of people whose' responsibility it will be to make those departure decisions. I mentioned that our intention would be that the sifting may be done by relatively junior staff but the actual decisions in the departures would be done by senior staff who were specially trained for the job. I am confident that those individuals will be in place.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for his reply. Given that it is a point already made this afternoon, that the understanding of the words of the Bill will be understood within the context of the Minister's remarks, then to a degree the purpose of the amendment has been met by the Minister re-emphasising that it is only

61
in exceptional circumstances that one would go beyond that procedure. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 5 [Matters to be taken into account]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 4, line 33, leave out from ("(2)") to end of line.
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 19, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 20, which is the big one to which Amendment No. 19 is the introduction.
When the Bill was in another place and we announced that we intended to repeal the Act, we were naturally asked to specify our policy in detail. The procedure in another place does not make it easy for our party to do so; nor does it make it easy to do so when one is trying to insert a new policy into a very old bottle. These amendments are the beginning of an attempt to do the best we can. But we say that the crucial point is that when the Act comes to be repealed—sooner or later, whoever is in office, it will be repealed—it is vital that there should be an extensive process of consultation with all interested parties. When I say that, I mean consultation and not merely telling people what to do. That must take place, so any suggestions that we make now are provisional.
The Minister heard what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said earlier this afternoon regarding general principles. I agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. As the Minister knows, we believe that the business should go back to courts which can consider individual circumstances, but they must do so subject to general principles because nobody wants everything to be all over the shop. We want a general body of ideas which can be brought to bear on the subject.
I have no objection to the two general principles which the Government state in Clause 5. My anxiety is that these are by no means adequate for guidance to courts or tribunals which are settling applications under the Bill. Therefore I want to add a series of them. The first one deals with step-children, about whom we have said a good deal and I do not think that we need say any more. Many people are responsible for children other than their own natural children. Where somebody is responsible for children he must attempt to treat them equally and the law must not impede him in doing so. That is our first general principle.
The second general principle is that no assessment should leave a parent unable to meet legal obligations from which it would be impossible or unreasonable to expect him to withdraw. That general principle is one to which I do not feel the Government have profound objection. But I am sure that they will object to it being stated in this place.
I appreciate the force of what Mr. Burt has always said about not letting people's obligations to their children slip down the scale of priorities. But one cannot carry that principle to the point of encouraging people to default on
62
their legal obligations. That is an offence and those of us who have respect for the law should not encourage people to commit it. It is not right to have a series of assessments which force people not to pay their council tax, for example, or which force them not to pay their just and due debts or which may make them unable to pay their income tax on previous years' earnings. Those factors must be taken into account when determining what people are asked to pay.
The next general principle is that,
"no assessment shall leave a parent unable to afford to carry on his trade, profession or occupation, or force him to sell the tools of his trade".
That general principle is taken from Magna Carta. I believe that it is still the law of the land. It is a principle that was recognised by the Government in the 1991 Act although not in this context. It is simply not in the interests of any party to the whole sorry story—least of all in the interests of the children—to force the absent parent to give up his employment because he will then be unable to pay anything and we shall all lose.
The next general principle, with which the noble Baroness may agree, is that,
"no parent with care shall, as a result of receiving maintenance, be worse off than he would have been on benefit".
The wording is "he". I do not know why the provisions do not also include "she". We know that some parents can be worse off and we shall return to that in a later amendment on the maintenance disregard. I hope that we shall return to it on Report also with an amendment on passported benefits. We shall also return to it to cover those situations where maintenance is assessed but fails to arrive. There are a great many situations where the parent with care is worse off as a result of the legislation. That was not the intention and it should be a general principle covering the whole Bill that it should not be so.
The next general principle is that,
"no absent parent, shall, as a result of paying maintenance, be worse off than if he were on benefit".
The Minister may say that there are no such people, but when answering a Question from me on 27th April last year his noble friend Lord Goschen admitted that there were many absent parents who might perceive themselves to be worse off than if they were on benefit. That was a significant admission and the perception is widely shared. If the Minister thinks that under the departure formula he has dealt adequately with the issue of travel-to-work costs he is sadly mistaken. It would be the effect of this general principle, if accepted, that where the operation of the formula in any individual case—and the world is made up of individual cases—leaves someone worse off than if they were on benefit, that would be ground for a departure.
The next general principle states that,
"no assessment shall be made which is in conflict with the provisions of section 2 of this Act".
For the avoidance of doubt "this Act" means the 1991 Act and Section 2 is the section which provides that the welfare of the child shall be taken into account. Many noble Lords who are present spoke and voted for that amendment in 1991 when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, after a great deal of hesitation, finally decided to agree to it. I am sure that none of us thought

63
then that counsel for the Secretary of State would say that that was not a paramount or even particularly significant consideration. We were told that the purpose of the whole exercise was that children come first. If that principle is not observed, the legislation is totally failing to justify itself in the way that it should.
The final principle states that,
"the Secretary of State and the child support appeal tribunal shall take account of any information…which may appear to them to be material to the task of deciding whether an assessment is within these general principles".
It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to prescribe factors which shall not be taken into consideration. That is an unwarrantable restriction on the freedom of courts and tribunals. One cannot know what is material until the circumstances are before one. We must remember that we are dealing with real people; if we prick them, they bleed. We need to judge them on their individual circumstances. We cannot rule out half the things that make their lives work simply because it appears, mistakenly, to suit administrative convenience to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I start by dealing with Amendment No. 19. The effect of this amendment, proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would be to prevent any additions to the general principles set out in the new Section 28E of the 1991 Act, inserted by Clause 5, when determining an application for a departure direction. As the Bill states, these are that,

"(a) parents should be responsible for maintaining their children whenever they can afford to do so;

(b) where a parent has more than one child, his obligation to maintain any of them should be no less of an obligation than his obligation to maintain any other of them".

Those general principles have been laid down to ensure that the system of departures does not undermine the basic intentions of the child support system. It is proposed to use the delegated power included in new Section 28E(1) only if it becomes necessary to set out further specified considerations to ensure that discretion is exercised consistently and fairly.
The noble Earl has proposed in Amendment No. 20 various additional principles to be included in the new section. He dealt with them in turn and I shall do likewise.
I turn first to the proposal that step-children, foster children and adoptive children whose natural parents are dead or otherwise unable to maintain them should be treated in the same manner as a parent's own children. I should begin by clarifying that adoptive children are already treated, for the purposes of assessing child maintenance, as if they are the parent's natural children. By adopting a child, a parent assumes full legal and financial responsibility for that child—a responsibility, I should emphasise, that continues even if, as a result of a relationship breakdown, the adoptive parent no longer lives with that child. I therefore agree that adopted children should be treated in the same manner as natural children, and that is what happens.
However, the matter is not so clear cut when considering step-children. Normally, the primary responsibility for maintaining step-children should rest with their own natural parent, and not with their
64
step-father. We recognise that there are cases where it is not possible for their own parent to maintain them, the obvious example being where that parent has died. That is why the costs of step-children are among the special expenses listed in Schedule 2 to the Bill. We believe that specifying such circumstances as a ground for departure is the best way of dealing with this issue rather than making it a general principle to be considered in every departure application when it may well have no bearing at all on a particular application.
Foster children are treated as being in the care of the local authority and are not subject to child maintenance assessments. In addition, foster parents receive an appropriate allowance from the local authority. It would be wrong to, in effect, boost that allowance through the child maintenance system at the expense of a parent's own natural children.
The second part of the amendment proposes that no departure direction should have such an effect on an assessment that a parent is left unable to meet legal obligations from which it would be impossible or unreasonable to expect him to withdraw. The effect would be to require any and all legally enforceable commitments to have priority over child maintenance, including those which Members of the Committee may consider it most undesirable to support such as debts from gambling or from the purchase of luxury items such as an expensive motor car or even an expensive holiday. That would enable absent parents who have an existing liability to reduce that liability by deliberately taking on additional commitments.
Earl Russell: What makes the Minister think that he has authority to take and enforce that sort of moral judgment on all the rest of us?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not know where the moral judgment comes in, but it is a judgment that the absent parent has a responsibility to maintain the children of his former marriage if he has the cash to do so. I believe that that is an absolutely sensible principle and the great majority of the people of this country agree with that. The noble Earl has already told me very pointedly that he also agrees with it, but there is a difference. I wish to will the means to get to that end and the means is that of the Child Support Agency. It is all very well saying that one agrees with the general principle, but one has to make sure that it can be carried out. That is why we believe that we have the right to have a say in these matters. We have no right, of course, if the people involved are not looking to the public purse and the taxpayer for any help, but we have the right when they are so looking.
We have recognised that in exceptional cases parents may have legal commitments which should be taken into account when assessing child maintenance, and that is why we are proposing that such debts can be grounds for a departure application. Introducing a specific ground for a departure application is the best way of dealing with such commitments, rather than introducing a general principle which would mean that virtually all debts would need to be taken into account no matter how unworthy they may be.
It might be appropriate now to say that when listening to the noble Earl I wondered about the case of parents who continue to live together.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. He is always very courteous in giving way. He seems to be equating "taken into account" with "give priority to". The noble Lord did so a moment ago. The words are "taken into account". It is not stated that they rank in priority to the obligation as regards the relevant children.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not want to start splitting hairs with the noble and learned Lord, but if one lists a series of sub-paragraphs, if one may call them that, which is what the noble Earl is inviting us to do, one makes them all equal. Therefore, we get to the stage where, if we force people to take total account of them, we are not making any judgment as to which one should have priority.
I was just about to advance my argument on the question of priority. Let us consider parents who continue to live together, do not get divorced, are happily married, busy looking after their children with one or other of them out working, who have to deal with all their legal obligations and look after their children. To be honest, I do not believe that we are asking the absent parent to do anything different from the man next door who has happily continued in his marriage and his responsibilities in looking after his children day by day. We have to be very careful that we are not making people who become absent parents somehow totally different and that we must not expect them to have the same obligations as the man next door who carries these obligations day by day to his wife and children.
The third and fifth parts of the noble Earl's amendment seek to ensure that absent parents retain an incentive to work and are not worse off than they would be on benefit. I can assure him that the Government are equally keen to maintain work incentives and have already introduced two specific measures to help ensure that. First, we made significant increases in the protected income margins as part of the February 1994 changes. As a result an absent parent will always retain at least £30 more income than he would if he were unemployed and receiving income support. Secondly, we introduced in April this year a broad-brush formula allowance towards travel-to-work costs for parents who have to travel long distances. We shall be coming to them later when we deal with departures.
I reiterate that we believe that the proper way to address issues such as travel-to-work costs is by specifying specific grounds and not by making it a general principle to be considered in all departure cases.
The noble Earl's amendment also seeks to introduce a similar guarantee for parents with care; that they will not be worse off as a result of a departure direction than they would be on benefit. I assume he is referring to the loss of automatic entitlement to passported benefits when a person's income extinguishes entitlement to income support.
The Government have made their position clear on many occasions. One of the basic principles of the Act is that the burden on the taxpayer should be reduced where parents can afford to support their own children. It has always been the case that some parents with care will be floated off income support as a result of increased
66
maintenance payments. Parents with care were floated off income support in the past by maintenance arranged under the old court system or by the DSS liable relative sections, which some Members of the Committee will look back on with nostalgia, or indeed by other forms of income they acquired.
Such parents will no longer automatically qualify for the additional benefits, but they will still be eligible to apply for a range of income-related benefits such as housing benefit, council tax benefit and family credit, as well as help with NHS charges on income grounds. In this respect, the receipt of maintenance is treated no differently than the receipt of another income from any source, which can extinguish entitlement to income support.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This is one element of the amendment where we are at one with the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is deeply unreasonable that a parent with care should be left the poorer as a result of receiving maintenance pound for pound in lieu of benefit and thus losing the passported benefits that go with income support. It is in that context, as the noble Earl rightly said, that we may be discussing this later in terms of maintenance disregard.
Does the Minister agree when he makes the analogy with other circumstances, and that a parent with care might have other income, that that other income would normally be income taken from work? In that situation the parent with care would have disregard or, alternatively, would have the choice of not being in work but preferring to remain on benefit if that meant that the child that she was caring for was financially better off.
The problem here is that the parent with care has no opportunity to make that choice as to which circumstances best suit the conditions that she and her children are in. It is a compulsory substitution of maintenance for benefit and therefore a compulsory projection of that parent with care into poverty greater than she would otherwise experience. In all fairness, that is a distinction of which the Minister should remind the Committee.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not agree with the noble Baroness that people who are floated off benefit in the kind of circumstances we are talking about are necessarily pushed into poverty.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: They can he.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is a long-standing rule in all benefits systems that as income increases from whatever source, people float off. It would be illogical to run a benefits system in which they do not float off. I consider this provision to be wholly unnecessary in the context of the departure scheme because it is that scheme which we are looking at. I am now talking about the parent with care. I believe that she is likely to apply only if she wishes to receive an increased level of maintenance. Therefore, it seems illogical to then give the Secretary of State power to deny her that increase because of what he considers to be in her best interests. I would have thought that that choice should be left to the parent with care.

67
The amendment before us also suggests that consideration of the welfare of children should be a guiding principle when processing departure applications. I agree fully with the intention of this section, but hope that I can explain to the noble Earl that it is unnecessary. Section 2 of the 1991 Act requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the welfare of the child when considering any discretionary power conferred by the Act. That clearly applies to his consideration of any departure application. In addition, in the context of departures, new Section 28F(2) (c) already specifically provides that the Secretary of State shall have regard to the welfare of any child affected by the direction. Therefore the noble Earl's proposed amendment is unnecessary.
Finally, the amendment specifies that the Secretary of State, in determining a departure direction, shall have regard to any information he may have which appears to him to be relevant, in applying the general principles in the new Section 28B(2). Again, I seek to assure the noble Earl that the amendment is not necessary. It is implicit, and a rule of common sense, that the Secretary of State will take account of all relevant information when considering a departure. It is not necessary to specify that in general principles.
I apologise for the length of my response on this amendment, but the noble Earl, as usual, has raised some important issues. There is one I may not have mentioned. It is when the absent parents perceive themselves to be worse off than on benefit. I am not sure whether it is the absent parent or parent with care. At any rate, it is the perception of being worse off on benefit.
It is clear from correspondence and other discussions that we have had that many absent parents think that they should be left with more than income support amounts of income after paying all their costs of feeding and clothing themselves, heating their homes, and so on. In other words, they perceive income support levels as pocket money; but income support has to meet the cost of those basic needs (clothing, heating, and so on) for those people for whom it is the benefit.
I hope that I have managed to reassure the noble Earl that at least some of the points that he has raised are already covered in the Bill. There are other points upon which, I am afraid, we profoundly and fundamentally disagree, as I suspect I am increasingly finding myself doing as the Committee stage develops. Some of those matters were raised in the other place, but his honourable friend Miss Lynne did not move many amendments of this type in Committee in the other place, and we are now perhaps seeing—courtesy of the noble Earl—a wider exposition of his party's position.
I have to say that we disagree fundamentally over the whole question of whether the agency is required to make sure that absent parents face up to their responsibilities to their children. I hope that on those parts on which the noble Earl and I are at one he is content, and on the parts where we disagree, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Minister has no need to apologise for the length of his reply, because, as he said, the amendment raises an important point. The first point relates to the words:
"the Secretary of State shall have regard both to the general principles",
and those, as the noble Lord said, are the fundamental principles behind the Bill.
The clause goes on to say that the Secretary of State shall have regard not only to both those important principles stated in the legislation, sanctioned by Parliament, scrutinised by both Houses, but also:
"to such other considerations as may be prescribed".
That means prescribed by the Secretary of State. Of those, we know nothing. Parliament will not know what it is doing in sanctioning those words.
Constitutional history goes back a very long way. It goes back to the Statute of Proclamation of Henry VIII. He claimed to change the law by proclamation: what he prescribed was the law. I think, with all temerity in the presence of the noble Earl who is the leading historian of the period, that matter of government by decree, by what is prescribed by the Executive, was contested, and a bitter and costly civil war was fought on it.
The matter was resolved finally in an episode we call the Glorious Revolution—the Glorious Revolution because it vindicated the principle that the laws of the land were made by Parliament, and were not just what the Executive prescribed.
That principle was recognised and adhered to throughout the two succeeding centuries. Towards the end of the last century, there began to be encroachments upon it. That was because at that time collectivism became a popular political philosophy. However, that encroachment was contested; and it has only been recently that we have had the fresh attempt to encroach on parliamentary power to legislate by the Executive with its pretension to legislate as it prescribes.
I have been critical of the Bill, as I was of the 1991 Bill, as an Executive encroachment on Parliament and on the judicature. The essence of the 1991 Act was a wholesale arrogation by the Executive of the jurisdiction by lay magistrates. Lay magistrates go back to the middle of the 13th century. They have been a bulwark of our local judicature ever since, but at one sweep their jurisdiction was taken away and put into the hands of an executive agency.
I should say, in case it might be misunderstood, that I am one of the first to agree that we are singularly fortunate in this country in our Civil Service. We rightly pride ourselves on the fact of its probity and on its loyalty—your Pontings and your Pottingers are very rare creatures indeed—but it is an elite. We need that elite because it is a repository of power, and all power tends to corrupt. The first sign of the corruption is an itch for greater power. That we have seen in this legislation and much of the other social legislation.
We can be certain that if we pass, without protest, the words:
"such other considerations as may be prescribed",

69
that will be paraded triumphantly as a precedent for the next Bill of this type. Last century, the great poet wrote:
"From precedent to precedent where freedom broadens down".
In this legislation, we see bureaucracy broadening down from precedent to precedent.
Whatever else comes out of this, I trust that the Committee will accept Amendment No. 19. As for Amendment No. 20, together with the general principles stated in the Bill, those are of course matters that the magistrates all took into account. The noble Earl does not ask that their consideration should have priority. I cannot think how the Minister ever got that into his head. What the clause says is that the Secretary of State "shall have regard to". He shall take into account any representations made to him.
Of course, just as any court takes into account any representation made to it without the statute book being littered with verbiage of that kind, so, presumably, the Secretary of State under the proposal of the noble Earl will take into account the various matters that he raises. He will not give them, as the Minister appears to think, priority to the exclusion of a duty to the children but will merely give consideration to them, as he certainly should.
7 p.m.
Lord Renton: I hope that Members of the Committee, and in particular the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will forgive me for not having been present for the first part of the discussion. I wish that I had been. In view of my earlier comments about our current methods of legislating, perhaps I may make the following remarks.
I said previously how important it is that we should state the intention of Parliament in general principles for the guidance of those who must enforce the law or obey it. I welcome the method used in subsection (2) and, indeed, apart from line 33 on page 4 of the Bill, that in subsection (1). The noble Earl has properly suggested that that line should be left out.
I also welcome Amendment No. 20 because the noble Earl is enlarging general principles—he is not simply going into hypothetical circumstances—which is a sound way to legislate. He is enlarging the general principles—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Hear, hear!
Lord Renton: I am pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, agrees with that point. The noble Earl was wise to move the amendment and I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say, if anything.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for their support. Of course, they are both right and the Committee should have expected that; we are used to it.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, I am becoming allergic to the phrase "in such manner as may be prescribed". It makes the Secretary of State sound so like a doctor, but he is not, after all, medically qualified.
What we have at stake is the difference between law by consent and law by command. For that reason the question of giving consent to regulation is so vital. I am
70
grateful in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for 1 his approval of my draftsmanship. I am an amateur in these matters and I am well aware of that. I am extremely grateful for the noble Lord's approval.
I am also grateful to the Minister for the care, thoroughness and courtesy that he has devoted to answering the amendments. However, as he agrees, there is a great gulf between us. The Minister did not believe that he had succeeded in crossing it, and he has not. He said that the Government intended to handle these matters consistently and fairly. I am sure that they do, according to their lights. But the trouble is that those words do not mean the same to the Government as they mean to me. To the Government they mean laying down a very detailed set of general rules which applies in all cases. To me they mean judging cases on their merits. Between those two a great gulf is fixed and the Minister has shown no sign of seeing his way across it.
As regards my first general principle, I understand that the intention of the 1991 Act was that, strictly, step-children should always be the responsibility of their natural parents. But that risks infringing the Government's other general principle which is in the Bill; that all the children in one household should be treated equally. Inevitably, if one sticks absolutely literally to that formula they would perhaps be maintained on a different standard.
I also realise that I should have drafted my first general principle more widely. I should have included other children—for example, orphaned relatives—for whom one takes financial responsibility. I have not done so and I apologise for that. It simply illustrates the principle of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that a draftsman cannot foresee everything. I have proved that at my own expense.
As regards the second principle relating to legally enforceable debts, I believe that the Minister misunderstood what was happening. He invoked gambling debts but, of course, they are not legally enforceable. That is why they are proverbially debts of honour; it is the only thing that forces one to pay them. The Minister wanted people subject to the Bill to be treated in the same way as other ordinary families. I come a lot nearer to achieving that than he does. I cannot get out of my debts by pleading that I must maintain my children—it would be very nice if I could—but these people are forced to get out of a lot of debts on that principle. In fact, they are forced to default on them, and defaults are always to the injury of third parties.
I believe that the kind of priority that the Government give to child maintenance has in the end brought it into contempt for the law. Where people have legal obligations and they contradict each other, an attempt to strike a balance must be made. You cannot say that one takes priority over all the rest.
As regards the third and fifth general principles, the Minister believes that the Government have taken steps. I do not believe that those steps are adequate. One of us is wrong. If I am wrong the provision that I seek to put on the statute book will do no harm. It will lie there

71
inert; that is the worst that it can do. But if the Minister is wrong the proviso might do a great deal to avoid real injustice.
When the Minister invokes the principle of protected income—that every absent parent is allowed more than £30 income support—he has not taken on board the fact that it is not the purpose of income support to provide for work expenses. Everyone knows that work expenses make life a great deal more expensive. If the Minister really believes that he has dealt with all the injustices—that he has provided for all the cases in which the absent parent is worse off going to work than he would be on benefit—he is very much mistaken. I shall not deal again with the number of cases because I shall be repeating myself.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, too was mistaken in believing that the absent parent must always be better off than the parent with care. Perhaps I may take an elementary example: that the parent with care might have married a millionaire. If one is trying to keep up the commuting expenses of a season ticket and is receiving only a small part of that back by going to work, one is a great deal worse off than if one is in receipt of benefit. On the other hand, the parent with care may be within a pound or two of the income support level. It is essential that we understand that injustice may be done to either sex and we should be equally interested no matter which sex is the victim.
I have a great deal of briefing material about cases in which Section 2 has been invoked. I shall not go into them because many are sub judice. However, I assure the Minister that subsection (2) is not having anything like the effect that he wishes. Since I wish it too, I can see only one way to go forward, which is to ask the opinion of the Committee.
7.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 72.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Barnett, L.

