Sitting of 20 June 1995

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

    Acute Admissions, Leicestershire
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps her Department is taking to ensure that there are sufficient hospital beds for acute admissions in Leicestershire. [27711]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): It is for the local health authorities, working with local trusts and other providers, to plan for the right number of beds and other services to meet the identified needs of the local population.
    Mr. Robathan: Although I appreciate that it is not the direct responsibility of his Department, my hon. Friend will know that there has been grave concern in Leicestershire about the number of acute and emergency beds available. There have been some publicised incidents in which people have been kept waiting for some time on trolleys in Leicestershire hospitals. I am aware of the good work of the bed bureau in Leicestershire, but will he assure me and the people of Leicestershire that sufficient beds will be made available for their needs in the near future?
    Mr. Bowis: The specific question is rightly directed to Leicestershire. My hon. Friend rightly praised the bed bureau for its work; it had a remarkably good success rate right the way through 1994, including the winter months, but, during a couple of months this spring, a problem was caused by extra demand and staff sickness. That has been tackled, and the good news for Leicestershire is that, for 1995–96, the cash allocation goes up by 5.4 per cent. We can therefore look forward to ever-improving services for the people of that county.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister not recognise that, despite the Department's recent conversion to evidence-based policy making, in all too many parts of the country, as in Leicestershire, beds are being closed at a rate that seems to anticipate changes in the delivery of health care rather than to follow in their footsteps, despite lack of evidence, and without evaluation of effects and monitoring of what is happening? As a result, in many parts of the country, including Leicestershire, too many patients are chasing too few beds, and it is his Department's responsibility.
    Mr. Bowis: The right hon. Lady has widened this somewhat from Leicestershire. If one widened it still further and considered comparisons round the world, one
    136
    would find that the trend here in in-patient beds per thousand is on the same graph as it is in the United States of America, Italy and many other countries of Europe, including Ireland.
    The important thing is that, in 1993–94, 8.2 million episodes were carried out. The average wait, which in 1988 was more than nine months, has gone down to under five months. The number of day cases has gone up by 66 per cent. In counties such as Leicestershire, there are improvements day by day, to which the right hon. Lady failed to give a moment's regard, much less a moment's praise.
    Let me refer the right hon. Lady to the rapid access chest pain assessment service at Glenfield general hospital, enabling general practitioner referrals on the same day for many people. She should pay tribute to progress, and not find nit-picking criticisms based on somewhere that has nothing to do with Leicestershire.
    Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend will know from his days as a Conservative party agent in Leicestershire of the good work of the national health service in that county. Will he take the opportunity in the near future to return to Leicestershire to consider the work of LOROS—the Leicestershire Organisation for the Relief of Suffering—which has an excellent hospice in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), which is doing sterling work but which is 50 per cent. funded by the NHS and 50 per cent. funded by voluntary subscription? Will my hon. Friend ensure that the health service continues to donate 50 per cent. of funding to that most wonderful hospice?
    Mr. Bowis: I am always pleased to be invited to return to my former county of Leicestershire. When I am next there, I shall try to make time to visit the hospice to which my hon. and learned Friend rightly pays tribute. He also pays tribute to the fact that, under this Government, the hospice movement has really taken off. The funding for hospices, the work in palliative care and our recent guidance on continuing care where palliative care is concerned show that that sector has an excellent future while the Government are in power.

    Regional Variations
    Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action her Department is taking to reduce cross-regional variations in health. [27712]
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new initiatives she intends to take to reduce regional and social class variations in the health of the population. [27716]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): We are tackling variations in health by working to improve health across the whole population, by allocating funding according to need, and by ensuring that health authorities are able to assess the needs of their local population and target spending accordingly.
    Ms Anderson: Can the Secretary of State explain why the death rate from cervical cancer in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale area is 60 per cent. higher than the national average, and more than twice the rate in her constituency of Surrey, South-West?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Before giving a substantive reply to the hon. Lady, I should like briefly to pay tribute to the

    137
    late Lord Ennals, who held my present office for several years. I knew him personally since my childhood, and he was a great campaigner and a great enthusiast, especially on mental health issues, so it seems appropriate to mention his contribution to the House today, when we are to discuss the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill.
    In answer to the hon. Lady, the key question is why her party resisted the GP contract that introduced additional encouragement for screening for cervical cancer. Our strategies have directed help to where it is most needed, and developed practical policies that have achieved change, so that the hon. Lady now has in her constituency not only a cervical screening programme but an effective breast screening programme. Difficulties involving variations in health outcome exist in this country, as in every country. The difference between the Labour party and ourselves is that we have practical policies for addressing and reducing those inequalities.
    Mr. Bayley: Does the Secretary of State agree with the British Medical Association that the wealth gap and the health gap are both widening—in its words, as
    "the direct, if unintentional, result of policy choices"
    by the Government? When will the Government change those policies, which have led, for instance, to the scandal that, in Gateshead, infants are 12 times more likely to die in their first year of life than are infants in the Prime Minister's constituency of Huntingdon?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I agree with the BMA that our "The Health of the Nation" strategy is one of the most important initiatives that we have developed in recent years. It has been commended by the World Health Organisation and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and as a result of it we can now bring the different Departments together to tackle the task of improving health.
    In the same way, we expect local health alliances to form, so that the health authorities and the local authorities can develop practical policies to deliver change. Over the past 10 years, infant mortality rates have fallen from 11 to 6.5 per thousand, and life expectancy at birth has increased from 71.8 to 73.8 years. Those figures have improved, and infant mortality has fallen, for all social groups and in all regions.
    Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest and most important link between poverty and ill health is poor housing, and that much—indeed, the overwhelming bulk—of poor housing is administered by local government? If so, how often do she and her colleagues discuss health and housing matters with the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration?
    Mrs. Bottomley: As ever, my hon. Friend has hit the issue precisely. The Labour party talks about equality, but delivers a shambles. It has no practical policies for delivering any of its objectives. We have recently been subjected to the news that it plans a great act of vandalism against precisely the strategic changes in the health service that have enabled us to identify areas of difficulty and to take forward practical policies.
    My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the link between housing and health, as she is about many other factors. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and
    138
    I frequently meet Housing Ministers to discuss practical ways in which to take policies forward. People would be better served by Labour local authorities who took their stewardship more seriously, and, instead of talking the rhetoric of improving quality, took practical action, as the Conservative party has.
    Sir Anthony Grant: When considering cross-regional variations, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that hospitals such as Addenbrooke's and Papworth are centres of excellence equal to any London hospital, and that they happen to be in one of the fastest growing areas of the country, whereas London is the slowest growing area? On that basis, is she aware that her policy on hospitals is absolutely bang right?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend. He is one of a number of extremely distinguished and eminent opinion formers who take the view that the change in London was long overdue, and that, if there has been a problem in London, it has been the inadequate primary care services. That is why our decision, for example, to introduce deprivation payments for GPs in poorer areas, which means that they can get up to £30,000 more, is the right way forward—the practical action to deliver the necessary change.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank the Secretary of State for her tribute to Lord Ennals, which is, of course, both appreciated and echoed by the Opposition.
    On the substance of the question, can I ask the Secretary of State whether, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, it is still her view that the Government should continue to deny the link between poverty and health inequalities?
    Mrs. Bottomley: As ever, the Labour party is simplistic in its analysis. Of course income is a factor, and so are heredity, education, housing and unemployment; but our party supports a wealth-creating, job-creating economy, which means that we have below-average, falling unemployment—1,000 fewer on the unemployment registers every day. I suggest that those in the Labour party who are genuinely concerned about the wealth and well-being of the people of this country should applaud a Government who have so singularly successfully improved the standing of our nation and the employment prospects of our people and, in practical terms, substantially improved the health service.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the health needs of deprived populations are best met by developing the community health services provided by GPs and their teams? Will she confirm that that will remain at the heart of the new NHS?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Undoubtedly, the development of and improvements in primary care have been among the most important changes in recent years. That is the first priority in the guidance that we have issued to the service this year.
    I think that those who believe in primary care 'are perplexed that among the many acts of vandalism being prepared by the Labour party is the undermining or destruction of GP fundholding, which has so singularly led to successes and changes in primary care. It should pay more attention to how it can build on the successes, and, above all, make sure that the substantial extra

    139
    resources going to local authorities for community care are properly spent and wisely used in the interests of the most vulnerable in the community.

    Hospital Trusts
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital trusts have entered into contractual agreements with health purchasers which set different maximum waiting times for the same clinical procedures. [27713]
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): Under the new patients charter, we have recently introduced a new, 18-month guaranteed maximum wait for in-patient and day case treatment and a first ever standard for wait to first out-patient consultation; all patients should be seen within 26 weeks of being referred by their general practitioner with nine out of 10 being seen within 13 weeks. These are, of course, maximum waiting times and we encourage purchasers to agree contracts which improve on these times for their patients when possible.
    Mr. Denham: What does the Minister have to say to my constituents in Southampton who in the past year have had to wait twice as long for cardiac operations at Southampton general hospital as patients from Bournemouth who use the same hospital for the same treatment with the same surgeon? Indeed, what does the Minister have to say to his own constituents who had to wait three times as long as patients from Bournemouth for treatment in Southampton general hospital? Is it not the case that the internal market is forcing hospitals to enter into contracts in which where people live is more important than how ill they are in respect of how fast they are treated?
    Mr. Malone: I remind the hon. Gentleman that tougher targets of that sort apply only to non-urgent cases. All treatment is provided within the terms of the 1991 agreement between the Government and clinicians, which clearly indicates that no trust should offer a contract to one purchaser that would disadvantage another. Emergencies should be seen at once and there should be common waiting lists for cases that cannot be seen immediately.
    The hon. Gentleman wants to deny better treatment when it is possible under the new system. He could always ask those in his constituency who have waited for more than a year for treatment at Southampton hospital whether they think bringing waiting times down is an improvement for them. He will find it hard to do so, because, under the present system, nobody has been waiting for more than a year at the hospital in his constituency.
    Mr. Barry Field: Why did my hon. Friend not tell the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) about the Isle of Wight hospital trust, which moved its cardiac contract from Southampton, because the service was so awful, to King Edward VII hospital at Midhurst, where we now get a fantastic service? The surgeon concerned made a hell of a row publicly, because he preferred playing golf to getting on and doing the operations.
    Mr. Malone: I am sure that my hon. Friend, who always speaks vigorously on behalf of his constituents, will lose no time in reminding them that, under the policies that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is preparing, which have been leaked, taking such action would not be possible. The reforms that we have put in place for the new NHS bring better
    140
    treatment for more people, more flexibility and decisions closer to the patient. Those are precisely the things that the Labour party is trying to destroy.
    Ms Jowell: Does the Minister accept that variations in consultant practice may be another reason for different waiting times? Does he consider it acceptable that some consultant surgeons on maximum part-time contracts with the national health service should work three or four half-days a week in the private sector? Has he examined the evidence prepared by his own adviser, John Yates, on this? What action does he propose to take to ensure that consultant surgeon time, paid for by the national health service, is spent treating national health service patients?
    Mr. Malone: It is, of course, the Government's policy to pursue over the long term local pay and contracts for the medical profession, which, if I have understood correctly, the Labour party is dead against. I remind the hon. Lady that there are already job plans which have to be agreed between trusts and consultants. A consultant's primary duty is, of course, to his or her NHS contract; that is clearly recognised and understood. The Government, however, very much welcome the fact that any additional work that a consultant may wish to do in the private sector can be done, as long as the balance is right. The Labour party, which continues to carp on about the issue, has brought forward no evidence that the balance is not right in any particular case.

    Funding
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure equality of funding between district health authorities. [27714]
    Mr. Malone: We remain committed to the principle of weighted capitation as being the fairest way in which to achieve equality of funding for health authorities.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Despite covering the area with the second highest level of deprivation in the region, Coventry Health receives the lowest level of funding. Why is there not yet a time scale for addressing that issue? How on earth do those facts stack with what Ministers continually say about applying money where it is needed? Is it not the case that the Conservatives are loth to remove money from more affluent areas where the needs are not as great? That is the real issue.
    Mr. Malone: Certainly not. If the hon. Gentleman looked at his own figures, he would see that, during the past year, Coventry Health moved from minus 3.5 per cent. below target to minus 2.2 per cent. That involved a cash increase of £7 million being spent within the hon. Gentleman's health authority.
    A number of points have to be borne in mind. As one moves towards targets, it is extremely important not to destabilise arrangements that are already in place. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the health service across the country should be destabilised in terms of funding—his right hon. and hon. Friends intend to destabilise it' by ripping up the structure that has been put in place—he will find that that opinion is not very popular.
    Mr. Wilshire: Does my hon. Friend accept that the over-provision of service in central London results in underfunding in places such as my constituency? Will he

    141
    accept the advice of my NHS managers, my consultants, and my GPs, and stand firm on the Department's proposal to rationalise services in central London?
    Mr. Malone: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend of that point. I reiterate that the whole purpose of weighted capitation payments is to ensure that there is fairness not just between London and the rest of the country, but across the rest of the country as a whole.
    Mr. Janner: When looking at funding, will the Minister be kind enough to remember the representations made to him just now by his hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who pointed out the grave concern of people in the Trent area in general, and in Leicestershire in particular, about the difficulty of getting hospital beds at all? A number of people have been dying before they manage to get into hospital or because of delays, an example being my constituent, Mrs. Lillian Wilkinson.
    As yesterday marked 25 years of my service to my constituency, will the Minister be good enough to have a special look at the problems of the city of Leicester and its hospitals? Will he try to do what his hon. Friend the Member for Blaby asked him to do, and what Leicestershire Members of all parties wish him to do, which is to bring some hope and help to people in the area?
    Mr. Malone: I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on 25 years of representing his constituents, of which I was unaware. The sounds of rejoicing had not quite reached my ears at Westminster, but I am sure that, locally, they are loud indeed.
    Allocating resources fairly across the country is the principal objective of policy, but we also have mechanisms whereby local purchasers, be they health authorities or GP fundholders, can ensure that there is proper provision by directing funds at a local level and causing investment to take place. That is exactly what is happening across the health service, and it would be destroyed by the policies of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party.

    Regional Health Authorities
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money she estimates will be saved from the abolition of regional health authorities. [27715]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: By 1997–98, total annual savings from the abolition of regional health authorities are expected to be around £100 million. Those substantial savings will be retained by the national health service and reinvested in patient care.
    Mr. Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that £100 million would be lost if Labour were ever to implement its policies on the reforms of the national health service? Is it not true that the reforms in the NHS to date have helped my constituents immensely? Are not more in-patient and out-patient cases being treated, and are there not seven new consultants in the South-East Kent health trust?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the Labour party proposals would simply increase levels of bureaucracy, with no possible benefit to patients. My hon. Friend has seen the way in which improvements
    142
    have taken place in his constituency, as they have throughout the country, with extra consultants, falling waiting times and improved services. The Labour party simply offers promises to its trade unions, and nothing for patients.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Secretary of State ensure that some of that money is earmarked for the Halifax district hospital? We have been waiting for it to be built for 20 years. Will she also stop the Calderdale trust from closing down the purpose-built Northowram hospital until the new hospital is built? Can she give a date on which construction will start?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I know that the hon. Lady will greatly appreciate the fact that, on average, the Government have been able to open one £1 million capital project every week that we have been in office. There has been an unprecedented sustained programme of investment in the national health service. She will understand that changing medicine and changing therapeutic styles inevitably mean a changing structure in the health service in this country, as it is changing in every country in the world. Only the Labour party, with its luddite habits and its resistance to change, would pay the price of failing to give patients the best possible health care. We will continue to make progress as soon as we can.
    Mr. Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend take courage from the success of this first assault on the multi-level bureaucracy of the national health service? As the NHS trusts grow in confidence and competence, will she assure the House that she will give them more freedom and less overweening bureaucracy from the top?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I can indeed give that assurance. The freedoms of NHS trusts are part of the reason why they have been able to develop more responsive and better quality care for their patients, and not least why they have been able to design the pay structures of staff who work within them. The Labour party's research expenses are funded by Unison, yet Unison is demanding a payback on those research costs by requiring the Labour party only ever to take forward policies that would increase bureaucracy and undermine benefits for patients. We are keeping a book. Every commitment made by the Labour party reduces service and increases costs. Only the union paymasters benefit.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Bearing in mind the fact that GPs are now working an average of 62 hours a week, will the Minister consider committing some of the savings of which she has spoken to the six essential points which need to be met to solve the GPs' out-of-hours problem? In particular, and before the GPs meet tomorrow, will she consider telling them that she is prepared to use some of those savings to deal with the issues of valuing work load, valuing the work done by GPs, and the patient education needed to reduce out-of-hours calls?
    Mrs. Bottomley: In my view, there are many areas for discussion with GPs. A work programme which looked at the work load of GPs was submitted to the review body, and it revealed that, although their work had increased by about 2 per cent., pay had increased by about 8 per cent. in the years considered. We have not only met the review body recommendations in full, but have agreed to a number of mechanisms to help GPs share the load of out-of-hours cover.

    143
    In addition, we have put on the table £45 million to help with the development of co-operatives. We want a constructive outcome, and we believe that there are many areas for discussion with GPs, which I hope will continue—not least their fair comments about encouraging the public to use their services responsibly and not to call them out inappropriately.

    Capital Project Schemes
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many capital project schemes costing over £1 million are currently under construction; and how many are in the pipeline. [27717]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): There are a 112 building schemes in progress with a construction cost of over £1 million, with a further 75 in the pipeline.
    Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend recall the media criticism of the decision to close the 400-bed unit at Rochford, even though it was based in an old workhouse and could not serve patients' needs effectively? Will he join me in welcoming the new 400-bed unit at Southend trust hospital? It has replaced that old workhouse unit and will serve many more patients, and serve them much better than the old unit. Will he fight the perverse antediluvian tendencies of the Opposition, who seek to resist all sound change we want to make in order to invest in the future of our national health service?
    Mr. Sackville: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that his constituents will receive better health services in modern surroundings at the Southend hospital. The Opposition's constant carping and criticism of any closure is always accompanied by the construction of excellent new facilities elsewhere.
    Mr. Betts: How many of the projects are now stuck in the private finance initiative assessment process? What is the average delay while projects are subject to that assessment? Is it true that those delays were responsible for a £200 million underspend in the national health service capital budget in the previous financial year?
    Mr. Sackville: The PH will be a better way of procuring hospitals quicker and more cheaply by using all the skills of the private sector in tandem with those of the NHS.

    Hospital Projects
    Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about capital expenditure on hospital projects in Medway and Swale. [27718]
    Mr. Sackville: Some £70 million is being invested in hospital projects in Medway and Swale. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that this represents a substantial investment in the health care of his constituents.
    Sir Roger Moate: Is my hon. Friend aware that people in north Kent and north Kent Members of Parliament have been battling for years to get that type of investment in our local health service? It is marvellous news that the Government are delivering the next phase of the Medway hospital; that the Sittingbourne hospital is under construction; and that the construction of Sheppey hospital is due to start this year.
    144
    Is that not further evidence that the health service under the Government is being sustained and improved as one of the best health services in the world? Would it not make a change for those on the Opposition Benches to welcome such good news instead of adopting a constant carping, critical and negative approach, which undermines confidence in our health service?
    Mr. Sackville: Those developments at Medway, Sittingbourne and Sheppey represent a huge number of projects—600 in the past 15 years—and they represent a constant upward trend in the hospital capital programme over that time. In fact, last year, that programme reached a record of £1.8 billion. Although I would be the last person to try to make political capital out of that, I must point out to the House that the late 70s was the only time when that trend was reversed, when the so-called Treasury team of the Labour Government drove this country to the moneylenders, and their first instinct was to slash the hospital capital programme. That is some commitment to health from a Government of which the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was a member.

    St. Bartholomew's Hospital
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to allow St. Bartholomew's to continue as a private hospital. [27719]
    Mr. Malone: Local health authorities and trusts are discussing the possibility of continuing health care at the St. Bartholomew's site with the Corporation of London. In addition, my right hon. Friend has asked Sir Ronald Grierson to chair a task force to look at practical options for the future use of the Smithfield site. The outcome of that work is awaited.
    Mrs. Gorman: Does my hon. Friend agree that Bart's is to the medical world what Harrods is to retailing in the private sector—that is to say, it is a famous institution which can attract masses of spending to London from abroad? The tens of thousands of alumni of that hospital who are practising abroad would send their clients to a well-known public service hospital if it were not for the prejudice which the Opposition have about pay beds, which has prevented many hospitals from developing what could be a lucrative income to supplement their national health service work. Is it not a great shame that we are not doing more to encourage money that is spent in private hospitals to be spent in that area of the public sector?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear me confirm that it is the Government's intention to promote and to try to ensure a mixed economy for health, as that is important. My hon. Friend makes her point forcibly, but the reputation of any trust depends on its clinical excellence. The purpose of the change and consolidation at the trust to which we are referring is to promote clinical excellence. I am sure that Bart's reputation will be maintained and that the alumni will take good note of that.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is the Minister aware that Bart's received more nominations from the public for a charter mark award than any other institution? Does he think that that might be due to the fact that, in all its history, Bart's has never had private beds and has never treated private patients? Is it not typical of the direction of health care under this Government, and the ultimate comment and

    145
    obscenity of their policy, that Conservative Members should be advocating the closure of Bart's as an NHS hospital and its opening—after 900 years—as a private institution to treat just a few people?
    Mr. Malone: I am glad to see that— probably uniquely among Labour's Front-Bench team— the right hon. Lady's 1970s prejudices are entirely undiminished. Bart's received no nomination from the right hon. Lady when she was asked in a recent interview whether her party's policy would be to save Bart's. All we got was equivocation, and no firm answer. She is in no position to make any suggestion about the future of Bart's.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Reverting to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), if the Al Fayeds buy Bart's, can they have British citizenship?
    Mr. Malone: I am sure that they would seek my hon. Friend's advice.

    Brinnington Health Centre
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in funding an extension to the Brinnington health centre. [27720]
    Mr. Sackville: The proposal to develop Brinnington health centre as a primary care resource centre is due for discussion at the North West regional health authority's July meeting. If approved, it will receive the go-ahead at that time.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister urge North West region to give sympathetic consideration to the proposals since there have been repeated reports during the past six or seven years about the ill health suffered by many people in Brinnington? The most useful thing that could be done is to make sure that those people have a health centre large enough to enable them to have such facilities as a pain clinic to improve the treatment that they are now receiving.
    Mr. Sackville: Yes. This appears to be a worthwhile scheme which offers a great variety of services. Since the hon. Gentleman tabled his question he will have received a letter from the Stockport health commission, in which it mentions that the response to date to the information given to the region has been favourable. I hope very much that the scheme will go ahead, and that it will join another nine modern health centres in the north west, including four at a cost of £6.5 million in various deprived areas around Manchester.

    Residential Accommodation
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the implications of removing from local authorities the duty to provide residential accommodation for the elderly; and if she will make a statement. [27721]
    Mr. Bowls: There is no such duty. Under the National Assistance Act 1948 the duty is to arrange to provide. Our purpose is to clarify that local authorities may arrange to provide residential care either directly or through contracts with other providers. This matches current practice.
    Mr. Clapham: I hear what the Minister says, but is that not contrary to the policy that has been set down in previous White Papers, which suggested that care for the elderly should be based on a mixed economy? Is he aware that in Barnsley, one third of all households contain at least one person who is either elderly or disabled and who requires care? Some 12 per cent. of the adult population of Barnsley are informal carers. If the changes are implemented, will the Minister ensure that resources are made available to deprived areas like Barnsley so that adequate care in the community can be provided?
    Mr. Bowis: It is a matter for Barnsley to organise the very real resources that it has obtained from the taxpayer to meet those needs. If our proposals are accepted, no one will compel anyone to do anything; we will just make things possible.
    I think that perhaps Barnsley needs some guidance in view of what the Act requires and what a recent judgment suggested might be required. Barnsley provides no residential care for expectant and nursing mothers, for the physically disabled or for the mentally ill. I do not question that, but I think that it might help Barnsley to have the system clarified.
    Mr. Sims: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, when an elderly person is assessed as being best cared for in a residential home, it remains the responsibility of the local authority to ensure that that person is suitably placed? Does he agree that elderly people's needs vary greatly and that the private voluntary sector is able to offer a far wider range of accommodation at a more reasonable cost than local authorities have ever been able to provide?
    Mr. Bowis: Yes. My hon. Friend is quite right: as local authorities have looked for better quality at a better cost when placing people in residential care, increasingly they have looked to the independent sector. It is also true that individuals who are placed in residential care are choosing that sector as they begin to realise their rights under the statutory direction on choice. The only organisation that stands in the way of that choice is the Labour party, and sometimes the Liberal party, in the local town halls.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: In view of the fact that elderly people from the Minister's constituency were in the High Court last month defending their residential accommodation and that elderly and disabled people were in the High Court again last week defending their care services, what steps are the Government taking to address the serious difficulties currently facing vast numbers of users and carers? The Minister's own figures show that, since the care changes, one third of local authorities have been forced to cut home care, half have cut meals on wheels and more people are now entering institutional care. Is it any wonder that there is a total lack of public confidence in the Government's care policies?
    Mr. Bowis: No one has required those authorities to cut anything. Some Labour authorities are making a hash of managing their existing resources and they are not exerting the good financial control that is required' of them, not just by the Government and the taxpayer, but clearly by the Audit Commission. The Audit Commission has also pointed out that, if local authorities managed their affairs better, half a billion pounds would be available for front-line services. I cannot understand why, if individuals want to choose between the sectors and if the Audit

    147
    Commission believes that that is in the best interests of the people who are being placed, the Labour party should reject it because it is the way to ensure good value for money and good services. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. It is very difficult to hear those hon. Members whom I have called to speak.

    Expenditure (Hospitals)
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money she plans to spend on hospital building and refurbishment in the current financial year. [27723]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Government capital spending on hospital and community health services is planned to be £1.8 billion in 1995–96, of which some two thirds is expected to be on hospital building and refurbishment. Capital spending stands at 59 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79.
    Mr. Lidington: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that list will include the £23.5 million rebuilding and refurbishment programme for Stoke Mandeville hospital in my constituency, work on which is due to start this December? Will she continue to encourage national health service trusts to work in partnership with the private health sector wherever possible so that private health resources can be added to the very considerable sums already contributed by the taxpayer?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I can, indeed, confirm that the Stoke Mandeville project is very much in the main stream. It is a major programme, offering substantial further improvements at a nationally, indeed internationally, famous hospital.
    My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the private finance initiative offers substantial further advantages, to extend the capital programme in the NHS. That is another aspect over which the Labour party would cut off its nose to spite its face. It is not prepared to work with the private sector, and would allow patients to suffer to please its union paymasters.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State share my concern that we may not be obtaining value for money? Many capital projects are finished over time and over budget.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Achieving value for money on capital programmes is fundamental to the good management of the NHS, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that now, cost overruns and time overruns run to the tune of 7 and 9 per cent. When the Labour party was in power, it was about 30 per cent. It is a further example of substantially improved management in the NHS, from which patients and staff are benefiting.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 June. [27741]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Dr. Jones: Yesterday the Prime Minister agreed that the public are opposed to Brent Spar being dumped at sea. Today we know that the Government's own scientists also oppose that. Why were their objections overruled? Surely it is now time for the Prime Minister to act to prevent that dangerous dumping.
    The Prime Minister: With respect to the hon. Lady, she is a little behind the events of today. The views of a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food scientist were completely misreported in this morning's press, and the scientist involved has now issued a statement and appeared on television to clarify the matter. He has made it entirely clear that the concerns expressed in the leaked paper expressly did not apply to deep-sea disposal, which is what is proposed.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend recall Kipling's lines:
    "If you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you"—(Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order to hear Mr. Davies.
    Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend remember the confusion that was caused when the Bosnian Serbs seized hostages a few weeks ago, when some people even suggested that we should beat a retreat or give in to blackmail? Will my right hon. Friend recognise that the clearsightedness and resolution that he displayed then have saved not only the lives of the hostages, but the credibility of NATO? Will he now take a little credit where it is so obviously deserved?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and for reminding me of one of Kipling's great poems. I am of course delighted that all of the peacekeepers have now been released, and I take the opportunity to make it clear to the House that no deal whatsoever has been entered into to ensure their release. That would not have been the wish of the House, and no deal at all has been made. We also said that we would hold the Bosnian-Serb leaders personally responsible for their release. I cannot be certain whether that had an impact on their decision, but certainly they were in no doubt whatsoever that, if any harm had come to our hostages, or indeed other United Nations hostages, we would most certainly have held them personally responsible for that harm.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall that, shortly before the Scott inquiry, he said that Parliament had not been misled deliberately or otherwise, and that the guidelines for the sale of arms to Iraq had not been changed after 1985? Is that still the Government's position today?
    The Prime Minister: I recall very clearly what I said about that. I also recall that I set up an inquiry by Sir Richard Scott so that he might examine that to determine whether or not he felt that that was correct. That report is in the course of being considered at the moment. I have

    149
    made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that I have no intention of commenting on the substance of that until Sir Richard has reached a final conclusion and has reported.
    Mr. Blair: What I was asking the right hon. Gentleman to do was to state the Government's position, not to anticipate the findings of the report. [Interruption.] Fair enough, if he says that he has to await the report, then may we have his categoric assurance that if the report does find that Parliament has been misled he will abide by its findings and act upon them?
    The Prime Minister: Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman is unaware of the requirement set down clearly in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". I approved and published that guidance, so it is a matter of open report to the House. I have made it clear in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" that Ministers who deliberately mislead Parliament should resign, except in exceptional circumstances like a devaluation—the Lord Callaghan example is a case in point. That remains the case.
    We are witnessing at the moment a series of quite malicious leaks. I say "malicious" because I believe that they should be seen for what they are. They are intended to blacken Ministers' names before they have responded to a provisional report with which they strongly disagree. I hope that in future people will see these leaks for what they are and will await the final report from Sir Richard Scott.
    Mr. Blair: What I am trying to establish is whether the right hon. Gentleman will abide by the findings of the Scott inquiry. I accept that he has said that if Ministers are found to have misled the House deliberately they will resign; but will the right hon. Gentleman abide by the findings of the Scott inquiry on that point? If he does not, and rejects them, that will put the final seal of contempt on a disintegrating Government.
    The Prime Minister: I was wondering in which direction the soundbite would go today—now we know what the first two questions were intended to lead up to. I set up Sir Richard Scott's inquiry; I am awaiting the report; I will consider it; and I will make my judgment when I have got it and seen it.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern of many of my constituents about malpractice in local government? Has he seen the recent independent report on Monklands district council showing that, where the Labour party is in power, it cannot be trusted not to abuse it?
    The Prime Minister: Following the right hon. Gentleman's question, my hon. Friend was called at an appropriate moment. On a day when we have heard yet more Labour accusations based on rumours and leaks, here, with this report on Monklands, we have a clear case of how Labour in office runs its own affairs. I have seen the reports on how the council apparently targeted spending for political reasons, on jobs for the boys and jobs for their families. It is no good the Labour party trying to get off the hook; this council is run by Labour councillors. It is not an isolated example: Lambeth council, Birmingham council, Monklands council—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends add to the list.
    If the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is so concerned about open government, will he say today that he will publish the earlier, secret report held by the
    150
    Labour party into Monklands council, which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has consistently refused to make public?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Sit down.
    Mr. Ashdown: Given that the Government are prepared to allow Shell to dump the toxic waste from Brent Spar into the sea, will the Prime Minister tell us how the Government intend to stop the other 50 North sea oil rigs waiting for disposal being similarly disposed of, by dropping them into some vast underwater toxic scrap-metal dump off the coast of Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman should know, there are a number of international commitments before there can be disposal of any oil-bearing rigs of this sort. We have complied with all the requirements under the Oslo convention, the London convention and the Ospar—Oslo-Paris—convention. In each and every case we shall do precisely the same. No case will be precisely similar, and on each occasion we will make a judgment of what we believe to be the right environmental way to dispose.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of an illustrious predecessor, who was a great patriot and a good European, who said that the dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on? Does he take those words to heart? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. We must hear the answer to this one.
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted that my campaign for literacy is bearing fruit in all directions.
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 June. [27743]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Prime Minister agree that President Chirac's cynical resumption of nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific is treating the people of that region with contempt and putting at risk the health of their children and children yet unborn? If the French must have nuclear testing, why cannot they do it in central France?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether that will add to the hon. Gentleman's European credentials. The decision on nuclear testing is not an easy one for the French. It is for them and they have made it. The principal objective at the conclusion of the short series of tests is the early conclusion of an indefinite comprehensive test ban treaty. President Chirac has confirmed his commitment to it, we are committed to it and I hope we can achieve it as speedily as possible.
    Mr. Gale: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study reports in the press indicating that Opposition spokesmen now have the effrontery to suggest that it was the fault of the Scottish Office for not conducting an inquiry into the Monklands issue that led to the present position? Is it

    151
    possible that the Scottish Office might have been unwise to accept assurances from Labour Front-Bench spokesmen that nothing was wrong?
    The Prime Minister: I must confess to my hon. Friend that I am not entirely sure of the background, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has today written in detail to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), asking him to make public all the information that he has and that so far has been kept private. I hope that, in the new spirit of openness, the Labour party will respond immediately and comprehensively to that request.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 June. [27744]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clarke: Does the Prime Minister agree that discrimination against disabled people is wrong? [Interruption.] The House and the country will note that the Conservative party does not seem interested in the concerns of 10,000 of my constituents. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Mr. Shaw. Order now. [Interruption.] Order. I shall have silence in the House when Members are asking questions. I call Mr. Clarke.
    Mr. Clarke: Does the Prime Minister agree that discrimination against disabled people is wrong, whatever its nature and origin? If he does, will he join me in congratulating the House of Lords on extending the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Bill by a majority of two to one, so that any discrimination against disabled people, whatever its origins, will be seen as unfair, unjustified and rightly unlawful?
    The Prime Minister: I have always opposed discrimination in all its forms and the Disability Discrimination Bill sent by this House to the other place, promoted by this Government, is the greatest single advance in disability legislation that we have seen for a long time—perhaps the greatest single advance on any occasion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is the case, for he knows it to be so. If he is concerned about discrimination, he might also be concerned that people ought not to discriminate in favour of their relatives on his local council. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. There is no injury time.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the abolition of independent funding and management of grant-maintained schools destroys the whole notion of grant-maintained status, and that no amount of words from Labour Members will be able to hide their instinctive hostility towards grant-maintained schools?
    The Prime Minister: I do find myself a very strong advocate of grant-maintained schools. I understand that the Labour party now wishes to channel grant-maintained funds through local education authorities, allowing the political opponents of grant-maintained schools to control the purse strings. It also seems to be prepared to stuff the grant-maintained schools' boards of governors with Labour party leaders from the local councils. So much for its professed concern about quangocracy. When it suits it, that is precisely what it will do. Having preached one thing, it practises another. It pretends that it favours grant-maintained schools with strings but, in reality, it is a string that will break the neck of the grant-maintained system.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath: Robert Law McCartney Esq., for North Down.

Determinate Sentences for Murder
3.32 pm
Mr. Gary Waller: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the mandatory life sentence in respect of convictions for murder and to confer on courts the power to impose determinate sentences while retaining the power to impose sentences of imprisonment for life.
We all like to believe that the British system of justice is the fairest in the world; that every accused person is assured of a fair trial and a fairly administered sentence. Yet I would like the House to compare that model with the following statement:
"The judges at present are having to pass a sentence which in many cases is patently inappropriate and does not mean what it says. That does nothing to enhance the authority of the law. Nor does it allow them to carry out their proper, albeit difficult function, namely to pass a sentence appropriate to the crime and to the criminal, whilst at the same time, as far as possible, protecting the public."
That was the conclusion reached by the Committee on the Penalty for Homicide, chaired by the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, and his words have been entirely endorsed by the present Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, giving evidence recently to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. They were both referring to the mandatory life sentence now condemned by nearly all the Appeal Court judges as inappropriate and unjust. Another severe critic is the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson.
My Bill seeks to abolish the mandatory life sentence, but to retain the availability of life imprisonment as a penalty, where it is necessary, especially in the interest of protecting the public or because of the seriousness of the crime. In many of those cases, life would genuinely mean life. Far from going soft on murder, my Bill would ensure that life imprisonment was taken to mark the utmost horror and gravity with which society regards some truly dreadful crimes.
The present mandatory life sentence is justified by some on the basis that it differentiates a unique crime. Homicide is a unique crime, in a sense, but there must be many cases of manslaughter that are devised essentially to avoid the mandatory life sentence that would inevitably follow a conviction for murder.
There can surely be nobody in the House who thinks that all those who are convicted of murder are equally culpable, whether they be on the one hand a moors murderer, or on the other a loving husband convicted of the mercy killing of his wife; on the one hand the bank robber who in cold blood shoots a police officer in trying to make good his escape, or on the other Private Lee Clegg. Lord Ackner has described as "rubbish" the suggestion that all murders are equally wicked, and he is right.
In requiring judges to pass a sentence of life imprisonment in all cases, we not only devalue what should be the true meaning of a life sentence, but we bring about quite perverse outcomes. Even if the convicted person is released relatively soon, as in the case of a so-called "mercy killing" and perhaps Private Lee Clegg, he will be released only on licence and must live the rest of his life knowing that he may be recalled to prison at any time at the behest of the Home Secretary.
Among those who most detest the concept of the life sentence are many of the families of victims, and some of the organisations that represent them. In the case of a determinate sentence, they would know, because the decision would be announced in open court, that the person
154
responsible for the death of their loved one had been sent to prison, perhaps for a very long time. A life sentence today, however, is a meaningless concept and leaves open the possibility, as the brother of a murder victim complained on the BBC radio programme "Face the Facts", that the killer will soon be free to walk the streets of the neighbourhood as a result of an Executive decision.
In other cases, the relatives are cheated of a murder conviction because a verdict of manslaughter is substituted, perhaps on grounds of provocation, essentially because it enables a determinate sentence to be imposed in cases where a mandatory life sentence does not seem appropriate.
Some hon. Members may recall that the previous Bill that I introduced in the House sought to reinforce the opposition of the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethnics to the introduction of euthanasia in this country. The mandatory life sentence for murder is of assistance to the pro-euthanasia lobby, because the public think it manifestly unfair that a relative or friend responsible for a mercy killing—someone for whom we should all surely have the maximum sympathy—is charged with a crime that is bound to carry a penalty of life imprisonment. Yet if the judge had the power to pass a minimum sentence, to show that justice can be tempered with mercy, I think that everyone would rightly applaud. Thus it was that, among many other proposals that I support, the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics also recommended the introduction of determinate sentences for murder.
Determinate sentences would also enable the courts to deal more fairly with those who kill following a prolonged period of abuse over many years— what one might call the "Brookside" factor, which is well known to followers of the Channel 4 soap.
It used to be argued that discretion had to be left to the Home Secretary because judges sometimes passed unduly lenient sentences, but now, of course, the Attorney-General has the power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal if the sentence is considered unduly lenient. That would obviously be a vital safeguard in cases of murder, where public interest is often very great.
One of the criteria whereby I judge the existence of genuine civil liberties in a state is the separation of judicial and Executive powers. Justice should be done in open court, not by Ministers. Justice behind closed doors may or may not be justice denied; we just have no way of knowing. An example that highlights that defect is the case of Mohammed Riaz and Abdul Quayum Raja. Those men, Kashmiri separatists, were convicted of the murder of an Indian diplomat— a truly awful crime that came about as a result of a kidnapping that went wrong. The principal killers were never apprehended. Riaz was implicated as a captor of the victim, and that was sufficient for him to be charged and convicted of murder, although he was not present when the act was committed. After passing a sentence of life imprisonment, the trial judge recommended to the then Home Secretary that Riaz be released after no more than 10 years at the outside. Account should be taken of the fact that he had been brought into the conspiracy at a late stage. He was, the judge stated on the basis of the evidence, unlucky to find himself in his present position.
Although he had not seen the defendant in court, the Lord Chief Justice recommended to the Home Secretary that the tariff— the term fixed in the Home Office—

155
should be increased to 16 years. Initially, the Home Secretary did not reveal what tariff had been set, but, when required to do so as a result of a landmark court decision, he stated that he had set a tariff of 20 years—double that recommended by the trial judge.
Many people of Kashmiri origin are resident in this country. What must they think of a sentence passed in such a case, not by a court but by a politician? Might they not think, as many evidently do, that the Home Secretary's agenda incorporated a wish to satisfy the Government of India—a country with immense trade potential? No one can refute that argument, for the simple reason that the decision was made in private by the Executive power of this country.
I suspect that, if sentences in some third-world country were imposed not by judges but by Cabinet Ministers, there would be many signatures to an all-party early-day motion and many letters would be on their way from the House to the ambassador concerned. Should we not seek to put our own house in order, too?
The mandatory life sentence creates anomalies. It undervalues the seriousness with which we should consider the most dreadful murders, while subjecting those who deserve some sympathy to a perverse punishment. It leaves the country open to challenge in international courts. It undermines our argument that a free, unfettered judicial system is intrinsic to any liberal democracy.
The mandatory life sentence does the opposite of what it sets out to achieve, and it should go.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Max Madden and Sir Keith Speed.

Determinate Sentences for Murder
  DETERMINATE SENTENCES FOR MURDER
  Mr. Gary Waller accordingly presented a Bill to abolish the mandatory life sentence in respect of convictions for murder and to confer on courts the power to impose determinate sentences while retaining the power to impose sentences of imprisonment for life: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

Points of Order
3.42 pm
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received an application for a private notice question from either the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) or the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell)?
Madam Speaker: Order. I do not divulge what applications come my way. That is not a point of order.
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This morning's edition of The Scotsman reports that council officials in Monklands say that the practices there—or, rather, malpractices—are widespread in Scottish local government. Have youߞ
Madam Speaker: Order. What has that to do with me?
Mr. Heald: The Nolan inquiry, Madam Speaker, was set up to look into standards in public life. Would it be in order for the Nolan committee to widen its inquiry to take account of the malpractices—
Madam Speaker: Order. The Nolan committee is nothing to do with me.

Orders of the Day

  Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  We have in our keeping the welfare of people who are ill. It is never an easy task, but when the illness is of the mind, it is one of the most difficult areas of policy and practice to get right. Mental illness is often invisible and unpredictable; it can come upon us suddenly, without warning, or steadily over a period of deteriorating months and years. It can usually be managed and can often be cured, but it strikes fear into the hearts of some and many see it as a stigma.
  Our aim in the Bill is to improve the care of that small number of severely mentally ill people sometimes characterised by the term "revolving door"—people who need additional supervision of their care if they are to live successfully in community settings. We must keep their needs at the forefront of our minds. Alongside that, we must never forget our obligation to reassure the public as a whole that such supervised care will be effective, because without public confidence and support, mental health policy cannot function in the interests of patients. It is a chicken-and-egg scenario—the egg of mental health policy and the chicken of supportive public opinion.
  The Bill is not and must not be seen as an isolated measure, but it is a key component in a coherent and comprehensive strategy by which we seek to address all aspects of the needs of mentally ill people, their families and communities.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister says that the Government's approach is comprehensive. I see nothing in the Bill that addresses the real difficulty that is faced by many people suffering from mental illness in getting adequate services from general practitioners within their communities. Many GPs have not been trained to deal with some of the more complicated aspects of mental illness. How does that aspect fit into the legislation?
  Mr. Bowis: It fits in very well. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter, not in terms of the wording of the Bill, but in terms of how it will operate. Perhaps we can discuss that in Committee, because we shall want to make sure that the issue that he mentions is included in the guidance that will accompany the Bill when, we hope, it receives the support of Parliament and Royal Assent. We shall ensure that such care is covered.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I assure my hon. Friend that GPs in my constituency, which has a long tradition of caring for people in the community and was the first to initiate 24-hour nursing care, are very well trained to look after people who have been discharged from our local hospital.
  Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the good work that is carried out by many general
  158
  practitioners and community nurses and others, particularly community health nurses, who work with people with mental illness and with the severely mentally ill whom we are debating today. That is not to say that any of us should underestimate the need to improve co-operation among general practitioners and between all the agencies and professionals whom we seek to include in our care programme approach as we look after people in the community.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I should like to ask about children. Are the Scottish measures in the Bill compatible with those in the Children (Scotland) Bill? One of the concerns that has been raised with me is that, through this legislation, doctors and social workers would be able to apply to a sheriff to secure control of a child without having to refer to a children's hearing. Is that right? If it is, it would be a disgraceful state of affairs. I see that the Minister is getting advice.
  Mr. Bowis: I am not getting advice at the moment. I shall return to the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is the sort of issue that we might debate in Committee, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman is volunteering to join in that debate. When one drafts legislation, one takes account of all the needs of other legislation and of other family members. Although on the whole we are debating adults with severe mental illness, children in families may also need our protection. I certainly take the hon. Gentleman's point.
  The Bill is a Great Britain measure, which amends both the Mental Health Act 1983 for England and Wales and the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. The most important of its provisions, on which I intend to concentrate in my opening speech, are those to introduce the new power of supervised discharge, which in the Bill is called "after-care under supervision" for England and Wales, and the broadly equivalent "community care orders" for Scotland. The other provisions deal with leave of absence for detained patients and the return of those who are absent without leave.
  The words "Patients in the Community" in the Bill's title precisely reflect the way in which the emphasis on the care of mentally ill people has shifted over the past 30 years. There is now a quite different landscape from the one that was characterised so vividly by Enoch Powell in his description of the old, isolated mental hospitals. The change to a service that concentrates on helping people to maintain or resume life in their own homes has, overwhelmingly, been for the better. No one who knows what the old days were like would really want to go back to them. We have promoted the new approach vigorously, both by the increased resources that we have devoted to it and by the initiatives that we have taken to develop it as a policy. In 1979, we were spending on mental illness services provided by hospital, community health and social services some £450 million. In 1992–93, the latest year for which we have full figures, that had risen to £2,350 million, a real terms increase of £1 billion.
  Let me make it absolutely clear that the trend to community-based services does not mean that no mentally ill people should ever be in hospital. Many will need access to hospital services, some will need long-term in-patient care and some will need secure care. We need the right balance between hospital and community-based services, and between care and control on the one hand and respect for civil liberties on the other.

  159
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who has probably done more for the interests of people with mental health problems than any of her predecessors—and we should pay tribute to that—announced her review of the present legal powers, she expressed a concern shared by many people that in some respects those elements may have got a bit out of balance, or, to put it another way, that the pendulum may have swung too far in favour of civil liberties and away from care and control.
  As a society, we certainly owe a duty to mentally ill people to protect both them and other people from the harm that their illness may cause, and to ensure that each person's quality of life is enhanced by the right balance and blend of asylum and independent living that is appropriate in his or her case. If we are to make a success of care in the community, we must ensure that the community has confidence that the balance and blend are right. That means ensuring that both mentally ill people and other people are properly protected from the risks that they may present.
  The tragic cases that have occurred concern us not only because of the failing that they represent in the services for the person who is ill, but because of the damage that they do to public confidence. As a matter of actual fact, the public are not now at greater risk from mentally ill people than they were in the past; indeed, the number of mentally disordered people convicted of homicide under the Homicide Act 1957 has fallen significantly in the past 20 years. Nevertheless, our ability to manage successfully patients who present the greatest potential risk both to themselves and to other people is crucial, both as a test of the effectiveness of the policy and in ensuring that public confidence is maintained.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I agree with the Minister that no responsible Government can ignore the Silcock and Clunis tragedies; they were indeed tragedies that had to be urgently addressed. However, he is saying that the whole approach to dealing with mental illness has changed, and rightly so, since the introduction of community care. Does he accept, however, that the 1983 and 1984 Acts to which he referred were cast at a time when treatment was undertaken on a wholly different basis? Does he not therefore think that it is right that the Department, as well as dealing with some of the short-term, immediate problems, should be considering in a fundamental manner the way in which we cast the legislative framework within which mental illness is treated?
  Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman has a point and it has been made to us by many, not least the Mental Health Act Commission. I and my right hon. Friend have thought about that point deeply and we have said clearly—as I told a conference held with the Law Society on the Act—that we have an entirely open mind on the need to review the Act as a whole. I say that genuinely. The time is coming when we shall need to consider the Act to ensure, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, that the environment and times in which we live, work and help mentally ill people are still as relevant to that legislation, and that that legislation is as relevant to our current practice, as we would like. We shall think hard about when the time is right for a wider review. Meanwhile, it was right that we should come through with our policies and strategy for the 10-point plan and the Bill, and that we should get them bedded in; then we can see how we should progress further.
  160
  Central to our policy is a clearly defined relationship between the community and hospital services. Under the care programme approach, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) referred, and which we started to introduce in 1991 for all patients receiving care from specialist psychiatric services in the community, mental health service providers must co-operate with local social services departments to deliver a package of care to meet the individual needs of severely mentally ill people. Every patient covered by the care programme approach must have a named key worker, and we have given increasing attention to ensuring that services are properly managed and organised and that legal powers are properly understood and applied. However, the cases to which I referred highlighted a need for more effective legal powers in some cases.
  Many of the issues were brought to a head by events in the early part of 1993. Even before the subject started to hit the headlines, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had made clear her concern about the need for new legal powers. Indeed, by chance an account of her views was published the day before the incident involving the patient in the lions' cage.
  My right hon. Friend was not alone in identifying that need. The review of legal powers governing the care of mentally ill people in the community, which she announced in January 1993, took as its starting point the proposals for community supervision orders that had just been published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, having been developed by a college working party under the distinguished chairmanship of Professor Bluglass.
  However, our proposals for supervised discharge involve some significant modifications to the approach that the college proposed. In the first place, supervised discharge gives legal backing to the key features of the care programme approach, including both the power to supervise a patient and the reciprocal obligation on the national health service and local authorities to provide the after-care services that the patient needs.
  Secondly, the review team had to consider the impact of the European convention on human rights, and that led it to propose an approach different from that of the college for dealing with the case of a patient who refuses to accept supervision in the community. That also reflected the consideration of the college's proposals by the Select Committee on Health, which concluded that
  "the notion at the core of the College's proposals that a patient could consent in advance to compulsory treatment raises so many legal ethical, philosophical and logical complications as to be unworkable".
  When the college responded to our proposals, it was content to go along with the changes that we had made to its original approach.
  The review team's proposals for supervised discharge were published in August 1993 as part of my right hon. Friend's 10-point plan—a plan that I am glad to say has now largely been implemented. Soon after the review report, we published the revised Mental Health Act code of practice, which cleared up a serious misunderstanding that had developed about the criteria for admitting someone to hospital under the Act, and had led some professionals to interpret them too narrowly. Last year, we issued firmer guidance to ensure that patients are discharged from hospital only when it is safe for that to be done, and when proper arrangements have been made for their after-care.

  161
  We launched a training initiative for key workers, and we shall soon publish the clinical standards advisory group's report on schizophrenia. We also instituted a special study by the mental health task force of problems affecting the services for several mentally ill people in London, with a follow-up report.
  In preparation for the Bill, we consulted widely on the proposals, and in the responses that we received, support for the principle of the new power substantially outweighed opposition to it. I am sure that that will be one of the key issues for debate as the Bill goes through the House, but I believe that we have got the balance right.
  The Bill benefited greatly from the constructive cross-party scrutiny that it received in another place. We were grateful to the occupants of the Labour and Liberal Front Benches, and to the many noble Lords from all parties and from none who contributed. I am pleased that we could accept the principles of several of the amendments moved by, among others, my noble Friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Campbell of Croy and by Lord Carter, Lord Carmichael, the Earl of Mar and Kellie and Baroness Jay.
  Those amendments covered important matters, such as the requirement to consult a patient's nearest relative, the qualifications of the doctor who is to act as the responsible medical officer in the community, and the duty to give written information to a patient about both the effect of after-care under supervision and his appeal rights. I believe that those changes have significantly improved what was already a good Bill, and we are grateful for the help that we received from all sides.
  I hope that we can look forward to a similarly constructive scrutiny of the Bill in this House, but I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed by the position that the Labour party appears to intend to adopt. It seems that Labour will not offer the Bill its support. Indeed, it has tabled an amendment that demonstrates its lack of alternative proposals. I notice that Labour has even deleted references to new resources from the original text of its amendment. I would like to take this opportunity to remind Labour Members of the description of the Bill at different stages in the proceedings in another place by their noble Friend Baroness Jay, as both necessary and useful, and of Baroness Farrington, who gave her support to the Bill's principles and the important issues that it seeks to tackle.
  If I really wanted to look for support from the Opposition in another place, I would look to the Liberals' noble Friend Earl Russell who, on Third Reading, said:
  "I can recognise a good government Bill when I see it."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 May 1995; Vol. 564, c. 195.]
  We are happy to receive those accolades.
  I refer, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did at Health questions, to the missing face in our discussions, Lord David Ennals. I always enjoyed his company and discussing and debating with him. Sometimes we agreed; often we did not. Sometimes he was mischievous; he was always forgivable. We shall miss his robust contributions to this Bill, as we shall to many others.
  We have continued to develop our approach in the light of experience and new developments. We have in particular taken very full account of the recommendations
  162
  of the inquiry into the treatment and care of Christopher Clunis, which was chaired by Miss Jean Ritchie, QC; and of the lessons learned from the Robinson inquiry, chaired by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, QC.
  As a direct response to one of the main recommendations of the Ritchie inquiry, we have prepared a comprehensive inter-agency guide for purchasers concerned with the care of severely mentally ill people and we shall issue that shortly, after wide consultation.
  I shall now refer to the main thrust of the Bill, dealing first with the England and Wales provisions. Clause 1 introduces the new power of supervised discharge. Some 20 patients might be eligible for a supervised discharge in the average health district at any one time. The new provisions formalise the supervision in the community of previously detained patients so that they receive after-care in line with the care programme approach. There will be full consultation with all concerned, a written care plan, and a requirement to undertake regular reviews of the patient's needs and the services being provided.
  Supervised discharge will be available for patients who are suffering from a mental disorder as described in the 1983 Act and who no longer need to be detained, but who could present a substantial risk of serious harm to themselves or to other people if they did not receive the after-care services they need. The patient's responsible medical officer—the RMO—will make a supervision application to the health authority, supported by recommendations from another doctor and an approved social worker. Before doing so, the RMO must consult the patient and any informal carer, as well as the professional care teams in hospital and the community. Unless the patient objects, the RMO must also consult the patient's nearest relative.
  Before accepting the supervision application, the health authority is required to consult the local authority that is jointly responsible for providing after-care services under the existing section 117. When the application is accepted, all those who have been consulted about it must be informed and the patient told in writing of his right of appeal to a mental health review tribunal.
  The patient's medical care in the community then becomes the responsibility of a designated community responsible medical officer, who must be approved under section 12 of the 1983 Act as having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder. To supervise the patient's receipt of the after-care services, a supervisor will have been nominated, who is likely to be the patient's key worker under the care programme approach and usually a community mental health nurse.
  Clause 1 also defines requirements that the section 117 bodies may impose on the patient: to live at a specified place and to attend specified locations at specified times for medical treatment or rehabilitation services. They may require the supervisor to be given access to the patient where he or she is living. To back up those requirements, the Bill provides a power to convey the patient to a place where he or she is required to live or attend. That is essentially an emergency or fall-back measure for patients temporarily or uncharacteristically unwilling or unable to comply with their care plan requirements.
  The power cannot be used to require the patient to accept medication in the community, and compulsory medication is no part of the Bill's provisions. I know that that is something that some, including the British Medical