Lawrence, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mar, C.

David, B.

Meston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monkswell, L.

Faithfull, B.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Palmer, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Geraint, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Kilbracken, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Astor, V.

Aldington, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Annaly, L.

Balfour, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

72

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brentford, V.

McConnell, L.

Cadman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Chesham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Colwyn, L.

Morton, E.

Denham, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northesk, E.

Downshire, M.

O'Cathain, B.

Dundonald, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elles, B.

Pender, L.

Elton, L.

Prior, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Flather, B.

Rennell, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Sharpies, B.

Gridley, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hertford, M.

Strange, B.

Holderness, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Swansea, L.

Howe, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller]

Trefgarne, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Trumpington, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Vivian. L.

Leigh, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Long, V.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.18 p.m.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Lord Lucas: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.20 p.m.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Lucas.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord how far it is proposed we progress this evening. I ask that because some of us have late amendments. I venture to remind the noble Lord that earlier in the Session we were assured that in future we should not be sitting very late into the evening; that one of the reasons why the 1991 Act went so wrong was because we sat habitually late into the evening so that there could be no realistic Divisions; and that today we had a long Statement which lasted three-quarters of an hour introduced under the rather euphemistic rubric, "at a convenient moment after 3.30".
Lord Lucas: I believe that this is properly a matter for the usual channels, and I shall make sure that they communicate effectively with the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1995
7.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order is intended to give effect without modification to the final recommendations for the new parliamentary constituencies contained in the fourth periodic report of the Boundary Commission for England. Article 2 of the order substitutes the 529 constituencies described in the schedule for the present 524 constituencies in England. The draft order has already been approved in another place and, if it is approved by this House tonight, the Home Secretary will submit it to Her Majesty in Council to be made. The order will come into operation on the 14th day after the day on which it is made, but will not affect the existing boundaries until the first general election held thereafter.
The Boundary Commission for England is one of four parliamentary boundary commissions constituted under the first schedule to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. Under the 1986 Act they are required to carry out a general review of parliamentary constituency boundaries not less than 10 years and not more than 15 years from the date of the submission of their last report. The Boundary Commissions Act 1992 amended that provision to require that general reviews should be carried out not less that eight and not more than 12 years after the submission of the previous report. It further required that the first mandatory report after the passage of the Act should be submitted to the relevant Secretary of State before 31st December 1994.
As your Lordships will be aware, the report of the Scottish Boundary Commission and report of the Welsh Boundary Commission were both debated in March and the orders have been approved by Her Majesty in Council. I understand that the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland hopes to submit its report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland this month.
This is the first periodic review by the English Boundary Commission since the 1992 Act came into force. It was submitted to my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, on 12th April. Although the report was submitted late, the 1992 Act specifically provides that a failure by any boundary commission to submit a report within the time limit of 31st December 1994 does not invalidate that report for the purposes of any enactment.
The processes by which a boundary commission carries out its task are governed by a series of rules for the redistribution of seats. The rules are to be found in Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act and, therefore, have been expressly approved by Parliament.
The rules allow the commission a good deal of discretion in meeting what is recognised to be a difficult and challenging task. The commission must have regard to a wide range of local and other concerns in considering its proposals and the rules provide the framework within
74
which the commission should have to take account of issues such as local community ties, geographical and administrative boundaries, and equality of electorates.
The procedures which are to be followed by a commission are also governed by the legislation. The commission must publish its provisional recommendations in at least one newspaper circulating in the affected constituencies. If the commission receives any representations objecting to the proposed recommendations from an interested authority or body of at least 100 electors, it is required to hold a local public inquiry. Following any such inquiry the commission must publish revised recommendations and may, if it so determines, hold one or more further inquiries. It is, however, not obliged to hold any such further inquiries.
Inevitably, in any area considered by the commission there is a range of opinions as to the best way in which to determine a constituency's boundaries and often several fully developed options, any of which would provide a solution with varying degrees of effectiveness. In many cases, the final recommendation may be very finely balanced and often the commission must find a compromise between closely argued local views.
That is a difficult and painstaking task. During the course of the review of the English constituencies, the Boundary Commission undertook public inquiries in almost all of the London boroughs, and in the majority of the metropolitan districts and non-metropolitan districts. Second inquiries were carried in two counties, Hampshire and Devon, when proposals not previously considered at an inquiry were introduced in representations after the close of the first public inquiry.
All periodic reports of general reviews are considered at the time to be controversial and to have effected wide reaching change. The report attracted a considerable amount of discussion and debate while the review was underway, when it was the focus of an astonishing fivefold increase in the number of representations received.
There are good reasons why there has been so much interest recorded by those involved in the process. The Boundary Commission has on this occasion taken a much higher profile in publicising its activity and has deliberately set out to ensure that its decision-making processes were as transparent as could be achieved. That has undoubtedly accounted for much of the additional interest shown.
It is, however, the case that the report now produced proposes changes to the boundaries of more than 350 English parliamentary seats. That figure.represents more than 70 per cent, of English constituencies. In many cases, the changes are relatively minor, but in many other cases there are substantial changes not just to a constituency but within the whole of a borough or county.
However, before I turn to the detail of the report, I should clarify for your Lordships a particular problem which the review has shared with its immediate predecessors. The Boundary Commission's revue has coincided with that of other review bodies looking at local government reorganisation. The boundary commissions are required by the 1992 Act to report within the specified deadline and it was not, therefore, an option for them to delay or defer their work until that local government

75
reorganisation had been completed. The effect of the 1992 Act was that the English Boundary Commission had to take account of only those local authority boundaries which were in force on 1st June 1994.
The commission has advised that subsequent changes, particularly in the non-Metropolitan counties, could affect the constituency boundaries which are not proposed. The commission may, therefore, decide to hold interim reviews in parts of England to consider further realignments of constituency boundaries where the effects of local government reorganisation make that necessary. That is entirely a matter for the commission to decide, but I understand that it is unlikely that any interim review would be completed before the next general election.
In turning to the recommendations themselves, I propose to confine my comments to a small number of issues which I believe amply demonstrate the concerns with which the Boundary Commission has striven in reaching its conclusions.
The single most significant recommendation is that there should be an increase in the number of constituencies in England from the present 524 to 529. The commission's proposal for an increase in the overall number of seats in England is one which I know was not arrived at without very careful consideration of other options. There would have been an increase of 20 seats rather than the five now proposed if the commission had not been able to balance some increases by reductions in the number of seats elsewhere.
The major reduction in the number of constituencies has been in the London boroughs. For the first time, the commission has taken the view that in London it is necessary to cross borough boundaries in order that it may meet the requirements of Rule 5, which require it to recommend constituencies which are as near to the electoral quota as is practicable. That decision was not taken lightly: it required the commission to depart from Rule 4, which requires that the boundaries of the London boroughs should not be broken. The decision is one which the commission may make within the rules. However, before so doing, the commission set itself a number of criteria to be applied under any consideration of cross-boundary constituencies.
The criteria required the commission to consider crossing of boundaries only where the result would not be to increase the number of seats which would otherwise have been allocated to the individual boroughs; and where the result provided a better match with the electoral quota than would otherwise have been achieved. No boroughs on opposite sides of the River Thames below Kingston upon Thames were paired.
The practice has attracted a considerable amount of discussion among the London electorate and with local political parties. The effect has been that the commission is now proposing three fewer seats in Greater London than would have been the case otherwise. As a result, the commission is now proposing that the London boroughs should return 74 Members to Parliament, which compares with the current level of 84 seats and with the position in 1983 prior to the third periodic review when the capital was represented by 92 MPs.
76
The commission has also made it clear that in metropolitan areas outside of London it has been prepared to make much greater use than previously of the authority to recommend constituencies which cross metropolitan district boundaries. The rules require so far as is practicable that constituencies in metropolitan boroughs should be contained within county boundaries, but they do not restrict the commission from crossing borough boundaries. The commission's recommendations on this occasion call for borough boundaries to be crossed on 13 occasions, compared with six in 1983. The commission has found it right to propose a reduction of five in the number of metropolitan county constituencies against the present number.
By comparison, the review has resulted in proposals for an overall increase in the number of constituencies in non-metropolitan counties. The counties will, if the recommendations are accepted by Parliament and approved by Her Majesty in Council, return 20 more representatives to the other place from the next general election.
The recommendations on three areas outside London have given rise to particular debate. In West Sussex, the commission was faced with two strongly argued but opposing options on how to deal with the distribution of seats representing towns along the coast and their immediate hinterland. The commission held a public inquiry and considered representations made to it. The public inquiry was conducted by an independent assistant commissioner selected from a panel appointed by the Home Secretary. The commission expressed some sympathy with the proposal that the area should be represented by constituencies which linked the coastal towns with their immediate adjoining hinterland, but concluded that the better solution would be to create constituencies which linked the coastal towns together.
In Manchester and Trafford, the public inquiry revealed strong local feeling that the Wythenshawe community should not be divided as the commission had originally proposed. The commission considered a number of alternative options which had been suggested to it, and concluded that the original proposals should be modified. The effect of that response to local opinion was that it was no longer possible to bring together in a single constituency the community of Sale, which had been split between constituencies by the third periodic review. The commission's decision to reflect the strength of local views as expressed to it resulted in a further very strongly mounted campaign of petitions and representations, the "Save our Sale" campaign, seeking a reversion to the original proposals.
In the final example, the commission's proposals for the boundaries of constituencies in Lancashire proved the cause of considerable debate locally. The Rossendale community has a clear sense of local identity. The Boundary Commission's initial proposals called for the town of Haslingden to be separated from the Rossendale and Darwen constituency, breaking that community. The commission received a great many representations arguing for the retention of local ties, and in February this year I received an all party delegation on the matter headed by Sir David Trippier, the former Member for the constituency. Rossendale would have provided a coherent

77
and reasonably sized constituency. The commission held to its original proposals on the grounds that it would not have been possible to construct sensible constituencies in the remainder of Lancashire.
Many other points could be made about the recommendations for individual constituencies and I have no doubt that some of your Lordships will have a number of issues which you will wish to raise in the course of the debate. Before I sit down to allow that debate to start it is right that I should touch on the question of the powers held by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to modify Boundary Commission recommendations.
Parliament has thought it right to give the Secretary of State an unfettered power to modify a Boundary Commission recommendation. In the debate in another place the Home Secretary made it clear that he recognises the enormous benefits which the constitutional process achieves from the impartiality which the Boundary Commission is seen to bring to the difficult and sensitive work in which it is engaged. The Home Secretary has not thought it appropriate to modify the recommendations of the Boundary Commission for England presented in this fourth periodic review. But I have no hesitation in commending the commission's final recommendations to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 6th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for the detail in which she described the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, and indeed the final decision of the Secretary of State. Let me say immediately that it would be, in my view, a gross impertinence for this House to intervene by way of a vote in the composition of another place. I do not know what the constitutional division of powers is but it is not a matter where I think we should do anything other than express general views about the issues which, constitutionally, have to come before us. In introducing my few remarks I pay tribute to the work of the commission and to its stalwart concern throughout for the many representations which were made to it. The Minister referred to a five-fold increase. I understand that there were no fewer than 40,000 representations made to the commission. That must have been a considerable task which I believe the commission carried out with its usual independence.
It is important to compare our country with a number of other countries, notably the United States, where Mr. Gerry Mander has many successors and where there are deliberate and quite conscious attempts to change boundaries in order to achieve certain social and ethnic effects. One can contrast that with our system where the commission is independent of government and independent also, of course, of opposition. That contrast is marked and is, I believe, very much in our favour. However, I am not sure what it is that we are supposed to do other than give a sort of good housekeeping seal of approval to the commission. I shall not do anything other than make a couple of quite general remarks which might be thought to be applicable to our responsibilities too.
78
The first is on the size of the House of Commons. The effect of the commission's recommendations and of the recommendations of the commissions for Wales and Scotland—I understand that we expect the Northern Ireland commission report within a short period—is to increase the House of Commons to 659 Members. I think that that is too many. The House of Lords is obviously far too large and has far too many Members. A rational distribution of responsibilities and a rational size of constituency would lead, I believe—a number of my honourable friends have said so—to a House of Commons of around 450 Members. I believe that the country would be grateful if the next time instructions are given to the commission they are given with the deliberate intention of reducing the size of the House of Commons to a body which balances the responsibilities of Members of Parliament to their constituents with the practical problems of running a legislative chamber which is at the moment too large.
At the moment Members of the House of Commons have far too limited an opportunity to intervene in the business of the House or even to intervene in the business of committees. It would, in my view, be a rational reform to reduce the number of Members to 450. When we abolish hereditary peerages in this House, it will be possible for us to reduce this House to a comparable number.
The second point I want to make may not come directly out of the Boundary Commission's report but I hope your Lordships will allow me to comment on the inadequacy of the register. It is absurd in these days of information technology that we have a register once a year only which takes a number of months to compile. It is then published and, some months later, it comes into effect and is not changed for another 12 months. It is perfectly possible these days to have a register in which corrections are made as they occur, as they would be on a valuation list, a rating list or a council tax list, and for them to be frozen when a general election is called. The effect of having an annual register rather than a rolling register together with the effect of the poll tax and the exclusion—to use the European Community word—of large parts of the population from their civic responsibilities is that if we compare the parliamentary roll with the local government roll and local government taxation records at least a million people—probably substantially more—are excluded from parliamentary voting. That is not a satisfactory basis for democracy. It ill becomes my saying so but as an individual who believes in parliamentary democracy, I hope that the House will forgive me for making that additional point.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh of Haringey, said, we are being invited to agree to an increase in the size of the House of Commons. We should ask ourselves what precisely is the case for a further increase in the number of Members of another place. As the noble Baroness said, when she referred to the Welsh and Scottish orders and the forthcoming order in relation to Northern Ireland, we are now talking about a House of Commons of 659 Members. That is by far the largest legislature among the advanced industrial democracies.

79
The German Bundestag, admittedly, will have three more members than the next House of Commons. However, Germany is about 50 per cent, larger than the United Kingdom, both in respect of population and land area. France, with a land area more than twice the size of ours and a population about the same, will have 82 fewer members of the Chamber of Deputies than will exist in this country. The most striking comparison is with the United States. Here is a country 40 times the size of the United Kingdom with a population four times as large. Yet the House of Representatives is already only two-thirds the size of the House of Commons. The power of its members, through the committee system, is infinitely greater.
Yet we are asked to approve a further increase in the size of the House of Commons. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh of Haringey, I believe that some justification is called for from the noble Baroness who moved the order today.
Faced with some criticism, not altogether surprisingly from outside Parliament, in moving the order Mr. Howard said that the rules set out in the second schedule to the 1986 Act had the effect of requiring that the number of parliamentary constituencies in England should not be substantially greater than 507. However, he added that,
"the report that we are debating recommends that there should be a further increase of five to 529. The difficulty arises from the fact that the 1986 Act does not define what may be properly considered as 'substantially greater'".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/6/95; col. 801.]
He added that it was for the commission to exercise its discretion in determining how to interpret that particular rule.
I do not believe that that is acceptable. On the basis of that rule, there are already 17 more seats in England than the 507 to which I referred. Now there are to be another five. Mr. Howard said that the Government agreed in principle that the size of the House of Commons should be stabilised. However, the Government have rejected the proposal of the Home Affairs Committee aimed at achieving that result.
Mr. Howard said that there would have to be consultations with interested parties. I have no objection to that. However, would it not be far more sensible to consider attempting to achieve a reduction in the number of seats in another place combined with an indication that the money saved would be used to improve the inadequate facilities for private Members in the House of Commons and also, to a degree, their accommodation?
The Government constantly assure us of their determination to secure value for money in the public service. It seems to me that it is a very good idea to make sure, just for once, that that applies to politicians as well as to anyone else.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Monks well: I rise to make an observation about our responsibilities as the House of Lords. We have the right and, if necessary, the duty to amend or reject orders that are placed before us. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is not in his place, but I am sure that had he been present he would have supported me in
80
that statement. It is not my intention to suggest either amendment or rejection of the order in front of us today, but it is worth while making a few observations.
From my personal experience of the operation of the Boundary Commission, I wholeheartedly endorse the compliments that have been paid to it in arriving at a solution to difficult problems which is, in general, fair and just. I refer particularly to the situation which faced the Boundary Commission with regard to Manchester and Trafford. The saving of the community of Wythenshawe following a public inquiry was an important act by the Boundary Commission. It reflects strongly held views and will be of immense benefit to the local communities not only in Wythenshawe but also in other parts of Manchester and Trafford. They will have Members of Parliament who can represent genuine communities. That will be wholly beneficial to our electoral process.
I said that it is possible and, if necessary, our duty to amend or reject regulations such as these. It is important to recognise that the Minister did not see fit to amend the recommendations of the Boundary Commission because in this context it is important that politicians stand back from the independent review that has been conducted.
One of the problems that we have to face is the make-up of this Chamber. It has an inherent Conservative majority, not only through hereditary peerages. If hereditary peerages were abolished tomorrow, the Conservatives would still have an in-built majority over the Opposition. Therefore, we do not have the standing to say that we, as the House of Lords, can look at matters independently. As a nation we have to consider how, within the parliamentary' process, we have some oversight over the overseers.
Regarding the size of the House of Commons, I join with other speakers in this debate in suggesting that the Members of the House of Commons represent too few people. However, I suggest that we should not compare this country with the United States of America, where a Congressman in the House of Representatives represents approximately half a million people. The equivalent is much more akin to the European Parliament, where Members of the European Parliament represent half a million people. If Members of the House of Commons were to represent 100,000 people rather than the half million that Congressmen and Members of the European Parliament represent, we might arrive at a more sensible size for the House of Commons.
Finally, I support the final comments made by my noble friend Lord Mclntosh of Haringey from the Front Bench about the exclusion of electors—people who have the right to take part in our parliamentary electoral process—for various reasons, partly bureaucratic and partly unfortunate accidents of history and legislation. Perhaps I may refer to the council tax. Something ought to be done about that denial of democracy. I suggest that the figure is rather greater than the 1 million or 2 million that my noble friend suggests. I support the Motion.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although I yield to none in supporting your Lordships' right to amend any primary legislation coming from another place, and voting for or against secondary legislation when it comes before us, I feel that on this occasion regarding this specific matter it

81
is essentially a matter for another place. It would be idle for us to think for one moment that we could vote against it. The issue is for another place to decide.
Having said that, perhaps I may comment on a view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, about the register. Perhaps I may remind him that entitlement to be on the register, or the need to be struck off it, varies in every constituency by dozens of people every day of the year. For us to have a shorter period than one year for the publication of the register—it is an expensive cost for the public to bear—is to my mind quite impracticable, with great respect to the noble Lord.
The only other matter—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord is moving to another subject, perhaps I may say that if that publication were done in isolation, he would be right. But for local taxation purposes, registers are provided which change from day to day. That was the whole basis of the poll tax and why the tax was so wicked.
Lord Renton: My Lords, quite frankly, in a sense that parliamentary register is the foundation of our democracy. We have to reach a specific date for young people to become qualified; and we have to give them the opportunity of ensuring that they get on to the register in time for its publication. I believe that we should not yield to that temptation.
Perhaps I may refer to the point which arises in relation to Huntingdonshire which in effect in future will be North and South Huntingdonshire. I looked to see where St. Neots was to be. It is now a large town. It is not mentioned in the order. That is because of the method which the Parliamentary Boundary Commission has to use; namely, by fixing constituencies in relation to wards of local government. St. Neots, important though it is, is not a ward of local government. Therefore we have Eaton Ford, Eaton Socon, Eynesbury and Priory Park; and St. Neots, strangely enough, will be covered by all of those. I mention that only for the record because a number of local people may have wondered.
However, apart from that, I congratulate my noble friend on her presentation of the order and the interest she has aroused in so doing.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I note all the comments of welcome which have been made regarding this substantial piece of work.
Perhaps I may address straight away the issue regarding the size of the House of Commons. It is important, first, that the ratchet effect of-the present system be addressed. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State confirmed during the debate in another place that he would initiate a review of the statutory rules in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 as soon as this fourth general review is complete. That will be when the report of the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission has completed its parliamentary passage. One of the issues which no doubt will have to be addressed is the growth of the size of the House of Commons and what is known as the ratchet effect in the rules. It has the effect of creating an upward pressure as to the size of the House of Commons at each successive review. If that rule is not
82
modified in some way, then that ratchet effect continues because of the methodology that is suggested in the rules as they stand.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised the point about the inadequacy of the electoral register. I note what the noble Lord and my noble friend say. It is an important point. The Government are most anxious that we have as complete a register at is reasonable and practicable. I wish to add to the words of my noble friend; they were important and pertinent. With regard to having a good, effective register, we fund an annual publicity campaign to encourage people to register to vote. That campaign is targeted at a group of people where the level of registration is known to be below the average. We also carry out annual research on which we base regular advice as best practice to electoral registration officers. A number of matters to do with electoral registration are under review in the department. We consult with the political parties. That process will continue.
I wish only to make reference to the abolition of hereditary peerages. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, took licence to bring the matter into the debate. The issue has absolutely nothing to do with the debate in hand. However, I cannot let it pass. I believe that hereditary Peers add greatly to the work of this House and to the effectiveness of this place, and their contribution is considerable. I have to say to the noble Lord, it is underpinned by centuries of tradition. I put this on record because I believe that the noble Lord ought at least to be forewarned because to be forewarned is to be forearmed. I, and I suspect many, both inside and outside the Chamber, will prove doughty fighters against abolition of hereditary peerages. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.57 to 8.20 p.m.]