  163
  Association, would like, but we are advised that it would risk being in breach of our human rights convention obligations, as well as being opposed by substantial bodies of medical opinion.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: One of the principal causes for concern about the Bill is the way in which the power to convey will work in practice and, indeed, what the purpose of that power is. Once the patient—presumably with a degree of reluctance—has been conveyed to the appointed place, could the Minister say what it is intended will happen next?
  Mr. Bowis: I can make that clear. The purpose is that the patient can continue, with his wholehearted consent, with the care programme. As I said, that power will apply in cases where the patient, temporarily or uncharacteristically, is unwilling or unable to comply. The power to convey is nothing new; it is in the Mental Health Act 1983, as the hon. Gentleman knows. If the patient has been conveyed and is still unwilling to comply with the care plan, it is likely that he is coming to the point at which his case will need to be assessed in terms of whether the care plan is appropriate, whether supervised discharge is appropriate or whether the plan needs to be amended or revised. If it is not working, it may be that the person needs to be considered for return to hospital.
  Mr. Brown: If the patient's case needed to be reassessed, would not that process happen anyway? Why is the power to convey necessary to act as a trigger? Is not it likely that somebody who has been compulsorily conveyed will not be very willing to take part in whatever is intended at the other end of the journey—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Would the Attendant kindly remove the bleeper from the Chamber?
  Mr. Bowis: I do not think that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) was asking about absent friends. We are all, not least the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), grateful that it—[HON. MEMBERS: "A pacemaker?"]—whatever it is, has been removed.
  The question is how we strengthen the supervision of the patient in the community; that is what it is all about. If we strengthen, a little, the arm of the supervisors so that they have the power to convey if a patient is temporarily reluctant, by the time he has reached the destination for treatment, employment, education or whatever, it is likely that he will have recovered his feelings about the programme and will go forward with it. If the power to convey does not work, there is a case for reassessing the patient and the supervised discharge. If it does work, it is an additional strengthening, which is helpful.
  Mr. Jim Lester: I regard the Mental Health Act 1983 as one of the most fundamental pieces of legislation in which I have been involved, and I would not want to see it damaged. I remember that during the discussions on that Act, the principal problem was considered to be with schizophrenics. I understand from what my hon. Friend has said that the power to convey is mid-way between being in the community and having to be sectioned again; it is a halfway house. I have schizophrenic constituents who have decided that they are not mentally ill any more and who, rather than taking the medication, prefer to go to the pub and drink, which makes them more
  164
  aggressive. The power to convey is a middle way, whereby the care assistant can work with patients to get them back on to medication rather than sectioning them and thus taking them back into full-time care.
  Mr. Bowis: That is absolutely right and I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with his knowledge of the discussions on the 1983 Act, for the experience that he brings to the subject. I do not know whether he is offering to pursue his interest and to join the discussions on this Bill; we would very much welcome his experience. He is right to say that the power to convey is a halfway measure that will encourage people to stick to the plan to which, after all, they have agreed before coming into the community. We do not want them to have to be taken back. Here we have one step that will encourage people to stick with the plan; we hope that the power will be used rarely.
  Health authorities and local authorities are required to keep the after-care services under review and to modify them as necessary. If the patient refuses to accept the services, the next step is that consideration will be given to whether supervision is still appropriate—and, if so, whether the care plan needs to be amended—or whether the patient may need to be readmitted to hospital, using the powers in the 1983 Act.
  Initially on discharge, a patient will be subject to supervision for a period of six months, which can be renewed for a further six months and then yearly. Before it is reviewed, there must again be full consultation with the patient and others concerned. The community RMO may end supervised discharge at any time, subject again to consultation. Supervised discharge will provide a legal framework for what should already be widespread good practice and well-co-ordinated services for the most vulnerable mentally disordered patients who have been detained under the 1983 Act.
  Clause 2 ends a loophole in the 1983 Act relating to the return to hospital, or guardianship, of detained patients who are absent without leave. Restricted patients who abscond can be returned to hospital at any time, but under section 18(4), as it stands, an unrestricted patient who is not returned within 28 days simply ceases to be liable to be detained—regardless of the state of his or her mental health or the original period of detention.
  That is clearly unsatisfactory, so the Bill provides for an unrestricted patient to be returned to hospital or guardianship at any time up to six months from going absent without leave, or within the existing period of detention or guardianship if that is longer. Where a patient is returned after more than 28 days, his or her condition must be reassessed by the RMO. The new limits improve the protection given by the Act to detained patients and the public while taking proper account of patients' civil liberties.
  Clause 3 extends from six months to one year in England and Wales the period for which a detained patient may be given leave of absence from hospital. While the patient remains under the care of the hospital team, that time is commonly used as a preliminary period of rehabilitation, to establish whether he is ready to leave hospital care entirely. When we consulted on those proposals in 1993, there was widespread support for extending the leave of absence provision, giving a longer, more meaningful period in which to assess a patient's ability to cope with life in the community before formal discharge.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: What happens if a patient turns up at an accident and emergency department? The Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration heard recently of a patient being turned away from a department because it could not deal with the case. Are there any policies in place to deal with such patients turning up at A and E departments, because the departments have not got a clue what to do with them?
  Mr. Bowis: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the part of the Bill about extended leave, to which I have just referred. If a patient on extended leave turned up at an accident and emergency department, hopefully the A and E department would contact the patient's care team.
  Mr. Campbell: Hopefully?
  Madam Speaker: Put it on the record, please.
  Mr. Campbell: The Minister says "hopefully", but I am looking for something more concrete, so that when such people turn up at A and E departments, they are dealt with properly. The Select Committee heard that, on one occasion, a man was sent home and he hanged himself.
  Mr. Bowis: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support for the Bill, because such instances are precisely why we need to have closer and tighter supervision of individuals. Supervisors may then keep much closer contact with the individual. Certainly, if word came that somebody had gone to hospital because on a particular day he or she was not feeling well, or whatever, the supervisor would immediately be required to contact the individual. A person may also be on a supervision register—which is a different issue and not to do with the Bill—which would alert people to the need to pay special attention to the patient.
  That brings me to the Scottish provisions in the Bill. The Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 addresses the care and treatment of people with a mental disorder in Scotland. It is broadly similar to the Mental Health Act 1983 for England and Wales, but there are differences between the two Acts, which influence the way in which the proposals for community care orders in Scotland are framed.
  Ministers and officials in Scotland, England and Wales have kept in close contact while developing the respective proposals for the care in the community of people with a mental disorder. However, with regard to extended leave under the 1984 Act, patients who are liable to be detained in hospital in Scotland may be granted leave of absence for a specified period of up to six months and that may be extended for further periods.
  There are perceived to be legal problems with a patient who is liable to detention in hospital for treatment also being in the community on very extended leave of absence. A judicial decision raised the possibility of a successful legal challenge to the long-term use of leave of absence. A limit of 12 months for the use of successive periods of leave of absence is therefore also being introduced in clause 5 for Scotland.
  Dr. Godman: May I point out to the Minister that there is a great deal of concern in Scotland—for it has already been voiced—about the failure of the Bill to define precisely the powers of the sheriff in making orders? Is a sheriff in such a case to be advised by a medical expert,
  166
  an assessor, or will he or she have to rely on guidelines from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)? One of the serious concerns that some of us have about the Bill is the poorly defined powers of the sheriff.
  Mr. Bowis: I am sure that the strict issue of how the system will operate vis-à-vis the sheriff will be explored in greater detail in Committee. I intend to refer to the sheriff, the individual and the courts in a moment, so that may cover the points raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). If not, the Under-Secretary and I will do our best to offer reassurance to those who are concerned about the procedures in sheriff courts.
  Community care orders are introduced by clause 4. They will provide for Scotland a safeguard broadly similar to supervised discharge in England and Wales. An application for a community care order may be made for a patient who is liable to be detained in hospital under section 18 of the 1984 Act, or is subject to a hospital order without special restrictions made by a court following his involvement in criminal proceedings. Before an application can be made, the patient must have been liable to be detained in hospital for at least 28 days.
  The application process is triggered when the patient's responsible medical officer and another medical practitioner are satisfied that the patient's medical condition justifies a community care order, with a view to ensuring that the patient receives medical treatment and after-care services, for the patient's own health or safety or for the protection of others.
  The responsible medical officer may then make an application to the sheriff for a community care order. That is supported by a second medical opinion and a recommendation from a mental health social worker. That mechanism may allay some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. The application to the sheriff reflects the role of the courts in the Scottish mental health system, where it is the sheriff who makes an order for detention in hospital and hears appeals against detention in hospital. The courts do not have that role in England and Wales.
  The patient will be consulted before the application is made. He also has a right to be heard and call witnesses when the order is made. The order lasts initially for six months, after which it may be renewed for a further six months, then annually. When the order is first renewed, the patient is accorded a right of appeal to the sheriff. That is comparable to the arrangement for appeal against detention in hospital under the 1984 Act.
  The community care order will specify the special medical officer who is to be principally concerned with the patient's medical treatment in the community while the order is in force; and it will specify the after-care officer, who is the social worker responsible for co-ordinating the provision of the patient's after-care services. The conditions of the order will also be specified. They may include a place of residence and a requirement to attend certain places for treatment or training, in common with the English and Welsh system.
  The Scottish provisions include a new provision for reassessment in hospital. That will allow a person subject to a community care order to be returned to hospital for a period of up to seven days if his mental state has

  167
  deteriorated and gives, or is likely to give, grounds for serious concern regarding his health or safety, or the protection of other persons. The reassessment has to be approved by two doctors and the after-care officer must agree to it. Following a period of reassessment, the community care order may be continued or revoked, or an application for the patient's detention- in hospital may be made.
  The Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland has a statutory role under the 1984 Act to exercise protective functions in respect of those who may, by reason of their mental disorder, be incapable of protecting their person or their interests. Those duties are specifically extended by the provisions of the Bill. The commission will also have the power to revoke community care orders in appropriate cases. That is entirely consistent with its role in respect of patients detained in hospital subject to guardianship.
  There will be no power under community care orders to administer medication in the community without the patient's consent. I make that clear because there appears to have been some misunderstanding about what is being proposed.
  Clause 6 is the equivalent for Scotland to clause 3 for England and Wales. It makes equivalent provisions for detained patients or people subject to guardianship in Scotland who abscond, to be taken into custody and returned within their current period of detention or guardianship or within six months, whichever is later.
  Clause 7 is a Great Britain clause. It covers the short title, commencement and extent. The commencement date of 1 April 1996 will give sufficient time for regulations to be laid and made and for the necessary guidance to be issued to the NHS and local authorities. That is important because hon. Members have already raised issues today, which we shall have to consider as we issue guidance. We shall consult fully on that guidance before it is issued. The new powers are, of course, a significant addition to the existing arrangements. That guidance has an important part to play in ensuring that those powers are used properly and fairly.
  Mr. Roger Sims: Will that guidance also include advice to clinicians who will be responsible for releasing patients into the community as a result of the Bill's provisions? My hon. Friend has already referred to certain tragic cases, some of which appeared to involve patients with a history of violence, who were, nevertheless, released into the community. Such cases have harmed the concept of care in the community for mental patients. I would be grateful for my hon. Friend's assurance that firm guidance will be given to those who will take such decisions.
  Mr. Bowis: That is a fair point. As my hon. Friend knows, we have issued new clinical discharge guidance, and that is clearly making people think hard before discharging somebody from the hospital into the community. We must make sure that it is not inappropriate to discharge, and that there is a care team ready and waiting out there to receive each individual. The guidance will be issued after all the consultation, and will go to everyone involved in the planning and implementation of supervised discharge. That applies to people at the discharging end, as well as to those involved in the receipt of patients into community care. We shall make sure that that happens.
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I thank the Minister, who has been generous in giving way. I would like to take him back to the situation in Scotland. There is concern at the lack of guidance to sheriffs on how they are to determine the conditions. Bearing in mind the fact that sheriffs in Scotland are not always uniform in how they arrive at their decisions, will there be a system to monitor sheriffs' acceptance of guidance from the relevant professionals in cases?
  Mr. Bowis: It would be wise for me to distinguish between issuing guidance and seeking to guide the courts. We shall seek to issue guidance, which I hope the courts will find helpful, but it would be wrong—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting this—for us to seek to influence the decisions of the courts or the personal conclusions reached by sheriffs in the Scottish legal system. I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. We shall try to make sure that the guidance for, Scotland is clearly understood by all concerned, including those in the legal profession.
  I believe that the Bill provides a coherent, firm, reasonable and compassionate approach to the needs of the most seriously mentally ill people. It strikes a careful balance between taking into account the rights of citizens and the duty we owe to them and the wider public, to protect them from the harm that mental illness can cause. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.21 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "That this House, acknowledging the widespread public concern about the plight of people with serious mental illness discharged into the community, and noting with concern the growing shortages in the availability of acute psychiatric beds and the considerable strain put on community care services for the mentally ill, declines to give the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [Lords] a Second Reading because the Bill will inevitably result in a reduction in the funds available for existing mental health services, because the Bill will not improve co-ordination between government departments in administering effective community care strategies or between professionals in devising individual care plans and because, as a consequence, the Bill fails to address the present shortcomings of community-focused care for people with mental illness."
  Let me say from the outset that there is no division between ourselves and the Government on the two declared issues of principle involved in the matter. We believe that the Government have a duty to make provision for the protection of the public. We believe that it is the duty of the Government to make proper provision for the care and protection of their citizens who are ill, including those who are seriously mentally ill. These are objectives which the Government claim for themselves, as we do.
  In introducing the Bill, the Minister set out some of the background, and I too would like to put the Bill in its context. It is a fact that discharged psychiatric patients who represent a threat, either to themselves or to the public, constitute a tiny proportion of all mentally ill people cared for in the community. Sadly, as the Minister said, all the evidence shows that mentally ill people are at greater risk of abuse or harassment from others than they are a danger to the public.
  A number of high-profile cases have inspired the legislation that is before us today—the stabbing and killing of Jonathan Zito by Christopher Clunis in 1992,

  169
  the murder of occupational therapist Georgina Robinson and the injuries received by Ben Silcock after he climbed into the lions' enclosure at London zoo. Those are three examples of community care going terribly wrong, and that is the issue which—in my view—the House should be addressing today.
  It is, of course, important not to let those terrible incidents go by without attempting to draw conclusions about how they might have been averted. It is equally important to retain a sense of just how atypical those cases are. It is the view of the parliamentary Labour party—in this we are at one with the Government—that we should move from institution-based care for the mentally ill to care in the community. We acknowledge the problems that have arisen as a result of that policy, but we advocate efforts to solve those problems and to move forward rather than retreat or return to the old-fashioned way of containing the mentally ill in large, anonymous and undignified asylums.
  In enabling Parliament to consider important issues such as how best to protect the public and how best to care for the mentally ill, we are assisted by a number of very thorough and well-informed inquiries into the individual incidents that have occurred as well as into more general issues. The various reports about the recent tragedies have served two important functions: they have identified failings in the community care system, and they have made comprehensive recommendations to address those failings.
  The very valuable and thorough "Report of the Inquiry into the Care and Treatment of Christopher Clunis"—which no less a person than the Secretary of State for Health described as "essential reading"—offers some guidance. The report does not pin responsibility for the incident on any one individual involved in the care of Christopher Clunis, but indicates a range of problems besetting the community care system. The authors do not argue that the Christopher Clunis case was an exception. They say:
  "we are very concerned that these failures may well be reproduced all over the country, in particular in poor inner cities".
  The report contained a range of criticisms. Most importantly, it criticised poor liaison between different agencies, the failure of the responsible authorities to act upon warning signals, and the failure to provide social workers to assess new referrals and provide supervision.
  The report made special mention of the lack of psychiatric beds in London. The number of psychiatric beds in the capital has halved in the past decade. London also has fewer medium-secure unit places per head of population than most other regions, even though there is a disproportionate number of mentally ill people living particularly in the inner-city areas of the capital. The report also mentions the shortage of suitable accommodation providing a supportive environment to enable patients to readjust to life in the community and avoid admission to hospital.
  The Clunis report does not stand in isolation. The Health Select Committee, in its report "Better off in the community? The care of people who are seriously mentally ill", which was published in March 1994, concluded that
  "levels of performance nationwide are highly uneven".
  170
  It repeated many of the concerns that were raised by the inquiry into the Clunis case. "The Falling Shadow", the report on the killing of Georgina Robinson, which was published in January this year, pointed to a number of mistakes made by staff at the Edith Morgan centre in Torbay. The authors went on to argue that
  "much of the maladministration and malpractice derived from a fundamentally flawed statutory framework".
  It went on to propose, as does the Labour party, a thorough revision of the Mental Health Act 1983 and the consequent legislation for Scotland. The authors are not alone in calling for a new Act. The chairman of the Law Commission recently described the law in that area as
  "now out of date and full of gaps".
  We contend that this Bill does not fill those gaps adequately. The Matthew Trust report entitled "Victims of Care", which was issued in February 1995, had much of value to say to the House. It is a powerful report which tells a selection of very moving personal stories of mentally ill people who sought financial help from the trust having been turned away by all other agencies and charities. The report concludes:
  "the sweeping changes in the management of care appears to be putting vulnerable people even more at risk".
  The House should concern itself with that issue.
  Today we have to decide whether the Bill tackles those significant problems. The purpose of our amendment is to say that it does not. The reports to which I referred—there are several others—provide an accurate critique of the condition of community care for mentally ill people. They point to many problems and a range of solutions. Each report, as one would expect, offers a slightly different perspective, but it is perfectly possible to notice where the common ground lies. It does not lie in the Bill before us. It is the duty of the House to establish whether the Bill adequately tackles those widely accepted shortcomings of community care for mentally ill people.
  In summary, the shortcomings are as follows. There is a lack of co-ordination between the different departments and agencies responsible for providing community care services. The Bill will not improve that. There is poor recording of incidents that might serve as a predictor of future dangerous behaviour. The report into the Clunis case says:
  "Despite the fact that an accurate history is widely recognised to be invaluable in assessing a patient's dangerousness, we found time and again either violent incidents were minimised or omitted from records, or referred to in the most general of terms in discharge summaries."
  The report had a fair amount to say about the role of the police in those matters as well as the role of other health care professionals.
  Behavioural patterns are probably the best predictor of future behaviour that it is possible to obtain. Therefore, one would have supposed that the Minister might have made some mention of it in his speech and that the Bill might make some special mention of it; neither is the case.
  However, the Minister did refer to resources as an issue. The allocation of resources at the moment fails to take into account need, and results in often desperate shortages in deprived inner-city districts. The Audit Commission report, headed, "Finding a Place", demonstrates that need can vary from district to district by as much as four or five times.

  171
  As a proportion of total expenditure in the national health service, spending on mental health services has decreased in the past three years from 12.3 per cent. in 1988–89 to 10.8 per cent. in 1993–84—I have the answer given by the Secretary of State to a parliamentary question as recently as 9 June 1995. That is despite repeated assurances from Ministers that mental health services are a priority.
  A study of all 18 districts in north London found acute psychiatric bed occupancy rates increasing from 94 per cent. in 1990 to 101 per cent. in 1993, with some units running to an occupancy rate of more than 120 per cent. The Royal College of Psychiatrists believes that an 85 per cent. occupancy rate is optimal.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Of course there will be interest and concern, as the Bill proceeds through the House, in the resource arguments; I do not deny that for a moment. I was interested in the percentages that the hon. Gentleman gave a moment ago. That may be an example of an occasion when statistics mislead, because between 1988–89 and 1993–94 there was a massive expansion of resources in the national health service as a whole, and therefore the percentages that the hon. Gentleman gave mislead. Probably the absolute amounts of money going to mental health increased substantially between those years
  Mr. Brown: It is a broader argument and is of course one of the issues that are very much in contention between the parties. However, extra resources that have gone to the national health service from the mid-1980s to the present day have been sucked into a spiralling bureaucracy and into the installation of the internal market rather than being spent on patient care. I do not want to broaden the argument; I would prefer to focus on the Bill but, if the Minister wishes to broaden it out, I am happy to allow him.
  Mr. Bowis: The Minister never broadens anything if he can help it, but he is certainly interested in getting at the facts. The hon. Gentleman referred to a parliamentary question. If he had read that carefully, he would have read the caveats that those figures were not comparable for those years. I gave the actual figure, and I gave it in both ways. First, when we came into office, £450 million was being spent on mental health services—social services and health together—and that has now increased to £2,350 million. Secondly, I gave him the real terms increase, which was £1 billion. That is significant extra money going into the national health service and mental health care.
  Mr. Brown: I am just quoting the Minister's parliamentary answer back at him. I am not responsible for answering the question; all I did was ask it. The Minister says that there is a caveat relating to the capital programme. Still, the way the Government choose to compel the NHS to deal with these matters in internal budgets means a reduction in both percentage and real terms. If provision is adequate, perhaps the Minister will tell the House why the Secretary of State has to go and discuss these matters with the Government's senior Law Officers, and why people are trying to drag her before the courts to get these issues resolved. That does not sound to me like adequate provision—but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to defend the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Bowis: I would certainly wish to defend the Secretary of State—and the facts. The facts are that the beds
  172
  to which the hon. Gentleman refers—medium-secure beds—were perceived as being needed by the Glancy committee in 1974, but when we came to office in 1979 not a single such bed had been provided. By the end of next year there will be about 1,200 such beds. That is a sign that the Government provide medium-secure beds when they are needed, to meet the needs of the courts, the prisons and the secure health services. The hon. Gentleman might pay tribute to that fact and ask why, in his period of government, nothing happened for five years.
  Mr. Brown: My period of government has yet to come. I am looking forward to it, as are many in my party. If the polling evidence is to be believed, the British public are looking forward to it too.
  The Minister tells us his view of the laws of supply and demand in the provision of psychiatric beds. The courts seem to be taking a different view. Perhaps the Minister is right and the rest of the world is wrong, but I doubt it. In any case, I wish to move on.
  Another criticism that has been made and which we wish to make again today concerns the failure of the Mental Health Act 1983 to provide an adequate legal framework for today's community-focused mental health strategies. That view is not unique to the parliamentary Labour party. In a memorandum to the Secretary of State, her own Mental Health Act Commission accurately described the problem thus:
  "The incremental distancing of mental health services from those which pertained in the 1970s, and for which Parliament was appropriately legislating in the early 1980s, is such as to call for legislation, to match the substantially changed environment of mental health services, in the facilities for care and treatment, psychiatric practices and public expectation of the services for the mentally disordered."
  The Bill addresses none of those central problems. Consequently, we believe that it represents a missed opportunity to deal with a number of clearly identified problems.
  Professor Chris Thompson, registrar of the Royal College of Psychiatrists—the organisation that originally proposed the new community supervision order—wrote, referring to supervised discharge, which is the key component of this Bill:
  "To many psychiatrists and others it is the worst of both worlds. The mentally ill will be subject to the power of 'arrest' to no apparent purpose. Psychiatrists remain deeply sceptical and believe that the Bill will not provide the extra public safety which the Government is hoping for."
  The supervised discharge idea to which Professor Thompson refers has been condemned by a range of groups representing the mentally ill, groups representing mental health professionals and carers, and civil liberties organisations too. If the Bill gets a Second Reading, we shall want to explore these matters in Committee—but clearly, the civil liberties issues must be treated seriously.
  There are those, including MIND, who argue that the Bill contravenes the European convention on human rights, in particular the right to liberty, the right to respect for private life, and the right to exercise these rights free from discrimination on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, class or any other status. The key area of concern is the power to take and convey. The necessity of a power to convey a person under supervision to a place of treatment, training, education or residence specified under the terms of the supervision order is highly questionable. I do not understand how such a

  173
  power, which may be exercised by anyone nominated by the patient's supervisor, is appropriate for a co-operative and humane approach to community care. If the power is exercised against a patient's will, it is highly unlikely to encourage that patient's compliance with his or her treatment plan.
  There is also a danger that the coercive elements of the new arrangements will compromise the important relationship of trust which ideally should exist between patients and carers. Parliament should not legislate to compromise that relationship.
  The Minister has not yet explained to my satisfaction why the power to convey is necessary. In particular, he has not explained what it will achieve. It will certainly undermine the relationship between the carer and the patient.
  A possible alternative might have been to look again at the use of guardianship for which the Mental Health Act already provides. It seems anomalous to have a new power of supervised discharge when such provision is already in place. It is at least worth the House exploring—perhaps in Committee if the Bill is read a Second time—whether greater use of guardianship would facilitate increased effective community care for the serious mentally ill and make supervised discharge unnecessary, particularly if attention were paid to patterns of behaviour.
  I accept that guardianship affects a relatively small number of people. Only 326 people were placed under guardianship orders in 1993–94, but its use is increasing and the use of guardianship procedures rather than the rather coercive supervised discharge procedures might better make the Government's case.
  Mr. Bowis: I shall return to guardianship a little later, if I succeed in catching your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the power to convey is a danger to civil liberties in respect of supervised discharge, why did Labour Front-Bench spokesmen suggest that it was missing from the guardianship procedures and advocate the power to convey for guardianship?
  Mr. Brown: The Minister seems to have misunderstood my point. The power forcibly to convey is clearly a coercive power. The Minister was unable to explain what would happen at the end of the conveyance to a patient who had been aggravated by the use of a coercive measure. If the Minister could tell the House that when a patient had been conveyed, a particular outcome was necessary for the protection of the public or the well-being of the patient, he would be able to make a case, but the power exists in isolation, as if it were left over from an earlier examination of these matters, but without fitting into any overall scheme. The power exists to be used or not, but for no particular purpose.
  The Minister has not explained to my satisfaction why forcible conveying will somehow help a patient's treatment or mental well-being. It seems to me that the opposite is likely to be the case.
  The workability of supervised discharge has been widely questioned. It appears to be a proposal left over from the earlier consideration of options. The new provisions sit uneasily with the present joint health and social services arrangements for providing after-care
  174
  services under the care programme. The Bill effectively superimposes health authority-led powers on present procedures without, for example, allowing social services to refuse a supervision arrangement if services are not available or appropriate.
  There is no role in the procedures before the House today for the Mental Health Act Commission, which could monitor patients under supervision orders. Everyone who has commented on the issue says that monitoring is of enormous importance. The commission is a special health authority with a statutory remit to monitor the care of patients detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act. It has requested its scope to be widened to include supervised discharge and guardianship. MIND and the Royal College of Psychiatrists support that request. As both organisations express the same point of view, it is incumbent on the House at least to take notice of it. It was part of the inquiry into the Clunis case.
  The Minister gracefully acknowledged the unmet resource implications, although I may have misunderstood him. Most parts of the country would need substantial increases in services to meet the requirements of the Bill. Although the Bill is accompanied by a money resolution, it covers only the costs of the appeals process in England and Wales, but not in Scotland. The new money is provided to pay for professional advisers and lawyers, not for the direct care of the mentally ill.
  The supervision orders may be made only in cases where the patient, being subject to after-care under supervision, is likely to receive the after-care services to be provided. If the after-care services are simply not in place—that will be the case in many inner-city areas—presumably it will not be possible for the patient to be discharged under a supervision order. If that will not be possible, perhaps when the Minister replies to the debate he will tell us what alternative procedure will be followed.
  My final point concerns ethnic discrimination. There are some who believe that supervised discharge will be applied disproportionately to ethnic minorities. The evidence is that black people are more likely to be diagnosed as mentally ill and compulsorily detained under the Mental Health Act and less likely to receive adequate care after being discharged. All that combines to give the impression that the more coercive powers in the Bill will operate in a discriminatory way. I am certain that that is not the intention of the Minister or the Government, but it might happen and the House should not allow it.
  Having outlined my objections to how the Bill will work in practice, I repeat that there is no issue of principle between the Government and the Opposition. We believe that Parliament has a duty to make provision for the protection of the public and to care for those citizens who are ill, including those who are seriously mentally ill. How we achieve those objectives is under discussion tonight. Our amendment and a more thorough-going review of the 1983 Act offer a better way, so I urge the House to support the amendment and decline to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I shall be brief. This is a good Bill, but if, as a result of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection hearing that I

  175
  said that, I find myself on the Standing Committee, I am sure that I shall be able to find masses of objections to it and speak for hours on end.
  Quite properly, the Bill has been set in its historical context. I do not think that there will be much controversy about its history or the fact that the closure of the big asylums was intrinsically good. When I first entered Parliament 21 years ago, I had two big asylums in my constituency. Although I battled to save the, at that time, famous rehabilitation hospital, St. Wulstan's, for various reasons on which I shall touch, it was right to close such institutions in order to prevent people from becoming so institutionalised that they were lost to and forgotten by the community.
  The issue arose, and still arises, as to exactly what should replace such institutions. Part of the controversy was the medical issue. The psychiatric profession's expertise is still underdeveloped, in both diagnostic and treatment terms. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), and I think the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), seemed to ask for some grand systematic solution which did not involve options and different institutional and legal approaches—or the least flexibility there—but that seems to discount the fact that there is much uncertainty in, above all, the medical profession about the way forward.
  When I first joined the debate 20 years ago, the buzz phrase was "comparable facilities". The case for not shutting St. Wulstan's for 10 years was based on the fact that there were not considered to be comparable facilities. That concept seems to have been a little forgotten recently, but it deserves a place in the argument. As has been said, there is a clear role for some institutional treatment within the health service. To provide that in a modern, decentralised and humane way should clearly be an objective of any Government.
  That concept needs to be revitalised from time to time. It has now been largely replaced by the concept of care in the community. My constituency was one of the first experimental areas for care in the community, so I have watched it develop over many years. Clearly, it is intrinsically a good thing that the mentally ill should be returned to a normal way of life, linked, if possible, to their relations and families.
  However, care in the community has two implications. One, which is at the centre of the Labour party's concerns, and perhaps those of the Liberal Democrats, is back-up resources. I do not understand the phrase in the Labour party's amendment, which says:
  "the Bill will inevitably result in a reduction in the funds available for existing mental health services".
  The opposite seems to be the case. Not only have resources for mental health risen by 40 per cent., or £1 billion, in real terms but, if there is any inevitability, because care in the community is inevitably more expensive, there must be more, not fewer, resources.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Bill is accompanied by a money resolution which provides new resources for the appeals process, but not for the actual provisions of the Bill. The Government intend that the new duties that the Bill requires will be paid for from existing resources. Therefore, resources will be moved from the treatment of people with other mental illnesses in order to carry out
  176
  the Bill's purposes. That is what we are referring to in our amendment, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will support.
  Mr. Spicer: I certainly do not support the amendment. Because the Bill is largely related to the concept of care in the community, there will, if anything—if one is to use words such as "inevitable"—be an increase in funds.
  The issue is how the money will be spent. I do not agree with MIND's campaign on the Bill, but I support MIND in its succouring role. That is not only cost-effective—if one wants to use such a term—but an extremely good way of involving the community in regular care.
  I have been president of my local branch of MIND, and I am particularly impressed with the regularity and consistency, day after day and week after week, with which people concerned with MIND provide assistance in the community. The Government devote large sums of money to the cause, and my only appeal to them is not always to think in terms of great official slices of money, and not to forget organisations such as MIND, which, certainly in my area, is beginning to lose out. It is taking on more and more responsibilities, but is losing the necessary funding. I am talking not about total extra funds, but about the Government perhaps being more involved in earmarking some of the funds they provide for such quasi-voluntary organisations which are so directly related to the community.
  The second implication of the policy of moving mental health care out into the community is undoubtedly the issue of supervision which is covered by the Bill. The Labour party seems to be concentrating its criticism of the Bill on the power to convey. The power to convey exists; the question is how it is to be applied.
  I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House have come across examples of people who are schizophrenic and potentially dangerous who move in and out of the penal system. The central issue, which the Opposition seem to be missing, is that the Bill seeks to make the health system work better, rather than, as happens at the moment, patients moving in and out of the penal system.
  A person may be arrested for some offence, put into the penal system, found to be inappropriate for it and returned to the medical system, which cannot cope in a regular and controlled way. Such a person comes out without proper supervision and ends up back, a few days or weeks later, in the penal system. That is what goes on on the ground. In the penal system, to which there is often no alternative, from the point of view of such people the power to convey often exists in a frightening way.
  I promised that I would not speak at length. but the central issue seems to be that people who are a danger to themselves and other people, who, because they are schizophrenic, because they are capable of being cured, because they are thought to be cured at any one moment, and because of the problems of diagnostics within the medical system, are in and out of institutions where there is, rightly, a constant attempt to return them to the outside world, but where they may prove to be a danger. Currently, such people may go back into prison or perhaps the prison hospital, which in turn cannot cope, so they are sent back out again.

  177
  In the interests of the community and the patients, this is an excellent Bill. That the medical system should have a greater power of supervision, control and monitoring of patients is well overdue. The Bill will be good for the patient and for the community.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: I give a qualified welcome to the Government's decision to take some action over the increasing crisis of confidence in mental health services. We know that public confidence has been shaken by the number of tragedies and deaths, including one in Doncaster, which resulted in the tragic killing of a 12-year-old girl, Emma Brodie. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of that case, so I shall not go into the details now.
  My concern with the Bill is that the Government are reacting to the crisis of public confidence in mental health services rather than to the crisis in those services. It seems to me that the Bill fails to address many of the fundamental problems in mental health care. Much of what is proposed already exists, for example, in guardianship. The only thing that is truly new is the power to take and convey to places of treatment people with mental illness.
  The switch from hospital-based care to community-based care has replaced one set of problems with another, and now we are faced with a shortage of psychiatric beds for those who really need them. People can be pushed out of hospital because of pressure on those beds, before adequate services and support in the community are available. That seems to be the key issue.
  Patients' health will suffer. They will become revolving-door patients, making no long-term progress in the community. We must recognise that patients will need access to an income, suitable housing and activities to suit their needs if there is to be a sustained improvement in their mental health. Without those, they cannot seriously be expected to prosper in the community.
  The Bill does not try to improve the health of the patient. Rather, it is a reaction to the failure of current services and treatments. The power to take and to convey is a reaction to a deterioration in the health of the patient. It is a reaction to the failure of community services. It is for that reason that we need to ensure better organisation and resourcing of those community services.
  The Royal College of Psychiatrists has pointed to the danger of the Government skewing resources and paying attention to one group of patients at the expense of the less severely mentally ill. It said that, in most parts of the country, there would need to be a substantial increase in services provided if the after-care provisions of the Bill are to be met.
  The Government's claim that the Bill is essentially resource-neutral is difficult to sustain. The claim ignores the problem of staff training and appropriate work loads for community psychiatric nurses, whom both the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Psychiatrists identified.
  If the Government are serious about tackling these problems, they should consider reviewing the Mental Health Act 1983 as a starting point. The Act should be revised to help it to address the community emphasis that is now placed on care and treatment following the
  178
  introduction of community care. Instead, the Government have brought before the House a measure that could undermine the professional relationships between carers and patients, and which fails to address the real problem in mental health care: service provision and resources.
  I hope that the Government will think hard about more long-term solutions, particularly when the Bill is in Standing Committee, and act to secure service improvements that will benefit those with mental health problems and the public at large. The issue is too important to be left to the quick fix that we all too often see from the Government.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: I believe that mental illness represents one of the greatest challenges facing our health and social services today. I fear that it will become even more so in future, as a result of the accelerating pace of change in our daily lives and, increasingly, the breakdown in traditional family life, with more people becoming patients in need of help and treatment than ever before.
  I echo the tribute that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary paid just now to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for having done more for the mentally ill in this country in the past five years than has been done in the previous 50—or, indeed, 500—years. I believe that that will be acknowledged by all those involved in mental health today.
  The Bill that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is introducing tonight was announced before—although it had anticipated—the outcome of the Ritchie inquiry. That it is necessary has been demonstrated far too often in recent years by highly publicised homicides and violent incidents, for which severely mentally ill people, such as Christopher Clunis, were responsible. Many of those homicides and incidents were committed by those being cared for in the community, having recently been discharged. As the Ritchie inquiry found, such care can be patchy, neglectful and inappropriate. The Government must address, and they are addressing, that situation today.
  I welcome the new power of supervised discharge that my hon. Friend is proposing today, as it represents that element of my right hon. Friend's 10-point plan for developing successful and safe community care which requires legislation. I do so also on behalf of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, as one of its two honorary parliamentary consultants, with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). It provides such excellent help and support for sufferers and their families, and for carers, to whom I pay tribute—as, I am sure, does the whole House. The fellowship will wish to thank my hon. Friend for being so helpful after we met him last December in ensuring that Forresters, its respite hotel in Hylton near Southampton, which was threatened with closure because of lack of funding, will remain open.
  Before I express my two reservations about the Bill, I shall make a general comment about the background and experience against which it has been prepared. As my hon. Friend reminded us this afternoon, the community care approach aims to eliminate for all time the old remote and inhumane asylums. It was encouraging to see that the 1993 survey of attitudes towards the mentally ill supported that view by some 77 per cent.

  179
  There are today a growing number of fine examples of hostels and residential homes for those with mental health problems, and they often represent the first and only haven for the discharged. One such hostel is Charles house, in my constituency, which was opened some three years ago by Esther Rantzen for the Bournemouth National Schizophrenia Fellowship, in a joint venture with Dorset social services, Dorset Healthcare NHS trust and the Western Challenge housing association. The family atmosphere that its dedicated staff provide, with the support of a very caring GP, Dr. Chris Williams, in which all the residents are encouraged to participate, represents a happy contrast to their experience in hospital, where there appeared to be no time to listen to their needs and problems, and where medication was the means to keep them quiet.
  Charles house is proof that community care can and does work for the mentally ill. Only the establishment of a comprehensive network of such long-stay, short and medium-stay hostels, sheltered homes or homes based in each district throughout the country for the mentally ill to be treated and cared for, ideally close to friends and family, will ensure the success of the care approach, provided that such care is backed up by an adequate number of hospital beds.
  Although I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will approve hospital closures only when she is assured that adequate community care is already in place, what continues to concern me, and also the fellowship, is the apparent lack of co-ordination and monitoring of the discharges from hospital beds to care beds.
  According to the House of Commons Library research paper on the Bill, between 1981 and 1991 the number of beds for mentally ill people in English hospitals fell from 85,000 to 50,000. In the same period, the number of day hospital places increased from 15,300 to 22,500. How can we be sure, however, that the balance of the 27,800 discharged patients are being properly accommodated in non-hospital, residential beds in the community? How can we be sure that they will not fall—or have not already fallen—through the net of care, although it is the statutory responsibility of the health and social services departments to provide for them?
  That brings me to the principal concern of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship in regard to the Bill. I attempted to reflect that concern in early-day motion 1214, which was signed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. The fellowship fears that, because the Bill provides for no new funds apart from those for an increased number of mental health review tribunals, it will not succeed in its purpose, but will divert existing resources to the supervision of "revolving-door" patients at the expense of others who are just as severely ill or who are voluntary patients.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will probably say that what is proposed is merely a statutory extension of what should be existing best practice—for example, the existing guardianship arrangements, which are little used—and that his Department is issuing guidelines and advice on what good practice should be.
  The fellowship points out, however, that the legislation requires involvement with no fewer than eight different professionals and non-professionals at six-monthly intervals as after-care under supervision continues—not to mention any extra consideration if changes are proposed,
  180
  or discussions with housing agencies, day centres and the like. All that will require more staff time, which must be properly resourced.
  Moreover, although the Bill provides for the cost of the additional number of tribunals, it does not appear to provide for the cost of the additional time required for psychiatrists and social workers to prepare reports for the additional tribunal hearings. The Ritchie report recommended new funding for specialist psychiatric teams to supervise discharged patients needing intensive after-care.
  Without such extra resources, the Bill will undoubtedly result in a reduction in staff time and other resources for patients who are not subject to after-care under supervision, but who are still severely ill. That is bound to make those patients a risk to others—as well as to themselves, through self-neglect or attempted suicide—and will only add to the number of those needing care under supervision. In other words, without extra resources, the Bill could prove counter-productive and self-defeating, rather than fulfilling its intention of making the community safe for patients and making patients safe in the community.
  I have a second reservation, which has already been voiced by a number of speakers. I believe that the Bill is no substitute for a fundamental review of the 1983 Act. I was a member of the Standing Committee that scrutinised that legislation; it was one of those rare Bills that are subjected to the Special Standing Committee procedure, which allowed us to invite representations and to question experts. In my view, the eventual Bill was all the better for that, and I am sorry that most legislation is not subject to the same process: I think that, if it were, it would be better legislation.
  The 1983 Bill was enacted at a time when patients were treated in long-stay residential settings, and is no longer relevant to today's approach to care. We cannot ignore the case of Stephen Laudat, who stabbed a man to death having previously refused to take his medication, and had declined psychiatric follow-up treatment; nor can we ignore the Blom-Cooper inquiry into the case of Andrew Robinson, which called for powers to allow compulsory treatment for patients who decide not to comply with their recommended care programme.
  I hope that, when the Minister winds up the debate, although he has already told us that he has an open mind about a review of the 1983 Act, he will tell us whether he accepts the recommendation of the British Medical Association that appropriate safeguards should be in place, and that compulsory treatment should he imposed only when patients pose a serious danger to themselves and others. I hope that he will give some thought to what the safeguards should be.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I remind the House and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) that it is a mistake to make too powerful and perceptive a speech in the hearing of a member of the Committee of Selection. As the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer)—who also made an interesting speech—was not present to hear the argument of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and the answer to his question about resources, I propose to ensure that both of them are selected to be members of

  181
  the Standing Committee. Indeed, I might appoint myself to the Committee so that I can watch the fun as the argument between them develops. I shall include the Minister as well, just so that he does not feel left out.
  Like the Minister, I hope that the Bill can be discussed on a non-party political basis, as it was in the House of Lords. I do not think it necessary to be politically partisan. I was encouraged by the sensible and rational speech that we heard from the official Opposition spokesman—
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Not surprisingly.
  Mr. Kirkwood: No, it is not surprising, but I have heard one or two Opposition Front-Bench speeches in my time.
  I am sure that the Bill, and the work of the Standing Committee, will be the better for that non-partisan approach, although I feel that it should really have gone straight into a Special Standing Committee. I endorse what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East said about the Special Standing Committee procedure that was used in the case of what became the 1983 Act. I do not know why the Government have set their face against that procedure; perhaps the House of Lords was considered a substitute for a Special Standing Committee, but I do not think that it was. Legislation such as this would be much better framed if we had direct access to the views of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and other pressure groups, although some views have been expressed adequately to hon. Members in writing.
  I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East has done for many years. Schizophrenia is a terrible illness. We have all read case histories that tell of the destruction of families who have tried to deal with the condition. I accept that it is difficult for the Government to respond, and I therefore think it important for us to do what we can on a cross-party basis to get the legislation right.
  On a slightly carping note, I want to raise a procedural matter. As a Scots Member and, in a previous incarnation, a humble provincial solicitor—none of the big silk hankie brigade for me—I feel that we must rid ourselves of a certain habit. I address my complaint to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)who is seated diligently in his place. We must stop mixing Scottish and English legislation: it is fiendishly difficult for practitioners who are trying to disentangle Acts of Parliament to find Scottish legislation in unified United Kingdom Bills, because the legal systems are so different. The powers of the sheriff and the rules of guardianship are substantially different.
  I understand that there are problems with finding enough compos mentis Scottish Tory Back Benchers for Standing Committees. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland disagrees, but I know that there are difficulties. When the Government decided to move on this matter, they should have introduced two separate pieces of legislation. I hope that the Bill will be the first step towards a proper review in the new atmosphere of the whole framework of legislation in this field. I say that in passing because the point was made adequately earlier in the debate and I tried to make it in an intervention. The Minister said that he has an open mind. Ministers always
  182
  have open minds. I am grateful for small mercies and take that response at face value because I know that he is genuinely concerned. I hope that his open mind will focus on getting the legislative time that he needs for the fundamental review for which the whole House appreciates the need.
  These are difficult matters. Clunis and Silcock and the other events that have been mentioned, all of which were individual tragedies, give a heightened, almost hysterical, background against which we have to try to deal with this intractable problem. By far the biggest problem concerns mentally ill patients who damage themselves, commit suicide or leave themselves in terrible positions which destroy their families. When contemplating legislation, we must put in the balance not just the cases that get the headlines; we must also address the desperately distressing cases of neglect and worse among the mentally ill.
  Resources are an important part of the argument. If there were adequate facilities for after-care, housing, employment, training and recreation, the problem would not be nearly as bad, particularly in inner cities. I do not have any special expertise in that respect because mine is a rural constituency, but the problem is bad enough there. I know that my colleagues, who know about these things and have studied them in more detail than I have been able to do, are concerned about the lack of facilities in areas such as central London. That must be dealt with.
  Some of the representations that all hon. Members have had from the British Medical Association, the Association of County Councils and some other bodies such as the National Association for Mental Health and the Scottish Association for Mental Health cannot but cause concern about alleged omissions and anomalies and the Government's lack of a proper and systematic approach to this problem. When the Bill is in Committee, we will have to address some of those problems as best we can.
  I think that the Scottish Affairs Select Committee's report is due almost any day now. It is currently preparing a report on the problems associated with the closure of psychiatric institutions in Scotland. I hope that the report will not be ignored by the Standing Committee and that any conclusions reached by that important Select Committee will inform the work of the Standing Committee, certainly in relation to the Scottish sections of the Bill. I would not like to think that it was too late to weigh the Select Committee's conclusions in the balance of arguments in the Standing Committee.
  More than anything else, resources must be taken into account. I hope that the Committee will have an opportunity for sensible discussions about that. There is obviously a good deal of difference between the Government and the Opposition parties about the increase in resources that has occurred, how the money has been spent and whether it has been put to proper use. It would be in the public interest for the Committee to try to get to the bottom of the statistics and to establish how they work out in practice.
  If I heard him correctly, the Minister estimated that there are about 20 cases to which supervision orders might apply in each health authority area. That figure is new to me. I found it difficult to discover how many people the Bill would affect. I assume that the figure relates to England and Wales. It is very small. Is it a firm figure? I

  183
  know that there is uncertainty about statistics and I shall happily give way to the Minister if he would like to clarify the matter.
  Mr. Bowls: The figure that I gave was the estimate of an average for each district health authority. A figure of about 3,000 nationally has often been quoted and when that is divided by the number of health authorities the result is about 20. The figure would obviously depend on each health authority, the practice of individual clinicians, decisions by psychiatrists and facilities that are already in the community. My figures are no firmer than that, but I thought that they were helpful in terms of the scale of the operation.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I appreciate that helpful intervention. If the Minister had not made the position clear, I could have set off in a spurious direction. The figure could mask substantial discrepancies between inner-city areas and other parts of the country, but I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification.
  The Committee will also have to look at co-ordination. I am not convinced that the Bill does anything like enough to get appropriate co-ordination between the various agencies. I am on the parliamentary panel of the Royal College of Nursing and try to work with it, obviously on an honorary basis. It is worried about the extra resources that might be needed to get properly trained mental health nurses, give them further training and deal with the increased work load if the Bill reaches the statute book.
  There are a number of detailed questions I should like to ask, but it would not serve the purpose of the House to go through them at length. I am still a bit sceptical and have not yet formulated a final view, but as the Committee's deliberations proceed I shall be interested to see whether a purely legal approach of this kind is the right way forward. Some people say that such an approach is not right and that we should go for a better resourced, administrative solution. The Committee may want to turn to that. There is a real worry that the new supervised discharge system that we are considering will not sit all that comfortably with community care—certainly not in Scotland. The term "community care order" is a misnomer and the Committee should spend some time considering whether it is the right name. Community care orders are driven by psychiatrists; care in the community should be driven by social workers. There could be a great deal of confusion if we do not get these matters right at the beginning.
  I think that it was the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) who asked about the powers that are to be made available to sheriffs. There is real concern north of the border that the powers given to sheriffs are indeterminate and too vague. I am still unclear about the extent to which the Bill will affect children and young people. I do not think that it can north of the border because they will be subject to the panel procedure, although it will affect young people in England and Wales, but I am not sure about that.
  Does the Bill apply to people with learning difficulties? Questions such as that cause me concern but they may be clear to the Minister. There is enough confusion in people's minds for it to be important to use the Committee to clarify some of these matters. The Minister was kind enough to refer to my noble Friend the fifth Earl Russell who is no less a person than the author of a book entitled
  184
  "The Crises in Parliaments, English History from 1509 to 1660". I am unlikely, therefore, to controvert anything that my noble Friend says.
  This is a good Bill, but it is not perfect. I am persuaded by the argument in the reasoned amendment but, if we support it, it will not be because we are totally and implacably opposed to the principle of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said, but because we think that much work will have to be done in Standing Committee to get the Bill right before it goes on to the statute book.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. David Nicholson: I welcome the Bill for what it contains and points to, but in particular I welcome the opportunity that it gives us—here I echo the thoughts of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—to reconsider, analyse, discuss and debate the care in the community system as it affects people with severe mental difficulty. Naturally, I regret that the Opposition have moved an amendment and will be dividing on Second Reading, but I welcome much of the speech by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), as I welcome that of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, who spoke for the Liberal party.
  I was especially glad that the hon. Gentleman echoed a point that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship has made: although the few cases where severe mentally ill people, often suffering from schizophrenia, have attacked and occasionally killed members of the public—which have been accompanied by sensational publicity—may have triggered the legislation and concern, alas, less attention has been paid to the mortality rate of people with schizophrenia, which is estimated at twice that of the general population, mainly because of suicide. Through our families, friends and constituencies, we probably all know individuals whose lives, even in recent years, have had a tragic end in those circumstances.
  In addition to the direct interest of families and neighbours of people who suffer in that particular way, there is a much wider interest in us getting the system right. Even now I hear, in letters or in conversation—although I am glad to say that it is less frequently stated—"This is all a disaster and completely wrong. Wouldn't it be better to have these people incarcerated in those Victorian buildings out in the countryside?" That attitude is wrong, but Parliament and all the people involved in operating the care in the community system must constantly work to assure the general population that the new system, which is very recent—it came into practice only two or three years ago—is the right way to deal with these matters and does provide proper protection for the safety and amenity of the general population, as well as being in the best interests of patients.
  My interest in this subject has increased from, I must confess, near zero when I was first elected, largely through discussions with interested constituents, whether they be doctors, nurses, practitioners, the families of patients, or the small group that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship has established in my constituency and, I hope, in many other constituencies. Regular meetings are held with practitioners, families of sufferers or sufferers themselves. I have been grateful to have been invited to some of those discussions to talk in

  185
  a calm and measured way about the concerns that those people have. I have been grateful for the insights that that has given me.
  If we intend to use—and I think that we will—the Standing Committee to probe and to explore this matter, of course we will depend on those outside organisations to help us with briefing and raising questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) may recall that we were reminded of that some weeks ago. Parliament, especially when it considers a Bill in detail, cannot operate in an ivory tower, separate from what happens outside. We are anxious, through certain other matters that are being considered by people in high office, properly to regulate the way in which outside interests—they may be economic and commercial, but often they may be caring institutions and organisations—influence and inform our procedures here and to make progress in that respect.
  I have been personally involved in some cases in my constituency. In one case, I took part in having someone, alas, sectioned. In others, I have tried to ensure that schizophrenia sufferers were properly looked after when their families were convinced that they were not taking their proper medicine. Like the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), I am a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the parliamentary ombudsman—who also acts as the health service commissioner. The Select Committee has had cases before it—I mentioned one in a debate on the parliamentary ombudsman just before Christmas—where it has been shown that the system has not worked. It is vital that we take what measures we can to minimise those occasions where this cumbersome system has not worked, involving practitioners from various specialties.
  I am interested in the passage in the Opposition's amendment about Government Departments coordinating. Of course it is vital that Government Departments, local authorities and, if necessary, the police and various other bodies should properly co-ordinate. When something goes wrong, it is vital that individuals in a community get together to put it right as quickly as possible. I hope that, as the Bill proceeds, we will consider how that works.
  My wife is president of Taunton Mencap; that is a slightly related matter. I am glad that the Prime Minister's wife and the Prime Minister himself take a great interest in that charity. I am particularly pleased to say that both my hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State for Health and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who will be responsible for the Scottish aspects of the Bill, are excellent Ministers. I knew them both long before they entered the House—indeed, I have known them for more than 30 years, so I could not believe that this matter would be in better hands.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Do not say that, they will put it in their election address.
  Mr. Nicholson: I do not know what election address the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) is talking about.
  Before I discuss some of the concerns that have been raised, I shall refer to some of the successes that the local services, including the Avalon, Somerset national health
  186
  service trust, have had. This might be nearer to the election address to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. It is well known and, I think, my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that Somerset was one of the relatively few regions where co-ordination and co-operation between the health authority and county council social services were of such excellence that Somerset was ready to go ahead with care in the community at the earlier date envisaged by the Government. After care in the community was finally set up, it progressed extremely well in Somerset. I salute all the people who have been responsible for that in the local community.
  I shall give the House some figures to show how progress has been made in past 10 years. In 1985, the number of Somerset hospital beds for mental health was 746 in six locations and the number of day places was 97 in four locations. Ten years later, the figures had changed to 382 beds in 21 locations and 413 day places in 21 locations, with community mental health teams working with social services, primary health care teams and the voluntary and private sectors to ensure that people had a range of options for dealing with their mental health problems, bringing them into the community, which is the purpose of the exercise. In the past year, occupancy levels for hospital beds averaged 81 per cent., ensuring that it was always possible to find a bed in Somerset if one was needed. One may not have been available at the nearest unit, but a bed has always been available.
  Another important factor that reflects the massive changes that have taken place is the closure of large Victorian institutions. Tone Vale, in the middle of my constituency, closed in March, and a housing estate and other facilities will be developed on the site. I have visited the new units at Rydon house and Pyrland house for mental health patients and other people needing care, and I was most impressed by the work that went on there.
  Over the past three years the proportion of staff employed in direct patient care has increased by 3 per cent. as a consequence of the changes in service delivery—mainly because of a reduction in estate staff and others needed to maintain large obsolete buildings, and an increase in nursing and medical staff. However, I am told that there is still a problem with the number of consultant psychiatrists and junior medical staff available to cover a community-based service.
  Although the closure of large hospitals has reduced the number of beds, the value of the estate employed in the care of mentally ill people has increased considerably. In 1993 that estate was valued at £14.8 million; in March 1995 it was valued at £28 million. The buildings are now purpose-designed, with low maintenance costs, and are liked and valued by users of the service. That shows the practical way in which changes have taken place in Somerset.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East referred to some of the concerns raised by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, and I simply echo some of those. A small minority of people, perhaps about 3,000 of them, are never offered appropriate care or reject it. That can happen because the services do not exist, or are not co-ordinated, or because they concentrate on those who are easier to work with. But it can also happen because the patient is suspicious of everyone, has lost all motivation and stays in bed all the time, or dislikes the services offered or those offering them—those are

  187
  common features of schizophrenia. Or the patient may be too ill or too disorganised to keep appointments or to take prescribed medication. The NSF says that that is the group of patients whom the Bill aims to help.
  The NSF also says, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East reiterated, that the Bill requires involvement with no fewer than eight professionals and non-professionals at six-monthly intervals—more often if some change is proposed—through requirements either to give information or to consult patients. Staff time costs money, so there will be costs there.
  Indeed, I have just received a letter from the director of social services for Somerset county council saying that revenue support grant needs to be increased to allow for the growing pressures and for capping to be relaxed. We debated capping last week, and Somerset's experience is somewhat happier than that of some other counties. Nevertheless, the director says that capping needs to be eased in line with the new demands, because for more and more people the promise of community care will not be satisfied unless that happens.
  Finally, I shall develop the argument about resources in a wider sense. I heard the Minister say that, as a Minister, he did not want to widen the issues, but when we talk about care in the community wider issues inevitably crop up.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I do not wish to anticipate what the hon. Gentleman intends to say, but I hope that we shall not hear about revenue support grant, capping, area cost adjustment or any of those aspects.
  Mr. Nicholson: I am happy to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have finished talking about those matters.
  I hope that the Minister will continue his work on the resource aspects that arise when elderly people need geriatric care in private nursing homes. That is a big issue facing us now, and although the causes are not the same, the problems that those people have are not very different from the problems of the people with whom the Bill attempts to deal.
  Secondly, referring also to people with mental difficulties, I wish to raise the problem of the people whom we see on the streets of our large cities, especially London, begging and sleeping rough. Many initiatives have been taken by the various Departments responsible for helping them. I know that they are generally described as "the homeless", but we all know that homelessness is not their main problem. Some suffer from drug abuse, alcohol abuse or other forms of abuse.
  I recall what was said about the state of mental health services in London and the south-east. Many of those people have mental difficulties, and I should like to impress on the Minister the need for all responsible Departments to co-ordinate action effectively so that those people, whom we now see every day and every night, are dealt with and helped. A sight that is becoming offensive to many of us could then be removed.
  With those provisos, I welcome the Bill.
  5.45 pm
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: Undoubtedly new legislation is needed, but this is not the Bill with which many Opposition Members would have chosen to start. However, it could be substantially improved in
  188
  Committee, and I hope that when we reach that stage the Minister will be as open minded as his colleagues were in the House of Lords.
  The Bill is not about improving the delivery of community care services for the great majority of mental health service users. As at present drafted it is essentially about the control and containment of the severely mentally ill. I do not underestimate the importance of that need, and I attach particular importance to what was said by the hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) when they paid tribute to the role of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, many of whose members strongly support the Bill and say that it is much needed.
  The Bill is about the control and containment of a small proportion of the mentally ill who have been "sectioned"—that is, detained under sections 3 or 17 of the Mental Health Act 1983 or the equivalent provisions for Scotland. The Government introduced it in response to some distressing incidents of violence. However, as several hon. Members have said, the number of people injured or killed by the mentally ill is tiny compared with the number of deaths caused, say, by road accidents, or even by drunken drivers alone. The person most likely to be injured—sadly, all too often fatally—is the mentally ill person himself.
  The best that can be said of the Bill is that it could be significantly and usefully amended to stimulate the development of services appropriate to the needs both of those who have been formally detained and of others.
  The representations that have been submitted to the all-party mental health group, of which I am proud to be chairman, all emphasise the importance of involving the users of mental health services in their care plans. There is little of that in the Bill as originally drafted, although, as the Minister said, amendments made in the House of Lords have improved the emphasis on informing patients and, if they consent, their closest relative—and, to a more limited extent, their informal carers, to whom in practice so much of their care devolves.
  However, much more could be done to amend the Bill so that users could be more fully involved in their care plan programme. The benefits are genuine. Obviously, a user's consent makes the life of the mental health worker or social worker easier. But in a more profound way, involving the user in his or her care plan improves the effectiveness and appropriateness of treatment. It can build a therapeutic relationship and gives the user more control and a better incentive to recover.
  Involvement is a key concept in a number of recent reports, including Department of Health reports such as "Advocacy—a code of practice", "Black mental health dialogue—a dialogue for change", and especially "Guidelines for a local charter for users of mental health services", which was produced by the mental health task force user group of the national health service executive.
  The Mental Health Acts of 1983 and 1984 placed on Ministers a duty to draw up, after consultation, a code -of practice for mental health workers; to lay it before Parliament and to update it regularly. In England, the code of practice has been recently updated; the Scottish code, first published in 1989, still awaits its first revision. Both codes will need to be revised in the light of the Bill. I hope that the Minister, in replying to the debate, will be