Child Support Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 6 [Departure directions]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 21, leave out from ("Part") to end of line 24.
The noble Earl said: In the first instance, this is a probing amendment. If I receive the answers I want about the intention of the Bill, I hope that I shall be able quickly to withdraw it. If I do not receive those answers, it might be a different matter.
The point concerns Clause 6, the conditions for a direction for departure from the Bill. The words which I seek to delete are condition (b) for a departure direction:
"The Secretary of State may give a departure direction if …
(b) it is his opinion that, in all the circumstances of the case, it would be just and equitable to give a departure direction".
My question is this: does that add a further restrictive condition to subsection (a), that,
"he is satisfied that the case is one which falls within one or more of the cases set out in Part I of Schedule 4B or in regulations"?

83
In other words, I wish to know, if a request for a departure direction fits all the conditions set out in the schedule and the regulations, does the Secretary of State nevertheless have an unfettered right to stop it going forward, if it appears to him not to be just and equitable to do so? If that were a further restrictive condition on the operation of the departure system, it would give me anxiety. I hope that the Minister can tell me that my fears are misplaced. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Earl pointed out, the amendment removes the requirement placed on the Secretary of State to consider whether giving a departure direction would be just and equitable, before he gives such a direction. It will have the result of allowing a departure direction to be given in any case so long as that case falls within one of those set out in Part I of the new Schedule 4B, as introduced by Schedule 2 to the Bill. Subsections (2) and (3) of the section, however, remain in place. That means that certain aspects of the "just and equitable" issue are expanded upon without the concept itself having been introduced.
I assume that it is the intention that the Secretary of State would still be required to consider whether a departure was just and equitable, taking account of the financial circumstances of both parties and the welfare of the children, but that the requirement to consider all the circumstances of the case, rather than only the financial circumstances of the two parties, would be removed.
The requirement to consider whether it is just and equitable, in all the circumstances of the case, to give a departure direction is a very important feature of the departures scheme. I should like to give an example of the kind of case in which such a consideration may and indeed ought to be material to the decision whether to make a departure direction.
Let us suppose that an absent parent has requested a departure because he has a debt which costs him £25 a week to repay. It is clear that the debt is a reasonable one, that he has not been able to reschedule it and that he therefore has to meet the payments. On the face of it, he may qualify for a departure. However, perhaps we may suppose that he is a horse-racing enthusiast, a car enthusiast or something similar and has a part share in a racehorse which costs him £2,500 a year—not that I indulge in such activities, but I gather that it is pretty expensive. The parent may have other enthusiasms that cost him a great deal of money. The Secretary of State may consider that, in view of the circumstances of the case, it would not be just and equitable to allow a debt to reduce support for the absent parent's own child, when he is spending much more on an expensive hobby.
In other proceedings on Bills, I have been urged to put in words like "just and equitable". This is a novelty in that this time I am being urged to remove the concept of "just and equitable". I hope that the noble Earl can realise that it is a reasonable concept to include in the Bill a provision to ensure that in such circumstances as those that I mentioned—and there will be other examples which we could devise—the Secretary of State can take into account all the circumstances of the case. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: The Minister has made just the kind of points at my expense that one might have expected and which I might have done, had the position been reversed. However, perhaps I may draw his attention to some distinctions. One was made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, when we discussed an equivalent issue on the Jobseekers Bill. The noble Lord pointed out that it is one thing to allow a discretionary power when it is a use of the prerogative of mercy, when it is beneficial and a relaxation, when it is for the benefit of the subject. However, it is quite another to use a discretionary power in a penal manner to deprive people of rights which they would otherwise enjoy. That seems to me to be a fair and important distinction.
The second distinction which I wish to point out to the Minister is that I am drawing attention to the uneasy marriage between a series of statutory conditions and a discretionary provision for things to be just and equitable. I do not see why we need both, or why the two can go together in any sensible way. In fact, I do not see what the provision is doing here.
The third distinction which worries me is this. I entirely take the Minister's point about the racehorse, there is no argument about it. However, I very much wish him to answer this question: why should that decision be taken by the Secretary of State? Why should it not be taken by a child support appeal tribunal or by commissioners? Why should it be the Secretary of State who, as I see it, is here usurping the judicial function in order to try to decide an individual case which ought to be judicially decided by known rules of law? While the Secretary of State takes all the discretion away from the judicial authority, he is giving it to the executive authority. I should like to hear how the Minister can justify that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: First, there is more than the mere question of whether something is beneficial to the absent parent. There is the question of whether it is beneficial to the child or children of the absent parent whose welfare must come into the matter to some extent for there to be a balance in all such matters. We cannot look on it as being a bad thing if the proposal is not beneficial to the absent parent. By definition, asking the absent parent to pay anything, a penny piece to his child, children or to the parent who cares for the children will not be beneficial to the absent parent. I am afraid that the only way one can run a system that would be beneficial to the absent parent is to say to absent parents: "All right, the taxpayer will pay, you may go off and not bother with any financial obligations". I know that that is not what the noble Earl wants to see, but I fear that would be the consequence of his particular question.
The other point that the noble Earl made shows the difference between us. He would like a system that is entirely court-dependent—either on courts as we know them, or on some other kind of courts to be set up by the Government to deal with those cases. I understand that. It is the argument of his party on this matter. I have said all that I have to say on this point, although I have no doubt that we shall return to it on a number of occasions. I mentioned my position in this respect earlier this afternoon. I stand by what I said.

85
There is a point that is worth making; namely, the absent parent can appeal, he can go to the tribunal about the departure. In that case, as I also said this afternoon, the tribunal, whether made up of a single member or of three, will have as its chairman a legally qualified person. To that extent at least, the noble Earl's desire to bring into play some lawyers will be met if the absent parent decides to appeal. In many cases, the absent parent may be prepared to accept the conclusions. In that case I do not see the need to bring in the legal process. That is the position as I see it. "Just and equitable" is a reasonable provision to have in the Bill. I should like to think that the noble Earl can agree that the provision should be there, even if he does not agree that we should have this particular system. Perhaps he can agree that, if we must have it, it is sensible to have these words.
8.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am not sure that the Minister has yet given a justification for using prerogative powers to take away people's legal rights. Nor has he given me any coherent explanation for showing why a discretion in an individual case—which must, if it is to be used properly, involve a full hearing—should be used by the Secretary of State. His answer does not at present make sense to me.
However, rather than asking the opinion of the Committee now, I feel that I must read the Minister's answer very carefully indeed to see whether I can make any more sense of it then than I can now. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 21, at end insert:
("() in cases where the absent parent is applying for departure under Schedule 4B, paragraph (2), it is his opinion that hardship would be caused to the absent parent or any member of his family should he not do so; and").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would insert the provision as printed on the Marshalled List. Its purpose is to introduce evidence of hardship as a fundamental criterion for access to the departure system. Although the Bill introduces some gateway, so to speak, in relation to departure, we are worried that it is perhaps not at present fully balanced.
In the present system an absent parent could gain access to the system merely because, for example, he has high travel-to-work costs, regardless of how much he earns. In the original White Paper regarding improving child support, it was clear that the absent parent would have to meet two conditions. The first was that because of the special circumstances of the case he faces specific additional expenses, not taken into account in the formula. The second was that he would face hardship—that is, he would be unable to support himself and any new family if he were to pay maintenance at the level determined by the formula. This amendment would ensure that departure is not simply to reduce maintenance payments at the expense perhaps of the parent with care, but to ensure that that is coupled with evidence that genuine hardship would be caused were such departure not permitted. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Baroness explained, this amendment will require the Secretary of State to consider whether a refusal to grant a departure would cause hardship to the absent parent or his family; and if he were to consider that it did, he may give a departure direction.
I believe that there are two reasons why this amendment should not be accepted. First, it is inequitable to consider the issue of hardship in respect of the absent parent only. This provision could result in an absent parent benefiting from a departure which would not otherwise have been made; the resultant reduction in maintenance may well cause hardship to the parent with care, but the Secretary of State will have given no consideration to this matter.
Secondly, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. The Bill already contains the provision in new Section 28F(1) (b), which we just discussed, which requires the Secretary of State to consider in all cases whether it would be just and equitable to make a departure direction. This provision enables the Secretary of State to consider all the circumstances of all parties to an assessment—and in particular their financial circumstances. This is a much fairer way of dealing with the issue that this amendment is trying to address; it enables the Secretary of State to look at the situation of the parent with care, the absent parent and any children affected, to balance their needs and then decide whether a departure direction would be just and equitable.
For those reasons—namely, that there is a wider interest to be considered than just the absent parent, and that all three are catered for inside the just and equitable position—I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that reply. Where we are agreed is that we want this measure to be even-handed to all the parties involved in the negotiations. I am not sure that I am persuaded that the words "just and equitable" cover the situation that the Minister outlined. However, I can only take further advice on that point. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 6, line 26, at end insert (", and
(c) of the consideration which has taken place under section 2 as to the welfare of any child likely to. be affected by his decision").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which go rather wider than the particular amendment that I am moving. All three deal with the question of the welfare of the child. That is a concept with which those of us who worked on the 1991 Act are certainly familiar. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that parties are notified about the ways in which the welfare of the children has been considered. This is an attempt to prevent the Secretary of State—if I may put it in a rather pejorative way—going through the motions as regards the welfare of the child.
During the passage of the 1991 legislation, I moved successive amendments in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading. In each case, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who dealt with the Bill, said that each amendment did not go far enough, and at each stage we tried to amend them. At Third Reading the noble and learned Lord agreed to accept the amendment on the basis that it could he changed in the other place; it was changed, and that led to Section 2 of the 1991 Act.
Under Section 2 of the 1991 Act, the welfare of any children has to be taken into consideration when discretionary decisions are made. That was the change that the Government made when the Bill returned to the other place. It refers to the welfare of any children, but only when the people concerned are involved in discretionary decisions.
In practice, although it is maintained that this is considered, we are advised that this statement is made as protection from judicial review. We are also advised that there is little evidence that welfare issues are truly considered or are given any weight. So far as we know, the CSA staff receive very little information on this subject. Staff who make the decisions must be given substantial training in issues of child welfare. Otherwise, lip service only will be paid to this issue, which should be at the centre of the provisions. I think that we can all agree with that.
Counsel representing the Secretary of State for Social Security six months ago in the Biggin case argue that:
"as long as the agency notices welfare in passing it cannot be challenged on the grounds that it did not attach sufficient weight to it. Welfare is not a paramount or even a particularly significant consideration".
The quotation by counsel that welfare is not of paramount consideration is interesting. That is what the debate on the 1991 Act was about. In our first amendment in Committee, we tried to make the welfare of the children the paramount consideration, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will well remember. That is in the Children Act. But in the Child Support Act, the Government were not prepared to accept that because there were other considerations to be taken into account. But the remark made by counsel in the Big gin case for the department was revealing. The judge in the case certainly thought so too. Mr. Justice Thorpe responded:
"If [Section 2 of the 1991 Act] has so little influence on the discretion to enforce the formula assessment, the heading words of the section seem hollow indeed. I am not convinced that the agency is at liberty to decide whether or not to issue a deductions of earnings order without giving considerable weight to the welfare principle".
The response of the Government in the other place, at its third sitting in Committee, was that that was unnecessary as all reasons should be given in the decision and it would be wrong to single out the welfare of the child.
The Minister provided Members of Standing Committee E with a note concerning the guidance given to CSOs when dealing with the welfare of the child, arguing that among the other factors which form part of a CSA decision are the interests of the taxpayer. I have a copy of that note, which was placed in the Library of the other place by Mr. Alistair Burt on 24th April. He gives the background to the consideration of the welfare of the child.
It is interesting that at the end of the note—the Minister goes into some detail—paragraph 11 says:
"A code of practice is being developed which will give advice to staff and information to advisers. It will be available later this year".
It seems odd to me, unless I have missed the point, that we should still he waiting for a code of practice which spells out to advisers what they should do about this consideration of the welfare of the child.
In practice, the reasons given for decisions of CSOs and the Secretary of State do not include details as to the welfare of the child. This amendment is intended to persuade the Government to give a commitment about the importance of this issue, which was fought hard for—I can speak from experience—during the debate in 1991.
The guidance referred to by the Minister in the other place—the child support manual and the child support adjudication guide—advises CSA staff to consider the welfare of children when making discretionary decisions. It would be surprising if it did not, because that is a requirement of the 1991 Act. However, it does not include guidance about how such decisions are to be made. The only factor specifically mentioned is that of mental or physical disability.
Also, it is incorrect to include the interests of the taxpayer as a factor which must be taken into account by CSA staff. I am sure that the Minister, when he responds, will refer to the interests of the taxpayer. But that is a matter for the Government. They are dealing with the Bill. It is not a matter for the CSA staff. Unlike the duty of parents to maintain children in Section 1 of the 1991 Act and the welfare of the child in Section 2, the interests of the taxpayer ate not contained in the Act at all as a specific requirement to be considered.
We would argue that the reality is that under the current arrangements there is little or no obligation for the child support officers formally to consider the welfare of the child. The commitment to ensuring that decisions are made with regard to that factor is, as I said, demonstrated by the lack of guidance to CSOs about how to implement the provision in practice.
Departure introduces new powers of discretion to the Child Support Agency. In that situation it is essential that the welfare of the child is properly taken into account. This amendment could help to ensure that the agency implements the provisions regarding the welfare of the child made—with a lot of effort, I have to say, in this House and another place—under Section 2 of the 1991 Act. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, moved this amendment. It is a good amendment. Naturally, I should like to see a stronger one, but if I could not have a stronger one I would rather have the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, than mine.
Amendment No. 43, which stands in my name, is a good deal more forceful. In 1991 I was one of those who argued against using the word "paramount" in relation to the interests of the child. Mea culpa, I had not realised that the effect of attempting to be reasonable would be to weaken the weight of "the welfare of the child" quite so drastically as it has done. I had not realised that in trying

89
to avoid a situation in which one interest takes priority over all others regardless of the details I had helped create a situation in which the interests of the child had become entirely nugatory. I am ashamed of myself.
As things stand at present. Mr. Pannick, counsel for the Secretary of State in Biggin v. Secretary of State argued that welfare is not paramount or even a particularly significant consideration. In another case decided on 15th May 1995, the commissioner said:
"The overriding purpose of the legislation is to ensure that the absent parent makes proper financial provision for his or her children and the exercise of discretion cannot be circumscribed so as to impede that objective".
In other words, maintenance must he levied whether or not it is in the interests of the child. That appears to be the present state of the law. I do not believe that it is right. After all, we were told with some eloquence in 1991 that it was all being introduced in the interests of the child.
My amendment will, I hope, force a genuine consideration of the interests of the child. It empowers the courts to consider regulations according to whether they serve the interests of the child. It is quite possible that the Minister, who does not believe in parliamentary sovereignty when it is a matter of ministerial discretion, may start to make a great speech about it as soon as it becomes a matter of the authority of the courts. But the construction of statutes is not like the clause in the Thirty-nine Articles which says that the Church may not so expound one part of scripture that it should be repugnant to another. In fact, it is perfectly clear that the courts regularly recognise conflicts between statutes and between different statutory enactments. They have rules for according priority between them. To clarify and add to those rules would not be improper nor would it be outside normal practice.
Moreover, where we have regulations, those regulations have vires. The courts have always been capable of striking down the regulations on the ground that they are outwith the vires. The Minister may remember the case of the Woolwich Building Society v. Inland Revenue, where the Appellate Committee of this House decided that the whole of the regulations were ultra vires and struck them down, lock, stock and barrel. So the effect of bringing regulations under the principle of welfare would be to add a further condition to the vires of the regulations. I do not see that there would be any problem with that.
The meaning of "welfare" is to be the same as in the Children Act 1989. We are all familiar with that. It is capable of working. It would provide for all the children in the household to be treated in the same way: children of the absent parent's second marriage and the step-children. I believe that that gives effect to undertakings made by Mr. Michael Jack in the other place on 18th July 1991. Also, it avoids the risk of a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under the case of Marckx v. Belgium—that is spelt M-a-r-c-k-x in the Belgian manner, and he has no political significance whatsoever—it was ruled that under the clause of the convention requiring respect for family life and prohibiting discrimination it would be contrary to the convention to distinguish between natural children of the household and step-children and others residing in it.
90
So, if we are not to add another to the sad list of our violations of the European convention, the Minister might do well and might save the Government considerable legal costs if he were to accept Amendment No. 43 now. I hope that the Minister will think very seriously about that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Whenever the Secretary of State makes a discretionary decision he is required to consider the welfare of any of the children concerned in the case. Amendment No. 25 would require information about the matters which have been considered in relation to welfare to be conveyed to both the parties to an application for a departure.
If consideration of the welfare of the child affects their decision, the matter will already be covered by the existing wording of Clause 6. Where it does not affect the decision, the amendment would lead to gratuitous information about one parent's family circumstances being passed to the other parent. We shall have to give a great deal of information to each parent about the other. I do not want to add unnecessarily to the information about the family circumstances of one parent that is conveyed to the other parent. For that reason I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment to Clause 6, bearing in mind that if consideration of the welfare of the child affects their decision, that is already covered by the wording in the clause.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, in proposing other amendments relating to the welfare of the child, is addressing issues which arc already part of the substance of child support legislation. Section 2 of the 1991 Act exists to ensure that the welfare of the children is given due weight when discretionary decisions are taken on cases.
The noble Earl wishes to incorporate the 1989 Children Act definition of welfare into the Child Support Act. But Section 1 of the Children Act relates to specific, limited circumstances and to the decisions of courts in those circumstances. The wording of the Children Act section does not readily translate across to child support. Section 2 of the 1991 Act ensures that whenever discretion is being applied, the welfare of any child likely to be affected is considered. I have no evidence which suggests that officials are neglecting their responsibility in this matter. Crucially therefore, the 1991 Act already ensures that due weight is given to the welfare of the children concerned.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. We have seen evidence which perhaps is anecdotal. However, if I send it to the noble Lord perhaps he will consider it in the light of what he said.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall be happy to look at any evidence which the noble Lord has in this regard; and, as I always do, I shall reflect on the various points made during the debate.
Section 1 of the Children Act is specifically about the determination of questions which are central to the child's life—his upbringing; or the administration of his property or the application of any income arising from his property.

91
It also relates to residence and contact orders, and to care and supervision orders. Clearly, in those circumstances, it is right that where the child is so pivotal to the discussion, his welfare should be paramount. However, the impact of child support goes wider than just the child. It is important for Parliament to consider the position of all the people with an interest: the children, their own parents and the wider community of tax payers.
Parliament supports the principle that parents should maintain their own children if they can afford it. The Government believe child support improves the position of children whose parents live apart by opening up opportunities for the parent with care to become self-sufficient by taking up employment, which not only improves the family's standard of living but also has wider implications for the messages given to children about individual responsibility. It was never the intention of Parliament that Section 2 of the 1991 Act should be used to undermine the basic principles of that Act. Yet the noble Earl's amendment would have precisely that effect. It would tie the decision-making process up in knots whenever discretion was involved.
Section 2 of the 1991 Act relates to the exercise of discretion in any case, and the section has no application to the making of regulations. The section is confined to the exercise of discretionary powers by the Secretary of State or a child support officer in individual cases. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, goes further than Section 2 of the 1991 Act by requiring the welfare of the child to be considered whenever the Secretary of State exercises his regulation-making and amending powers. The wording of Section 2 is not appropriate to the general power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under other sections of the Act. If Parliament wished to impose this requirement, then it would be more appropriate to do so either in the individual sections which give the regulation-making power, or in Section 52 of the 1991 Act, which gives a general regulation-making power.
Having said that, I may invite the noble Earl to try an amendment in that regard. However, my answer may be the same so perhaps I can help him, or at least help the rest of us and save the noble Earl the problem of devising more amendments. Bearing in mind the number of amendments the noble Earl has tabled, I am surprised that I have seen him around the place in the past week or so. Such is the quantity of drafting and knowing the time it takes to get drafting out of parliamentary draftsmen, I congratulate the noble Earl on the way he managed to draft these detailed and complex amendments.
I do not believe that it would be right to attach the welfare of the child provision to the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers. Parliament decided that child maintenance should be set within a clear framework, which takes due account of the needs of all the parties involved. It also decided that, fundamentally, the welfare of the child is best served through the support of his own parents based on their ability to pay. There are already safeguards to ensure the proper use of regulation-making powers, such as those relating to intra and ultra vires, and unusual and unexpected use of powers.
92
The noble Earl's amendment would make the Secretary of State liable for the actions of child support officers in the context of Section 2, but would nevertheless create a situation in which individual staff members making decisions on a daily basis would be fearful that their decisions, honestly made, would be subject to court action simply because one or other of the parties objected to them.
As I have explained, consideration of the welfare of the child is already given due weight in child maintenance matters. That is why I do not believe it would be appropriate to write into the Bill this amendment as proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked if we would publish the guidelines on the welfare of the child. Instructions to consider the welfare of any children involved are currently in several procedural guides used by the Child Support Agency staff, and the agency makes those guides available on request. However, the department is in the process of preparing a comprehensive guide for the use of staff making discretionary decisions on behalf of the Secretary of State and in due course that guidance will also be made available on request.
Earl Russell: I do not know by what authority the Minister tells us what was the intention of Parliament in 1991. This provision was introduced in this Chamber. At least three people are present who shared in the responsibility for introducing it. The Minister was not present. How does he know what the intention of Parliament was in 1991? It was certainly my intention—the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, may or may not say it was theirs—that the welfare of the child should be taken into account in making assessments; that we should not have an assessment which was contrary to the welfare of the child. That is not happening.
I can quote one recent communication from the Child Support Agency to a solicitor who was dealing with a case based on Section 2. He said:
"I note your comments regarding the welfare of the children in this assessment. However, you must realise that whilst it is of undoubted concern to the parties concerned, it is not a matter to which the Child Support Agency can become a party".
Is the Minister really sure that Section 2 is being so fully taken into account? I quoted a commissioner's decision. I shall give the Minister the reference for that decision and I hope he will check it before we return to this at another stage. I refer to case CCX/011/1994 Kirkley, decided on 15th May of this year.
I hope that the Minister will think again about whether the welfare of the child is being adequately taken into account. It is not being adequately taken into account if it does not influence the assessments. Before the Minister again invokes the interests of the taxpayer, I remind him that I am a taxpayer and I would be ashamed to build my prosperity on the unnecessary and useless ruin of other households, especially since I think that I would end up paying more taxes in the end because they would not be able to pay any more. So, altruism and self-interest always work in the same direction—
Baroness Seear: Not always.
Earl Russell: My noble friend Lady Seear says "Not always", but that depends on whether self-interest is adequately understood because often it is not. On that point, my noble friend is entirely right. It is not always perceived.
I see nothing whatever wrong with imposing further conditions on the vires of regulations, but if this is not the right place to do it, I shall think about it. I am afraid, however, that the Minister may hear more of this later. I am not satisfied by his replies and until the welfare of the child is actually taken into account, I will not be satisfied.
9 p.m.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to both the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am prepared to concede that the noble Earl made a very good point, although he was extremely rude about one of our amendments earlier. Besides the welfare of the child being paramount, the welfare of the noble Earl is always paramount for those of us who have had to deal with social security matters over many years.
He is right that we accepted in the 1991 Act that it was wrong to regard the concept of the welfare of the child as paramount. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful!, remembers that we moved an amendment in Committee to establish that concept and that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out that we could not make it paramount because of all the other considerations that had to be taken into account. We accepted that on the legal basis. However, we have since found that, in practice, if it is not being ignored, it is largely neglected. We shall have to return to that point in one way or another and send the Minister evidence, which I am sure he will consider, of cases where that is actually happening.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, did not say much about Amendment No. 44, which includes in subsection (2) the remarkable phraseology,
"'ordinary circumstances' include any circumstances which are not extraordinary or amazing".
I do not think that I have ever seen those words before in legislation. Perhaps it was "extraordinary or amazing" that the noble Earl made a Freudian slip, thinking of the possibility of a Liberal Government. I understand that that event is likely to coincide with the bicentennial celebrations of the 1906 Liberal Government.
The Minister has answered our point on Amendment No. 25 in which we sought to deal with a narrower point. We are still not totally happy about the way in which this matter is being handled. As the noble Earl said, we should remember the intention of Parliament. It was not only the expression of this House but actually an amendment moved by the Government in another place, which ended up as Section 2 of the 1991 Act. That led the Government to spell out how they saw the welfare of the child. We do not think that now, in practice, the welfare of the child is being taken into account as it should be. Perhaps we were wrong not to insist at the time on wording to make the welfare of the child paramount, but we understood the legal reasons for that. We are now not sure that that wording is right. As I said, we shall have to return to this point on Report but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Departure Directions: The Cases and Controls]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 25, line 21, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 27 and 38 are cases of what I may describe as "negative discretion" where discretion is used to restrict the legal rights that people might otherwise have enjoyed rather than for purposes of the prerogative of mercy. I shall endeavour to be fairly quick because I hope that the Minister can give me some at least moderately reassuring answers.
Amendment No. 27 deals with the provision for departures. The grounds for departures are to be laid out in regulations. The schedule lays down that the Secretary of State "may" make regulations. Why can it not say "shall"? Does that cautionary use of the word "may" indicate that the Secretary of State, after having all this power to create departures conferred on him and after all the fanfare of trying to make out that all injustice is now rectified, may not do anything about it? If so, I may be tempted at some later stage to press the amendment. I hope that there is a minor reason why the provisions state "may" and I look forward to hearing what it is.
Amendment No. 38 deals with circumstances being prescribed by regulations in which the Secretary of State may disregard travel costs. Again, we have no limit on the vires of that. As the Minister knows, I am interested not only in regulations and in the policy intention, but also in what other people could do with the regulations at some future time. I am afraid that that will always be the case. When regulation-making powers are granted, if we want an early night it be worth drafting them in such a way that other people cannot do too many different things with them. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Amendment No. 27, as the noble Earl explained, seeks to place a duty on the Government to prescribe all the categories of special expenses listed in the new Schedule 4B, as introduced by Schedule 2 to the Bill, as grounds for departure. I am happy to assure the Committee that it certainly is the Government's intention to bring forward regulations to cover all of the areas mentioned in the schedule, but I do not consider it appropriate that the primary legislation should impose such a duty.
We have given careful consideration to the expenses that parents should be able to rely on as grounds for a departure. It would, of course, be possible to draw up a very long list of expenses which any individual may have. But it would be wrong to place all other expenses ahead of child maintenance. We have always made it clear that child support should be the first call on a parent's income, not the last. We must guard against a return to the old system where child support had become almost an option after all other possible expenses had been met. A parent's first duty must be to support his child whenever he is in a position to do so.
We have made it clear that, at least at the outset, the departure system will he tightly circumscribed. The

95
formula assessment will be the norm; departures will provide the flexibility to deal with the exceptional. The list of expenses in the schedule is framed to meet the major concerns which have arisen since the scheme began operating, and there is a power to include other types of expenses should this at any time be considered right. At the same time, experience may show that there are good reasons why a particular type of expense should no longer be included as a ground for making a departure direction. It should be open to the Government to propose amending the list of expenses—whether by adding to or subtracting from the list—if that seems right. I am happy to repeat the assurance I gave a minute or two ago that it is the Government's intention that all these areas will be included.
I turn now to Amendment No. 38 which, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, explained, seeks to remove reference to one of the additional grounds for departure. This is the provision to allow either party to argue that the travel-to-work costs of the other party should not be allowed in the formula assessment. From April, the Government introduced a broad-brush allowance into the maintenance formula to meet high travel-to-work costs. It is our intention to allow the other parent to apply for a departure direction where the application of this allowance is unreasonable.
We recognise that many absent parents, and indeed parents with care who are in work, have always travelled some distance to work, or may have no option but to live a long way away from their place of employment; for example, because their job has relocated or there is no suitable employment in their local area. In such cases it is right that there should be provision for some allowance in the formula to take account of high travelling costs. That is why the Government introduced the broad-brush formula allowance in April. Furthermore, where the broad-brush formula allowance does not properly reflect the cost an individual may incur in travelling to work, he may apply for a departure from the formula so that some account is taken of these extra expenses.
Having said that, there will be instances where an individual is able to satisfy the simple conditions to qualify for a broad-brush formula allowance but it can be argued that it is unfair to allow that to lead to lower maintenance for his children. For example, where an individual has chosen to move some considerable distance from the area where he works, in the full knowledge that the journey is not served by public transport and that travelling costs will be high, the other party may reasonably argue that he should accept the consequences of that choice and not seek to defray the costs at the expense of his children. For those reasons, and having heard my explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for the care which he has taken. He tempts me once again to enter into a discussion of his claim that child maintenance ought to take priority over all other expenses. I shall resist the temptation, but I shall not promise to do it all night. If the Minister wants us to get on, he would be wise not to go on
96
asserting the general points of his thoughts, which a large number of people are likely to want to challenge. I resist the temptation, but only for the time being.
I understand what the noble Lord is saying about the policy intention as regards Amendment No. 38. As I understand it, he means to introduce a provision on intentionality very much along the lines of intentional homelessness. It is not quite the happiest of precedents, but at least it is intelligible. That view, although neither true nor interesting, is at least intelligible, as Bernard Shaw might have put it. But if that is the Minister's policy intention, why does he not say so? Why wrap it up in this general Humpty-Dumpty formula, saying that he can leave out anything he likes; ignore anything he likes and give the Secretary of State discretion to do whatever he likes? It is not the right drafting way of achieving that policy intention.
As regards the main amendment, I am not entirely satisfied with what the Minister said. At this time of night I shall not go into the reasons why, although I believe that he can probably guess pretty well all of them. However, he has given me the major assurance that I wanted that the Secretary of State definitely will introduce regulations. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 25, line 22, at end insert ("including the costs of car ownership when it is impossible or unreasonable to expect the applicant to travel to work by any other method").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is of some importance; indeed, it is one of the most important amendments which I have left tonight. The Minister is familiar with the general outline of the argument. In fact in the Statement on 23rd January he went so far as to express a very faint scintilla of sympathy for it, but it was very faint. He did not lead me into any false hopes.
My concern in this amendment, which deals with car ownership, is that people must remain able to continue going to work. That is in the interests of the children because maintenance cannot be paid if they do not; it is in the interests of the taxpayer because those people cannot pay taxes if they do not; it is in the interests of parents with care if maintenance is in any way above income support level as it is, sometimes.
Sadly, an increasing number of people live in places, especially country areas, where they cannot go to work unless they travel by car. It is a time too when, in the spirit of the Jobseekers Bill, people are being encouraged to travel longer and longer distances to work. If you have a car, you may not find that going to work takes up a particularly high proportion of its use, but if you cannot maintain the car you cannot work. So unless the formula allows you to meet the standing costs of owning a car (the road fund licence, the insurance and the MOT) then you cannot go on working. Also, as often happens—it has happened to a number of the people who have corresponded with me about the Bill—you may be buying the car on an instalment payment system. If you cannot pay those instalments, then you cannot continue to go to work.
I had a letter from someone who was caught by all those things; he called the Child Support Agency helpline to ask

97
how he should cope. He was advised to sell his car. That cannot make sense. I know that the Social Security Select Committee was not persuaded by that point, but its reasons for not being persuaded were less than clear.
If the Minister will not accept the amendment, the Government will be pushed into a position where they find that they are under pressure to lay on adequate public transport to every place in the British Isles. The cost implications of that are fearsome. You cannot press people to do what they cannot do. The interests of keeping people in employment need to come first; neither children nor anyone else benefits if that is not the case. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Earl explained, the amendment seeks to place a duty on the Government to provide for the cost of car ownership where the use of a car is essential for the purposes of travelling to work.
Earl Russell: The Minister may, entirely inadvertently, have misled the Committee. I was not asking the Government to provide for the costs but to allow for them. There is a significant distinction.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, indeed; I stand corrected. I may come to the question of whether people should be provided with these costs slightly later in my argument. Yes, the costs should be allowed for in the calculation of maintenance.
The Committee is aware that the Government intend to bring forward regulations for each of the grounds for departure listed under the category of special expenses. The detailed criteria for the granting of departure directions for each of the grounds are being considered, including the possibility of making some allowance for the costs of car ownership, at least in limited circumstances.
The Bill deliberately does not go into detail on the criteria for qualifying for a departure direction under any of the grounds, partly because extensive detail is inappropriate in primary legislation but, more importantly, to provide the maximum possible flexibility to adjust the system in the light of experience. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee explicitly approves that approach in its report when it says:
"We … consider that it would be difficult to see how substantially greater detail could be written into the bill".
To expand upon the specific issue of whether some account should be taken of the costs of car ownership where use of a car is essential for the purpose of travelling to work, I should say that that raises some difficult issues that need careful consideration.
The majority of people—we are still very much an urban-based society—have the option of using public transport to go to work. However, there may well be some instances where individuals have no option other than to travel to work by car; for example, where there is no public transport available or where a disability makes use of public transport impracticable. But it is extremely unlikely that someone in that position would run their car for the sole purpose of travelling to work and not use it for
98
other social and leisure purposes. The question therefore arises of whether it is right to make allowance for the costs of car ownership aside from the cost of fuel on the journey to and from work. Where people travel by car purely as a matter of personal preference, there is a strong argument that petrol costs in excess of the cost of public transport should not be considered for the purposes of the departure scheme. There are considerable difficulties surrounding the whole question of how one should or could take into account the costs of car ownership in the question of travel to work.
Baroness Seear: The Minister must realise that in parts of the country there is no public transport. For instance, in parts of Cornwall one cannot hold down a job unless one has a car. There is not the transport.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Of course I understand the point that there may not be much public transport. The noble Earl rightly pointed out that it would be prohibitively expensive to arrange public transport in every corner of the Kingdom where someone might fall into this category. Therefore, I fully appreciate the importance of car ownership.
However, car ownership goes a little wider than the absent parent. It goes to the next-door neighbour, whose position I raised previously. He may be happily married and living with his children and, equally, he may need to use his car to go to work. He too will have car costs which he must balance against his obligations to look after his wife and children. He is unable to claim those costs either through the income tax system or through family credit if his wages are sufficiently low.
In this regard, we must try to bear in mind the wider public. I agree that there are difficult issues and I have indicated that we are looking at how to deal with the costs of travelling to work if the person concerned must go by car. I have pointed out a number of issues. I am not sure whether the noble Earl accepts them, but I believe that they are clear and concise. First, they refer to all the population who could be in the same position as regards travel-to-work costs and who do not receive help with those costs. Secondly, they are how to define car costs as opposed to petrol costs when it comes to how much use the person makes of the car for one purpose against another.
This is a difficult issue. I hope that I have indicated to the noble Earl that we are looking carefully at how we can make some allowances for those costs. However, I should not like to pretend for one moment that it would be easy to do so or that they could be given at the rate I suspect he wishes, which is probably very generous, to the absent parent, unlike the poor neighbour who has no such help.
Baroness Faithfull: The Minister said that this is a difficult issue. Does he agree that in some cases it is more expensive to travel by train, especially as fares are rising, than it is to travel by car? Should we not bear that in mind?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend and I might have a discussion about that matter. It might depend, for example, on whether one has parking charges when one gets to work. I suspect that while some train

99
journeys may be comparatively expensive, the total costs of car ownership are such that those journeys are very few.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: This may be a convenient moment to review the departures as against the various headings in sub-paragraph (3). As regards the departures, all are the kind of issues which the magistrates' courts took into account before 1991 and that the family court will take into account when it is established. Secondly, every single one was urged by way of amendment to the 1991 Bill. Thirdly, every single one was resisted. Fourthly, we were unable to carry them in a Division because the Chamber was habitually as empty as it is now late at night, and we knew that the Chief Whip had his little possé outside, including the payroll vote.
It is depressing that by bringing forward these departure headings the Government now recognise that in 1991 they were wrong and your Lordships were right. What is even more depressing is that the Minister, however able—and perhaps it is worse that it has been done so ably—has set his face, as it was set in 1991, against every single amendment which has been put forward.
At any rate, it would have been disarming if he had said, "Yes, we were wrong then and, in view of that, we are considering what is now urged with an open mind". We might have accepted that. But what is unacceptable is the same bland assurance that we had in 1991 that everything in the Bill is absolutely tickety-boo. So much for the departures.
I turn now to the sub-headings under this paragraph. Again, they deal with the sort of matters which magistrates' courts considered. In relation to travel costs, the Minister said that it is difficult to provide otherwise than by regulation for particular cases where travel costs may be exceptional; for example, where there may be rural bus difficulties, train difficulties and so on. Of course, he is right. But those are essentially the sort of matters which a local magistrates' court knows all about and would allow for.
The same applies to the other headings. Therefore, perhaps I may say with real respect to the Minister that it is not good enough for him to utter the same bland phrases which we heard before and to dismiss every single amendment that is put forward. The matters have been argued cogently and the noble Earl has been particularly impressive with his great knowledge of constitutional history and law. It has got him nowhere. Not a single argument has been conceded. All have been brushed aside. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that some little flexibility and humility will be shown when further amendments are proposed.
Lord Carter: The only correction which I would make is in relation to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said when he referred to the fact that, during the passage of the 1991 Act, the Chief Whip had his "little possé" outside. As I remember it, it was a very big possé.
100
Those of us who were involved with the 1991 Act make our remarks under the general heading "I told you so". The Minister will become fairly bored with that as we proceed through the Bill but we shall keep reminding the Government of it.
I understood much of what the Minister said. He said that it would be difficult to determine costs in relation to car ownership. The drafting is not perfect because it is the running of the car that is important rather than the ownership. I have been involved in management accounting for 40 years and I can tell the Minister that it is quite possible, bearing in mind all the other difficulties of the formulae, to calculate the proportion of the running costs of the car involved in travel to work. Other than that, I understood many of the arguments which the Minister put forward.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for giving vent to the impatience which we all feel at the continual resistance to any attempt to be genuinely helpful. It is the glory of this Chamber that those remarks came from the Cross-Benchers and we on the Front Bench of the opposition parties have bitten our tongues. I am glad that it is that way round. It is right that it should be so.
I turn now to the Minister's remarks. In an amendment dealing with car ownership, I might be misunderstood if I said that I did not know whether it was a light at the end of the tunnel or an approaching train. However, the Minister gave a very faint ground for hope. I grant that there are difficulties, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that they are no greater, in fact they are possibly considerably smaller, than other things which we have included in the formula. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff of Chieveley, put it in the case of Woolwich Building Society, to which I recently referred,
"caution, otherwise known as the Treasury, would never allow it".
But caution, otherwise known as the Treasury, by its caution runs itself into all sorts of trouble from which anyone with a genuine concern for saving public money ought to rescue it.
The Minister put forward two arguments which need different sorts of answer. The first is the case of the poor, next-door neighbour. I do not believe that the Minister rightly understood that situation. If the poor next-door neighbour were to attempt to sell the car which takes him to work in order to give more maintenance to his children, I do not believe that his wife or his children would be particularly appreciative. In fact, I think that they would tell him in words of one syllable—or even less—that he should give up any idea of doing any such thing.
It is not, in fact, the case that people living in ordinary happy or moderately happy marriages maintain their children at the expense of going to work. If they should ever attempt to do so, they would of course fail. So the Minister has invoked a comparison which should in principle have been fair; but he has entirely misinterpreted the way that it actually works. In effect, it works against his argument and not for it.
The second point relates to caution, otherwise known as the Treasury. It is the one about the sole purpose of car ownership. It is, of course, possible that people will use cars for other purposes. I am not arguing that they should