  189
  able to tell the House that consultations will start soon and will involve user groups, as well as those who deliver the service.
  There is a point that is not dealt with in the Bill and I hope that the Minister will carefully consider it. In parallel with the code of practice, there should be a new duty laid on Ministers in Scotland and in England and Wales to provide a charter for mental health users. When I say "a duty on Ministers to provide a charter", I am well aware that the guidelines are for a local charter for users of mental health services.
  It is interesting that in the model charter that is provided, only two lines make provision for local input—the names of people to whom resource can be had. There are, nevertheless, local factors which, if they could be taken into account effectively in so many different situations, would clearly be helpful.
  In the report, a user commented:
  "Much work is needed on general care of the patient. Even basic care like bath, shampoo, shave, dental care, clean clothing is being neglected."
  I doubt whether that is the case in Taunton, but certainly it is in Brixton.
  Another user commented:
  "Black patients, and other patients from minority groups, feel isolated with their illness, doubly, because their opinions and cultural needs are overlooked. For example, native food and drinks are not seen as important. Roots food, tonic remedies, herbal treatment and therapeutic massage are sources of alternative care that must be considered."
  The perpetual cry from every user organisation that is ever consulted is echoed by this comment:
  "Emergency care is needed out of hours to talk and defuse situations, not just medication. It is wrong that the police should be involved".
  If there were a duty on Ministers to provide a charter for mental health users, it would be perfectly possible to provide for local additions to it dealing with the sort of problems that I have outlined and being specific about the channels of access to those resources.
  An enlightened code of practice would, of course, interact with the charter and could help to change the climate of mental care and—I hope that this is still regarded as important—safeguard the civil rights of the mentally ill.
  The Bill should require that each time a patient is informed of a supervision order or of changes to a supervision order, he should be given a copy of the charter and have its provisions explained orally. Likewise, the patient's closest relative and his or her informal carer should be fully informed. Those are the people who are crucial to the patient's well-being and their involvement is vital.
  Some would query whether the persons sectioned are the right client group to involve in a charter for mental health users. I would argue that it is necessary to start with them. Patients who have been sectioned are not necessarily the most violent or severely or chronically ill, or even the most disturbed. They are simply those seen by doctors or social workers as liable to endanger others or themselves.
  In its operation, sectioning is a rather arbitrary act. Some people have been sectioned for one brief, traumatic breakdown and live the rest of their lives without any sign
  190
  of mental instability. Some may be sectioned during one episode of illness and not the next. For others, the illness is a long-term problem with, perhaps, repeated admissions to hospital. They may sometimes be sectioned and sometimes not. The consultant's attitude, rather than the severity of the illness, may be the determining factor.
  It is right to involve the users precisely because they are the people who in hospital are deprived of their liberty and to whom the Bill relates. They, above all, merit the sort of respect, involvement and empowerment that the charter for mental health users offers.
  Users, above all, need appropriate treatment. The Bill says a good deal about appropriate things but little about appropriate treatment. The charter is not an easy option and it would be a way of giving practical effect to appropriateness of treatment which, at present, is not covered in the system.
  In giving people rights, we also place on them responsibilities. The task of keeping well is very difficult for many people whose lives are shot through with mental illness. It is a serious matter. I hope that the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill can be so amended as to help formerly detained patients to keep well and maintain their dignity and self-respect.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: I apologise to the House for not being able to attend the beginning of the debate. Some hon. Members may know that the Prime Minister was addressing a meeting of the Conservative Friends of Israel. As an officer of the CFI, I thought it only right and proper to be there.
  I should like to declare an interest. I am a member of the advisory council of JAMI, the Jewish Association for the Mentally Ill. The advice comes from it to me, rather than from me to it. I pay tribute to the work that that wonderful charity does and emphasise the difficulty that it faces, from time to time, because some local authorities take advantage of its services but refuse to pay anything in the way of a contribution towards the cost of providing those services.
  Like my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), I should like to pay tribute to the work of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. It was one of the first groups that I saw after I was elected in 1987. The stories that I was told by individual parents underlined the difficulties that were being created by the care in the community policy.
  I went up to one member and asked, "What is your problem? Who is affected? Is it your daughter or your son?" She said that her daughter was schizophrenic. I asked where she was and she told me that her daughter was sleeping somewhere on a park bench in London and that she did not know where she was. That was typical of the problems that I heard about. It was not a unique situation.
  One of the tragedies of mental health in London is that many of those who sleep rough in London are people who were sent out of mental hospitals to be treated in the community. They have ended up with a quality of life that is substantially poorer than that which they once enjoyed. There was another case I saw that evening of a lady who was concerned about the treatment that her son was

  191
  receiving from psychiatrists. Unfortunately, despite many letters, the psychiatrist did not listen and, last year, the boy committed suicide.
  One of the problems, and one with which the Bill seeks to deal, is that many of those who are released into the community refuse to co-operate with the treatment that is suggested for them. Their medication is unpleasant and it is very difficult to tell patients that they are sufficiently well to go into the community but sufficiently ill to need to carry on with their treatment. All too often, the result is that they say, "Yes, we are well enough to go into the community, therefore we are well enough not to have this rather unpleasant treatment." The result of that is that they become violent, lose their friends and end up in a different form of institutional care. It is quite wrong that people should be released into the community from an institution that is caring for them and then end up in prison as a result of committing some crime.
  The Bill is obviously going to help deal with that through the concept of supervised discharge. However, I believe that that must be viewed as part of a package because for too long, the mentally ill have been the Cinderella of the health service.
  In all these great issues, the pendulum swings too far one way and then too far the other way. In the 1940s and 1950s, it was far too easy to have someone admitted to a mental hospital. The Victorian asylums were too large and too impersonal, but unfortunately society, in a crisis of conscience, went from one extreme to the other. In the revulsion against our history in this matter, we have gone on to make different mistakes. The fact that too many people were admitted to mental hospitals led to a failure to recognise that many who would be released into the community might be better off in an asylum which, traditionally, is a place of care and rest. The fact that the Victorian institutions were too large and too impersonal led to a failure to recognise that smaller hospitals might be necessary.
  In 1961, Enoch Powell decided to close all the large mental institutions by 2000. There is no doubt that the Treasury was seduced by the capital receipts that it anticipated and that it believed that care in the community might become a cheap option. The Treasury did not realise, however, that care in the community, if it is to be done properly, is more expensive than hospitalisation because it requires a lot of investment in training and people. Care in the community is labour intensive and cash intensive; that was not recognised by the Treasury or by others in the beginning.
  Whatever the situation may be in sunny Taunton, there is no doubt that in London and the south-east, we suffer from a lack of beds for the mentally ill. All the evidence is that there is an inadequate number of beds for the mentally ill in London and the south-east. It is also the case that in London and the south-east, we do not have sufficient psychiatric nurses to deal with the number of schizophrenics we have. A third of those needing psychiatric services in London are homeless. That underlines the problems, which the Department and my hon. Friend the Minister recognise.
  Those who say that the supervised discharge offends against individual civil liberties do not hit the right point. First, it is a paradox to say to someone, "You are sufficiently ill to need treatment, but you are sufficiently sane to recognise the fact that you need treatment and to
  192
  say that you will undergo that treatment." A small number of people do not recognise that fact and then cause problems for themselves and for others.
  Secondly, many of the relatives of those who will be affected by the Bill are praying for it to become law because of the traumas that they suffer when they see their sons and daughters not responding to treatment, when they know that their children are sleeping rough in London and not having the treatment that they need. I suggest that anyone who talks about civil liberties should talk to the relatives of those who will benefit from the Bill; they will get a very rough answer. The relatives worry the whole time whether their sons or daughters will commit suicide, they worry about whether they will become violent towards an innocent individual and they worry about their quality of life. For some who are released into the community, the quality of life is little more than a scandal.
  The other civil liberty to be considered is the civil liberty of an innocent individual who may be harmed if we do not have the power of supervised discharge. There is no doubt that a number of murders have taken place—a relatively small number perhaps, but one unnecessary murder is the denial of someone's civil liberties and there is no greater liberty than the freedom to live. We are dealing, however, not only with the civil liberties of those who are killed by people who are not taking treatment.
  Let us face the fact that there are many schizophrenics who have been released into the community and who then commit suicide. The official figures show that there were 266 suicides in three years, but that severely understates the number. There is a reluctance on the part of coroners to say that someone took his own life because some people have a religious revulsion at the thought of suicide. Sometimes there may be insurance policies which will not be honoured in the case of suicide and it is not unknown for the coroner to take that fact into account.
  There are many people whose civil liberties will be affected if we do not pass the Bill; we must bear that in mind. I very much hope that the Bill will pass speedily through its Committee stage. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who is a member of the Committee of Selection, is present this evening. I volunteer to be a member of the Standing Committee; we have had three volunteers already this evening, which means that we may have a relatively short Committee stage. I hope so because the Bill is important and will benefit part of our society which has been neglected for too long.
  6.5 pm
  Ms Ann Coffey: The Bill provides for the after-care supervision of patients who have been subject to treatment or hospital orders. As some of my hon. Friends have already pointed out, there are concerns about how the after-care supervision will be implemented and by whom, and there are issues about the role of the supervisor that will be considered carefully in Committee.
  The supervision orders will apply to a minority of patients whose illness is chronic—patients whose behaviour may place them at risk or may place other people at risk. It is right and proper that we should be concerned about those patients. The intention seems to be twofold. First, it is to secure for a patient after-care services, which will be provided under section 117 of the

  193
  Mental Health Act 1983. Secondly, supervisors will have to ensure that patients attend for treatment, occupational therapy, education, training or whatever—a wider policing role.
  As the Bill explains, there should be no additional cost for health authorities and local authorities. However, after-care services self-evidently require resourcing, so it is hardly surprising that the Bill is viewed as legislation that emphasises the social policing role of social workers and health workers. They are the people at whom the finger can be pointed when something goes wrong, enabling the Minister to wash his hands of any responsibility to provide resources for them to do their jobs. As the Minister is aware, even social policemen need resourcing.
  Before the Minister asks where the resources will come from, I point out that when the trusts were set up in Stockport, the taxpayer had to pay for a £1 million increase in the salary bill. If I am asked where extra resources for mental health care should come from, I can say that they could easily come from the administrative costs resulting from setting up the trusts. One million pounds would have gone a long way towards helping mentally ill people in Stockport; unfortunately, they did not get that money.
  Mental health is the Cinderella of the health service for a number of reasons. There is, unfortunately, a great deal of fear among some of the population who regard all mentally ill people as exceedingly dangerous. That is far from the truth. Many mentally ill people face sad and painful lives with great courage—more courage than the rest of us may have. Mental illness can also he a source of shame and embarrassment for those who suffer from it because their difficulty in coping may be seen as a mark of failure.
  I do not know the exact figures, but I know that a high proportion of the population will suffer an acute period of depression or a disabling anxiety episode in their lives. Most will recover hut, sadly, some will not. Stress at work and at home, when communities have become less supportive, has increased the likelihood of breakdown in the general population. For some, schizophrenia and recurring psychoses are totally disabling. The high proportion of such people among the homeless is a sign of their ultimate fate and shows what community care has brought for them.
  There is not a magic division between mental health and mental illness. Death, redundancy, mental breakdown and other crises can bring even the strongest of us to the brink of disintegration. Perhaps the fact that vast investment has gone into bringing about technological changes, while we are unable still to heal a traumatised child or return to health a schizophrenic person reflects our priorities as a society. In the absence of such help, it is crucial that resources are available in the community and hospitals to offer care and support for those who may never get better and also for those who, with help, can overcome their difficulties.
  Resources such as day provision, acute beds, long-term beds, community nurses, social workers, funding for self-help and support groups, carers and supported employment are all necessary for an infrastructure of community care. In reality, that infrastructure is not there. Since the closure of long-stay hospitals and the transfer
  194
  of beds to local district hospitals, often hospitals cannot fulfil conflicting needs for beds. Over the past five years, there has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of patients admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. Unfortunately, the shortage of resources means that beds have not been available for voluntary patients or hard-pressed relatives who require respite care.
  Indeed, I recently had to take up an issue concerning that very problem on behalf of one of my constituents. My constituent was informed by the hospital that as 42 per cent. of the beds at that time were occupied by people under compulsory admission, there was not—unfortunately—a bed for someone who was exhausted by having to cope with a husband who had a long-term mental illness.
  Against that background, my concern is that, with no new resources being made available for wider community care, staff time will be taken up with implementing supervision orders. That will mean fewer community nurses available to support people such as my constituents. Without such valuable help, more families will be stressed, there will be further diminution of community care and it will be more likely that the health of people will deteriorate to the point at which they will have to be admitted to hospital. If services were available earlier, some of that illness could be prevented.
  Where are the after-care resources to come from? We are talking about suitable housing, because we cannot just dump somebody in the community. Often much work has to be done with neighbours, who are sometimes very hostile to mentally ill patients. All that requires staff time. Day centres require money, but it is very important for patients to be able to attend them to talk, receive support and get help. Community nurses are invaluable—we need more of them. Where are they? Support for employment is also vital.
  All those provisions are necessary in identifying and providing after-care services for patients on supervision orders. After all, good-quality after-care services are those that the patient needs, and they cannot be provided by trying to fit the patient into the available after-care services. Such a mismatch leads to coercion in the supervision order, when patients know that they are going somewhere that is not able to meet their needs, while being told that there is not an alternative.
  If resources are to be pooled to meet supervision orders—no new resources are being made available by the Government—what will happen to the other mentally ill people who need help? It is all very well talking about targeting resources—if they can be prioritised—but mental illness covers two groups of patients with different needs. People with long-term psychiatric problems will need on-going help, but the illnesses of patients with acute problems can be prevented from getting worse, with help when they need it. Both those groups need prioritising. I am concerned about the latter group, because those people will not receive the necessary services, which will inevitably lead to the development of longer-term illnesses.
  The Minister is right to be concerned with those who trouble society—we are all concerned about that—but he should also be concerned with those members of our society who are troubled. He should seek ways in which to help and support them. He should take this opportunity to tackle the problems of mental illness on behalf of all those who suffer from it. At the end of the day, it is they who bear the burden.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I shall not need to detain the House for very long because a number of points that I would have covered in more detail have been most adequately and effectively dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), whose speech was a model contribution towards the sensible passage of the Bill. He was speaking from obvious experience of the families of severely mentally ill people, and the Bill specifically addresses the concerns of such families and patients.
  I have always taken the view that the decision to close rapidly all the large mental hospitals was in some ways wrong. We should have moved rather more slowly. Although I accept that at the end of the day care in the community is more beneficial than those old asylums, nevertheless such institutions provided a level of care for very sick people which was of real value to them. We all carry a heavy responsibility for cases where the quality of people's lives has worsened.
  I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends to move with extreme care in future closures and to ensure that the facts live up to their commitments; that they will not implement such closures until adequate care is available in the community. There is nothing in itself wrong with residential care and we should not forget that. Often it is right for people who are severely ill.
  I cannot support the Bill, let alone vote for it tonight, without signalling the fact that I find the wording in the Bill on financial effects unrealistic. It says:
  "The Bill should give rise to no additional costs for Health Authorities (in England and Wales), Health Boards (in Scotland) or local authorities. The new provisions … provide a legislative framework for existing good practice."
  In the purest terms, that may be right, but we should talk about reality and practicalities. If more social workers and all other agencies involved are doing a better job under the supervision orders, their time will be used for such work and, as other hon. Members have said, there will be less time to deal with less severely ill people. Therefore, I argue that the Bill will require more resources.
  All too often we in the House pass legislation, often with support—in principle—from all parties, yet we do not accept that additional resources will be needed as a result. I put my flag up on that issue now. I am absolutely certain that additional resources will be necessary. The work requires additional case conferences. Others have mentioned the involvement of up to eight different agencies and their staff when the orders are put in place. Giving support to the mentally ill in the community is a cumbersome process. I am not denigrating the process, but it is very time consuming. The problem has been that so many of the individuals who may require such assistance have dropped out of the net, and picking them up again, let alone giving them continuing treatment, will be very time consuming. Let there be no mistake—I emphasise the point to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health—mental health service staff, whether they are employed by local authorities or by the NHS, are severely overstretched already.
  So much progress has been made in looking after people better that those engaged in that work are now suffering a great deal of stress. I am not being soft about that, nor am I suggesting that management methods cannot be improved to achieve better productivity from
  196
  those who care for the mentally ill. It would be unrealistic, however, to believe that such care will not involve additional time, and therefore additional resources.
  I support the Bill because it is absolutely essential that we establish a legislative framework to deal with those who are discharged, but who are still severely ill. As has already been said, those people often come out into the community and are pleased to be in a freer, more comfortable and pleasant environment. They often do not, however, take the very medication that has enabled them to be discharged in the first place. It is essential for them to take that medication. Without the proposed legislative framework to ensure that, I cannot see how those people will continue to improve, let alone make progress in the community or not put themselves and others at risk. On that basis, the Bill is long overdue.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. John 'Gunnell: I have listened to the entire debate, so I intend to underline briefly certain points that have been raised. The unanimity that has marked hon. Members' contributions is perhaps not surprising, because I assume that those present are interested in mental health services and the particular problems posed by the Bill. I have identified three particular weaknesses in the Bill and it is interesting to note that two of them have already been the subject of much comment.
  I do not think that the closure of the large mental health institutions caused the difficulties that the Bill is designed to address. As the hon. Members for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) said, those difficulties have arisen because of the loss of 35,000 acute psychiatric beds between 1981 and 1991. Without that loss, a certain number of people living in the community now would still be receiving hospital care from time to time, if not long term. Unfortunately, such care is no longer available to them.
  The Bill's efforts to overcome the difficulties of care provision prompt me to raise three points. First, there is some confusion between the role of a health authority and that of social services departments. The health authority is clearly the lead authority, which nominates the responsible medical officer and supervisor. No doubt the health authority will take overall responsibility for taking and conveying patients who are subject to supervised discharge. No doubt health authorities will turn to the police to get that job done on many occasions, but according to the Bill, they are the lead authority. Social services take the lead, however, in providing community services and community care. Perhaps social services should also take the lead after the responsible medical officer has done his work. A greater input from social services is warranted rather than simply one social worker's approval of a supervised discharge. Baroness Jay suggested in the other place that the guardianship principles in the Mental Health Act 1983 could have served the Government's purpose instead of the Bill. She suggested that the guardianship powers envisaged in the 1983 Act could be beefed up to accommodate difficult cases, but that the original role of the guardian would be better suited to the needs of the mentally ill generally. I urge the Government to consider revising the 1983 Act to bring it up to date in line with current practice and available facilities.

  197
  If social services are not at least an equal party to the health authority when considering an application for a supervised discharge, their professional partnership, which is vital to making a success of care in the community, will be downplayed. There should be a partnership and liaison not just between health authorities and social services, but between voluntary agencies. Some of those organisations have already expressed their concerns to us about the Bill. Housing authorities should also be party to that partnership, which should be as extensive as possible. As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) said, it should embrace carers and those who use the services.
  We must develop such partnerships and liaison rather than simply rely on the strong-arm-of-the-law approach, which seems to be explicit in the Bill, given the role of the police in taking and conveying those who are described as mentally disordered patients to a place of residence or training. I have no doubt that the public safety aspect is important and must be taken into account, but we proceed best through partnership. Certain powers must be invested in that partnership, but I am not convinced that the power to take and convey should be one of them.
  Secondly, people are confused about the scope of the take-and-convey power. I know that in the Bill it applies to those under supervised discharge, but that is not clearly understood by those in the community. The Government estimate that around 3,000 people may be affected by the Bill, because should they not take their medication, they might be a danger particularly to themselves, but also, on occasion, to others. Far more than those 3,000 people were discharged from institutions ages ago. There is no likelihood of them being affected by the Bill, but many believe that they are under threat from what they judge to be a power of arrest. Were it applied loosely, that power would be draconian. No explanation has to be offered when someone is taken and conveyed, provided that the appropriate care workers have agreed to that.
  The meaning of the term "mentally disordered", to whom the procedure will apply, is not clear to those in the outside world. It may be clear when seen in the context of the Bill, but more effort must be made to explain it, because some of my constituents are worried by the Bill for no reason. Their fear may be explained by the fact that many former mental health patients have been scarred by their earlier experiences. Some were kept for years in institutions that were unable to offer them any help. That happened either because of errors in their diagnosis or, in the not too distant past, because they had been sent to such institutions as inappropriate punishment for alleged offences. We have all heard of women who were put in institutional care when they became pregnant out of wedlock. I know of one constituent who spent 25 years in institutional care because he stole a bottle of milk. It is not surprising that people with such experience, who are now settled in the outside world, living unobtrusively, still feel under some kind of threat and in a sense discriminated against. They are worried that the Bill might apply to them and that the police might come to take and convey them without being told on whose authority that decision has been taken. Their anxiety is due to the experiences that they have suffered.
  198
  We have to make it crystal clear to whom the Bill might apply. The Minister will be aware that we are not happy about its phraseology, nor about the manner in which he will seek to implement the take-and-convey procedures. I believe that the extent to which those procedures might apply must be clarified.
  Thirdly, nearly all hon. Members have said that it is unrealistic and impractical to offer no financial resources for the Bill's implementation. The Bill's necessary measures should not be implemented at the expense of the overall standard of general mental health services.
  The Select Committee on Health studied mental health provision and envisaged an expanded service. It wanted more resources to be devoted to it. Even more significantly, the Department of Health's own review team—whose report back in August 1993 led to the Secretary of State's points on mental health—made it clear that extra financial provision was necessary for this measure to work. In these cash-straitened times, it is impractical to expect health authorities or social services departments to find those extra resources.
  The original Mental Health Act saw itself as an expression of the commitment to supporting the role of the community, rather than institutions, in the care of the mentally ill. Without resources, the new Bill's intentions to ensure that that is not at the expense of the safety of the public will be just that—good intentions. Unless people with mental illnesses are dealt with by adequately resourced support services in an atmosphere of understanding, the Bill's objectives will not be realised.
  Nobody denies that the public must be protected from potentially violent patients in the community. But denying those patients the means to reintegrate themselves into the community by depriving the responsible agencies of additional cash is what makes the Bill more about control than about care in the community.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: We have heard a range of concerns expressed in the debate, both about the current state of community care—especially for those facing mental illness—and about the implications of some of the measures proposed in the Bill. I reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) that the Opposition recognise the extent of public concern about the difficulties which have arisen in a number of instances with tragic consequences, where vulnerable mentally ill patients have slipped through the net of care services.
  I am conscious that some of the cases which have occurred away from London have not been reported, and I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) referred, of a tragedy affecting a child. Other cases have occurred elsewhere in the country.
  While we share the Government's desire to move towards care in the community provision for vast numbers of people who would previously have been incarcerated in mental hospitals, we have serious worries that the policy of bringing about a rapid rundown of large, long-stay psychiatric hospitals has not been accompanied by a similar commitment to proper development provision within the community. It is that one-sided community care policy that is at the heart of the problems that the Government seek to address with the Bill.

  199
  While we will use the opportunities provided by the measure to offer constructive proposals to safeguard the public and the patients, our central concern is to press the Government to take seriously the fact that community care is about rather more than just closing mental hospitals.
  A number of hon. Members present for today's debate were also present for the debate on mental illness initiated by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 10 May. They will recall that I posed two key questions to the Government that day of direct relevance to the measure that we are considering this evening. First, I asked what happened to the patients concerned when 70,000 psychiatric beds were removed in the 10 years up to 1992–93. Secondly, I asked what happened to the public resources released by that huge closure programme.
  The record shows that the Minister answered neither question when he wound up, because the Government have admitted on several occasions in answer to myself and to other hon. Members that they simply do not know the answers. There is no year-by-year breakdown of how many patients have been discharged to independent or semi-independent accommodation or to hostel provision, or how many have been discharged to attend day centres, day care or other forms of community provision. There is no record of what subsequently happened to them on their discharge or as they moved on from care provision within the community.
  As we are charged as Members of Parliament with safeguarding public resources, we must be concerned at the fact that we have lost not only the patients but apparently billions of pounds of funding which was previously tied up in the resourcing of hospital care. The Government cannot tell us where that money has gone, but it is obvious from the problems to which the Bill is a response that it has not been diverted into the programme of re-provision within the community that is obviously required to ensure that the rundown of hospital care means improving the quality of patients' lives.
  Our central concerns in relation to the measure relate to the two new orders at the heart of the Bill—the supervised discharge order and the community care order in Scotland. They are the culmination of a lengthy period of debate on whether a change in the law was needed to ensure that patients within the community could be required to follow a particular care plan. The initial proposals some years ago for compulsory treatment orders have reappeared in a range of forms, with the Government finally opting for supervised discharge orders and their Scottish equivalent.
  It is surprising—given the length of time that this debate has been under way—that the Bill's central proposals have so little support from the individual organisations that will have the task of applying the legislation in practice. Virtually all those directly concerned have been vociferous in their criticisms, especially of the new powers introduced by clauses 1 and 4. The Community Psychiatric Nurses Association, the British Association of Social Workers, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Psychiatrists have all expressed reservations, as has the Law Society.
  My background before entering Parliament in 1987 was as a social worker, and a number of colleagues here today—including my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) and for Stockport (Ms Coffey) —have similar backgrounds. I approach my evaluation of the measure with a particular eye on its application in practice. From that perspective, I—like others—am at a
  200
  loss to understand the need for the introduction of a completely new order when the existing power of guardianship offers an almost identical provision.
  During my time in local authority social work, I worked for many years as an authorised mental welfare officer. I looked to guardianship to offer the safeguards necessary when, in a few situations, it was felt that some statutory supervision was required. That power was used sparingly, but my experience was that it was used in a positive way to enhance the opportunities available in the community to a small number of patients who would otherwise have spent lengthy periods in hospital under section. Guardianship facilitated community care, while offering protection to the patient and to the public.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North said that the supervised discharge orders and the similar Scottish provision duplicate the existing guardianship powers in a way that will inevitably cause confusion among those who have to differentiate between the two. The main difference that has been proposed is a new power to take and convey the patients to a place where they are required to live or to attend. That power has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, and has been the subject of particular criticism as a provision that could totally undermine the consensual relationship upon which the most successful after-care supervision is based.
  It is important to underline the fact that one cannot care for people in a community environment without some consent and trust between the person being supervised and the supervisor. Those involved are concerned about how the measure will operate when it is implemented, as they recognise that that element will cause difficulties between the person supervising the patient and the person being supervised. I hope that the Government will listen to that. It is not a partisan political point, but a point of practicality that has been raised with us—and with Conservative Members—by the organisations and individuals concerned.
  The provision to take and convey could have been understood if the Government had taken the step of also including compulsory treatment within the new order, although I emphasise that I am not suggesting that that should have been done. But as it stands, a patient taken or conveyed under the order would be within his or her rights to refuse subsequent medical treatment. It will be necessary to make an application under a separate section of the Mental Health Act to enforce such treatment. As one writer with a legal background has put it, the community psychiatric nurse would have the power to take a horse to water, but not to make him drink.
  The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) —who was critical of the provision—failed to grasp the key issue in this measure which is causing great concern to a number of organisations and individuals. If a patient no longer complies with a care plan, the only additional provision is the obligation on the care team to inform an approved social worker, who may consider applying for compulsory admission to hospital. But nearest relatives can do that already under existing law. Unlike guardianship, the new powers would be in the hands of health authorities in a move away from the lead agency status on community care which the Government introduced in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  201
  As well as the confusion with guardianship that I have mentioned, the shift from local authorities will raise more questions about who is responsible at a local level. The organisational responsibility question is another area that causes us extreme concern. We need to know exactly who is doing what. The clear similarity with the guardianship provisions organised by local authorities will cause immense confusion among practitioners at a local level.
  While I understand that the measure is intended to formalise the care programme approach in some respects, that could have been achieved with fairly minor amendments to existing guardianship powers, with health authorities given similar status in law to local authorities. Amending guardianship would have been more in line with the wider policy moves in the direction of care in the community, because it would have enabled the development of a non-hospital route to formalised supervision in a way that the Bill does not allow.
  It is not helpful to convey the clear message—as the Bill Does—that the legal enforcement of key elements of the care plan within the community depends upon discharge from in-patient hospital care. While I appreciate that the prime motivation for the measure has been severe problems concerning patients who have left hospital, it is important to recognise within the context of current policy that care does not necessarily have to begin with an experience of hospital in-patient treatment. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) touched on that point.
  The fact that the proposals seem to be at odds with wider policy developments to some extent underlines the Mental Health Act Commission's argument that existing legislation, which was based substantially on policies that were in place in the 1950s—the 1983 Act was based primarily on the framework of the Mental Health Act 1959—has been largely overtaken by radical moves in the direction of community care. It is pretty obvious that those who are charged with the task of overseeing the legislation believe strongly that simply tampering with elements of existing mental health law will not succeed in making current legislation relevant to current circumstances.
  The need for a new mental health Act, which offers a framework reflecting current policy, will clearly not go away. I was pleased to hear the Minister concede that his mind was not closed to a much wider review of the legislation. Clearly, the legislation is grossly outdated. The Mental Health Act Commission has stated that there is a need for new legislation that reflects contemporary policies in contemporary times, and I hope that the Government will take that call seriously.
  The prime reason for introducing the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill is, as the Government said, public protection. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East made clear at the outset, the Labour party is as concerned as the Government to ensure that the public and the patients themselves should not be put at risk by inadequate care policies. As our amendment shows, we take a wider view of the causes of the problem and of the solutions.
  202
  Public protection must be a key objective, but as the Mental Health Foundation inquiry put it last year:
  "If everyone with a severe mental illness had appropriate services, sensitively provided and adequately funded, there would be much less concern about this issue".
  Such services and provisions do exist in some areas, but, as the Audit Commission and the Health Select Committee have pointed out, they vary markedly in their quality and availability.
  There are good examples of patients being offered long-term supported accommodation. There are some excellent models of asylum within the community, with safe houses and other forms of sanctuary along the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) mentioned.
  There are excellent mental health resource centres in some areas, with round-the-clock crisis services and outreach provision. But in other areas, such key elements of community care provision are either minimal or non-existent.'They have not been developed alongside the hospital closure programme, and that fact must be addressed. We must recognise also that access to acute hospital-based services offers an important back-up to care in the community, but it is clearly grossly inadequate in some parts of Britain. A number of Conservative Members made that point today.
  Those factors have an important bearing on the reasons for the mental health Bill, but the Bill itself will clearly do nothing to ensure that adequate services are available to patients who are subject to the new order. The Department of Health review team said that the use of the new power implied a reciprocal obligation on statutory services to provide the support that patients need, but the Government tell us that it is a nil-cost measure. Without the necessary back-up support and services, any formalised supervision—whether under discharge orders or guardianship—will mean very little.
  That point is central to our amendment, which reflects the very serious concerns about the Bill expressed by a range of organisations. There is a clear need to ensure that patients and the public are protected. However, we believe that the Government were very badly advised in bringing forward a measure that has not been thought out properly. For that and for the other reasons that I have outlined tonight, I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Bowis: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to some of the points that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I think that there has been something of a competition—which is unusual in this place—to catch the eye of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who has identified himself as the guardian of the Select Committee on Selection. Conservative Members have appealed to him to look after their interests as the legislation moves towards the Committee stage, and there have been similar hints from Labour Members as well. I hope that we have established in the hon. Gentleman's mind that there is a lot of interest in the measure.
  Mr. Kirkwood: A lot of talent.
  Mr. Bowls: And a lot of talent. Despite some of the comments made during the debate, hon. Members have

  203
  expressed broad agreement that we should look carefully at the measure, and that we must protect those people in the community who have severe mental illnesses, while also protecting their families, their carers and members of the general public.
  Madam Deputy Speaker, you have graciously allowed the debate to range quite widely today. Perhaps that is inevitable, when one examines the background to the measure. It is interesting to see how the pieces of the jigsaw to which I referred in my opening speech will come together. I make it absolutely clear that the measures in the Bill are not an end in themselves. They will operate with all the other pieces of the strategy to secure the safety and well-being of severely mentally ill people and of the wider community.
  I do not promise to cope with every point raised in the short time available to me, but I have no doubt that some of them will be raised again during the Committee stage. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—who explained that he had to leave the Chamber—inquired about the Bill's compatibility with the Children (Scotland) Bill. I am assured that the measures are compatible with both the existing and the proposed legislation. Children under 16 may, in very rare circumstances, be detained in hospital under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, and that is why we have made community care orders available for such patients.
  The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) referred to a tragedy of which I am aware, and emphasised the need to improve the system. He gave a qualified welcome to the Bill, and said that it does not address all of the problems. That is a perfectly fair comment: the Bill does not seek to achieve everything. It is a narrow, measured Bill and only one part of the Government's strategy.
  The hon. Gentleman is quite right to refer to the need for better community services. The Government preach that constantly to health and social services and to community health services, and we have made the money available to ensure that there can be improvements. However, we must ensure that those resources are targeted, and are used wisely.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson)—I hope that I have the geography right in this case—rightly paid tribute to the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. Tributes have been paid on both sides of the Chamber to the NSF and other voluntary organisations such as MIND and the Jewish Association for the mentally ill. I join in those tributes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East rightly paid special tribute—as others have—to carers. We have done much to support carers in the House in recent months, and nowhere is that more important than where carers of people with severe mental illness are concerned. They have a tremendous burden to carry for people in their families whom they love, and we should do what we can to support them. The best way to support those carers is to ensure that they have the assurance that the services are there—the range of services, encompassing provision of beds and community services. I believe that those carers would welcome the measure.
  The number of beds was mentioned several times. I can best respond to that by drawing attention to the survey of English mental hospitals published in March 1993, which showed that the number of places for people with mental illness had been steady, at about 80,000. The difference
  204
  is in the new range of provision that exists. That is not to suggest for a moment that I do not accept some of the arguments about beds, but the number of places has been fairly steady in recent years.
  There is talk about new funding, and that was reflected in several speeches from both sides of the House about the resources needed to make the Bill work effectively. The specific figures on the face of the Bill refer to the tribunals and those specific additional costs.
  We must regard the reference to resources and the references to the cost of the Bill in the context of the greatly increasing resources that have been made available for mental health provision—for the national health service and social services—in recent years. I have no doubt that those resources will continue to increase, because mental health is a priority in the NHS and in social services. The more we are able to make progress—as we will—with our inter-agency purchasing guide and to encourage joint commissioning and so on, the more resources will be made available for those measures, but they will be made available for the whole of provision for mental health.
  In connection with the Bill, we have spoken about the numbers of people that we are dealing with. They are quite small numbers in any one district. Nevertheless, although it is unquantifiable, one needs to take account of the cost to the community and to the health and social services if that type of measure is not implemented. There are enormous costs in trying to locate and look after people who have not been adequately supervised, so the Bill could, in some ways, be a cost-saving measure. Certainly it will make for a more efficient service.
  Compulsory medication was mentioned. Our line, as I said earlier, is that, where medication has to be compulsory, that should be decided in the setting of a clinical decision by psychiatrists in a hospital, not out in the community, but I know the opinions about that.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire mentioned titles, and no doubt he will return to that in Committee. I do not believe that the title "community care order" is misleading to professionals. Perhaps I have a greater faith in their ability to understand guidance and titles than he has, but I am sure that we can consider that in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred to the Scottish Select Committee. That has been considering the closure of psychiatric hospitals in Scotland, and when that report is published, it will be useful background to some of our discussions. However, as I said, we have an overall policy of ensuring that beds are provided. I shall return later to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) about the range that we need, and I absolutely agree with what has been said.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire spoke about the pressures on community psychiatric nurses. I understand the anxieties, but we need to get close to CPNs to talk them through the role because, as I said, we would regard them as being the supervisors and carrying out that role, just as we regard them on the whole as doing the key worker role under the care programme approach. The new role only formalises in law what they would have done under the old, and reflects the well-established principle that a patient's care plan should be the responsibility of a named person.

  205
  CPNs will work as a team, with joint responsibilities for decision making. Numerically, that should not make a great difference to their case load. However, those are fair arguments to make.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) rightly referred to the fact that suicide is the great threat to the people we are discussing, and one of our targets is to reduce the number of suicides. It is one of our "The Health of the Nation" strategies. The Somerset progress is encouraging. My hon. Friend rightly referred to the way in which Somerset got ahead of the game in care in the community.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton also mentioned homelessness. That is outside the scope of the Bill, but I would draw his attention to two things. One is the homeless mentally ill initiative, which has been remarkably successful in the streets of London. Various hon. Members mentioned central London and its needs. That initiative has helped to take people out of the boxes and blankets and into hostels and long-term accommodation. I believe that it can build on that.
  Yesterday—it seems a long time ago now—I took part in the third of the seminars that we have been holding jointly with the Department of the Environment, considering the way in which housing can play its part in community care as a whole, and especially the care of those with mental health problems. Much joint work is going on between Departments and between agencies.
  The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) mentioned the number of CPNs, which is important. They have quadrupled in our time, but we shall obviously need to continue planning the manpower and womanpower needed in that regard.
  I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) as chairman of the all-party group, which has got off the ground again and has been very helpful to us. He emphasised the need to involve users, and I wholly agree with that. The Bill does that, and we shall ensure that they are consulted on any revision of the codes of practice that follows from the Bill.
  Some of the most valuable times that I have spent have been with conferences of users and purchasers, at which they come together to consider local needs. Users are involved in the care programme approach to planning. We can build on that. Everyone seems to want a charter nowadays, and that is a tribute to the initiatives of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Charters are obviously regarded as guarantees of good—quality service—guarantees of people being involved in planning the services they need—and we shall certainly consider those in mental health. I believe that much of what the hon. Member for Motherwell, South said will be covered in guidance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) made what has already been described as an excellent speech, supporting the Bill. He also mentioned some of the issues, not least concerning London. As he will know, the mental health task force has carried out its survey of London and followed it up. I believe that progress is already visible on that, but we need to do much more work, and work much harder, on London's problems to begin to solve them for the longer term. My hon. Friend is also right to mention families and their civil liberties, which we should remember.
  206
  I said that I would return to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks on hospital closures. I understand his argument. We have said clearly that we are not closing hospitals until and unless we are sure that the services are there in the community. However, I go much further. I say that we need to ensure that there are hospital places for different categories of need for people with mental illness. That goes for medium-term needs, with hospital hostel-type concepts, it goes for secure accommodation, for acute beds, for 24-hour crisis beds, for long-term beds and for asylum. We need all that. We need the package of beds, just as we want the package in the community.
  I know that I have not mentioned one or two hon. Members. I wanted briefly to mention the hon. Members who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, to thank them for their broad support, if I may call it that, even if they will divide the House on their amendment.
  The Opposition acknowledged that we are trying to fill a gap that needed filling and which has been identified, as both Opposition Front Benchers said, by reports and inquiries. We have discussed the medium-secure beds, and their provision. We have talked about resources, too. I did not hear much from the Labour party as to what additional resources it will pledge over and above what we have provided. We have come to accept that; the Opposition talk about the general need for more resources but do not give any specific pledges. I am therefore not surprised that they changed the terms of their amendment tonight.
  Several hon. Members raised the issue of guardianship. I remind them that we want to encourage guardianship. It is not used a great deal; when it is, it is generally used for people with social functioning problems. We believe that it should be a medically led regime. Baroness Jay sought to promote guardianship by adding to it the power to convey. We do not think that is the way forward; we think that this Bill is.
  We shall also examine the role of the Mental Health Act Commission when reviewing the Bill generally.
  Black mental health is an issue that I take very seriously. I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) raised it. The first initiative that I took as a Minister was to launch an inquiry into the reasons for the apparent variations in treatment and diagnosis and in the type of accommodation for black mentally ill people. We are going to look carefully and objectively—without too much emotion—at this subject, without ducking any of the questions. I shall go on doing that, but it is separate from this Bill, and I hope that it will not be seen as a threat to these people.
  The Bill seeks to protect some very vulnerable people, whose illness can cause harm to themselves or others. Tragedies are rare, but that is no reason not to try to avoid them by strengthening supervision. We must reassure the public and the families who have people with severe mental illnesses living among them. I have listened carefully to everything said this evening. I shall listen again in Committee.
  Everything that I have heard confirms what I said earlier: that this Bill is but one measure in the overall strategy, together with the CPA, registers, key workers, discharge procedures and a range of bed and community services. The resources are important; their effective use even more so. Resources have risen and will no doubt go on doing so.

  207
  Everyone has mentioned the revision of the Mental Health Act, but nobody has really told me what they want changing in it. In due course, we shall certainly look at the Act; in the meantime, a lot of people need not changes in the law, but a tightening of performance. The few who do need a change in the law are those whom we have dealt with in this Bill.
  I hope that the House will reject the amendment, and give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 236.

  Division No. 167]

  [7.02 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Dewar, Donald

  Ainger, Nick

  Dixon, Don

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Allen, Graham

  Dowd, Jim

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Eastham, Ken

  Ashton,Joe

  Enright, Derek

  Austin-Walker, John

  Etherington, Bill

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bayley, Hugh

  Faulds, Andrew

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Flynn, Paul

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Benton, Joe

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Betts, Clive

  Foulkes, George

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Fyfe, Maria

  Blunkett, David

  Galbraith, Sam

  Boateng, Paul

  Galloway, George

  Bradley, Keith

  Gapes, Mike

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  George, Bruce

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gerrard, Neil

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

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burden, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Byers, Stephen

  Gordon, Mildred

  Caborn, Richard

  Graham, Thomas

  Callaghan, Jim

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Gunnell, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hall, Mike

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hanson, David

  Chidgey, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Heppell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clelland, David

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Home Robertson, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corston, Jean

  Hutton, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ingram, Adam

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Jamieson, David

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Denham, John

  Jowell, Tessa

  208

  Keen, Alan

  Pope, Greg

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Purchase, Ken

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lewis, Terry

  Radice, Giles

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Livingstone, Ken

  Reid, Dr John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rendel, David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McAllion, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooney, Terry

  McCartney, Ian

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  McFall, John

  Simpson, Alan

  McKelvey, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & Fsbury)

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, LJew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Soley, Clive

  McWilliam, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Madden, Max

  Spellar, John

  Maddock, Diana

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mahon, Alice

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marek, DrJohn

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stott, Roger

  Martlew, Eric

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Maxton, John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Meale, Alan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michael, Alun

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Timms, Stephen

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Milburn, Alan

  Touhig, Don

  Miller, Andrew

  Trimble, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Tyler, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Vaz, Keith

  Morley, Elliot

  Walley, Joan

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Watson, Mike

  Mudie, George

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mullin, Chris

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Murphy, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Winnick, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Wise, Audrey

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Worthington, Tony

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wright Dr Tony

  Olner, Bill

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Parry, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pickthall, Colin

  Mr. Eric Clarke and

  Pike, Peter L

  Mr. Dennis Turner.

  NOES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Amess, David

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowis, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Ashby, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Burns, Simon

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Burt, Alistair

  Bates, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butler, Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carrington, Matthew

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clappison, James

  Booth, Hartley

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Boswell, Tim

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  209

  Coe, Sebastian

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Colvin, Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Congdon, David

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Conway, Derek

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Knapman, Roger

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Couchman, James

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Cran, James

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

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Day, Stephen

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Devlin, Tim

  Legg, Barry

  Dicks, Terry

  Leigh, Edward

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Dover, Den

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Duncan, Alan

  Lidington, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lightbown, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Luff, Peter

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  MacKay, Andrew

  Elletson, Harold

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Madel, Sir David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Malone, Gerald

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Mans, Keith

  Evennett, David

  Marlow, Tony

  Faber, David

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Mates, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Merchant, Piers

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Mills, Iain

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gale, Roger

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Gallie, Phil

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Gill, Christopher

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Gorst, Sir John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Page, Richard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Pawsey, James

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hague, William

  Pickles, Eric

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Harris, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Richards, Rod

  Hawkins, Nick

  Riddick, Graham

  Hawksley, Warren

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hayes, Jerry

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Heald, Oliver

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hendry, Charles

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hicks, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Horam, John

  Sackville, Tom

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Jack, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sims, Roger

  Jessel, Toby

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  210

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Viggers, Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Walden, George

  Spring, Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waller, Gary

  Steen, Anthony

  Ward, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stem, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stewart, Allan

  Wells, Bowen

  Streeter, Gary

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Whittingdale, John

  Sykes, John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wilshire, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thomason, Roy

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thomton, Sir Malcolm

  Yeo, Tim

  Thumham, Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Tredinnick, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Trend, Michael

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Trotter, Neville

  Mr. David Willetts.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
  Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the developments in regard to Brent Spar since Prime Minister's Question Time, when the Prime Minister made an explicit statement on the matter, and given the change of mind by Shell in the interim, have you been given notice that a Minister will make a fresh statement to the House this evening'? As the issue is of crucial importance and there has been a major change of policy by the Government and Shell since Prime Minister's Question Time, will you ensure that the House is briefed before anybody else?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The answer to the first question is that I have received no such notification. The other matters are really the responsibility of the Government and I cannot ensure anything from the Chair, but I am sure that those points will have been noted by those on the Treasury Bench.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today's events are not only a triumph for the environment movement and the general public, but a total humiliation for the Prime Minister. Although it may appear that matters are resolved, Government policy apparently has not changed. They have made no statement and, potentially, another 50 installations could be buried under the North sea. Surely the Government must explain to the House whether Government policy has changed or whether the decision was taken by Shell.
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the Prime Minister repeatedly affirmed the Government's policy to dump at sea, would it not be appropriate for him to come to the House to explain the latest developments and

  211
  apologise to those hon. Members he disparaged during Prime Minister's Question Time who tried to put forward just this policy?
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely that is absolute nonsense. There is no Government responsibility whatsoever. The company made a commercial decision which was for that company to make, and the Prime Minister has no responsibility whatever in the matter.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you are well aware, there is direct Government responsibility. Yesterday, the Prime Minister himself described the proposal for onshore decommissioning as "incredible". As the Prime Minister put his personal authority behind that policy yesterday and today, is not he the appropriate Minister to make a statement to the House? Usually, when the Prime Minister backs people to the hilt, they end up sinking. In this case they have ended up not sinking. Are we not due an explanation?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must make it clear to the House, as the representative of the Chair, that these matters do not lie within my control.
  Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
  Dr. Godman: No. I wish to make a point concerning the announcement of the change in direction. As the hon. Member who first demanded in the House that the installation be brought ashore, may I point out by way of
  212
  clarification that the Government have every responsibility for such decisions under part I of the Petroleum Act 1987? The Government allowed Shell to go ahead with its plans until they lost their collective nerve.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must beware of this turning into a mini-debate. The point of order for the Chair is clear. I can only draw the matter to the attention of the members of the Treasury Bench. Apart from that, it is not my responsibility.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since the points of order began, two Scottish Office Ministers have appeared on the Treasury Bench. Would it be appropriate for one of those to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement, and would you agree to that, or would it be better if the President of the Board of Trade came to the House to make such a statement, because it is he who now acts on behalf of the Prime Minister to mop everything up?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Those are all very interesting suggestions, but they are not matters for me. We must move on to the next business.

  MENTAL HEALTH (PATIENTS IN THE COMMUNITY) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Costs of Enquiries etc.) Bill
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Town and Country Planning (Costs of Enquiries etc.) Bill
  Clause 1

    COSTS OF HOLDING CERTAIN INQUIRIES ETC.
    7.20 pm
    Mr. Keith Vaz: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—
    '(5A) Any regulations made by the Secretary of State under the provisions of subsection (5) above shall provide for the application of a service level agreement governing the administration of a qualifying inquiry and the performance of any person appointed to hold it.'.
    The amendment would incorporate the concept of service level agreements between the Planning Inspectorate and local authorities in the Bill.
    As the Minister knows, the local authority associations are concerned that, as the requirement for inquiries into development plans is established in legislation, local planning authorities are being required to use a service that is offered by only one agency for a function that they are statutorily required to fulfil.
    In those circumstances, the Opposition consider it essential that the level of service required of the inspectorate is formally set out with some means of redress for the planning authority if the inspectorate fails to perform adequately.
    That issue was raised jointly in Committee with an amendment that would have introduced a contractual relationship between the inspectorate and the local planning authority. The Minister will recall—if I may draw his attention away from his discussions with the deputy Chief Whip to the amendment—that in his response the Government accepted
    "the need implied for a more satisfactory footing for the arrangements between the planning inspectorate and the individual planning authority on whose behalf the planning inspector holds a development plan inquiry. We appreciate that the planning authorities want to have more say in inquiry arrangements in which they are required to pay what in some cases will be comparatively large sums."
    I am sure that the Minister will recall saying that. He went on to argue that the arrangements should not be included in the Bill. He continued:
    "Many of the factors that influence the practical operation of development plan inquiries such as the number of objections are outside the Planning Inspectorate's control…that is why there are no targets and penalties for the Planning Inspectorate. The difficulty is that there are numerous other parties in the local plan inquiry process, which is not a simple matter of discussion between the planning authority and the Planning Inspectorate."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 May 1995; c. 19.]
    I am sure that the Minister recalls saying that too.
    In response to other amendments in Committee, the Minister referred to the fact that the inspectorate had proposed a draft service level agreement with local authorities. He has sent a copy of that draft agreement to my hon. Friends and me. He also told us that he had placed a copy in the Library of the House.
    The Minister mounted an argument of sorts against a strictly contractual relationship between the inspectorate and planning authorities, but his argument does not justify
    214
    making no reference in the Bill to the introduction of a more formal relationship between the inspectorate and local planning authorities.
    The local authority associations have been in discussion with the Department for some time and I believe that some progress has been made in trying to resolve the outstanding issues. The amendment would simply include the principle of such an agreement in the Bill without specifying precisely what its contents should be.
    It is important, however, that the service level agreement should address the fact that local planning authorities do not have the usual redress of seeking an alternative supplier should the service provided by the inspectorate prove not to be of adequate quality or to provide value for money.
    The Opposition believe that the service level agreement should be explicit about the level of service to be provided; measures to be used in assessing the quality of that service; provisions for receiving feedback on quality from the consumers of the service—the local authorities and others who are involved in the planning process—mechanisms by which significant difficulties may be tackled; methods for redress should either party fail to deliver its agreed performance; methods for the resolution of disputes, such as circumstances in which the local planning authority may wish to query matters of factual veracity or reasoning, or to clarify the inspector's recommendation; and, finally, the approach to be taken in the event of a significant disruption such as the illness of an inspector.
    It may not be necessary for the universal service level agreement to contain administrative arrangements such as those for making documents publicly available, for the referencing of documents, for the hours and days of the week for sittings, for timing and for exchanging written evidence, for the procedure for giving evidence and for cross-examination, and for round-table discussions. Some of those matters may depend on the circumstances of the inquiry and the nature of the issues raised. Some may also need to be agreed at the pre-inquiry meeting.
    Equity between different inquiries demands that the procedures followed are as universal as possible. The service level agreement could play an important role in establishing a common approach. Matters that are specific to an inquiry should be dealt with in a local supplement to the agreement to be prepared after the pre-inquiry meeting.
    This simple amendment would formalise discussions and agreements that are currently proceeding. There is nothing controversial about it and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
    Mr. David Rendel: I support the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), because I too believe that the introduction of the service agreement is welcome but that it needs to be formalised.
    Inquiries are becoming more complex and important because so much now depends on them. It is difficult to get a development proposal agreed once the local structure plans have been finalised.
    We should, therefore, look hard at the procedures that we are using for inquiries and inspectors. On Second Reading, I said:
    "We need some form of guidance about what to expect from our inspectors. The Government are keen on charters at the moment. Perhaps there should be an inspectors charter, which would lay down some ground rules on how they would work and what local authorities could expect from them."—[Official Report, 12 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 312.]

    215
    It was therefore very welcome when, shortly thereafter, the Government made proposals very much along those lines. I welcomed that in Committee and I welcome it tonight, but it is right that the procedure should be formalised. We do not want the proposals to go ahead merely as proposals and not to be properly implemented as they will be if the amendment is agreed tonight. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree it.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Only a lawyer could think out amendment No. 1. The route suggested by the amendment is likely to end in a legally binding contract that would remove the administrative flexibility that the planning authority and Planning Inspectorate need to operate inquiries efficiently.
    The need of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) to regulate everything is part of the difficulty of his whole thinking. We desperately need administrative flexibility, which is what we seek. Under the amendment, the contract would have to be enforceable by either party. It would almost certainly increase the scope of disputes. It would not improve the local planning process and only lawyers would improve their income.
    We prefer the approach of proceeding by agreement between those responsible for managing the development and the planning inquiry process. Officials in my Department and in the Planning Inspectorate are consulting officers of the local authority associations and the Royal Town Planning Institute on the draft of a service agreement.
    7.30 pm
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister give way?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I shall not give way. We have been through this time and again, and it is a waste of time continuing with it. The aim is to finalise an agreement that the associations could commend to their members as soon as practicable. The Planning Inspectorate's aim is to offer the agreement to individual planning authorities, where the terms have been finalised, following the current consultation. We do not need the amendment. It would be counter-productive.
    Dr. Jones: Will the Minister confirm a comment that he made in Committee—that he would consider establishing a working party with local authority bodies to consider the draft service level agreement? Is that still a proposal or has he withdrawn it?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I repeat that a useful meeting was held on 2 June and that a further meeting, to discuss a revised text of the draft service agreement, is planned in the near future.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 197.

    Division No. 168]

    [7.30 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Beith, Rt Hon AJ

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Ashton, Joe

    Betts, Clive

    Austin-Walker, John

    Blunkett, David

    216

    Boateng, Paul

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Bradley, Keith

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Burden, Richard

    Lewis, Terry

    Callaghan, Jim

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Chidgey, David

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    McAllion, John

    Clapham, Michael

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Clelland, David

    McCartney, Ian

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Macdonald, Calum

    Coffey, Ann

    Maclennan, Robert

    Connarty, Michael

    McWilliam, John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Madden, Max

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Maddock, Diana

    Corston, Jean

    Mahon, Alice

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Marek, Dr John

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Davidson, Ian

    Martlew, Eric

    Denham, John

    Maxton, John

    Dewar, Donald

    Meale, Alan

    Dixon, Don

    Michael, Alun

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Dowd, Jim

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Milburn, Alan

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Eastham, Ken

    Morley, Elliot

    Enright, Derek

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Etherington, Bill

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Fatcnett, Derek

    Mudie, George

    Faulds, Andrew

    Mullin, Chris

    Flynn, Paul

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Foulkes, George

    O'Hara, Edward

    Fyfe, Maria

    Olner, Bill

    Galbraith, Sam

    O'Neill, Martin

    Gapes, Mike

    Parry, Robert

    George, Bruce

    Pickthall, Colin

    Gerrard, Neil

    Rike, Peter L

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Graham, Thomas

    Purchase, Ken

    Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Radice, Giles

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Reid, Dr John

    Grocott, Bruce

    Rendel, David

    Gunnell, John

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Hall, Mike

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Hanson, David

    Rooker, Jeff

    Heppell, John

    Rooney, Terry

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Simpson, Alan

    Hinchliffe, David

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hoey, Kate

    Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & Fsbury)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Home Robertson, John

    Spearing, Nigel

    Hood, Jimmy

    Spellar, John

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Stevenson, George

    Ingram, Adam

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Jamieson, David

    Taylor, Matthew (Trvro)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Touhig, Don

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Turner, Dennis

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Tyler, Paul

    Keen, Alan

    Vaz, Keith

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Walley, Joan

    Khabra, Piara S

    Wareing, Robert N

    217

    Watson, Mike

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Wilson, Brian

    Winnick, David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wise, Audrey

    Mr. Stephen Byers and

    Worthington, Tony

    Mr. Joe Benton.

    NOES

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Amess, David

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Arbuthnot, James

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Amold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Gill, Christopher

    Ashby, David

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Gorst, Sir John

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bates, Michael

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Hague, William

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Body, Sir Richard

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Hannam, Sir John

    Booth, Hartley

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Harris, David

    Bowis, John

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Hawksley, Warren

    Brazier, Julian

    Hayes, Jerry

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Heald, Oliver

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Hendry, Charles

    Burns, Simon

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Burt, Alistair

    Horam, John

    Butcher, John

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Butler, Peter

    Hunter, Andrew

    Carrington, Matthew

    Jack, Michael

    Carttiss, Michael

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Chapman, Sydney

    Jessel, Toby

    Cappison, James

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Coe, Sebastian

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Congdon, David

    Knapman, Roger

    Conway, Derek

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Couchman, James

    Legg, Barry

    Cran, James

    Leigh, Edward

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Day, Stephen

    Lidington, David

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Lightbown, David

    Devlin, Tim

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Dicks, Terry

    Luff, Peter

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    MacKay, Andrew

    Dover, Den

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Duncan, Alan

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Madel, Sir David

    Dunn, Bob

    Maitland, Lady Oiga

    Dykes, Hugh

    Malone, Gerald

    Elletson, Harold

    Mans, Keith

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Merchant, Piers

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Mills, Iain

    Evennett, David

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Faber, David

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Fabricant, Michael

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Fishbum, Dudley

    Nelson, Anthony

    Forman, Nigel

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    218

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Pawsey, James

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Thomason, Roy

    Pickles, Eric

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Richards, Rod

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Riddick, Graham

    Tredinnick, David

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Trend, Michael

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Trotter, Neville

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Viggers, Peter

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Walden, George

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Waller, Gary

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Ward, John

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Sims, Roger

    Waterson, Nigel

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wells, Bowen

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Whittingdale, John

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Steen, Anthony

    Wilkinson, John

    Stephen, Michael

    Wilshire, David

    Stem, Michael

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Stewart, Allan

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Streeter, Gary

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sweeney, Walter

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Sykes, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mr. Timothy Wood and

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Mr. David Willetts.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Mr. Vaz: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—
    '(5A) The prescribed standard amount referred to in subsection 5(b) above shall not be changed more than once in each calendar year; and any change shall be subject to consultation with such organisations as the Secretary of State considers to be representative of local authorities.'.
    As drafted, the Bill enables the Secretary of State to recover from local planning authorities the costs of appointing inspectors to hold local public inquiries. Central to that is a power to make regulations setting out the detail of the costs to be charged. The regulations will, in particular, set out a prescribed standard amount for the cost of an inspector.
    The subject of the charging provisions was probed in Committee. Replying to questions, the Minister argued:
    "The way in which the Bill is constructed will be an inducement to both local authorities and the Government to reduce costs. Given that the standard spending assessment includes a payment from the Government to local government through the planning portion of the SSA, the hon. Gentleman will realise that both sides will wish, if for no other reason than their economies, to improve and streamline the cost of inquiries."
    The Minister confirmed that an increase in the standard daily amount would require the introduction of regulations in the House, subject to the negative resolution procedure. He added:
    "The Planning Inspectorate has proposed a draft service agreement with local authorities that aims to give them a minimum of 28 days notice of an increase in the standard daily amount. In practice, however, local authorities would expect to be given considerably longer notice because of the need for regulations that would spring from such an increase. That approach is therefore reasonable, particularly given the opportunity of the negative resolution procedure."