101
be allowed the petrol for the mileage used for other purposes. As my amendment says, my basic concern is with ownership. After all, people can give up taking their children to the zoo on a Sunday afternoon. It may not be a good thing for them to do so, but they can. So they could make such adjustments. However, unless they keep the car in such situations they simply cannot go to work. Therefore, there must be an allowance to cover all those costs without which you cannot own a car.
The word "ownership" was chosen for the amendment in order to cover the road fund licence, insurance and the MOT; in other words, those things which simply must be done otherwise you cannot run a car. If people are going to be stopped doing that then working is impossible. Therefore, I argue that the full cost of those expenses should be allowed but that the mileage for private use should not. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to intervene. I give way.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I am now somewhat confused. Under the heading "Special Expenses" in new Schedule 4B, paragraph 2(3) (a), reference is made to,
"costs incurred in travelling to work",
as a grounds for departure. Is the Minister saying that where those costs are incurred when the only means of travelling to work is by car they may not be counted? I must say that we had assumed that the noble Earl's amendment referred to the difference between the costs of travelling to work by car and full ownership. In that respect, we sympathise with the Minister's comment about the analogy with the next-door neighbour.
It would assist us if the Minister could make it clear whether the Government accept that costs detailed in the new Schedule 4B include the cost of running a car in so far as mileage is associated with going to work and that he is merely excluding the additional costs of the car beyond that point.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I can help the noble Baroness. She might find it useful to look at the exchange on this between the Minister and myself on 23rd January when we had the Statement. The position is that the mileage is allowed but the costs of ownership—the ones to which I have been referring—are not. If anything, I think that that is the wrong way round but as we have a lot of things in front of us at the moment, and clearly with the regulations to come we have many more different arguments about this also to come, I shall beg leave to withdraw my amendment for the time being. However, discussion on this subject in public and, I hope, in private may continue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I promised the noble Lord the Chief Whip, whom I am glad to see has returned to the Treasury Bench, that I would not move this Motion until 9.30. May I repeat what I said on the earlier occasion? The Committee is, like most second Chambers, an elderly Chamber. The Committee is, unlike most second Chambers, an unsalaried Chamber. It is quite
102
unreasonable to keep the Committee up on a Bill of this importance at very late hours. However, the matter is far more important than that. At this hour of night, with the Committee as it is, it is quite impossible for the Committee to perform its proper parliamentary function. We saw that in 1991 and the result has been—it should be recognised—a legislative disaster. We do not want another one. It is extremely bad for the Chamber. So I hope we may he assured that the Committee will now adjourn as there can be hereafter no realistic test of opinion in the Lobbies. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Simon of Glaisdale.)
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I listened with care to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. However, I do not agree with him. We have a programme to get through and many amendments have been tabled. I know that it is late but, frankly, it is early in comparison to two of the Committee days last week. I believe we can go a little further. I shall try to exercise some restraint in the length of my speeches and I hope that that will encourage a precedent to be set. We shall try to make some progress because otherwise we shall be in exactly the same situation tomorrow night. I believe that we should make progress tonight as far as we possibly can, as has been agreed through the usual channels. I understand that the noble and learned Lord has tabled some interesting amendments to be discussed later and I understand his concern not to stay here too late. However, I rather fear that if we are to make progress we shall have to do just that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wish to support the Minister. I, too, feel that we should continue, at least past 11 o'clock tonight, and possibly later, because otherwise we shall certainly he here until gone midnight tomorrow. It seems only reasonable that we should try to get the bulk of the business done today if we can.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: It is not ordained from Heaven that we have only two days on this Bill in Committee. Perhaps the Minister would say up to what hour he considers it reasonable—
Lord Carter: It is ordained from a much higher authority—the usual channels.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am afraid that I do not quite know where I am at the moment, and my hearing instrument has come adrift.
The Minister has conducted this Committee stage to all our admiration. Perhaps he will indulge us by saying up to what hour he thinks it reasonable for the Committee to sit tonight on a Bill of this kind. However, I shall not hear what he says.
It is a matter of great joy to us that the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip has been honoured by being summoned to the Privy Council. This is an admirable opportunity for him to show his good will to the Members of the Committee.
On Question, Motion disagreed to.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 have been wrongly marshalled. I shall call Amendment No. 31 first.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 25, line 40, at end insert:
("() costs incurred to support a young person in further or advanced education;").
The noble Earl said: I shall be very brief with this amendment because before we discuss it sensibly there needs to be discussion between the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education.
The liability to maintain a child continues only up to 18, but the need to pay a parental contribution for the child's university education extends well beyond that. The parental contribution may be considerable. A parent who is paying the parental contribution will need a departure in order to allow him to continue to do so. That may be in the interests of the children of the family as a whole.
Either the parent should not be bound to pay a contribution under the Department for Education regulations or, if he pays that contribution, the paying of the contribution needs to be taken into account by a departure under the formula. It is not of desperate importance to me which way that is done, but I hope that the two departments will succeed in getting their heads together and working out a way of making this work. We have enough problems in education with parents who cannot pay the parental contribution without adding any more. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendment proposes a further ground on which an application for a departure might be made—that of costs incurred in supporting a young person in further or advanced education.
Clearly the Government acknowledge the importance of further education and of educating young people. However, we cannot accept that expenses incurred by parents for this purpose should be placed above their responsibility to meet the basic needs of their dependent children. That would he the effect of the amendment. Children who are dependent must take precedence over those who are no longer dependent. Young people who are in further education are no longer dependent. That is a rule which child support has in common with social security benefits. We have always made it clear that a parent's first duty is to provide for the basic needs of his own children, whenever he is in a position to do so.
Where a parent with care has young children for whom she receives child maintenance under the formula as well as an older child in college, she would receive no additional maintenance in respect of the student. It therefore seems illogical to allow an absent parent to apply for a departure on the grounds that he is contributing towards the support of a young person in further education.
It would be quite wrong to let the costs of higher education for an older child take precedence over the basic costs of supporting younger children.
We propose, and are introducing, a system for departing from the formula amount for child support maintenance because we accept that there are cases where the lack of recognition of specific expenses in the formula
104
can cause problems for both absent parents and parents with care. We carried out a thorough review of the child support scheme, culminating in the issue of the White Paper in January. We listened carefully to all representations from Members of Parliament, Members of this House, parents with care, absent parents and their representative organisations.
The list of special expenses that we propose to allow through the departure system reflects our careful consideration of what appeared to be the areas of greatest concern during that review. There were minimal representations on the issue of costs associated with supporting young people in further education in the context of child support. I do not believe that it is necessary, therefore, to include those costs in a scheme intended as a safety valve to relieve areas of greatest pressure.
I have made clear on a number of occasions that the departure system is designed to deal with the issues that have been of major concern since the Act came into operation. It is not our intention to allow any conceivable expense to be cited as grounds for a departure order. To do so would be to return to a discretion-based free-for-all. Therefore, I cannot accept the noble Earl's advice that I should reconsider the matter and accept the amendment. I am afraid that I cannot accept it. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I shall do the Minister the courtesy of taking that answer as a smokescreen behind which real thought can take place. It was a reflex answer. If, at the end of the day, it were to be the Government's considered position, it would mean that the children of all parents caught under the CSA would be unable to go to university. That consequence would not be in the public interest. It certainly would not be welcome in universities; and it certainly would not be welcome to the children.
The Minister's position could make sense only if the parental contribution rules were to be adjusted by the Department for Education in such a way that maintenance being paid under the CSA were allowed for in the contribution rules.
Has the Minister in fact already had any consultation with the Department for Education on the subject; or will he undertake to do so before the next stage of the Bill? If he says yes to that question, then I should be prepared to leave the matter there.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have not personally had consultations with the Department for Education on these matters. So far as I am aware, there has not been any formal consultation with the department. Maintenance is taken into account in the calculation of grants in much the same way as it was before the Child Support Agency was introduced. That, I believe, was the point made by the noble Earl.
I should add that in the context of child support, maintenance, as I have already said, is not an area where there has been most pressure for change. I have indicated that maintenance is taken into account. However, I shall certainly discuss with my honourable friend Mr. Alistair Burt the points raised by the noble Earl and ensure that the

105
point that I have answered him on is correct. I refer to the fact of maintenance being taken into account in the calculation of grant.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. I believe that it creates the possibility of some progress taking place behind the scenes—which I think is the easiest way for it to be done.
There is, of course, a problem about the concept of a dependent child. Formally it may extend only to 18, but in practice any young person at university relying on a parental contribution is, from any practical point of view, dependent. Therefore we must either allow for that, adjust the parental contribution rules to take account of it, or deprive all those young persons of a chance to go to university. As I believe we all agree that that would be a pity, I hope that the two departments can get their act together and tell us at Report stage how jointly they would like to see the system working. Then perhaps we could discuss whether the system really will work.
With that, and with thanks to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I shall now call Amendment No. 32 in the name of the noble Earl Lord Russell.
Earl Russell: I believe that Amendment No. 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, comes first.
Lord Carter: The grouping list may not be right.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Yes, it is.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 25, line 40, at end insert:
("() child care costs incurred by a person with care who is in full-time or part-time employment;").
The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendment No. 32 and speak to Amendment No. 30. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, whose name is on Amendment No. 32, will somehow find a way of entering the debate.
'The two amendments deal with child care costs as a factor in departure. The purpose is to ensure that parents with care who will suffer hardship as a result of staying in work shall be allowed access to the departure process to increase their maintenance where the money is available from the absent parent on the grounds of child care costs. It was debated in the other place, and rejected by the Government on the basis that child care costs are already taken into account in the carer element of the formula and through the provision of the new child care allowance for claimants on family credit.
I am sure that the Minister will advance the Government's argument which suggested that the carer element can be split between the cost of the parent looking after the child and the cost of paying a child minder or other carer. The Government propose that the carer element of £46.50 per week compares well with the average cost, as they claim, of child care of £40 per week. However, that would leave the parent with care just £6.50 to care for the child after paying the average child minder. We would argue that the carer element cannot be realistically assumed to cover the two expenses.
The Government have also suggested that it is unfair to place a greater burden on the absent parent. However, the Government have made provision for the financial circumstances of both parties to be taken into account before a departure direction is allowed. So the extra burden, in the Government's phrase, would only be asked of those absent parents who can afford to pay more maintenance.
The Government have also said that there was little evidence that the lack of child care expenses in the formula was causing difficulties. However, the monitoring from organisations suggests the contrary, particularly in cases where the parent with care is not claiming any benefit but is on a low income. The Government claim that in such cases the parents with care should have sufficient income, together with maintenance received from the absent parent, to meet the costs of child care. The amount of maintenance may be small. Ironically, the absent parent could have his maintenance payments reduced to reflect high travel-to-work costs, yet the parent with care will be unable to apply for similar work expenses to be taken into account.
The Government also argued in the other place that the increase in maintenance would be small; but for many lone parents who are struggling to make ends meet, any small amount would be most welcome, even if it only represented an increase of £2 or £3 a week. We argue that the actual costs are not taken into account. For example, a person with care who is in employment will receive the same level of maintenance, irrespective of whether she has to pay child care costs, as her income which is taken into account is considered before the child care costs. That is the point that I made earlier. Departure would not be granted where the costs had already been fully provided for by the standard formula.
If departure is to be operated in a just and equitable way, the extra burden would only apply to those absent parents who could afford it. Furthermore, absent parents who are having to pay child care costs in order for them or their partner to remain in employment would rightly gain from the amendment. As well as difficulties for low income second families, significant numbers of families separate with the father caring for one of the children and the mother for the others. In the situation where only one of the parents was working, that parent would pay the same amount of maintenance, irrespective of any child care costs incurred in remaining in employment.
It is an important point, it is significant for those who are affected by it. We feel that it should be rectified and that would be addressed by Amendment No. 32. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I must confess to being out of date. I have not yet read the new report published last Friday by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Equal Opportunities Commission. I have been too busy preparing amendments to the Bill. If any of the arguments that are developed prove to be out of date for that reason, I should be grateful to have it pointed out.
I have no particular preference between Amendment No. 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my Amendment No. 32. The great glory of the amendments on child care is that they manage to square all the circles.

107
I believe that they take the interests of the Treasury fully into account. My reasoning for that is like the reasoning of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the child care disregard on family credit in his Budget. That was a very welcome move by the Chancellor and the principles behind it were sound. It takes the interest of the taxpayer into account. It goes with the grain. It helps people to do what they want, rather than forcing them to do what they do not want to do. That is generally a far easier method of legislation from which to get results. That point is very far from negligible in its importance. It helps women to get back into employment. That is the ultimate justification of this amendment.
I argued at Second Reading that the 1991 Act tries to stand on a one-legged tripod. It tries to get everything out of the fathers, when what we need is a three-legged division between fathers paying what they can and mothers earning what they can. Most mothers tell us—and I believe that it is normally true—that they would like to return to work and start trying to support themselves if they could once get over the problem of child care.
Child care is extremely expensive. In our present deregulated labour market low wages are common, and when the Jobseekers Bill is in effect they are likely to become more common. Very often they do not meet the cost of child care. If we get people back into work, they will, of course, begin paying taxes. Being, as I have reminded the Minister many times, a taxpayer myself I believe that there is strength in numbers. I should like there to be more of us. That is in my interest; it would share the burden rather more comfortably. This amendment would satisfy all the interests concerned.
A study by Sally Holtermann from the Day Care Trust on which I previously relied, and which I know is known to the department, makes a case for arguing that the Exchequer would actually obtain a net benefit. I believe that the Institute for Fiscal Studies is slightly more cautious. I do not have the figures available. In either case, the costs would not be very great.
The Minister may choose to tell us that there is an adult personal allowance. There is, but it is not targeted. It is not proportionate to the amount that is actually spent on child care; so it does not provide the incentive to get into employment, the help to get over the hurdle and to float off benefit, which is what we really need.
This amendment is a central plank in our attempt to reassess what is being done under the 1991 Act. It is an attempt to share the costs round so that the burden in any one place should not be crippling. It is a constructive amendment. It is meant to help. I very much hope that it will be considered seriously.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not think that there is much between us on the general matter of principle, of the recognition of the importance of child care, especially in the context of assisting lone parents back into employment. But I am afraid that I do not accept the need for such expenses to be incorporated into the departure system. Perhaps it will clarify why I do not accept that need if I explain how the current legislation makes provision for child care costs.
108
When a maintenance assessment is made, the first stage is to calculate the maintenance requirement, the amount calculated as necessary to meet the basic needs of the child. The maintenance requirement is based on income support rates and includes an amount in respect of the fact that a child needs to be cared for. This carer element is £45.60 if the youngest child is under 11 years of age. Because the need for day-to-day care lessens as children get older, this amount reduces with age and is removed completely when the child reaches the age of 16. The carer element is designed to recognise that either the parent with care has costs, if she stays at home and provides care; or she incurs costs in providing for care, if she chooses to work. Thus, the formula already makes a significant contribution towards any childcare costs that may be incurred.
In addition, when a working person with care is eligible for family credit, up to £40 of her income can be disregarded, as the noble Earl pointed out, in assessing her entitlement to that benefit. Moreover, the family credit rules also allow the disregard of the first £15 of any maintenance received. The additional income provided by that disregard can be used towards the costs of childcare where such costs are incurred. Where the person with carer's income is above those levels, she should have sufficient income to meet such costs. To make any allowance in child support would be to duplicate the childcare provisions in family credit by allowing twice for the same costs.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am speaking now from memory but perhaps the noble Lord would just confirm one point. Am I right in saying that if you receive maximum family credit, you are not effectively in a position to take advantage of the £40 childcare sum?
10 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If you receive maximum family credit, yes, that is probably right. My recollection of this complicated matter is that that is right.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am glad to have that confirmation. In that case, it would follow that those mothers who are on family credit and the poorer mothers, because they receive full family credit, would effectively have no additional allowance for childcare. Therefore the amendment pressed by the noble Earl and my noble friend Lord Carter is even more urgent.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, but they would still have the carer's allowance which comes from the maintenance from the absent parent because, as I explained, the carer element is £45.60 of the maintenance requirement in that regard. So, while my argument is that there should not be double counting, equally my argument is that there is already provision in the system, whether or not the parent with care stays at home. The money is not designed for her. I gather that that is one of the great aggravations of absent parents, who believe that it is designed for her. It is not designed for her as some kind of spousal maintenance. It is in fact designed for her as the carer of the child. If she chooses to work, then that money obviously is available for help in providing alternative care for the child, if that is needed. I think that that is quite clear.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That element is certainly clear. But then there is the ambiguity that if, for example, a mother was receiving full family credit (let us say, £60 or £65 a week) and she was in work receiving another £40, and getting maintenance of, say, £50 or £60, she would be getting the carer's element in maintenance; but because she was on maximum family credit she would receive no additional disregard for childcare. But if she was getting £20 or £30 less than that in family credit because she was earning more and she was also getting maintenance, she would then be entitled to an additional disregard on her family credit. In other words, those with the greatest need and maximum dependence on family credit are least likely to benefit from the childcare arrangements and childcare allowances that they would need to propel or lever them into work.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is an issue on family credit, whether or not we are talking about a parent with care. Here we are talking about the parent with care and the portion of the allowance that comes from the absent parent that is designed to represent the caring part as opposed to the direct payment, if I may call it that, to the child. So the payment has already been made.
I was saying that if the person with care is eligible for family credit, then up to £40 of her income can be disregarded. I use the words "up to" because I appreciate that that does not necessarily mean that £40 is available for every case. That is one of the complexities of family credit.
My principal argument is that included in the amount of money which comes from the absent parent is a portion which takes care of, so to speak, the carer element. If that element is present, then the parent with care either stays at home, and that sum helps to maintain her in her role of looking after the child, or chooses to go to work, when that money is available to help pay for any childcare that she needs while she is out at work. As I said, a parent with care on maximum family credit is unlikely to be working full time. That would mean, therefore, that she would not require the child to be looked after for as long as if she did work full time.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Lord, Lord Carter, decides what to do with his amendment, perhaps I can answer one or two of the Minister's points. I thought he would rely on the carer element. He said £45.60 but I believe he should have said £46.50. He did not answer my point that it is not targeted money. It is not in any way related to the amount actually spent on childcare. It is flat rate and goes to everybody. In fact, the Minister would employ money a great deal more effectively if he would concentrate it on childcare. Then it would provide the incentive effect and enable people to go out to work. That is the crucial point; that people who want to work should be free to do so.
There is an issue of human rights in this regard as well as convenience to the Treasury and everyone else concerned. If the Minister is not prepared to do it this way, then he may be prepared to consider a disregard on income support. He may remember that I made that point on the up-rating statement instantly when the Chancellor brought in his concession on family credit. I know he set his face against that, so I believe he should consider this
110
instead. The trouble with doing it only on family credit is that we help only those who have got into work already and gone through the very slow process of getting family credit set up. I know that the Government are trying to speed that up, which I welcome, but it is a slow job. We need something that will get people back to work. I believe these amendments will; I do not believe that any of the alternatives the Government suggest would. I think this is better and I look forward with great interest to see what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, proposes to do with the amendment.
Lord Carter: The noble Earl will not be too surprised when I decide what to do with the amendments at this time of the evening and at this stage of the Bill. I am now responding to Amendment No. 32 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I have to decide what to do with it as I moved it.
A number of complicated points were made, not least by my noble friend Lady Hollis who made an excellent point about family credit. The Government are adamant on this matter. By reading what was said in the other place I tried to answer the Government's arguments which were made there. Not surprisingly, the brief put the arguments again and did not answer the points I made. Perhaps next time I should allow the Government to make the arguments again and then try to answer them.
We have not finished with this issue. I do not intend to press the matter to a Division now. It is an important point. The report produced earlier last week by the Institute of Fiscal Studies throws some light on the whole of the family credit argument, which is extremely complicated to build into the childcare point in the Bill. We shall have to try again. We shall certainly come back to it on Report. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 32.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 33 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 26, line 10, leave out ("an agreement between them of a prescribed kind") and insert ("a legally binding agreement between them").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 34 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 36, which is a related case. The amendments deal with grounds for departure. They deal with subsection (2), where agreements will be allowed which are of a "prescribed kind". The Committee will know that I am allergic to those words. It is a particular medicine which I do not wish to be prescribed. But it so happens that I also disagree with the policy intention.
I have been trying to lay my hands on the Government's excellently lucid memo to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. They say that they will not cover all agreements and that they intend to leave out some. They are not going to deal with all legally binding debts or agreements, only with a few. I believe that that is a mistaken decision, clothed in a discretion which is so generally worded that we simply cannot address it and try to persuade them to change their mind. That is making a mistake behind a smokescreen, which is confounding a felony. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We are taking Amendments Nos. 34 and 36 together as both seek to remove the power to prescribe in secondary legislation various types of orders and agreements. I shall deal first with Amendment No. 34. It relates to departure applications on the grounds of financial commitments entered into prior to April 1993, that is prior to the coming into force of the 1991 Act. It is intended that such commitments can be cited as ground for a departure order but only where a clear agreement about the maintenance liability for the children was in existence. The rationale of the Government's proposal is that parents who thought the question of their child support liability was settled and entered into the commitment on that basis have been unduly disadvantaged by the child maintenance arrangements brought in by the 1991 Act. However, if no maintenance agreement existed there should be no question of meeting other financial commitments at the expense of support for children.
The sub-paragraph the noble Earl seeks to amend provides for the type of maintenance agreement which will allow a parent to qualify to apply for a departure under this ground to be defined in regulations. Despite the conclusion of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee in its report, the noble Earl continues to press for regulation-making powers to be withdrawn. The proposed amendment would take away the power that enables the type of agreement entered into by absent parents and persons with care to be prescribed in regulations.
The effect of the amendment would be perverse in that it would allow a departure where, for example, the "legally binding agreement" was solely in respect of spousal maintenance with no agreement as to the maintenance liability for children, which is clearly not the intention of the provision. On the other hand, it would exclude other cases such as those where the parents had reached a child maintenance agreement via the old DSS liable relative arrangements. That is exactly the type of case which should be allowed to benefit from the provision.
Turning to Amendment No. 36, the delegated power which the noble Earl seeks to remove is required to allow for more detailed provision to be made for property and capital settlements which are not fully reflected in the formula assessment. The intention is that a departure will be considered if the "broad brush" allowance under the regulations introduced last April underestimated or overestimated the value of the transfer or because no allowance was made and the applicant believes that it should have been made.
This is a complex area and the list of provisions is likely to be lengthy, making it unsuitable for inclusion in primary legislation. It is therefore our intention to introduce regulations to define the type of property transfer which can be considered for a departure. For example, we may wish to prescribe that items such as a second-hand car, new and valuable items of furniture, jewellery, antiques and valuable paintings may be taken into account but not used household equipment or furniture with little or no resale value or the personal effects of the family who remain in the home.
112
As with many aspects of the departure system, time and experience may indicate that some items should be added to or removed from the list. Members of the Committee will be well aware that changes can be made much more readily to regulations than to primary legislation and that they are therefore the most appropriate vehicle for dealing with this issue.
Regulations will, of course, be subject to the affirmative procedure since their exercise will directly affect access to the departure system. In common with the other delegated powers in the Bill, the case for this provision has been accepted by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. With that explanation of the sort of use that we shall make of the two regulation-making powers, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I very much hope that the Minister will take the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee quite as seriously as this when it finds against a Government Bill. The Government have been known—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may remind the noble Earl about the decisions I took on the Jobseekers Bill in pursuance of what that committee said.
Earl Russell: That is a fair point, but I believe I said "the Government" and not "the Minister". I did not mean to make any personal reproach of the Minister. The example I had in mind was the provision in the railways Bill to override the hybrid instrument procedures of this House. The committee expressed itself very strongly on that. The Government were not impressed. If they have the right to a judgment separate from the committee, then, although I take the committee very seriously indeed, so must I. I was also expressing a doubt about the policy intention. Without a doubt about that, I would not have pressed this matter further.
Before leaving the subject, I refer to the Minister's statement that changes can be made more easily by regulations. He did not say by whom. The Government are not the only people who want to change anything in the whole of our legislative system. Occasionally, some of the rest of us want to address the need for change in a particular area. When the matter we wish to change is in regulations it is, as this House discovered on 6th July 1992, extremely difficult to do anything about it.
I am still not at all clear what agreements of a prescribed kind, or any other, the Minister wishes to disregard. I am not at all clear how he intends to set about it. I am not sure that I am happy about it, but I shall read what the Minister said a great deal more carefully and decide what I think about it then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 26, line 40, at end insert:
("() When considering an application for a departure direction under this paragraph the tribunal shall have regard to the contents of section 25 and 25A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.").
The noble Earl said: Once more I begin to feel like Jack-in-the-box. This amendment again deals with grounds for departure. It attempts to provide that they shall be considered in terms of the eight factors listed in Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. It is the same approach; namely, to subject the regulation-making power at the discretion of the Secretary of State to a certain number of general principles. As far as those principles are relevant, they include,
"the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future; the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future; any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage".
Those involve bringing together again responsibility for spousal maintenance and child maintenance. I agree with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, many times tonight, that separating those two simply does not work. It is now seen not to have worked. That is one of the arguments for going back to a court system.
The Minister constantly denigrates the court system, but compared with what we have had since 1991, absolutely anything would be a good system. I may be held to those words, but I hope not. Certainly the court system, warts and all, as it existed before 1991 was a very paradise compared with what we have had since, largely because it did attempt to work in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, outlined earlier this evening in terms of general principles which could then be applied to specific cases. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 has provided us with a very good example of that which I believe is tried and tested and which has worked a lot better than anything under this Bill has ever done. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Earl explained, this amendment proposes that, in considering a departure application on the grounds that there has been a property or capital transfer between the parties, the child support appeal tribunal will have regard to the contents of Sections 25 and 25A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Section 25 lays down the matters to which a court is to have regard in deciding on maintenance payments or property transfers on divorce and so on. Section 25A imposes on the court a duty to consider for how long maintenance to the former spouse should be paid.
The amendment would result in a rather odd situation in that the Secretary of State would not be required to have regard to that legislation although a tribunal would. So where a tribunal was considering an appeal against a Secretary of State's decision, it would apply substantially different criteria from those on which he had based his decision. I doubt the noble Earl, Lord Russell, intended that to be the effect. I think he was trying to aim at the more general point.
We have accepted that where a property or capital transfer was made and it is clear that part of that settlement was made in lieu, or as an early payment, of child maintenance, the financial effect of that transfer should be recognised and reflected in a reduction of ongoing child maintenance liability. We have decided that the reduction
114
should be made as a departure from the formula where the "broad brush" formula adjustment does not properly reflect the effect of the transfer.
In considering such a departure application the Secretary of State will look at the monetary value of the transfer in relation to the maintenance position and reduce the maintenance liability on the basis of the financial effect of the transfer where it would be just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case so to do. Regulations may provide for certain factors which should or should not be taken into account in considering the question.
We do not intend that those regulations should be comprehensive or overly restrictive: the decision-maker must be free to exercise his discretion as he sees fit. It may be that we will feel it necessary to include in regulations some of the matters covered in Sections 25 and 25A of the Matrimonial Causes Act, and they will be discussed at the appropriate time when the regulations are before this place.
However, there are aspects of the Matrimonial Causes Act which we do not feel should apply in the calculation of child support. For example, the Matrimonial Causes Act requires a court to consider not just the current financial circumstances of the parties concerned but also their future financial circumstances in terms of their future earnings capacity and any future financial obligations they may have. It also includes the conduct of the parties as, in some cases, a relevant consideration. That could mean, for example, that a departure decision might be influenced by the question of which party was at fault in causing the breakdown of the relationship. We believe that the conduct of the parties should decidedly not be a factor in considering a departure. I hope that with that explanation the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply. He has gone unerringly for the most difficult points in the amendment. I understand what he says about conduct. It would in fact be appropriate only if we were fully reuniting spousal maintenance and child maintenance.
I take also the point that the Minister makes about the different criteria for the Secretary of State and the tribunal. It was not my intention but I told the Minister at the beginning that in trying to amend the Bill to bring it into line with our principles I am trying to pour new wine into old bottles. That is a notoriously unsuccessful process. The Minister has provided me with one good example of why.
The amendment was put down mainly in order to illustrate the principles which we would like to see, in general terms, to go into a fully redrawn Act on this subject. I accept that it is difficult to insert it into the Bill. I am sorry that it is so, but I understand why. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Effect and duration]:
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 40:
Before Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Child maintenance disregard
.—(1) In section 36(5) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (b), there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(bb) in calculating the income of a person claiming income support, a prescribed amount of any payment or payments of maintenance made or due to be made by—