    219
    In response to an amendment that would have required the Government to consult local authority associations on the regulations, the Minister indicated that he accepted the principle of the amendment and undertook to abide by the contents of a statement of guidelines for central Government and local government regulations. He confirmed that
    "consultations about the regulations will take place when the Bill is enacted."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 May 1995; c. 10–15.]
    7.45 pm
    In defending the Bill, the Government have repeatedly argued that the costs that local planning authorities will face as a result of the inquiries are fully reflected in the local government funding mechanism, through the SSAs. In Committee, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) made the important point that this particular amount was not quantified in the SSAs. Given the way in which SSAs are constructed, it is not possible to prove whether individual items are reflected in them. That is particularly so with costs such as these, which are small in relation to local government expenditure as a whole and do not arise regularly in the case of individual authorities, but can pose a significant burden when they do.
    As we know from both Second Reading and Committee, a large amount is currently being demanded from local government. That means that authorities need to be in a position to plan for the likely costs as far in advance as possible, and that any changes in the level of costs need to be linked with changes in the level of resources made available to local government through the SSAs and the revenue support grant regime. Specific consultation between Government and planning authorities on any increase is essential.
    The amendment seeks to address those issues by limiting any increase in costs to no more than once a year, and requiring specific consultation on such an increase. We consider that, first, increases occurring more often than annually would not be acceptable; secondly, specific consultations with local authority associations should take place on any increase; and, thirdly, any increase should be no more than any increase in the real level of resources available to local authorities.
    Mr. Bill Michie: Having spent many years in local government and having chaired a large Sheffield planning authority, I am acquainted with the problems that may arise long before a planning application is submitted or an inquiry begins. I know of the demands made on officers' and politicians' time, and I know that the public feel that they should have more say in the matter. We have always had such problems, and I suppose that we always will—unless we tidy up our act.
    The amendment deals with the likely increases in the costs of public inquiries relating to, for instance, Sheffield's unitary development plan. Local authorities are, of course, instruments of government, and as such they do not make the rules or prepare the ground for such inquiries. In fact, unitary development plans are an idea of the Government's with which I do not disagree—I think they are a marvellous idea—but I hope that UDPs can be dealt with more sensibly in future. Changing the plans every three or five years is extraordinarily costly for taxpayers.
    220
    Local authority planning departments have a statutory obligation to carry out UDPs and public inquiries. That takes a long time, certainly in Sheffield—although most of the public are happy with the way in which the inquiry there has been conducted. Nevertheless the cost is astronomical. The ground rules on planning and inquiries are set by the Government and they should foot the bill. I hope that there is some agreement in the House on that.
    Many people think that planning is boring but I find it fascinating. [Interruption.] I said planning: not family planning. It is a fascinating subject, but unless we get the system right, in two or three years' time someone will ask, "How did we get ourselves into this mess? Why was this built there? Why was it not built here?" The whole idea of unitary development plans is to try to make sure that that does not happen, but it costs local authorities an arm and a leg to embark on such exercises.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) spoke about the standard spending assessment, but that still leaves a shortfall for local authorities. Their planning departments are Cinderellas and are not looked upon as providing front-line services. I understand why much more emotion attaches to education and social services and care, but the correct implementation of planning regulations has a profound effect on the citizens whom we represent. Like all authorities, Sheffield city council is currently meeting the cost of the staff involvement although there is an element in the SSA to deal with that cost. Most people, however, would be surprised to hear the actual costs.
    I have a note from my local authority in Sheffield that the accrued cost of the public inquiry for Sheffield's unitary development plan could be about £200,000. I am sure that the Minister will have something to say about that. That includes the cost of two inspectors—it is a large inquiry—which could total between £80,000 and £100,000. Obviously, a local authority has to take advice because of the importance of such an inquiry, and that involves banisters' costs of £90,000 plus. Is the Minister prepared to say how much barristers' fees have cost ratepayers or taxpayers for such inquiries nationally? I think that the figure would be horrific. For such projects there is also the programme officer's salary, office expenses and other inquiry running costs. I take a simple view.
    I have no objection to inquiries. They are crucial, but I object to the fact that the Government do not fully understand the importance of having in planning authorities competent, highly skilled people who can deal with the democratic right of people to express their opinion. Obviously, the Government would have an influence, but local authorities should not be left with bills that they cannot afford. Like many local authorities Sheffield is still bound by its statutory duties, and is trying to do the best that it can with such inquiries even though it is under the Government's financial constraint. I hope that the Government will look more seriously at the cost to local authorities. They should be given the wherewithal to do a competent job and they should be allowed to do it without the fear that they may have to scrimp and save and not be able to do the job that they would like because of the costs that would have to be passed to their ratepayers.
    Mr. William O'Brien: The Minister should consider carefully the amendment's principles and background. It asks that inquiry charges be increased no

    221
    more than once a year, and that any increase should be in line with the expenditure that is set by the Secretary of State for local authorities to provide services. If the Minister does not accept the principle of the amendment he should explain why he thinks the increase in inquiry charges should occur more than once a year.
    On Thursday the Secretary of State for the Environment made it perfectly clear to the House that he accepted that local authorities were working on stringent budgets because of capping and that the standard spending assessments set by the Government are such that local authorities cannot provide for increases other than those that are set out in their budgets. That is, basically, the principle that lies behind the amendment. It is right that local authorities should have some assurances.
    When we debated costs in Committee we challenged the Minister to deny that the Bill would impose a charge on local authorities for retrospective Government charges for planning inquiries. I said that that was totally unfair and unjust, but the Minister said that any payments that local authorities might be called upon to make for retrospective planning inquiries would be met or that the SSA would contain an element to meet that extra Government charge.
    I wrote to the Minister asking him to outline how much he anticipates will be included in the SSA to cover the costs that will be charged to local authorities. He replied, which I appreciate, by saying that the SSAs for the coming year will be approximately £38,743 million and that 0.03 per cent. of that will be for planning costs. He said that that was included in a budget provision for other services. It is easy for the Minister to say that part of the other services element of the SSA will cover those costs, but in view of the make-up of the other services we must ask the Minister to explain further.
    In the Minister's reply to me dated 20 June— yesterday—he highlighted the fact that the services in annexe H of an enclosed document included a number that were covered by the SSA. He listed them in the document, and planning implementation and control are included in that list. The only problem is that while non-metropolitan district councils and metropolitan county councils are covered, metropolitan district councils are not.
    The Bill is a result of what happened in Birmingham, which has a metropolitan district council. Although the Minister addressed the points that I raised with him, his answer did not apply to the authorities about which I questioned him in Committee. Although the Minister gave some information about how he believes the SSA should be apportioned according to the formula, not all authorities are covered.
    The Minister owes members of the Committee in particular, but the House in general, some explanation as to why he refers only to non-metropolitan district authorities and not to metropolitan district councils. Wakefield, the region where I am from, is involved. An account will be sent to it for retrospective payments for planning inquiries.
    8 pm
    If the Minister does not accept the amendment, the revised planning guidance that the Government are contemplating will mean further cuts in the consultation
    222
    period that takes place when a unitary development plan is offered for consultation to people in the communities. In Wakefield, the planning authority conducted an extensive consultation exercise. Its chairman and officers called public meetings in towns and villages and explained in full the purpose of the unitary development plan. If we decide to reduce the resources, they can be taken only in respect of the consultation period that planning authorities undertake to acquaint their communities with their plans for the next five or 10 years.
    That is the course that the Department is embarking on with the revision of the planning guidance on statutory plans. It is wrong, and the Government would have to explain why they intend to take from communities their right to have planning procedures made clear and understood. If amendments are suggested by the public and communities, that is their right. It would be wrong for the Government to take that right away.
    The cost element is attached to inspectors and inspectors' services that apply to local authorities. The Wakefield authority carried out its exercise in accordance with the Government's directives. The problem with the unitary development procedure in relation to Wakefield was the length of time that it took for the inspector to present the report and the fact that there was the unexpected element of the inquiry. In Committee, the Minister said that he agreed with Opposition Members that the procedure of the inspector carrying out his exercise in the community and presenting the report would have to be speeded up. Will we be given the additional assurance that the waiting time for an inspector's report will be reduced and that the inspector will be more specific about when he will attend the public inquiry and invite people to present their observations and comments? Will the Minister give an assurance that, if people promise to attend a public inquiry and fail to do so, any charge on the local authority should be met by those people if the reason for not attending was not justified?
    Tonight, the Minister will have to answer a number of questions. This is the last opportunity that we have to press the Minister to do something to ensure that local authorities will not again be charged for services other than those included in the SSA or the capping criteria that are set by the Secretary of State for the Environment. If the Minister believes that planning is important, if he considers that communities have the right to examine proposals that affect, in many instances, their destiny in the form of development of industrial and residential estates, if he believes that communities and local authorities have the right to examine those plans, to choose and to make representations on proposals in a unitary development plan, and that people have a universal right to make representations, the only way that he can be fair and offer any real assurances is to accept the amendment. That would give local authorities the comfort of knowing that, when their budgets are set and provision is made in the planning budget for a public inquiry, that charge will not increase.
    We want to have—last time we argued that this was possible—a service agreement, but such an agreement is not there. We want some assurances from the Minister, as outlined in the amendment, that charges will be made no more than once a year and that they will be in line with a local authority's budget provisions.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: The amendment is designed to exert some constraints over the Planning Inspectorate and the frequency with which it demands an increase in its

    223
    charges and the level of those increases. I am not sure why it refers only to subsection (5A), but it is an example of what needs to be done.
    That this amendment is necessary is demonstrated by the behaviour of the Planning Inspectorate, presumably acting with the agreement of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Between June 1989 and September 1991, the charges for development plan inquiries increased by more than 170 per cent. In Committee, the Minister had an opportunity to comment on and justify that scale of increase in charges, but he declined to do so; perhaps tonight he will take the opportunity to comment, particularly as I understand that it is proposed to increase the current charge of £285 a day for planning inspector services by 19 per cent.
    The fact that the charges are not based on any rational assessment of actual costs is demonstrated by the fact that charges for development plan inquiries differ substantially. At one time, there was a difference of between £350 a day and £285 a day. That has never been justified. The Minister declined to comment on that discrepancy or to give any assurances about how the Department's administrative overheads, which can be charged, would be justified.
    It is thanks to Birmingham city council that this legislation is before us. Under the proposals in the service level agreement, which is a step forward, there will at least be 28-day notification of an increase in charges. That is an improvement. Last time they were increased, notification went out on 12 September for charges that were to be increased on 1 September. Birmingham city council is to be congratulated on its final decision to consider such charges when its original estimate of £28,000 for its development plan ended with a demand for a £63,000 payment—almost three times the original assessment.
    I hope that the Minister will respond to those arguments. What is being proposed is a step forward, and Birmingham city council should be congratulated on that. I welcome the fact that the negative resolution procedure may delay the 28 days even longer. However, we still need to hear a justification for charges being increased more frequently than once a year. I cannot understand why the Government will not accept our reasonable amendment.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: I shall ask one question in support of the amendment. Money is finite in the local authority sector, as I am sure the Minister will agree. The Select Committee on the Environment heard only last week that, if community care costs are taken out of the local government equation, the Department envisages a reduction of 6.3 per cent. in real terms over the next three years.
    As money is finite, I must ask the Minister a question that the Sheffield city solicitor raised with me. Is not such an increase in costs, and such uncertainty over the planning budget for financing planning appeals, likely to make an authority even more wary about taking important enforcement action over serious environmental issues?
    As the Minister will know from the deliberations on the Environment Bill that have been taking place over the past few months, local authorities are being asked to take on many more responsibilities in connection with important matters of which there is a growing public awareness, and to take enforcement action on environmental issues. Such increases in costs will create more pressure, especially on local authorities that develop
    224
    a careful budget plan to allow for them, and they will therefore have no room left for unexpected, although possibly very important, legal action that may be necessary when there are serious violations of environmental standards in their areas.
    For those reasons, I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response to our important amendment.
    Mr. George Stevenson: As my hon. Friends have said, the amendment seeks to restrict the Government's undoubted ability and intention to increase the standard daily amount so that that can be done only once a year. I could not help wondering what the Government's attitude would be if the roles were reversed. If local authorities sought to impose charges on the Government as and when they wanted, what would the Government's reaction be? If a local authority said, "We want to change the cost of collecting your business rate every month or so," the Government's reaction would be—
    Mr. Bill Michie: Shock, horror.
    Mr. Stevenson:—as my hon. Friend suggests, shock, horror.
    I suspect, in fact I know, that the Government would say, "You can't do that." If local authorities were legally entitled to do it we would see a phalanx of Ministers on the Government Front Bench pressing us to change the law to stop those awful authorities. That would undoubtedly happen if the roles were reversed, so why do the Government find our reasonable amendment, which is consistent with their philosophy of effectiveness, efficiency and controlling costs, so horrid? Why do they recoil from it?
    Mr. Michie: They had not thought of it.
    Mr. Stevenson: They have not thought about any of this.
    8.15 pm
    We must dig deeper, and consider what the standard daily amounts are. They represent all the administrative costs, both direct and indirect, of the public inquiry. When we pressed the Under-Secretary of State in Committee about what the costs might be, we were all impressed by his silence—because silence was what we got. All that we could interpret from that silence was that he did not know, and I suspect that that is his motive for rejecting the amendment. Not only has he no faith in his ability to control costs, but he does not know what the costs would be even if he had. He could not tell us in Committee, and I suspect that he cannot tell us now.
    What did the Minister tell us in Committee about the costs? He told us that they included "general overhead costs", whatever they might be—that phrase covers a multitude of sins. He said, "Don't worry, trust us. We are okay; we are a good bunch of people." Then he said:
    "There will, however, be a daily charge that will be notified to the planning authority before the inquiry begins."
    That is an interesting statement. When will that notification take place—a day in advance, two days, a week, a month, six months, or even 28 days? I do not know. I have looked through the Hansard report of the Committee sitting and I cannot find any trace of any information.
    The Minister continued:
    "That will mean that the council will be able to budget for the anticipated costs of the inquiry and of the report by reference to the numbers of inquiry days, plus the number of subsequent reporting

    225
    days. Thus, the total anticipated charge can be known and calculated in advance by the planning authority."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 May 1995; c. 10.]
    The unfortunate fact is that the planning authority may be engaged in several planning inquiries in one year. Are we to accept the underlying philosophy and logic behind what the Minister says—that the planning authority will be engaged in only one planning inquiry in a year? We all know that that is nonsense, and that authorities are often engaged in several inquiries in the same year.
    The Under-Secretary told us that the costs would be identified and contained in standard spending assessments. But how can we reconcile the fact that standard spending assessments are compiled only once a year with the fact that planning authorities will know what costs are to be imposed on them as standard daily amounts and other general costs at some unidentified unspecified date before each planning inquiry? That is what the hon. Gentleman said.
    If the hon. Gentleman continues that alarming logic this evening we are entitled to ask him for an assurance that he will not increase those charges between planning inquiries, so that planning authorities have to jump through the hoop every time there is a planning inquiry and compile another budget. If the Under-Secretary continues to insist that the Minister will have the authority to change the standard daily charge almost at will, without consulting local authorities, the danger is that that charge will be amended—that is, increased—more than once a year. Unless he can assure us that that will not happen, he cannot duck the logic behind his own statement.
    If local planning authorities are going to be advised what their charges will be before every local inquiry, when will they be advised? What will those charges be and will the Minister assure us that those charges will not be changed between one inquiry and another? If he will not give that assurance, it will make nonsense of the assurances that he tried to give in Committee and of the proposition—already a weak one in respect of this Government—that we should trust him and the Government.
    We are seeking to get a working relationship in the light of court cases and everything else that has led to the changes that the Government are proposing. I put it to the Minister: is it reasonable, given his days as a local authority member, that local authorities will like the prospect of some Minister cloistered in Whitehall telling them what their costs are going to be every time there is a planning inquiry and that they may be changed every time there is an inquiry? Is that the sort of basis on which Government and local authorities should operate in a very important aspect of Government and local authority activity?
    As my hon. Friends have said, planning inquiries affect everyone's life in some way, shape or form. Are the Government's proposals a reasonable basis for those activities? I put it to the Government, as we did in Committee, that they are not. They have no logic and simply say that the Government will hold all the aces and that local authorities will have to like it or lump it. That is not the basis on which such activities should be conducted.
    Mr. Bill Michie: My hon. Friend touches on a theme with which I totally agree. It seems to me that the Government, for some arbitrary reason, put a value on
    226
    what they think each planning inquiry is worth. That could be a bit of a problem because if the Government of the day do not like a particular inquiry or are not bothered about whether the local authority wins, loses or whatever, they can make sure that there is not adequate finance to deal with that inquiry. It is a bit dodgy if, before the inquiry starts, there is a judgment of the value of it being done properly.
    Mr. Stevenson: I agree with my hon. Friend. In the light of the Government's intransigence in the matter, the amendment seeks to find a middle way. They will not tell us in any detail what the costs are likely to be. They have extended the scope of the costs because the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which the Bill seeks to amend, referred only to recoverable costs covering remuneration and allowances. The Bill covers the entire administration costs of and incidental to the qualifying inquiry. There is a world of difference. Despite our arguments, the Minister did not seem to understand that. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) made an extremely valid point.
    In conclusion, the Minister and, indeed, the whole army of Government Ministers, continually claim that their intention is to make local and national government speedier, more efficient and more effective. Apart from the mechanisms used to achieve them, most of us would concur with such goals as being consistent with good government. The Government have always claimed that they give higher levels of service. We have citizens charters coming out of our earholes. We seem to get one every day. We have more citizens charters than crises, which is saying something.
    In the circumstances that the amendment seeks to address, we are asking the Government to demonstrate their commitments. We are asking the Government to restrict their ability to change the charges to once a year. I do not know any hon. Member who would find that unreasonable. Rejection by the Government of the amendment would clearly imply that they are not confident of their ability to control costs and that they are not in charge of their civil servants or Departments. It is the same logic that has been applied year in, year out, to local authorities by the Government. It is an easy way out for the Government simply to pass the costs on to local authorities and, under the Bill, to do so almost willy-nilly. For those reasons, hon. Members should accept the amendment.
    Sir Paul Beresford: Of all hon. Members with local government experience, I should have thought that I would be the one who wants to squeeze local government expenditure and to understand the point that Opposition Members are making about that. I appreciate and understand that Labour Members want to limit the frequency with which the prescribed standard daily amount can be changed. That is plainly sensible from the point of view of the local authority budgetary process and the annual local government financial settlement.
    If I may pause for a moment, I shall answer the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who, I am sorry to say, obviously did not understand. He says that the planning provisions of standard spending assessments do not relate to metropolitan districts such as Birmingham. He has misunderstood the annexe that I sent to him. Planning control and planning implementation are taken into account for shire districts, metropolitan districts and

    227
    London boroughs. The reference in the annexe to the non-metropolitan districts was merely to classify the services provided by counties in shire areas and those provided by districts in shire areas. Outside the shire areas, the metropolitan districts and London boroughs provide both county and shire district services. Their SSAs therefore cover all the other services in annexe H.
    Mr. William O'Brien: Is the Minister dealing with annexe H, which he sent me, or using details given to him since I raised the matter by civil servants in the Box? If he is not dealing with annexe H, he is not being fair with the House.
    Sir Paul Beresford: I am explaining something that I should have thought that someone who has, in the past, taken part in local government, would have understood. I am explaining, effectively, annexe H.
    If the Bill is enacted, the calculation of the standard daily amount will be my Department's responsibility. In practice, the amount of the charge will depend on the Planning Inspectorate's year-on-year cost in providing inspectors to hold development plan inquiries. The inspectorate also budgets on an annual basis, although its budgets relate to the financial year, not the calendar year. We do not expect the charges to be reassessed more than once in any particular annual period.
    It is probably worth reminding hon. Members that the cost and figures given sound large, but, put as a proportion, they are not; the proportion of council expenditure is only 0.03 per cent. I shall give one specific example—one of the favourite boroughs of Labour Members. Wandsworth borough's unitary development plan inquiry opened on 2 March 1993, lasted 23 days and had an additional four site visit days. It closed on 13 March 1993. The total bill was just under £52,000. That is in a total gross budget, if I remember correctly, of nearly £500 million. The balances that the local authorities are required to set aside by the auditor would more than cover the charges that Labour Members are trying to exaggerate.
    Of course, my Department and the local authorities have a common interest in minimising the frequency with which charges are altered. In any event, there will be the additional discipline of having to justify any proposed increase to Parliament when the necessary subordinate legislation is introduced.
    We also had a proposal for a consultation requirement. I explained in Standing Committee that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed last November with representatives of the local authority associations a statement of guidelines for central and local government relations. Paragraph (d)(4) of the guidelines includes provision for consultation about relevant financial issues. My Department will follow those guidelines in consulting about proposed increases in charges to be introduced in future by these regulations. The amendment is unnecessary.
    Mr. Vaz: We have had an extraordinary reply from the Minister. If he believes that it is reasonable that local authorities should be consulted and if he thinks that it is unnecessary to increase charges more than once annually, there is no reason why he cannot accept the amendment so that such provisions are written into the Bill. The reason why my hon. Friends will not accept assurances given by Ministers is, frankly, that they are not worth the
    228
    Hansards they are written in simply because so many of the assurances given by Ministers are changed by subsequent Ministers.
    8.30 pm
    We believe that the amendment represents a reasonable way out for the Government. It provides for consultation with local authorities; the Minister says that he is in favour of consultation. A meeting took place with the Prime Minister last year. There is no reason why that consultation should not be written into the Bill. There is also no reason why we should not be clear about the matter at this stage.
    The Bill was introduced to make matters concerning the cost of inquiries as clear and precise as possible. Here is an opportunity to ensure that the Bill is clear and precise. We will, therefore, press the amendment to a vote.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 194.

    Division No. 169]

    [8.30 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Fyfe, Maria

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Galbraith, Sam

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Gapes, Mike

    Ashton, Joe

    George, Bruce

    Austin-Walker, John

    Gerrard, Neil

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Barnes, Harry

    Godsiff, Roger

    Bayley, Hugh

    Gordon, Mildred

    Beirth, Rt Hon A J

    Graham, Thomas

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

    Benton, Joe

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Betts, Clive

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Boateng, Paul

    Grocott, Bruce

    Bradley, Keith

    Gunnell, John

    Burden, Richard

    Hall, Mike

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hanson, David

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Harvey, Nick

    Canavan, Dennis

    Heppell, John

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Chidgey, David

    Hinchliffe, David

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hoey, Kate

    Clapham, Michael

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Home Robertson, John

    Clelland, David

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Coffey, Ann

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Ingram, Adam

    Connarty, Michael

    Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

    Corston, Jean

    Jamieson, David

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Denham, John

    Keen, Alan

    Dewar, Donald

    Khabra, Piara S

    Dixon, Don

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Dowd, Jim

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Lewis, Terry

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Eastham, Ken

    Loyden, Eddie

    Enright, Derek

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Etherington, Bill

    McAllion, John

    Fatchett, Derek

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Flynn, Paul

    McCartney, Ian

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Macdonald, Calum

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    McWilliam, John

    Foulkes, George

    Madden, Max

    229

    Maddock, Diana

    Reid, Dr John

    Mahon, Alice

    Rendel, David

    Marek, Dr John

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Rooney, Terry

    Martlew, Eric

    Simpson, Alan

    Maxton, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    Meale, Alan

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Michael, Alun

    Spearing, Nigel

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Milburn, Alan

    Stevenson, George

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Morley, Elliot

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Touhig, Don

    Mudie, George

    Turner, Dennis

    Mullin, Chris

    Tyler, Paul

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Vaz, Keith

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Wareing, Robert N

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Watson, Mike

    O'Hara, Edward

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Olner, Bill

    Wilson, Brian

    Parry, Robert

    Winnick, David

    Pike, Peter L

    Wise, Audrey

    Pope, Greg

    Worthington, Tony

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Wright Dr Tony

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Mr. Stephen Byers and

    Radice, Giles

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

    NOES

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Amess, David

    Day, Stephen

    Arbuthnot, James

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Devlin, Tim

    Ashby, David

    Dicks, Terry

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Baker, Nicholas(North Dorset)

    Dover, Den

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Duncan, Alan

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Bates, Michael

    Dykes, Hugh

    Batiste, Spencer

    Elletson, Harold

    Bellingham, Henry

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Evans, Nigel (Ribbie Valley)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Evennett, David

    Bowis, John

    Faber, David

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Fabricant, Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Reid, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Forsylh, Rt Hon Michael (Stilling)

    Burns, Simon

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Burt, Alistair

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Butcher, John

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Butler, Peter

    Gallie, Phil

    Carrington, Matthew

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Carttiss, Michael

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Chapman, Sydney

    Gorst, Sir John

    Clappison, James

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hague, William

    Congdon, David

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Conway, Derek

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Harris, David

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Couchman, James

    Hawksley, Warren

    Cran, James

    Hayes, Jerry

    230

    Heald, Oliver

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hendry, Charles

    Richards, Rod

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Riddick, Graham

    Horam, John

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Jack, Michael

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Jessel, Toby

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Sims, Roger

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Knapman, Roger

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Steen, Anthony

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Stephen, Michael

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

    Stem, Michael

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Stewart, Allan

    Lait,Mrs Jacqui

    Streeter, Gary

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Sweeney, Walter

    Legg, Barry

    Sykes, John

    Leigh, Edward

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Lidington, David

    Thomason, Roy

    Lightbown, David

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Luff, Peter

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    MacKay, Andrew

    Thumham, Peter

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Trend, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Trotter, Neville

    Madel, Sir David

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Viggers, Peter

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Walden, George

    Malone, Gerald

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Mans, Keith

    Waller, Gary

    Marlow, Tony

    Ward, John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Merchant, Piers

    Wells, Bowen

    Mills, Iain

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Whittingdale, John

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Moss, Malcolm

    Wilkinson, John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Winterton, Mrs Arm (Congleton)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Wolfson, Mark

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Wood, Timothy

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Pawsey, James

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Dr. Liam Fox and

    Pickles, Eric

    Mr. David Willetts.

    Question accordingly negatived.

  Clause 5

    SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION, FINANCIAL PROVISION, AND EXTENT
    Mr. Vaz: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 12, line 20, at end insert—
    '(1A) This Act, except for sections 2 and 4, shall come into force at the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which it is passed, or on such earlier day as the Secretary of State may by order specify.
    (1B) Sections 2 and 4 of this Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order specify.

    231
    (1C) Any power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and no order shall be made under subsection (1B) above unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
    Before I speak to the amendment, may I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on receiving a knighthood from Her Majesty the Queen? Not only did that bring a great deal of joy to hon. Members of all parties, but I am quite certain that the citizens of Pontefract and Castleford were equally delighted at the honour.
    The amendment would delay the coming into force of clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill, which deal with retrospection, until they have been approved through the affirmative resolution procedure of the House. The matter of retrospection has been addressed during the passage of the Bill, but the Minister has yet to give a satisfactory answer to the grave concerns raised not only by members of the Committee but by other hon. Members on Second Reading.
    In Committee, the Minister argued that the Bill's provisions would not lead to true retrospection, for three reasons: first, because the clause would
    "simply validate past payments that authorities made in good faith at the time of payment, believing that they had been sought and paid for lawfully since 1968."
    Secondly, he said:
    "provision has been made in past annual local government finance settlements for the estimated expenditure that planning authorities expected to incur by way of charges for inspector's services at planning inquiries."
    Thirdly, he added:
    "Without retrospection, the other provisions in the Bill would be unfair to those planning authorities that, through no fault of their own, have not yet reached the stage of holding an inquiry as part of their development plan process."
    The Minister also advanced those three reasons on Second Reading.
    One major concern for local planning authorities is a conviction that the Government would not have been as flexible in dealing with them in similar circumstances had the change occurred in relation to local government's execution of its own powers. One can imagine what would happen if a local authority acted unlawfully, in exactly the same way that the Government have acted over the past 20 years in dealing with the costs of inquiries. Ministers would be up in arms, and they would be rushing to the Dispatch Box and going on to "News at Ten" demanding to know why local authorities had acted in such a way.
    When Birmingham city council decided that there was a loophole in the law, no apology was given by Ministers. Indeed, the chief executive and members of Birmingham city council were not thanked. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and her colleagues who represent the city of Birmingham for having encouraged the local authority to do what it has done. Had it not been for Birmingham city council probing the legality of what the Government had been doing over the past few years, we would not have this Bill or, indeed, be discussing it at this stage.
    The point that the deletion of retrospective provisions would be unfair to local authorities was raised at length by the Minister in Committee. The logic behind the Minister's argument was that it would be unfair to local authorities in the second tranche—those holding inquiries
    232
    after the matter was raised by Birmingham city council and after the consultation procedure began. I have written, as have other Opposition Members, to local authorities. We have consulted various organisations, including the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils, and not one of the constituent parts of those local authority associations would—
    Sir Paul Beresford: They are Labour-controlled.
    Mr. Vaz: I am glad that the Minister raises the point that they are Labour-controlled. Indeed, one of them has become Labour-controlled during the passage of the Bill simply because of the attitude expressed by the Government. It is no wonder that they all want to vote Labour. The Government are prepared to act unlawfully and to charge local authorities for doing something for which the Government have no power to charge them, as the Bill proposes. That is why the associations, representing Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour authorities as part of their constituent membership, have written unanimously to condemn what the Government propose.
    8.45 pm
    There is also concern about the wide-ranging nature of the retrospection proposed. Subsections (4) and (5) of clause 2 apply the concept of standard daily amounts to inquiries covered by retrospective powers. Subsection (6), however, goes one stage further by providing that if no standard daily rate was applicable to the inquiry in question, whatever charge the Minister considered reasonable would be levied. The provision goes beyond the original intention of the Bill, which was to provide merely for validating payments that have already been made.
    Justifying this extraordinary provision in Committee, the Minister said:
    "The inspectors' charges that can be recovered retrospectively will, like current charges, normally be based on a standard daily amount. Nevertheless, to ensure that every possible eventuality is catered for, subsection (6) is included, in case it is found that no standard daily rate amount was applicable at the time of a particular inquiry. If, most unexpectedly, the Planning Inspectorate had to use the powers of subsection (6) to decide what amount it was reasonable in all circumstances to recover from the planning authority, inspectorate officials would provide that authority with a complete analysis of the sum due and an explanation of why it was considered reasonable to recover it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 May 1995; c. 26–27.]
    Surely the Minister must accept that that is taking the principle of retrospection to its absolute limits. He is asking the House to grant him the power to decide what amount to recover in any possible eventuality, which he does not even expect will arise. Given his view that the clause is unlikely to be required, he is seeking the House's agreement to stretch retrospection to a limit never intended by any other piece of legislation that I have studied during the passage of the Bill.
    If the Minister proceeds with the Bill without the amendment, I hope that he will at some stage table an amendment setting out his commitment to ensuring that if the clause were used, the planning authority concerned would be supplied with a complete analysis of the sum due and an explanation of why it was considered reasonable, together with an opportunity to challenge the figure arrived at.