(i) the claimant's former partner, or the claimant's partner's former partner; or

(ii) the parent of a child who is a member of the claimant's family, except where that parent is the claimant or the claimant's partner,

shall be disregarded;".
(2) At the end of that section, there shall be added the following—
"(6) In this section "partner" shall have the meaning prescribed."").
The noble Baroness said: We believe that Amendment No. 40 is one of the most important that is likely to be moved from the Opposition Benches. We ask that the principle of the disregard be established. I have half a dozen reasons and I am not sure which the Minister will take most seriously. Perhaps I may put forward a few of them.
First, lone parents and their children are very poor. Today 70 per cent. of lone parents are on income support and half are in debt with arrears in rent, fuel and social fund loans. Even a modest disregard of an extra few pounds a week would make a great deal of difference.
Secondly, not only are lone parents very poor but by losing benefit which pound for pound is being replaced with maintenance some become poorer still because they lose all passported benefits. They lose free school dinners, which could be worth £10 per week for two children; they lose health prescriptions for the parent although not for the children; and they face greater insecurity of income because they lose the guarantee of a weekly Giro. At the very least, a modest disregard would compensate at the point at which maintenance benefits equate to income support. At the very least, a disregard would compensate to some degree for the loss of passported benefits and would leave the parent no worse off.
Thirdly, the disregard will give absent parents an incentive to co-operate if children retain some of the allowance. The Minister will say that there is no evidence to prove that; but, equally, there is no evidence to the contrary. Certainly, anecdotal evidence suggests that that is the case. Furthermore, it is undeniable that it will give parents with care an incentive to co-operate. I believe that approximately 40,000 parents with care are refusing to co-operate with the agency and that the agency has found that only 46 per cent. have good cause. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong.
A possible reason for the refusal to co-operate is that the parent with care is better off with a benefit deduction of £9 to £10 per week and then striking a private deal with the absent parent for that £10 and another £5 or £10 on top. He is better off and she is better off; they collude in fraud and the children are better off in consequence. No one—certainly no one on these Benches—supports fraud
116
or the abuse of the system. It is sensible for the Government to recognise that such fraud may occur and to take steps to make it less attractive to the colluding parents. The amendment will help to do that.
Fourthly, the amendment produces greater fairness between the parent with care and the absent parent. All the concessions, which were announced last autumn and which took effect in April, have been made to the sharp-elbowed absent parents. They have extracted concessions from the Government worth some £180 million. We do not begrudge those but as yet nothing has gone to the parents with care who are almost always poorer than the absent parents in terms of the effect of the Bill. A £5 disregard, for example, would cost £110 million gross or some £85 million net if displacing the back-to-work bonus. A £10 disregard, for example, would cost some £205 million gross or £180 million net. That is precisely the scale of the additional moneys that the Government were happy, or at least willing, to return to the absent parents.
I do not regard the softening of the impact of the Child Support Agency on absent fathers as an expenditure commitment on behalf of the Government. I regard it, and I will word it, as a reduction in savings. I regard the principle of the disregard in exactly the same way, no more and no less, as a sensible and reasonable reduction in savings. It is the difference between gross and net savings. It is an honourable difference, not yet one more expenditure item at which the Minister can wave a metaphorical calculator at these Benches. Indeed, given that some of the savings to the absent father are actually being paid for by the parent with care—so that there is a redistribution from the poorer off to the better off; for example, by delaying the date on which maintenance liability begins or by waiving the initial arrears—that equitable treatment is surely only fair.
Fifthly, the Government have accepted the principle of the equivalent of a disregard going to the parent with care but have rolled it up on the model of the Jobseekers Bill and labelled it instead a back-to-work bonus. This is meant to be a Child Support Bill and not a Jobseekers Bill. And yet the Government are responding by turning the disregard into a jobseeker's bonus instead of a child support disregard.
The Government say that by rolling up the disregard into a lump sum and calling it a back-to-work bonus, that creates an incentive for people to go back to work and that a disregard would be a disincentive. The assumption, of course, is that the lone parent's place is in the workplace even if children are as young as one to two-and-a-half years-old. We may argue about that.
I believe that the Minister misreads the situation very profoundly. What stops lone parents going back into work is not the possible disincentive caused by a modest disregard. It is much more significant and fundamental: it is that with very young children of one, two or three years of age, the parent with care might reasonably feel that those very young children have already lost a father and should not also be expected to lose a mother. With such very young children, it is a reasonable choice for the parent with care to want to bring them up herself at home. When the children are somewhat older and reaching nursery age, a parent with care may then be deterred from

117
entering the world of work—as was argued by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Carter—by the high cost of childcare and, above all, the lack of jobs. Lone parents want to work, especially when their children approach and reach school age. The reason they often cannot work is lack of childcare and jobs. Almost certainly they will not be deterred by the possibility of a very modest disregard.
We agree with the Government that over time the only way for lone parents or parents with care to come out of poverty is for them to re-enter the world of work. There is no difference between us about that. But the point at which they are poised for somewhat greater financial comfort because they have re-entered the world of work is not the point at which they most need the rolled-up disregard which is labelled the back-to-work bonus. They need it before that happens—day in, day out, week in, week out, year in, year out, as they struggle to maintain a child on very basic benefits.
Finally, the assumption is that if one is receiving income support, one is not in work; if one is receiving family credit, one is in work and one can have a disregard. My argument is that that obscures the reality of part-time work. If a lone parent can find work, it is likely to be part-time and is more than likely, given the changing nature of the economy, to be for less than 16 hours per week. In that case, the parent continues to receive income support. Such a disregard would help that parent to meet the costs of childcare while holding down that part-time job and while receiving income support which will, at a later stage, allow the parent to springboard into work with longer hours and to move off income support into work plus family credit.
Perhaps I may remind the Minister of the array of reasons I have given in favour of this proposal. First, the lone parent is very poor and needs help. Secondly, by going onto maintenance and off income support, many parents will be poorer still because they will lose passported benefits. Thirdly, such a disregard would give not only the absent parent but, perhaps even more importantly, the parent with care an incentive to co-operate. Fourthly, it produces greater equity. The Government have already returned £180 million to absent parents and a modest disregard would be, in justice, a similar response to the situation and would represent net savings. Finally, parents need the extra help when they are not in work rather than when they are. I move this amendment as a just and equitable response to the poverty of parents with care. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: Briefly, we on these Benches support the amendment. I cannot believe that the Minister will not also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that, however much one may want single parents to get back to work, it surely is not realistic—nor, I would suggest, desirable in most cases—that that should happen when the children are as young as one, two or three years. Although I do not know anything about such matters, it seems only common sense that, at that point, the mother should be aided, if she so wishes, to stay at home rather than have to seek work away from the home.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I listened carefully to the speeches made by the two noble Baronesses on the o subject of supporting a maintenance disregard in income
118
support. I appreciate the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, feels most strongly that such a disregard is the right way forward. However, I do not believe that the noble Baroness will be surprised if I tell her that my colleagues and I hold equally strongly the view that a disregard is not in fact the best way to help families to improve their standard of living and normally, therefore, the quality of their lives.
I am not sure that I want to dwell on one of the arguments put forward; namely, that it might encourage absent parents to pay maintenance and so reduce the need for enforcement action by the Child Support Agency. I do not agree with that view. Many changes have been introduced to help absent parents; and, indeed, to help the parent with care. I am not entirely sure if the campaigns by at least some absent parents to frustrate the purposes of the Act have in any way been reduced. However, that is only one of the arguments.
My colleagues in another place have described how experience has shown—and I believe that we have discussed the matter here in this Chamber on a number of occasions—that the best way of helping families to improve their standard of living has been to ease the move from benefit dependency into work. We know from surveys of lone parents that the majority of them want to return to work. That was very clearly demonstrated in the work carried out for the original child support White Paper which was published in 1990.
The £15 maintenance disregard within the in-work benefits—that is, family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit—is, I believe, a better way of providing help to parents with care who want to work than a disregard in income support. Members of the Committee will be aware that the Bill contains a provision further to assist work incentives and help improve family income. The proposed maintenance bonus which is worth up to £1,000 will provide significant help to parents with care when they start work. I believe that the bonus will be welcomed by parents with care because it will provide them with extra cash at a time when it will be helping them to establish their independence to meet the bridge from being out of work to being in work.
The noble Baroness mentioned the expense of the disregard that she seeks. We estimate that a £5 a week disregard in all cases would cost £110 million a year. That is a considerable sum of money. We believe that the proposed maintenance bonus is a more imaginative and effective use of resources.
I believe that we should help parents to work when they wish to do so, and that we should provide assistance and encouragement to parents with care to make work financially worth while. We are creating an environment where parents with care can return to work if they wish to do so. The existing disregards in the in-work benefits and the proposed maintenance bonus provide the most effective way of providing help and incentives.
I appreciate that one of the other arguments put forward by the noble Baroness is that nothing has been done to help the parent with care. While I understand that argument—and, certainly, the vociferous voices have come from the absent parents—I should like to remind the noble Baroness that, as well as the maintenance bonus, the

119
Government have provided some compensation for the parent with care on family credit or DWA if his or her maintenance is reduced as a result of changes in the legislation.
The grounds for departure also apply equally to the parents with care. For example, if a parent with care works and is liable to contribute to maintenance she can ask for a departure for her travel to work costs. I would remind the Committee that there are also some grounds for departure which are specifically aimed at the parent with care, in particular in paragraph 5 to Schedule 2.
I will concede that I am not arguing that a major shift has been made in favour of the parent with care, but at least I want to counter the suggestion by the noble Baroness that nothing in the Bill helps the parent with care. She also asked me about the numbers refusing to co-operate. Since the launch of the scheme, in 73,400 cases the parent with care has had good cause accepted and has not had to co-operate in seeking maintenance. In 18,000 cases the agency has not accepted the parent with care's refusal to co-operate and has imposed a reduced benefit direction.
I do not suppose the noble Baroness is too surprised that I am not accepting her amendment. I understand where she is coming from on this and her desire to help the parent with care, but I believe that other steps I have mentioned help the parent with care, especially in the transition into work and when the parent with care is in work, perhaps of a low paid nature—
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord has completely ignored the point about the single parent—the parent with care—with small children; for example, a baby and perhaps another child of one or two. I do not know anything about the noble Lord's personal circumstances but I cannot think that even if he were at home he would want his wife, if she had a child of under one and perhaps another child of two, to go out to work. If that is the only parent—for all I know she works morning, noon and night—surely she needs to be with the child. I am the last person to argue against women going out to work but there are circumstances in which that is quite unrealistic and, I should have thought, very undesirable, and this is one of them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As I think I explained in response to an earlier amendment, part and parcel of the maintenance calculations which are made by the agency are to take account of the fact that the child needs a carer—I think there is a nursery rhyme that runs something like that—and that carer requires some resources. That is one of the aspects of the total amount of money that the absent parent is asked to pay to the parent with care.
On the more general question of whether the mother of a one or two year old child should stay at home, I think I am in more than enough trouble with the legislation I have already put through the Chamber without adding to it by coming to a judgment on whether mothers ought to go out. to work if they have young children. Suffice it to say that
120
my wife has extremely strong views on the matter, but I think I shall take a neutral position on that and say that it is a decision for the mother concerned.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That was very prudent of the Minister. I shall come back to the phrase, "a decision for the mother concerned". I think that is the most useful phrase the Minister has uttered for the past quarter of an hour. I think the Minister made three points, one of which he dealt with lightly, the second of which he dealt with in a far more heavy-handed manner, and the third which he ignored altogether.
On the first point, I was glad to note that the Minister did not this evening belabour the question of cost. This is a welcome relief for which I give many thanks, but then it would have been a little impertinent of the Minister to have done so in the light of the fairly substantial hand-outs that the Minister had offered only a month or two ago. I recognise that it would have been inconsistent and graceless of the Minister to have given hand-outs a couple of months back and then to have belaboured the question of cost a couple of months on. At least a decent reticence prevails on that front and I think we are all appreciative.
The second point that the Minister made—which I think he did belabour—was that the Government had adequately, generously, substantially, usefully, undeniably helped parents with care, and that we were failing to recognise this. The evidence for that was, first, a back-to-work bonus—and we shall come to that later. That takes four years before one achieves the maximum sum. That is modelled on the Jobseekers Bill and benefits only those women moving into work, not those women out of work.
Thirdly, the Minister made the point about family credit. Perhaps he did not emphasise sufficiently the fact that the only changes made to family credit were for those affected by the April changes and the preceding changes in the formula. We shall return to that subject in subsequent amendments. Any later changes in maintenance payments will nonetheless not allow for subsequent changes in family credit.
We find that very worrying because, as the Minister will know, family credit is fixed for six months at a time and any discontinuity or erratic quality in maintenance payments will not be overcome by family credit. Therefore, the much vaunted changes in family credit the Minister mentioned are only a temporary smoothing so that, as we change the formula, parents with care will not be immediate losers. That is not to say that that is not welcome, but it is a once-and-for-all concession to get over the Government's difficulties and will do nothing to address the continuing problems of women on family credit. Therefore, that is not a serious contribution to women's welfare.
I note the point about the 18,000 people who did not have good cause and whose benefit was therefore deducted. That was half the number of 40,000 I had estimated. The Government were not able to address our concern that to some extent there was no financial incentive for women to co-operate with the agency, while

121
not colluding with any fraud. The Government would perhaps persuade more of those women to work with the agency were they to have a disregard.
The Government handled the argument in relation to cost lightly. That was wise. The argument that parents with care are being treated generously is not true. I wish to return to the original arguments, which were well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. We all agree that over time the best way for a single parent or parent with care to move out of poverty is to get back into work. There is no doubt about that. However, while they have very young children, perhaps tiny children of six months or 18 months, while child care is not available or affordable, and given the present economic situation in which appropriate jobs are not available, such parents cannot move into work. If they cannot work they are dependent on maintenance. If they are dependent on maintenance they need a disregard now, not rolled up, at the time when they go to work, and they are moving up two or three steps on the ladder and beginning to look forward to a period of relative prosperity.
I think that the Minister agrees with us but is stuck with his brief. He is stuck with the brief because the Jobseekers Bill has cast a long shadow over this Bill. As a result, we have the bright idea of a rolled up, back-to-work bonus. A hack-to-work bonus in the context of jobseekers is relevant. One is dealing for the most part with unemployed men who are moving in and out of the labour market. There is something to be said for a back-to-work bonus which helps to overcome the immediate problems of the costs of getting back into work. That is not the situation with lone parents who are carers. They need the money now, not at the point when their situation is going to improve substantially because they are going into work.
I should like the Minister to respond, because this is one of our most serious anxieties with regard to the Bill. We part with the Liberal Democrats on the issue. We support the principle of a child support agency. We do not begrudge the changes which occurred earlier this year to help absent parents, because we believe that many of them had a good case and were hard done by under this Bill. However, we believe with all our hearts that the Government have not recognised with equal clarity the situation of parents with care. They have not done so because those parents with care, being mothers, do not walk away from their children, do not go on strike, do not abandon their kids, do not "sharp elbow" and do not harass the Minister at public meetings. Had they done so, we might have had a disregard by now.
I hope that the Minister will respond once more. It is a matter about which all noble Lords on the Opposition Benches feel strongly. I believe that in his heart of hearts the Minister would prefer to be on our Benches on this issue. I hope that the Minister will respond to me.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Baroness is at her most beguiling. I am not entirely sure what I can add to the previous arguments. I have some sympathy with the point she made about the parent with care, and the fact that by definition inevitably the parent with care has had to shoulder the responsibility of the children on her own, and so on. However, I sought to explain why I do not believe that we should have a disregard on income
122
support and why I believe it is more important to concentrate on incentives (if I may so call them) to help the parent with care back to work vis-à-vis the bonus. That bonus accumulates. If the parent with care goes into work at any stage, she will be able, so to speak, to cash that figure up to the maximum. I believe that that is important when helping the parent with care into work.
The maintenance disregard on family credit and the like is equally important because in many cases, especially if the children are young, the parent with care is likely to want to work part-time and therefore is not likely to be earning the considerable amounts of money which she might earn if she were able to work full-time. Therefore I believe that the £15 maintenance disregard is important.
The noble Baroness sought to inveigle me to her side by trying to win my sympathy for the parent with care. In many cases she already has my sympathy for the parent with care who is left to bring up the children on her own. However, my sympathy will not quite extend to agreeing with her on the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: With reference to the Minister's care and discretion from reading the gaps and listening to the silences in what the Minister said, I think we can deduce the Minister's own views to which no doubt we shall return.
Basically, the Minister has offered us only one argument in this second round: that a modest disregard would be a disincentive to go back to work. He knows that that is psychologically as well as empirically simply not true. What stops a lone parent going back to work is that the children are too small and child care is unsatisfactory. If relatives are around, it is possible that she will try to do so; otherwise the children are too small and the child care is unsatisfactory. Most lone parents go back to work when the children reach school age. That is a fact. The average time a lone parent spends on income support is only about two and a half years. That is evidence enough that income support, dependency on a benefit, is a passing phase when the children are very small and the mother cannot realistically leave them to go to work. That is the time at which her poverty is most acute; it is the time when her isolation is most acute; it is the time when she most needs the disregard.
I had thought that, despite the occasional double dose of original sin, the Tory Party were at least the party of the family. That is clearly no longer the case. The Tory Party has become the party of "the lone parent's place is in the workplace" concept. Frankly, little attention has been given by the Government to the welfare of the child. That surprises me coming from the Minister and from that party.
Clearly we shall return to the issue with, I hope, many more voices at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [The child maintenance bonus]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 9, line 17, at end insert:

123
("(k) the bonus to accrue at the weekly rate (subject to paragraph (c)) whether or not the child support agency has actually collected the money for each week, in all cases where the total maintenance payable by the absent parent would allow for this.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment ensures that where the agency has failed to collect maintenance on behalf of the parent with care, the parent with care would not be penalised by receiving a reduced lump sum on her return to work. The Minister may tell us that we misunderstand the Bill and that the parent with care will receive the full lump sum notwithstanding, in which case we shall be delighted. However, I fear that the Government may argue that maintenance can only be paid in a lump sum that has been collected. If it is to work effectively as a return to work measure, the agency will need to guarantee it; otherwise parents with care who know that their maintenance has not been collected, due to no fault of their own, will have no such incentive.
If the agency were to pay out the lump sum, the mother would have a modest incentive to go back to work and there would be a bigger incentive for the agency to collect the money from the absent parent and to enforce the measure where necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Although I shall not go into detail, the amendment is a little defective to do what I believe the noble Baroness seeks. As she clearly said, the noble Baroness wishes the weekly bonus to be paid regardless of whether maintenance is actually paid. It should be based therefore on the maintenance assessed rather than the maintenance paid. I shall not go over the arguments in favour of the maintenance bonus; I did that in the last debate.
I wish to try to help alleviate some of the concerns which the noble Baroness has in proposing the amendment. Our plans are that a credit of £5 a week will accrue for each week in respect of which maintenance is paid (or a credit of the actual amount of maintenance paid, if that is less). Where an absent parent pays his maintenance weekly, on time and in full, then it is quite easy to see that a parent with care will accumulate a bonus up to the maximum rate of £5 a week. But we will have to deal with circumstances where payment is not weekly, not on time and not in full.
For example, non-weekly payments may be because the absent parent pays monthly and therefore the Child Support Agency would have to take that into account. People pay every two weeks or every four weeks, as well as monthly. We shall have to look at the payment made over the agreed charge period and translate it to a weekly equivalent. That should not cause a problem. However, a payment might be late and added to a later period. Our aim will be to recognise that such arrears also count towards any bonus due. I hope that that answers some of the concerns of the noble Baroness.
What happens will be complex, I fear, because sometimes people will make sporadic payments, under-payments, arrears, all over a prolonged period. It will not be so obvious what bonus is due. Nevertheless, our aim is the same: to allocate a bonus accordingly for the period over which payments are made.
124
Perhaps I have not gone quite so far as the noble Baroness, because I say that the bonus should be accumulated if the maintenance is paid. However it is paid, we shall try to accommodate the situation, whether it is paid late, paid in arrears, paid weekly, monthly or whatever it is. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness was inviting me to go further—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, I was.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was trying not to be too positive about it, just in case; but I am sure that she wished me to go further and allow the bonus to accumulate, even if the maintenance is not paid at all. I do not think I can go that far. However, I hope that there will be few absent parents who will not split the responsibilities and pay their maintenance and therefore allow the bonus to be accumulated. We all hope that through the improvements made in the agency, it will be able to pursue the absent parents who seem reluctant to pay their dues and will ensure that they pay and that the bonus will be collected for the parent with care, if she returns to work.
While this does not go so far as the noble Baroness wishes, I hope that it is helpful and will show that I am going some of the way in addressing her anxieties.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It does not quite do that because all that the Minister said or conceded is that if any money is paid in the course of one month, six months or a year, it will be apportioned to the weekly bonus base. I had taken it for granted that it would; it is just a question of our computers dealing with it properly. What I was concerned about was where the agency was the collection agency, and where the collection had failed to take place, either because the CSA was inefficient or because the absent parent had managed to avoid making maintenance payments or where maintenance payments had fluctuated for whatever reason, nevertheless the back-to-work bonus would be protected in the circumstances where any failure to pay was no fault of the parent with care. Can the Minister give us some helpful move on this?
11 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not think I can. It is all predicated on the fact that the absent parent pays, as the noble Baroness accepts. So long as he pays, we shall try to equate how he pays with the bonus.
In the case of an absent parent declining to pay and somehow or other still managing to elude all the powers of the agency to call him to account and make him pay—and I hope that such cases will be a very small minority—I do not think that we could pay the bonus because the principal condition is not being observed; namely, that the maintenance is being paid. It is out of the maintenance paid that the £5 bonus rolls up. I know that that will disappoint the noble Baroness, but I hope that I have made my position clear.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Baroness replies, I should like to take up the Minister's description of those who do not pay maintenance as failing to face up to their responsibilities. It sounds awfully like the sort of language that was used about those who did not pay the poll tax. When the Minister talks about using all the

125
resources of the agency to ensure collection, his language sounds remarkably like that used by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in 1991 to justify continuing to chase poll tax defaulters. Will the Minister take warning from that example?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There is a world of difference between how one levies taxation for local government—we could go over all that argument again—and the responsibilities that parents have to their children. That may mark me out as being rather old-fashioned, but I believe that parents have that responsibility and that they should address it when they are separated so far as their means allow.
Earl Russell: In using the words "so far as their means allow" the Minister makes a rather crucial concession. Will he think through the implications of that concession? Will he think it possible that their means may not always allow them to do what is assessed in the formula?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My words should not come as a revelation. I have used words such as "ability to pay" at times today. It depends, I am afraid, on the definition of "means allow". The definitions are in the formula, and within the departure system it would appear that a minority of absent parents, reports about whom I have read over time, think that they should decide how much they pay. I do not believe that they should be given the opportunity to define the expression "means allow".
Earl Russell: What if their bank managers try to define what their means allow?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall not go any further. I do not see what the bank manager has to do with it, unless he is an absent parent.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Am Ito take it from the Minister's reply that the only broadly conceivable circumstance in which the parent with care would not get the back-to-work bonus is if the absent parent refused to pay? In other words, if there were errors, mistakes, delays or ineptitude on the part of the agency in enforcing and collecting—and I have to say that we do not have a lot of confidence so far in the agency's performance in some of those roles—the parent with care would not find herself losing her bonus because of faults that could be largely attributed to the agency. Is it correct that only in circumstances where the absent father was solely to blame would she lose the bonus but where the agency was in any sense a contributory factor, the Government (the taxpayer) would shoulder that responsibility and make up the bonus? Can we at least get that point established?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We are beginning to go down quite difficult roads. I made clear the general principle that the absent parent must pay for the bonus to roll up. I hear the point made by the noble Baroness; namely, that if it is the agency's fault that the absent parent has not paid, where does that leave the parent with care? I wonder whether she would mind if I consider that question and reflect on it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am delighted for the Minister to do so. In that case, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 17 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 45:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Absent parents: non-residence with child
.—(1) Section 3 of the 1991 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) (a) after "child" there shall be inserted "or expected to reside with the parent with care as soon as he can reasonably be expected to do so".").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 46 and 71. These amendments, or the major part of them, like so much else in my amendments result from a case which was in my postbag last week. Last Tuesday I wrote to the Minister, with a copy to Mr Alistair Burt, about that case. If the Minister's desk is anything like mine, my letter will not have worked to the top of the pile just yet. I do not blame the Minister for that. I apologise for not having written to him sooner, but I could not write until I got the case.
The case concerns a pair of teenage lovers who became parents and were left responsible for an infant, for which both of them wished to assume responsibility. In effect, they had practically no income to do so. The two sets of parents were both supportive. The couple continued the relationship while living with their parents, in the hope of finding a place where they could live together as soon as their means allowed them to do so. Meanwhile, for reasons which I am still seeking—I have only just received this case, so I do not yet have them—an assessment was placed on the young man on the ground that he was an absent parent, even though there was a continuing relationship and continuing responsibility.
The couple now have a housing association tenancy together. They have the kind of wages that teenagers can expect and they are saddled with arrears of £2,600. The absent parent's mother wrote to me and pointed out that, at the current rate of repayment, that is likely to take the young man more than the whole of his natural life.
It seems to me that mistakes have been made in that case. There are more mistakes, which are the subject of later amendments. It seems to me that calling a person an absent parent because he is not physically residing in the same building may be an unduly simplistic way of deciding who will be an absent parent. That is the point of Amendment No. 45, which provides that a parent who is expected to reside with the parent with care as soon as he (or she) can reasonably be expected to do so should not be construed to be an absent parent.
In this case it should be the responsibility of the parent with care who, after all, knows a good deal more about the matter, to decide what the allegedly absent parent can afford to pay. There would have been no difficulty in interpreting the provisions of the amendment. The couple were looking for a joint tenancy, which they have now found. The intention to live together was manifest and both their sets of parents would have vouched for it.
Amendment No. 46 deals with a similar matter. It provides that people should not be held to be absent parents and brought within the system of the Act under

127
the age of 18. Most of them simply cannot cope with the liability at that age. That would be without prejudice to any continuing liability after they reach the age of 18.
I decided to insert in the same amendment, because the principle is the same, an exception for full-time students. In 1991, until we dealt with the regulations, I did not realise that full-time students were expected to come within the scope of the Act. By that time it was too late to table an amendment to take it out because of course regulations by their nature cannot readily by amended. If it had been in primary legislation, it would have been a matter of a major debate in this Chamber, and probably a vote. The Government may even have thought twice about it.
The Minister knows how hard up most students now are. I can tell him. If one has to advise a student, one advises him or her in their own interest. Were any pupil of mine to become the subject of the Child Support Act, I would instantly advise them to withdraw from university, which would not be in the long-term interests of the parent with care. The long-term amount of maintenance that the young man might be able to pay would undoubtedly drop. In their present financial state, the application of the Bill to students is unjustifiably harsh and I hope that the Minister will think again about that.
Amendment No. 71 provides that when the absent parent and the parent with care shall resume or take up residence together, there shall be a discretion to pardon any outstanding arrears. In that situation, the parent with care who knows the circumstances, who knows what she can and cannot press the man to do, is a much better judge of how much of these arrears it is reasonable to try to get out of him than the Secretary of State can ever be. That provision would save a considerable number of marriages. This is a package of amendments which deserve serious consideration.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Let me say, first, to the noble Earl that I have indeed received his letter and my honourable friend Mr. Alistair Burt replied to it this morning. I fully appreciate that, given the pressure of work we are under today, the noble Earl has not had a chance to see the letter, if it has actually caught up with him.
I shall not deal with that question because, as the noble Earl knows, I am bound by the rules of confidentiality in replying to him about an actual case, as is my honourable friend. And it was not either of the parties to the case who wrote the letter to the noble Earl. However, I hope I can help him or at least explain some of the aspects of principle as I respond to the amendments before us.
These amendments seek to remove the liability of absent parents to pay maintenance in a number of circumstances. Amendment No. 45 is intended to remove liability for child maintenance from an absent parent who, although not living as part of the family of the child to be maintained, is likely to do so in the near future. I understand the intention of this amendment and at first glance it might seem reasonable to suppose that where the absent parent is clearly going to rejoin the family in the near future, he should not be pursued by the Child Support Agency. However, such an approach would undermine
128
the first basic principle of the 1991 Act; that is, that each parent is responsible for maintaining their children. It would be wrong to create a situation whereby a parent could remove his responsibility to maintain his child merely by making a commitment to rejoin the family at some stage in the future.
Where the parent with care is receiving income support, the cost of maintaining the child would fall wholly on the taxpayer. The logical corollary of treating a parent as "not being absent" for child support purposes, would be to do the same for benefit purposes. That is, an absent parent who benefited from this provision ought to have his resources aggregated with those of the parent with care when assessing any claim to benefit that the parent with care may make. I doubt if that is what the noble Earl would wish.
In addition, this amendment would create an incentive for contrived separations, which would be very difficult to detect. Parents with care would be able to claim benefit for as long as both parents could convince the CSA that they intended to reconcile in the near future. We believe that the introduction of the agency has had a marked effect in reducing the number of benefit claims arising from such fictitious desertions. The amendment would introduce a loophole for such claims to proliferate again.
The effect of Amendment No. 46 would be to remove from the ambit of the child support legislation absent parents who are not yet over 18 or who are students. For the children of such parents, there would be no recourse through the Child Support Agency, and those caring for them would be forced to seek maintenance through the courts.
The provisions of the child support legislation are intended to give a fair and reasonable assessment of maintenance in a wide range of circumstances. There is no reason why such assessments should not apply to young people and students, some of whom are financially perfectly well able to support their children. There can be no justification for removing the duty to provide for one's own child simply because a parent is young or a student. If such an absent parent has a low income, his child support maintenance will also be low, or even nil. Students are assessed on the same basis as anyone else, but if grant is their only form of income, the assessment will be nil.
Amendment No. 71 provides that in cases where the absent parent and the parent with care are reconciled and living together, arrears of maintenance may be waived. Clearly, the continuing collection of arrears would, in cases where they are not in receipt of benefit, merely result in a transfer of money within the household with no overall benefit to either party.
The position is a little more difficult if the arrears are not due to be paid to the parent with care because she was receiving income support at the time they should have been paid. It is not right that the absent parent should evade his liability, and the taxpayer foot the bill for the unpaid maintenance, just because the absent parent and the parent with care are now living together.
However, the existing legislation already gives the flexibility sought by this amendment as the agency always has discretion as to whether to continue collecting maintenance and arrears. In cases where there is no benefit interest and the parent with care states she does not

129
wish collection of the arrears to be pursued, action will be suspended, rather than the arrears being waived. Should the parents subsequently separate again and the parent with care ask for it, action to collect the arrears can recommence, subject to the six-year limitation period.
In cases where the arrears are due to the Secretary of State rather than the parent with care, careful consideration will be given to the question of continuing to pursue arrears if the parents are now living together. Because decisions relating to collection are discretionary, regard will always be had to the welfare of the child and there may be some cases where it would not be appropriate to proceed for that reason; but equally there will be cases where the absent parent can afford to pay the arrears with no implications for the welfare of the child. In such cases the agency will always seek to reach an agreement with him about repayment. It would not be right in such cases for him to expect the taxpayer to meet his liability.
I hope that I have gone some way to answering some of the noble Earl's concerns. If I heard him aright, perhaps the advice that he should give to that fictitious student (if he is on a grant) should be reviewed in the light of what I have said. With those explanations, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am, as always, very grateful to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken, and in this case grateful also to his honourable friend Mr. Alistair Burt. That letter had not arrived at one o'clock, but if it was written this morning, that is hardly surprising. It may now have arrived but, as the Minister said, we have been otherwise occupied since then.
I understand what the Minister says about confidentiality, and I agree with it. However, I think that the Minister misdescribed the purpose of my amendment. He said that Amendment No. 45 was designed to remove the liability of the absent parent. It was not. It was designed to redefine the "absent parent" so the parent should not be construed to be absent because I thought in this case that the application of the term "absent parent" was misleading, inaccurate and inappropriate. If that was my intention, I was not trying to subvert any principle of the 1991 Act. I should like to, but I was not trying to do it here. It is only if one begs the question and assumes that the parent was absent that one subverts any principle of the Act at all.
The Minister should look again and consider some criteria, other than physical absence, before deciding whether a parent is absent, otherwise he will be having all the members of the Merchant Navy construed as absent parents, and that is not what he intended.
Abrogation depends on the case. It would need to be decided on a case-by-case basis. As regards contrived separations, I know that we keep hearing about collusion, but I have yet to see a single authenticated case. If the Minister has an example perhaps he will send it to me and I shall be glad to look at it. But even if there were collusion, I believe that people are often better judges of their own best interests than any Secretary of State or agency. If people are forced to act against their own
130
interests to the point where they are unable to remain together or in employment, that is not in the interests of the taxpayer either.
The Minister took me back to 1991 in considering students. I understand the principles that they are not subject to the provisions as regards their grants, but they are for any additional earnings. But since no student now can live at university without income beyond grant flow—about £1,000 above the two together—if they do not have additional earnings they cannot remain in the department. That is the kind of case which lands on my desk over and over again, practically every week of every term. So if they then have to pay maintenance on their additional earnings, they will be set on something like the curve of the pursuit of Calculus, running towards an object which is going in a different direction so they are perpetually chasing after a point they cannot reach.
No, I shall not withdraw the advice I give to any student in that position. The Minister is entirely without information on quite how hard up students are. I can give him plenty if he wants it. However, what he said about discretion and arrears I found rather encouraging. Suspending arrears for people who like to live in a law-abiding manner is not the same as wiping them out. It has a Damoclesian effect. Although the discretion is welcome I wonder whether the Minister understands quite how big a burden is placed on the agency. I do not know whether he understands how difficult it is for the agency to keep up with the weight of cases, the bulk of paper, the number of phone calls and the number of different types of decision which have to be made. So although the agency has a discretion, I wonder whether it has the time to exercise it. But that is not a question to be pursued on this amendment. I give way to the Minister.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I ought to make clear one point which the noble Earl mentioned in his speech and again in his response. I would not like it to get out that Merchant Navy men, for example, when away from home, are immediately treated as absent parents. Perhaps the noble Earl will not mind if I say a word or two about that. Men, like those who work in the Merchant Navy and work away from home, usually support their families while away. If they do not do so and if the mother claims benefit, then she will be required to co-operate in seeking maintenance unless there is risk of harm through undue distress, and so on. If the mother does not receive financial support while the father is working away, and does not claim benefit, she will be able to make a voluntary application for child support provided she does not have a court order or a written maintenance agreement predating April 1993. That deals with the minority of cases, but in the great majority where people work away from home—my noble friend Lord Lucas has pointed out that we are doing a fair amount of that—as long as they are maintaining their families then the fact that they are working away from home is neither here nor there.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister. In conceding that a person who is not physically present does not automatically become an absent parent, he may have opened a wider door than he realises. I hope that the Minister will look to see what goes through that door, but that is not to be pursued now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 47:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Authorisation to recover maintenance,
.—(1) Section 6 of the 1991 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for "shall" substitute "may" ").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to take Amendment No. 47 in a group with Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50. I beg the pardon of the Committee for not having formally grouped them, but it seems to me that they can be dealt with together, and at this time of night one might as well save time if one can.
The effect of Amendment No. 47 is to put the 1991 Act on a permissive basis. That is something that I proposed in 1991. I shall not soon forget the expression of horror that that provoked in a quarter to which I am not at present allowed to refer. It would have saved a great deal of trouble had it been done. The point I am making, that people are usually the best judges of their own interest, is one which has a good deal of force.
Amendment No. 48, which comes with Amendment No. 47, would remove the power that the Secretary of State can override a harm and undue distress provision on the request of the parent with care. If the Minister reads any of the literature that comes out of women's refuges, he will appreciate the incredible generosity and sometimes optimism which affects many women who have been the object of violence. There are a good many who might well request the Secretary of State to override the harm and undue distress provision, because they were, as so many women in refuges have been, prepared yet again to exercise trust. A great deal of that trust will be misplaced, and if that happens, a vast cost will be created to public funds. I believe that that provision of the 1991 Act was mistaken.
Amendment No. 49 deals with the maintenance application form. We have been over that in this Chamber a good many times. The maintenance application form has not always made clear, and people dealing with it have not always made clear, that parents have the right to refuse to give the name of the father because it might cause harm and undue distress. I have written to the Minister's honourable friend, Mr. Burt, about such cases a great many times. I have never had one word of complaint about Mr. Burt's replies.
The problem here lies not in government. The problem lies altogether at a lower level. The problem is with Jacks-in-office, using their little brief authority to inflict harm, to inflict pain on people subject to them. It is not necessarily particularly common, but such people occur in all walks of life.
We have had a great many ministerial assurances on this point. Those assurances were given in complete good faith and with complete good will. I am telling the Government that those assurances have not proved sufficient to bring such a practice to a stop. Because they have not proved sufficient, and because I am certain of ministerial good will on this, I ask the Government whether they will think of something rather more
132
stringent to make absolutely certain that every woman who has a maintenance application form knows about the harm and undue distress provision.
The proposal in the amendment for typing the provision of harm and undue distress on the form in bold type seems to me as effective as anything I can think of. If the Minister thinks, for any technical reason, that that will not work, I shall listen to him. But I very much hope that he will think of something equally clear and equally unambiguous, because what has been done on this so far, well-intentioned though it was, is not enough.
I think that I had better not speak to Amendment No. 50 for a moment because I do not have my hands on my Keeling schedule. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It may be for everyone's convenience if I deal with each amendment in turn, as did the noble Earl.
The purpose of Section 6 of the Child Support Act is that parents with care in receipt of relevant benefits should be required to co-operate with the agency in pursuing maintenance from the absent parent unless there is a good reason for her not to do so. Just as it is right as a matter of principle that an absent parent should pay child maintenance if he can afford to do so, so it is right that a parent with care should not refuse to co-operate in the pursuit of maintenance without good cause.
The wording of Section 6(1) adequately reflects its intention. The noble Earl's clause would amend Section 6 to provide that parents with care could decide for themselves whether or not to give their authority, even though there might be no good reason why they should not give it. That is not reasonable. If a parent with care has a genuine reason why she should not give her authority, she is given ample opportunity to make representations and these are carefully considered. In any case, the amendment would not prevent the imposition of a reduced benefit direction where a parent with care had unreasonably withheld her authority and so it would make no material difference to the outcome. There is no need for any change to the wording of Section 6.
I turn to Amendment No. 48, which would remove subsection (3) so that parents with care could no longer ask the Secretary of State to pursue maintenance in these circumstances. There may well be instances where a parent with care wishes maintenance to be sought from the absent parent, even though the Secretary of State considers that harm or undue distress might result. She may well feel strongly that the absent parent should not be freed of his responsibility to support his children. It would be wrong to remove the means by which she would seek to obtain maintenance. The present provision is entirely voluntary and it is right that where the mother wishes it, in the full awareness that she does so of her own volition, maintenance should be pursued. If she later changes her mind, she can ask the Secretary of State to withdraw the requirement. He will comply with that request where he considers that harm or undue distress might result.
Amendment No. 49 would amend Section 6 so that all maintenance application forms would be required to carry the full wording of the key harm and undue distress

133
provisions. These provisions are already carefully explained to the parent with care before she is sent an application form and asked to give her authority. All those parents with care who are likely to be required to give their authority are sent a letter which fully explains in day-to-day language the requirement to authorise the Secretary of State and the harm and undue distress provisions. The letter includes a declaration which the parent may return to say whether or not she wishes to make representations about harm or undue distress. If the parent makes representations they are investigated. If the Secretary of State agrees that there would be a risk of harm or undue distress were she to give her authority, that requirement would be waived and the matter goes no further—
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has described accurately what should happen. I am telling him, as I have told him a great many times before, that in a great many cases it does not happen. That is the problem that I am bringing to his attention.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have tried to explain that all the parents with care who are likely to be required to give their authority are sent the letter. If the noble Earl tells me that that is not the case, I shall certainly pursue that matter during the next day or two. I shall not promise to pursue it tomorrow because we have business in the Chamber. I shall certainly check that matter.
The maintenance application form pack includes a general explanatory leaflet and a set of helpful notes, which also again explain the harm and undue distress provision in straightforward terms. I believe that the present arrangements to advise parents with care of their legal rights are fully adequate and that there is no need to reproduce the wording of the harm and undue distress provisions on maintenance application forms. Parents with care are given information about the provisions both before they receive the application form and later with the notes accompanying it. However, I will look into the matter raised by the noble Earl. To include on the application form an extract from the Act is entirely unnecessary and, I suggest, the legalistic wording may be intimidating for some parents with care.
No parent with care is required to give her authorisation without the agency first giving careful consideration to whether giving that authorisation would cause her or any child living with her harm or undue distress. Even after she has given her authorisation, if she considers that she or any child living with her will be caused harm or undue distress, if it remains in force, she can ask the Secretary of State to consider the position. If he accepts that there is a risk of harm or undue distress, he will lift the requirement.
I gave some figures earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about this matter. I believe that something like 73,000 such applications were accepted by the Secretary of State and 18,000 were not. I am sure that we all agree that it is important that parents with care are able to exercise that opt-out, so to speak, in those cases where they are fearful for themselves or for their children. The agency must look sympathetically at that matter and the figures that I have mentioned indicate that the agency takes on board very seriously that particular aspect of the problem of maintenance.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister. I am certain that he is right that Ministers and the agency take the matter seriously. However, I am saying that some of the people on the ground do not take it seriously. People occasionally behave in ways they should not and become impatient. I ask the Minister to consult one of the organisations involved with women's refuges on the working of the provisions and also with regard to Amendment No. 48, on which I did not receive a very lengthy reply.
We cannot pursue this issue much further this evening. I am grateful to the Minister for his undertaking to look again at the matter and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 48 to 51 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 52:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Removal of carers' allowance from maintenance requirement
.—(1) Schedule 1 to the 1991 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the 1991 Act, leave out (a) (b) and (c) and insert—

"(a) with respect to each qualifying child, an amount equal to the amount specified in column (2) to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 for a person of the same age (income support personal allowance for a child or young person); and

(b) an amount equal to the amount specified in paragraph 3 of that Schedule (income support family premium)."

(3) In sub-paragraph (2) of the said Schedule, for
"MR = AG - CB"
there shall be substituted
"MR = AG",
and the definition of CB shall be omitted." ").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is designed to remove the carers' allowance from the formula. This has caused a great deal of anxiety and a sense that it is inequitable as between the first wife and the second wife because there is no equivalent carers' allowance for the second wife, even if she is caring for young children.
On Second Reading I said that the legislation rests very heavily on an old-fashioned, pre-Beveridge bread-winner world. I know that the language is definitely not sexist and is entirely politically correct, but the actual assumptions are not.
There should be equality of treatment between the first wife and the second. If there is not, there will be an immense amount of resentment because the second wife feels, in effect, that she is earning in order to pay money to the first. The Minister can imagine—I think he probably knows—the recriminations to which that might lead. It is not a provision which is working well at the moment.
On a previous amendment I made the point also that it is a case where the money is not targeted. If the money spent on that element were targeted on child care where that is relevant it would do a great deal more good there than it does here. The Minister or anyone else may say that that would produce a further pressure on the parent with care. That is a point which the amendment has attempted to address by taking child benefit out of the calculations in the formula so that that, in effect, replaces some at least of the money that goes to the carers' allowance.
I understand that at all times the Minister wishes to reduce the benefit bill. But short-term reductions may provide long-term increases, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful, illustrated in her Second Reading speech.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We are now discussing another amendment which would, in most cases, favour absent parents unfairly at the expense of their children. As the noble Earl pointed out, it seeks to reduce the maintenance requirement—the amount which is calculated to meet a child's basic maintenance needs. The amount included to represent a child's need to be cared for by an adult would be omitted, as would the amount equivalent to the income support lone-parent premium in cases where the parent with care has no new partner.
The noble Earl correctly pointed out that there would be some mitigation from the fact that the maintenance requirement would no longer be calculated net of child benefit. However, child benefit is a universal benefit intended to provide a worthwhile contribution to the costs of bringing up children. As such, it would be illogical not to take account of that in the maintenance requirement calculation. In effect, absent parents would be asked to pay maintenance already provided by child benefit. By way of example of the overall effect of the amendment, I should point out that the basic maintenance for one child aged under 11 in a lone-parent family would reduce from £67.50 to £26.20 per week. That means that many parents with care who previously had court orders would find themselves worse off than under the previous arrangements.
I recognise that the amount for a child's care has been represented by some absent parents, and the media, as being akin to spousal maintenance rather than to child maintenance. That idea has arisen largely because the amount is based on the income support allowance for someone aged 25 or over. However, as the Social Security Select Committee recognised, the income support rates provide a benchmark for assessing need. That allowance was the obvious amount on which to base a child's need to be cared for by an adult.
Without continuing much further, I believe that that is probably the answer to the noble Earl's point. There is, perhaps, a divide between us. If no payment is given for a carer to look after the child, I am somewhat puzzled as to who will care for the child. Will the child end up like Romulus and Remus—looking to see if there is a spare wolf around?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is late at night!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is indeed late at night, and we do not want to start all that again.
However, I believe that it is unrealistic to divorce the question of paying something for the child's costs from paying for someone to look after the child. It is quite an artificial division to make, although I understand why it is made by the organisations representing absent parents. They feel that they are actually paying spousal maintenance; but, of course, they are not. They are paying carer's maintenance to look after the child. If that carer's maintenance was not paid and the carer was not there, I
136
am not entirely sure who would look after the child. Therefore, while I understand some of the problems involved, I do not believe that one can somehow disconnect the needs of the child from the same need of the child to be cared for. That is why the formula is devised in that way and that is why I am afraid I cannot accept the suggestion from the noble Earl that that portion of the maintenance assessment should fall by the wayside.
Earl Russell: I am very glad that the Minister said what he did about income support levels as a benchmark for need. His words will come back to him when we consider the benefit penalty tomorrow; and, indeed, when we consider a great many other cases of deduction from benefit, reduced benefit directions, and so on.
The Minister asked who is to care for the child if there is no carer element. But the parent with care presumably has spousal maintenance, which will be calculated outside the terms of the Act. We are told that the legislation is not meant to deal with spousal maintenance, though the Minister's answer has just illustrated extremely clearly why that is a very difficult line to hold. If the parent with care has spousal maintenance, there will not be very much in the way of extra costs that arise simply from the act of caring. There will be such costs but not of the order illustrated by the element.
Therefore I do not see that the Minister's point has force if the woman has enough to live on anyway. If she does not, then something has gone wrong with the spousal maintenance. The Minister said nothing whatever about the inequity as between the first and the second wife, and that is a point on which some answer would, I think, be very much appreciated. I do not see why, if there is to be a carer's element, it should not be allowed to the second wife as well as the first, because if they are both caring for children they both have the need. In any case, as the Minister has himself admitted, this does cause a great deal of resentment which is particularly strong among second wives. The 1991 Act has put great strain on the principle of consent. Its success in bringing in money so far has not been extreme. If it is to operate at all, we need the consent. Does the Minister wish to intervene on the paper he has there because, if not, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment?
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Lord does that I hope I might intervene. It seems to us on these Benches that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has a real point with which we identify in that much of the aggravation caused by the child support formula has been caused by what appears to be, however erroneously, a flow of income from the second wife to the first wife looped via the absent parent and all the inequities that are concerned with that. I am not sure that I agree with his point about spousal maintenance because from my experience spousal maintenance has often been traded in for, say, a property settlement and therefore there is not an independent and additional income.
However, what would have been much more sensible and would reflect much more today's society is if there

137
had been no such thing as a carer's element in the formula for the parent with care, but instead that same equivalent sum was looped into additional allowances as part of the individual child allowance. I would have thought that, politically, and in all the ways possible, that would have been far more acceptable. The money would go to the child and part of that element in the child's allowance would be attributable to the needs for care of that child—however that may be dealt with, whether it be through purchased child care or the parent with care—rather than a direct payment being made to a woman, who may in turn have a non-earning second partner living with her, which involves all of the inequities that then seem to flow from the pattern of distribution across adults. The Government would have been well advised if the flow of income had gone from absent parent to children rather than, apparently, second wife to absent parent, to parent with care and, possibly, to the new partner of the parent with care, which produces all sorts of hostilities and frustrations which, however erroneous, are well and easily understood.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not entirely sure that what the noble Baroness is suggesting is practical. I can see the point that, if the money was all wrapped up in the child and paid to the child, that might remove the aggravation that the absent parent feels that he is paying for this woman who may or may not have walked out on him—who knows?—while the second wife may have some feelings as regards paying for the first wife. But the trouble is that I do not think one can pay the money to the child because I do not think the child can go down to the post office and collect the money. There are some practicalities involved here which one cannot get round. The mother has to get the money because she is the person looking after the child and buying his or her clothes and so forth—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Just like child benefit!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: But child benefit, as I recall, is paid to the mother.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is for the child!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think we are splitting hairs. I see the attractions with the noble Baroness's suggestion. It would remove one of the sources of aggravation from the absent parent groups but I suspect they will just find another way to complain about the £60-odd a week. As regards the second wife paying for maintenance of the first wife, the liability is based on the absent parent's income only. The second wife's income is only relevant in protected income which can only serve to reduce liability not to increase it. So the earnings of the second wife cannot by any stretch of the imagination be taken to be moving through the absent parent to the first wife.
There is a problem here. One cannot will away history. The first wife and the child or children exist. They exist at the moment the absent parent decides to remarry—to repartner, as it is called in the modern jargon—and to have more children. He cannot simply draw a line under history and forget about those who have gone before. That may be a comfortable way for him to deal with the matter, but none of us would agree with it.
Baroness Seear: It is very late and I do not want to indulge in further argument, but I should have thought that it was simple to say that the money is for the child. That does not mean that the toddler has to go and collect it. The money is meant for the child, and the mother goes and collects it. She collects child benefit. That makes the point.
I am sure that we all agree that the chap has to look after his children, if he does not look after his previous wife. That is all dealt with. If we say the money is for the child, that comforts the second wife, who wants to get her claws on it but cannot because it is going to the child. That is all to the good. I cannot see any difference here.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is late. It is a nice imaginary position. The money has to be paid to an adult for the child. Who decides whether it is spent on the child? For example, what about heating and lighting costs that both will share? Although the noble Baronesses seem to think that they have an attractive argument, they are splitting hairs. For example, in the case of child benefit paid to the wife for the child, can anyone give me a cast-iron guarantee that the money collected at the post office is not promptly used for purposes other than for the child?
Baroness Seear: Of course not. We know perfectly well that that happens. We are talking about the psychological problem of the second wife who is fed up because money is going to the first wife. As my noble friend Lord Meston said, that is liable to drive him into the arms of a third wife. That would complicate matters even more.
One could deal with that psychological problem by making it quite clear that the money is for the child. What the mother does with it when she gets it is another matter. One can never know what happens to it. That does not matter. The father says to the second wife, "It's nothing to do with the first woman. This is for Billy, the little boy I left behind". I cannot see any difficulty about it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I suspect that the argument would then shift to the money going to the first family rather than to the first wife.
The clearest indication is that it does not go to the wife, because when the child ceases to be a child and no longer comes within the ambit of the agency all the money ceases. That shows that it is not spousal maintenance in name, theory, psychology or anything else. It is connected totally with looking after the child. I have no psychological problem. I trust that the rest of the world does not have one either.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to both noble Baronesses for a thoroughly constructive approach to the problem. The Minister's response illustrated that imagination is a plant which does not flourish in Whitehall. His toddler sounds remarkably like the famous James James Morrison Morrison Weatherby George Dupree, who said:
"You must never go down to the end of the town, if you don't go down with me".
It is not quite as complicated as the Minister made out. However, since he introduced the term, the verb, "to repartner" as an intransitive verb—
Baroness Seear: Please do not start on that!
Earl Russell: I was only going to ask the Minister to write to me. I have already drawn his attention to its use in the memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. If he can find any previous use of the word I should be very glad to know. I shall not ask for that now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 53 to 55 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 56:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Exempt income of absent parent
. In Schedule 1 to the 1991 Act, after paragraph 5 there shall be inserted—
"5A.—(1) Regulations implementing paragraph 5 of this Schedule shall ensure that the exempt income of an absent parent or a parent with care includes—

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

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

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

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

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

(3) The date in question is—

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

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

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

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

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

The noble Earl said: I am sorry for this great flurry of papers. There does not seem to be any time between one amendment and the next to get one's papers in order.
Amendment No. 56 deals with the exempt income of the absent parent. It provides that an allowance should be made for council tax .and water charges—for debts, obligations and other liabilities which are legally binding whether under civil or criminal sanction, and which arise from dates before the parent became subject to the Act.
The amendment deals with the general principle that I have already asserted: that people should not be forced to default on legal obligations. If the Minister denies that, he will risk being portrayed as undermining respect for law. He should be careful how he does that. For example, we are under legal obligation to pay council tax. I cannot say to my local council, "I cannot pay my council tax because I must put child maintenance first". If the Minister insists. on the sort of priority he demands, he will have to provide
140
for a power to default on other items. That will create very different priorities from those which exist in most households. People do not default on legal obligations—at least, we hope that that is the case. But because they do not default on legal obligations, what they pay to maintain their children, however much they regret it, because they respect their legal obligations, is diminished.
I do not believe that the Minister will find in any ordinary married household in the land that child maintenance has the priority that it is given under the Bill. I believe that the Bill is different in this respect from the rest of the world. These matters should be taken into account. If they are not, a court will force them to be taken into account.
If the Act does not take those factors into account, it has to allow people to default on them; and that would be a very poor way out of the situation. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Earl has explained that the amendment would alter the calculation of that part of the assessment formula known as exempt income.
Exempt income is the amount deducted from a parent's net income in recognition of his or her basic expenses. It includes set amounts for the living costs of the parent and any natural children in the household and an allowance for housing costs. The formula then deducts maintenance from the parent's remaining income at the rate of 50p in the pound until the basic maintenance requirement is met and, in the case of absent parents, a further, lower, percentage if there is any income left over.
The proposed amendment would alter the calculation of exempt income to include council tax, water charges, legally binding debts and obligations (including, for example, fines) and any obligations arising before the Child Support Agency's involvement in the case. Those expenses would be allowed in all cases with no further consideration as to reasonableness or to whether the allowance would be just or equitable in all the circumstances of the case.
Exempt income is specifically designed only to meet the every day expenses which are likely to be incurred by all parents. These are basic living expenses and housing costs. Other expenses can be met in one of two ways. The first is from the income that is left after meeting the maintenance liability. The current legislation ensures that no absent parent will pay more than 30 per cent. of his net income in child support maintenance. Most will pay a good deal less. In the vast majority of cases this leaves sufficient income to meet essential expenses and to make choices about other expenditure.
For the small number of cases where certain special expenses cause genuine difficulty the new departure system will provide the opportunity for the individual circumstances to be examined in detail and, where appropriate, for liability to be adjusted.
With regard to the specific items of expenditure listed in the amendment, council tax is already allowed for in the "protected income" provisions which reduce the maintenance assessment where hardship would otherwise be caused and debts of the relationship or those incurred before the inception of the Child Support Agency can be cited as grounds for departure. The Government would

141
not, under any circumstances, agree that it was right to make provisions which would effectively pay someone's fines from the money that should be going to their children. The provisions we have already included in the Bill will deal with cases where the present legislation causes difficulty. With that explanation of how we see the issue, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
Midnight
Earl Russell: I never thought of the Minister as Robin Hood but he appears to be providing that child maintenance shall involve the most cavalier disregard for the law. It surprises me greatly. The Minister said that no consideration was given to the reasonableness of all the charges, but they are all legally binding charges. We do not go around saying that our legally binding obligations are not reasonable or that we shall not pay them. If we do we tend to get short shrift. In terms of the criteria of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for the rule of law, I should have thought that the Government ought to be subject to the same provisos. Where they recognise obligations to be legal, they ought to respect them.
The Minister said, "We don't all go around restricting the amount that we pay to our children because we have to pay fines." But if we are foolish enough to incur fines, that is what we all do. If we are assessed to pay a fine, we have to pay it, quite regardless of what the effect on our children will be. We cannot get out of it. So allowing the absent parent to pay the fine, as he is legally bound to, will merely put him in the same position as all the rest of the world. We shall have to come back to this because there is no meeting of minds. Where respect for the law is involved, we need to have that meeting of minds.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If I hear the noble Earl aright he makes the proposition that if an absent parent is fined, the first place to which he can or is allowed to look, if the amendment were accepted, is reducing the maintenance he pays to the parent with care. I am sure that that is not what he intends, but if I hear him aright that is what will happen. However, either the absent parent ought not to get himself into a position where he has to pay a fine, or if he has to pay it he should look at other things he might not pay for in order to save the money to pay the fine. There will be other places where the absent parent can seek the money to pay the fine, or save up to pay it, without suggesting that he pays less to child maintenance.
Earl Russell: I am sorry to say that the Minister did not hear me aright, but since it is late at night such things happen. I never said that child maintenance was the first place to which one should look to pay one's fine; I said that if one is ordered by a court to pay a fine, one has to pay it. That means that all one's other expenses have to give way to a legal obligation because one may be sent to prison in some cases if one does not.
The Government's approach here is deficient in respect for the law. I do not withdraw that charge; we need to return to it in other contexts. However, for the time being beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 57:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Disregard of invalid care allowance
.—(1) Schedule Ito the 1991 Act shall be amended as follows
(2) After paragraph 5 there shall be inserted—
"5A. Regulations governing the calculation or estimation of the net income, or the disposable income, of an absent parent or a parent with care, shall ensure that any sums paid or payable to or in respect of any person by way of invalid care allowance under section 70 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 shall be disregarded." ").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 57 is, I hope, slightly less provocative. It allows that income which shall be exempt from consideration under the formula shall include invalid care allowance. It may well happen that an absent parent with a second family has one child for whom he receives invalid care allowance. That is a specific earmarked payment for a real need.
It seems to me inequitable and mistaken that the payment should go into the income which is assessed under the formula for charging for child maintenance because that income is attached to one specific need. If it goes elsewhere, that need will be unmet. In terms of parliamentary appropriation, as well as in terms of appropriateness, this is a mistaken and not particularly constructive use of money. This is an amendment which, in terms of respect for the sick, I hope the Minister might consider with slightly more favour than he showed for some of the others. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Basically this amendment relates to the cost of sick or disabled children and the ICA that goes with that situation. In responding to the noble Earl's amendment, with which I am very much in sympathy, the Minister could perhaps tell us what is understood by paragraph 2(3) (c) of new Schedule 4B in Schedule 2:
"costs attributable to a long-term illness or disability of the applicant or of a dependant of the applicant".
This is a basis for a departure.
When I read that I assumed that it was designed to take account of the situation that the noble Earl indicated; in other words, that given that ICA followed such a long-term illness or a disability and was a recognition of the costs of caring for that child, this would indeed effectively be exempt income because it would be grounds for departure. I always understood it to mean that. Perhaps the Minister can confirm my understanding. If it is not the case, then the noble Earl is right: we need to revisit this provision.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may address the noble Earl's amendment first. He seeks to ignore invalid care allowance in assessing a parent's income under the maintenance formula.
Benefits such as disability living allowance, which are paid to recognise the special needs of disabled people, are ignored under existing rules. However, invalid care allowance is paid to someone of working age who cares for a severely disabled person. It is essentially an earnings replacement benefit, like unemployment benefit and incapacity benefit, and as such is treated in the same way in the formula as the earnings which it replaces.

143
Very few absent parents will receive this benefit. Those who do are unlikely to have the means to pay more than the minimum amount of maintenance, and may not be required to make any payment at all—for example, if they have a dependent child in their own household.
Where a parent with care receives the benefit, she would normally need to claim income support, so would in any case be treated as unable to contribute to child maintenance. The only absent parents likely to benefit from this amendment are those who have their maintenance reduced under the protected income rules. If they have a new partner who receives invalid care allowance the effect of the amendment would be a reduction in their maintenance liability.
I am asked about paragraph 2(3)(c) of new Schedule 4B. This will deal with cases where someone in the parent's family is ill or disabled and has costs in excess of any benefit provision. "Costs" in this regard means such things as transport, heating, and so on. It refers to those kinds of costs and not, as the noble Baroness suggested it might mean, the invalid care allowance. It refers to costs in excess of any benefit provisions that somebody may receive in these circumstances.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Can the Minister give further clarification? He used the word "parent" but did not at the key moment say whether he was talking about an absent parent, the parent with care, or a second parent. What would be the situation if, in the second family, the new wife brought her own child with her (who was therefore the step-child of the absent father) who was disabled and that mother was in receipt of ICA but the absent father was in work. A calculation is then made as to the protected income. Would her ICA be protected?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I might just remind the noble Baroness of what I said earlier in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The second wife's income is
144
relevant only in protected income, which can only serve to reduce liability, not increase it. I suspect therefore—I shall check because we are getting into rather complicated business at the moment—that if invalidity care allowance is treated as income replacement, then the second wife's income, if it were invalid care allowance, would be only relevant and protected income. That would only serve to reduce the liability rather than increase it. In the words of some Members of the Committee that means that it would be beneficial in the way that it was applied.
If I am wrong in my interpretation of the pieces of paper in front of me and what the Bill says, I shall inform the noble Baroness.
Earl Russell: Does the Minister want to contribute anything further to the debate?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think not.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for calling my attention to Schedule 2 to the Bill. The effect of that will depend on the definition of disability, which in due course is to be prescribed. So it is quite hard to know what its contribution will be.
I am grateful to the Minister for the care he has taken. I need to read what he said with a good deal of care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Bodmin Moor Commons Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past midnight.

  Krakow: Proposal for British Consulate
  Krakow: Proposal for British Consulate
  Protection of the Archaeological Heritage: Ratification of Convention
  Protection of the Archaeological Heritage: Ratification of Convention
  Jobseekers Bill: Power to Designate Groups
  Jobseekers Bill: Power to Designate Groups
  Social Security Budget
  Social Security Budget
  Ammonium Nitrate: Transport through Channel Tunnel
  Ammonium Nitrate: Transport through Channel Tunnel
  Trust Ports: Privatisation
  Trust Ports: Privatisation
  Gringley Secure Training Centre
  Gringley Secure Training Centre
  Imprisonment for Fine Default
  Imprisonment for Fine Default
  Hospitals: Patient's Charter Guidelines
  Hospitals: Patient's Charter Guidelines
  Radiotherapy Treatment for Breast Cancer
  Radiotherapy Treatment for Breast Cancer
  Human Blood and Tissue: Ownership
  Human Blood and Tissue: Ownership
  Farmers: Suicide Statistics
  Farmers: Suicide Statistics