    233
    In other amendments, the Opposition have pressed for full consideration of the regulations to be made under the Bill and for the introduction of a service level agreement. As we know from the previous debate, the Minister has been as positive as he can, given the circumstances. At the very least, this amendment would provide the opportunity for the House to satisfy itself that the commitments were fulfilled and that, crucially, before any steps were taken, the provisions of the Bill would not apply retrospectively.
    The Minister has said that he has gone out to consultation and that meetings have taken place with the Prime Minister. Indeed, that consultation started more than a year ago. The Minister must understand from my hon. Friends' contributions that retrospection is crucial to the future progress of good relations between the Government and local authorities. If, as a result of the McCarthy and Stone Developments case and the probing nature of the inquiry conducted by Birmingham city council, we accept that a mistake was made, the Minister should stand at the Dispatch Box and say that a mistake was made, apologise for it and say that, in future, any inquiries would be the subject of charging. Everyone in local government would accept that. That is what local authorities would be expected to do in the same circumstances.
    If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, the Opposition will certainly push it to a Division.
    Mr. William O'Brien: I must remind the Minister that when we discussed retrospection in Committee, he defended it, but when we were considering retrospective legislation in Committee on another Bill on which the Minister was leading, he defended the right not to introduce such retrospective legislation. If there is a political weathercock in the House, it is the Minister, because whichever way the wind blows, that is the way he faces.
    The fact that the Minister's own Back Benchers criticised proposals for retrospective legislation in the Committee on that other Bill prompts me to remind those Tory Back Benchers and the Minister that, today, the Minister is arguing the contrary to his previously stated opinion by arguing in favour of retrospective legislation.
    Everyone knows that retrospective legislation is dangerous. It leaves open the opportunity for Ministers to introduce legislation that can create penalties for something that happened in the past. That is the dangerous purpose of the Bill. The Minister should consider carefully before he proceeds with the Bill.
    The amendment would at least give local authorities the opportunity to offer an input to the representations to the Secretary of State regarding the level of retrospective payments. If the Minister pursues the line of thought that he exposed in Committee—as he has done so far tonight—he should press the Secretary of State to lift the cap from local authorities. If those authorities are to be charged for payments over and above their budget provisions, those charges could best be met by lifting that cap. The Minister may shake his head at that suggestion, but many of his hon. Friends on the Back Benches are saying exactly the same thing—unfortunately, not tonight. In fact, there are more civil servants in the Box than there are Tory Members on the Back Benches. That is glaringly
    234
    obvious. It is true, nevertheless, that many Tory Members are now arguing that the capping mechanism on the expenditure of local authorities, which has operated for so long, should be lifted by the Government. If that happened, local authorities would obviously be more able to meet the demands that the Minister is making of them.
    The amendment would ensure that any future charges would have to be subject to the affirmative resolution of the House before they were imposed. That would enable hon. Members to question the Minister and offer their views on his proposals to charge local authorities retrospective payments for matters that were not those authorities' responsibility in the first place. The initial mistake was made by the Government, whose charges on authorities were illegal from the start. That is why the Bill is before the House.
    In Committee, the Minister reminded us that he had served in local government. If he wants to gain any credit from local government and wants to demonstrate his affiliation to it, he should show some respect for the pleas from the Opposition to help local government. Our amendment would return to local government some of the credibility that the Government have taken away from it and will continue to take from it through the Bill.
    The amendment is constructive and would benefit local authorities that will be charged for retrospective payments. If the Minister has any affiliation to local government, he should accept the amendment.
    Mr. Bendel: I join the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) in congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your recent success in the birthday honours list.
    There is a difference between retrospective legislation about which people are warned in advance—that might sound like a rather strange concept, but it applies to an extent in this case—and genuine retrospective legislation, which applies to people who could not have known what was happening.
    It is sometimes admissible, although not necessarily in this case, for a Government to announce that they are about to legislate and that that will apply from the date of announcement forward. That can happen, of course, during the Budget debates. But it is quite wrong for the Government to attempt to legislate, as they have done in this case, where authorities whose inquiries had taken place had the right to believe that the Government did not have any legislation in place, which allowed them to be charged for the cost of those inquiries.
    The fact that there are authorities that will have to pay if the Bill goes through as it stands—at a time when they have every right to assume that they will not have to pay—shows what is clearly wrong with the retrospective aspects of the Bill. That is why I, and I hope the members of my party, will support the amendment.
    9 pm
    Mr. Stevenson: May I add my congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
    Of all the concerns that we have about the Government's proposals, this part of the Bill is the one that causes us the most concern. It is potentially the most dangerous part of the Bill, because it concerns the whole aspect of retrospection. By introducing the legislation in this way, the Government have acknowledged per se that

    235
    they were acting illegally and that they have had no statutory authority to operate the scheme which has been in place for the past two or three years.
    We are now faced with retrospective legislation, which is dangerous and puts us on a slippery slope. My hon. Friends have made that point both here and in Committee, and it is worth underlining this evening. We were unable to convince the Minister in Committee, and perhaps we will not be able to convince him now. But I am sure that he would not want to go down in history as the Minister who started us down this slippery slope.
    It is interesting to note the Government's attitude towards retrospection in the Bill, an issue that the amendment seeks to address. If a private sector firm with which the Government were in some way involved—a privatised industry, for example—had made mistakes, Ministers would come to the Dispatch Box to admit that mistakes had been made, but would say that the Government had catered for those mistakes and, in some cases, had written them off.
    If a local authority makes mistakes, heaven help it. It will have a phalanx of Ministers dropping on it from a great height. Minister after Minister—and, no doubt, Conservative Members—would be standing in line to condemn the local authority for its mistakes, and the Government would make the authority pay for those mistakes. But when the Government made mistakes—as was clearly established in the court action—what happened?
    Sir Paul Beresford: The private Member's Bill which preceded the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 and which was supported by the Government had a retrospective aspect. The Act deals with local authorities which have paid moneys which are later suspected to be illegal. That matter was covered in the Bill by a retrospective measure.
    Mr. Stevenson: I am glad that, after three minutes of my speech, I have apparently converted the Minister to the point that we want to make. I am extremely grateful for that intervention, because I cannot remember such a reaction from the Minister during all the hours we spent in Committee on this important point. I am extremely grateful for that intervention, as it encourages me to make some further points.
    The Government made mistakes—I do not want to make a great song and dance about it, but they were acting illegally. What do the Government intend to do about that? They have made mistakes, and they had no statutory basis for operating the scheme. But they will now use their retrospective powers to load the financial responsibility on to the local authorities, which have been completely innocent. The justification for the Government's intentions to put the burden of costs on others as a result of their own mistakes is very interesting.
    I should like to get the Minister to clarify what he means by retrospection. In Committee, he said that we did not have to worry, as this was not true retrospection. If it is not true retrospection, it is presumably untrue retrospection. If it is not full-blown, both-barrelled retrospection, it is presumably half-cocked and single-barrelled. Which is it? The Minister later tried to explain what he meant, but what he said does not stand up to scrutiny.
    236
    In 1992, the Government were challenged successfully on the basis of charging. The Minister is now basing the need for retrospection on two basic precepts. The first is that planning authorities will have no new financial burdens as a result of retrospection. I do not believe that that is the case, and I do not believe that the Minister really accepts it, either. The Bill seeks to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which laid down local authority charges. It extends the scope of those charges, and I argue strongly that a Bill which extends the scope of charging is bound to increase charges for local authorities.
    Unless the Minister is prepared to state categorically this evening that the Government do not intend to extend the scope of charges beyond those laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, his claim that retrospection is not a problem because it will not amount to an additional financial burden cannot be sustained. It will not stand up to scrutiny.
    The Minister's second justification for retrospection would be greeted, if the House were full, with a mixture of laughter and amazement.
    Sir Paul Beresford: They would not believe you.
    Mr. Stevenson: In reply to the Minister's sedentary intervention, hon. Members would not need to believe me, because they are the Minister's words, not mine. He said that the Government are seeking retrospection because they do not want to be unfair to local authorities. The Minister is unique among his colleagues in holding that view. Of the army of Ministers who are masquerading under the collective term "Government", you are the only Minister who does not want to be unfair to local authorities, and I congratulate you.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) has already congratulated me once; I think that he is referring to the Minister.
    Mr. Stevenson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is the only Minister who does not want to be unfair to local authorities, and I agree with him.
    The local authorities are telling the Minister that they do not want retrospection. When my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) spoke earlier about local government organisations, such as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, I heard the Minister say from a sedentary position, "Labour-controlled." I hope that that was a throwaway remark, and that the Minister is not arguing—even from a sedentary position—that sound and reasonable views expressed by Labour-controlled authorities will be discounted simply because they come from authorities which have a majority of Labour members. If that is the case, retrospection will be even more dangerous. I am sure that it was only a throwaway line, but it is concerning.
    Local authorities, such as the AMA and other associations, have said that they do not want retrospection; but now they are okay. Everyone accepts that action must be taken to clarify the position, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East said, we must start with a clean sheet. We can then move forward from there.
    That is an extremely reasonable suggestion. Our amendment is trying at the very least to delay retrospection, so that it can be given further thought and

    237
    so that any action taken on retrospective legislation will be subject to the affirmative resolution of the House. That is exactly the right thing to do. I can see now the queue of local authorities outside the Minister's office, banging on his door and shouting, "We want retrospection."
    Sir Paul Beresford indicated dissent.
    Mr. Stevenson: It is no good the Minister shaking his head, because those are the very words that he used. He said that local authorities do not want it. Now he says that they are okay and tells us not to worry; but where is the queue?
    I should like to know where my own local authority, Stoke-on-Trent city council, is in the queue. Is it second, third, hundredth or fiftieth? Where is it? I have checked: it is not in the queue. It does not want retrospection, and 1 have been unable to find a local authority that does.
    I believe that, when the Minister gives as a justification for retrospection—a dangerous thing to do—the fact that local authorities are queueing up, banging on his door, saying that they want it because they do not want to be treated unfairly, it is right and proper for the House to say to the Minister, "Prove it!" He did not prove it in Committee, because he was silent on the matter. I hope that he will prove it this evening. I believe that it is not happening—and that the Minister knows that it is not happening.
    Two planks support the Minister's justification for retrospection. The first plank, that there will be no additional financial burden, is simply not true. The legislation extends the scope of the 1990 Act, and there will be an additional financial burden unless we can obtain a commitment from the Minister this evening. The second plank that holds up that very wonky proposal for retrospection is that local authorities do not want to be treated unfairly.
    In Committee, the Minister did not justify those two arguments. It is fair that he should take the opportunity to justify them this evening. If he cannot, all right hon. and hon. Members should support the amendment.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: I shall be brief. I do not wish to repeat comments about retrospection. However, I wish to continue the argument about being fair to local authorities. The reason why we are here today, the reason why the Government have been forced to introduce the legislation, is that the Government were being precisely that—unfair to local authorities.
    When Birmingham city council received a bill for £63,000 in charges for the Planning Inspectorate carrying out the development inquiry, it was not happy. Originally, the budget for that purpose was £28,000. The council, being realistic, had realised that the inquiry had sat for a few days longer and had slightly upped its estimate, but it was a shock to receive a bill for more than twice the original estimate.
    The Minister dismisses that by saying, "It is such a small proportion of total local government expenditure." However, expenditure of that magnitude on other items has never prevented Conservative Members from unjustifiably smearing local authorities such as Birmingham. That money is important to local government. It should take its own decision on the way in which it spends its money, and should not be subjected
    238
    to unreasonable demands for costs from central Government—which I note, even at this late stage, the Government have yet to justify.
    The Minister is silent on the reason for increases of that enormous order of magnitude—170 per cent., in slightly more than two years. That is completely unreasonable, yet the Government smear local authorities such as Birmingham city council, which has shown, in this instance, that it is there to protect the interests of its citizens.
    It is about time the Government apologised for the way in which they smear councils such as Birmingham. The Prime Minister did it today. It is about time the Government congratulated Birmingham city council on the work it did to draw that issue out.
    As we know, the issue also rests on the legal case of McCarthy and Stone Developments Ltd. v. Richmond upon Thames London borough council, but we note that the Government have not rushed out to protect that local authority or other local authorities which were unable to make what they considered to be realistic charges for costs that they have incurred.
    This is yet another example of the Government expecting local authorities to behave in one way and behaving themselves in a completely different way. The Government say that the amounts are not important in relation to the totality of local government expenditure; the costs that the Government intend to recoup from the retrospective nature of this legislation are also small in relation to the totality of Government expenditure. The Government should be consistent.
    It is about time the Minister congratulated Birmingham council. It would be good if he recognised the work that was done; it would also be good if, instead of relying on their majority to beat through whatever legislation they want, retrospective or otherwise, the Government listened to the arguments and realised that they were behaving unreasonably.
    It is laughable to suggest that the Government are doing this to be fair to local government. I urge the Minister to consider the points made tonight, and to think again.
    9.15 pm
    Sir Paul Beresford: I add my congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your knighthood. It is a considerable honour—may we join the party afterwards? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Labour party?"] No, I have made some subtle mistakes in my time, but that would be a fatal one.
    We need to re-emphasise, apparently, the fact that these provisions validate past payments that local authorities made in good faith to my Department. The payments were made under legislation based on legislation enacted under the Labour Government—that is when the error was made. It was believed by all concerned and by the local authorities that the payments were lawfully sought and lawfully paid at the time.
    This is not a case of imposing an additional burden on any authority, or of expecting authorities to find the sums involved without having had warning of what they would he required to pay. There are no surprises—
    Mr. Stevenson: The Minister says that no additional burden is proposed for local authorities. Does he accept that the scope of charges under the Bill is far wider than

    239
    the scope contained in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990? If he confirms that, how can he argue that there is no additional financial burden?
    Sir Paul Beresford: The powers that will be used by the planning inspector will involve only payments that have already been made by the planning authorities or which they have been notified are due from them—we are not asking for other payments. As I said, there are no surprises. We do not expect local authorities to find additional sums that they have not been warned about. They understand that, and they have not gone to any lengths to seek repayments which they anticipated having to repay later to the Planning Inspectorate. If the Bill were not retrospective, my Department and local authorities would be faced with a minor bureaucratic nightmare.
    Mr. Vaz: No.
    Sir Paul Beresford: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should think again and delve into his knowledge of local authorities and planning law—
    Mr. Vaz rose—
    Sir Paul Beresford: I want to finish. If he thinks about it, the hon. Gentleman will realise that it would indeed be a minor bureaucratic nightmare. Authorities would have to establish what was owed in repayments—
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister give way?
    Sir Paul Beresford: No. Moreover, there would have to be a retrospective readjustment in the SSA provision paid through the revenue support grant to local authorities over the past few years.
    This is a short Bill. It has a clearly defined and limited purpose for England, Wales and Scotland. All the provisions in clauses 1 to 4 have been thoroughly considered at each stage of the Bill's progress. Consequently, I see no need to interpose a further delaying parliamentary process before any of the provisions in clauses 1 to 4 come into force. That would introduce an additional element of uncertainty into the timetable for resumption of the charging arrangements for inspectors and reporters' services.
    In Committee, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) asked about the timetable for reintroducing charges. We intend to introduce regulations after consultation with local authority associations and as soon as practicable after the Bill is enacted. It may, therefore, be completely unnecessary to use the transitional charges as outlined in subsections (2) and (3) of clause 1. Even if it proves necessary to use the powers, no charge will be levied on planning authorities without giving them advance warning.
    Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister give way on that point?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I shall not give way as we have spent enough time on the matter.
    The amendment is merely another delaying tactic. It would introduce uncertainty, which local authorities do not need, and I ask the House to reject it.
    Mr. John McAllion: It is now time to put a kilt on proceedings with a speech from a Scottish Member of Parliament. May I extend a Scottish welcome to your elevation to the knighthood, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
    240
    The Minister referred to fatal mistakes. He appeared to believe that it was a fatal mistake to give way to Labour Members because it put him completely off his stroke and he could not read the briefing that the civil servants had passed to him. That was the level of his contribution to tonight's debate.
    I was surprised that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), who is here tonight, chose not to take part in the debate, as clauses 3 and 4 apply to Scotland. It is insulting to the Scottish people that a Scottish Office Minister should be present in the House while we are discussing the issue, but choose not to take part in such an important debate.
    Mr. Stevenson: I am sure that his predecessor would have done so.
    Mr. McAllion: As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) says, his predecessor, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is in the Chamber tonight, would have taken part in the debate had he still been a Scottish Office Minister, but certain circumstances led to his resignation.
    On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Eastwood, who was in charge of the Bill, put an argument in defence of retrospection that we did not hear tonight. He argued that for the past 25 years everyone—successive Ministers, local authorities and inquiry reporters—had been working on the assumption that the Government had the statutory power to charge local authorities for the costs incurred in appointing inquiry reporters on planning issues. We now know that the assumption was wrong and they had no such power or legal authority to make those charges and that they were acting unlawfully. Had councillors acted in such a way for the past 25 years, they would have been surcharged by the Government, yet I suspect that the Government will not surcharge anyone for illegal action in the past 25 years.
    The hon. Member for Eastwood went on to argue that the Government acted in perfectly good faith because they did not know that they were acting unlawfully when they took the money from the councils. Pleading ignorance is not much of a defence in law, or anywhere else, although increasingly we hear that the Conservative Government did not know what was going on—whether it was arms for Iraq, arms for Iran or cash for questions. It is not a good legal defence, and it is less of a defence for councillors.
    The Government instituted the practice in local government whereby council officers are instructed to warn councillors if they believe that councillors are about to act illegally. If the Government are prepared to do that for local government, why cannot they do it for central Government? Why cannot civil servants or judges—who are very popular among Conservative Members—be appointed to warn Ministers when they are acting unlawfully and beyond their legal powers? If they had introduced the same set-up in central Government that exists in local government, the problem might not have arisen.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when his party was in power it charged on exactly the same basis and had the same

    241
    understanding with local government that it was legal to do so? Does he accept, therefore, that the assumption existed on both sides of the House?
    Mr. McAllion: I accept entirely that the situation existed under Labour Governments as well as under Conservative Governments. I am certain, however, that a Labour Government would not now be seeking retrospectively to put right what was wrong. A Labour Government would accept that an error had been made and that they had to live with the costs of that error. Central Government would be responsible for making the payments as local government was working under the conditions that central Government had created for it.
    Sir Paul Beresford: Would they not want returned the balance paid through the rate support grant and the SSA assessment to the local authorities over many years?
    Mr. McAllion: The Government gave green dowries to water companies when they had already paid for them over the years through council tax support—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the amendment.
    Mr. McAllion: I was merely trying to respond to the poor point made by the Minister.
    Mr. Kynoch rose—
    Mr. McAllion: Another poor Minister is trying to intervene.
    Mr. Kynoch: I have not participated in the debate because the arguments were covered fully in Committee and previously. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this retrospection will bring no extra charge to any local authority in his area in Scotland?
    Mr. McAllion: I thought for a moment that the Minister was about to say that the arguments had been covered fully by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, but he noticeably failed to say that. He said that they had been fully covered in Committee and elsewhere. I agree that his hon. Friend has not covered the arguments tonight. That became increasingly obvious as the debate went on. I have now forgotten what the point was.
    Mr. Kynoch: I shall repeat it for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, who obviously has a short memory. Does he accept that retrospection means no extra payment for local authorities, and that if retrospection is not in place there will be chaos because local authorities will be able to ask for funds back which they have already been given by the Government?
    Mr. McAllion: I accept that the position in Scotland is different from in England and Wales, but clause 2 applies to England and Wales and money is involved. Money has been given back to local authorities that will need to be repaid as a result of clause 2. It will still have to be paid back to central Government if the clause is applied retrospectively. The Minister must understand that.
    I shall come to what local authorities have to say about the clause in a minute, but before I do I want to say that the argument that local authorities have been acting under
    242
    the same assumption over the last 25 years does not pass muster. If the Minister thinks for a moment, he will realise that local authorities are simply the creatures of statute passed by the House under the advice of Ministers. Their powers, responsibilities and competencies are defined for them. The sovereign authority lies with the House and it is the House that got it wrong during the past 25 years and it is the House that must put it right and accept responsibility for paying the costs of putting it right. That is the simple point that has to be made.
    The Minister asked about the position of local authorities in Scotland. COSLA—for the benefit of English Members, that is the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—has made its position clear. It accepts that, under the kind of 19th century constitution that we have, Parliament has the power to pass retrospective legislation. But it goes on to point out that, as a matter of good law and practice, Parliament should do that only in exceptional circumstances. In COSLA's view, this is not one of those exceptional circumstances.
    COSLA goes on to point out that the small sums involved in Scotland—about £320,000 a year—do not justify the use of retrospective legislation in Scotland. Scottish local authorities are telling the Minister not to do it. I am telling the Minister not to do it and the Opposition are telling the Minister not to do it. If he was wise, he would not do it. It is as simple as that.
    In Committee, the Minister also argued that this is not true retrospection. He said that the law is simply being put back to what it has universally been seen as being for the past 25 years. However, I will remind the Minister that the law is the law. It is not what it is seen to be but what it is. There was no express or implied legal power for the Government or any other Government to make the charges on local authorities, which they have been doing during the last 25 years. They have been acting beyond their powers, and in a parliamentary democracy that is not acceptable.
    If the Government choose to act retrospectively to put right what has been wrong, I can only warn them that they are setting a dangerous precedent. Future Parliaments may apply the law retrospectively in circumstances that will not be to their liking. The Government are setting the precedent with which they will have to live.
    Mr. Kynoch: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that no money will be transferred and that the Bill simply legalises what Governments of both complexions and local authorities believed to be the position?
    Mr. McAllion: It is not legalising what they believed to be the position. Labour Members who have been responsible in the past are no longer in the House. Labour Members now are a very different group from previous Labour Members.
    Labour councils made it clear that they do not believe that the Bill should be applied retrospectively. It is as simple as that, and if the Minister does not understand that as a Scottish Office Minister, he really should listen to what Scottish local authorities have to say.
    9.30 pm
    My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) made a good point when he said that the Minister is sometimes in favour of retrospective legislation and is sometimes against it. What he really

    243
    meant is that when it suits him, the Minister is in favour of retrospective legislation. That is hardly a principled decision, because democratic principles are not matters of convenience. A true democrat is somebody who sticks to his principles even when they do not suit him. According to that test, the Government have shown that they are not true democrats.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 190.

    Division No. 170]

    [9.30 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Hall, Mike

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Hanson, David

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Harvey, Nick

    Ashton, Joe

    Heppell, John

    Austin-Walker, John

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Barnes, Harry

    Hoey, Kate

    Bayley, Hugh

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Home Robertson, John

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Hood, Jimmy

    Betts, Clive

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Boateng, Paul

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Bradley, Keith

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Burden, Richard

    Ingram, Adam

    Byers, Stephen

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Jamieson, David

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Chidgey, David

    Keen, Alan

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Clapham, Michael

    Khabra, Piara S

    clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Kiffoyle, Peter

    Clelland, David

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Coffey, Ann

    Lewis, Terry

    Connarty, Michael

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    McAllion, John

    Corston, Jean

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    McCartney, Ian

    Davidson, Ian

    Macdonald, Calum

    Denham, John

    Maclennan, Robert

    Dewar, Donald

    McWilliam, John

    Dixon, Don

    Madden, Max

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Maddock, Diana

    Dowd, Jim

    Mahon, Alice

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Marek, Dr John

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Eastham, Ken

    Marltew, Eric

    Enright, Derek

    Maxton, John

    Etherington, Bill

    Michael, Alun

    Fatchett, Derek

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Flynn, Paul

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Milburn, Alan

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Foulkes, George

    Morley, Eliot

    Fyfe, Maria

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Galbraith, Sam

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Gapes, Mike

    Mudie, George

    George, Bruce

    Mullin, Chris

    Gerrard, Neil

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Godsiff, Roger

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Gordon, Mildred

    O'Hara, Edward

    Graham, Thomas

    Olner, Bill

    Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

    Parry, Robert

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Pike, Peter L

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Pope, Greg

    Grccott, Bruce

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Gunnell, John

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    244

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Touhig, Don

    Radice, Giles

    Turner, Dennis

    Reid, Dr John

    Tyler, Paul

    Rendel, David

    Vaz, Keith

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Wareing, Robert N

    Rooney, Terry

    Watson, Mike

    Simpson, Alan

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wilson, Brian

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Winnick, David

    Spearing, Nigel

    Wise, Audrey

    Spellar, John

    Worthington, Tony

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Stevenson, George

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mr. Joe Benton, and

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Ms Estelle Morris.

    NOES

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Amess, David

    Field, Barry (lsle of Wight)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Fishbum, Dudley

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Forman, Nigel

    Ashby, David

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stlirling)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Gallie, Phil

    Bates, Michael

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Batiste, Spencer

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Bellingham, Henry

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Brffen, Rt Hon John

    Gorst, Sir John

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Bowis, John

    Hague, William

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Brazier, Julian

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Hannam, Sir John

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Harris, David

    Burt, Alistair

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Butcher, John

    Hawksley, Warren

    Butler, Peter

    Hayes, Jerry

    Carrington, Matthew

    Heald, Oliver

    Carttiss, Michael

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hendry, Charles

    Clappison, James

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Horam, John

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    COE, Sebastian

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Congdon, David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Conway, Derek

    Jack, Michael

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jenkin, Bemard

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jessel, Toby

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Couchman, James

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Cran, James

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Day, Stephen

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Knapman, Roger

    Dicks, Terry

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Dover, Den

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

    Duncan, Alan

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Elletson, Harold

    Legg, Barry

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Leigh, Edward

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lidington, David

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lightbown, David

    Evennett, David

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Faber, David

    Luff, Peter

    245

    MacKay, Andrew

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Steen, Anthony

    Madel, Sir David

    Stephen, Michael

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Stern, Michael

    Malone, Gerald

    Stewart, Allan

    Mans, Keith

    Streeter, Gary

    Marlow, Tony

    Sweeney, Walter

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Sykes, John

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Merchant, Piers

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mills, Iain

    Thomason, Roy

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thumham, Peter

    Nelson, Anthony

    Trend, Michael

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Trotter, Neville

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Twinn, Dr lan

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Viggers, Peter

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Walden, George

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Pawsey, James

    Waller, Gary

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Ward, John

    Pickles, Eric

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Wells, Bowen

    Richards, Rod

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Riddick, Graham

    Whittingdale, John

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Wilkinson, John

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Willetts, David

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Wood, Timothy

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Sims, Roger

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Mr. Simon Burns and

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Dr. Liam Fox.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    9.41 pm
    Sir Paul Beresford: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I did not believe that we could hear so much verbiage in such a small event. On Report, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) desperately tried to justify his position. I remind hon. Members that the Royal Town Planning Institute's independent opinion is that the Bill simply puts the law back to what it was universally seen to be for the past 25 years until last year.
    9.42 pm
    Mr. Vaz: I assure the Minister that if I were seeking to justify my position I certainly would not have called four votes on Report on the night that the beer club was sailing down the Thames. On Second Reading I promised a bare-knuckle fight with the Government if Ministers failed to compromise on a number of important points in the Bill. In that spirit the Opposition tabled a number of reasonable amendments in Committee and on Report that we hoped would improve the Bill.
    Town and country planning legislation should not be controversial, and I regret that I had to call so many votes on Report. But that was necessary because of the Bill's contents. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for
    246
    Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham), for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) and for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr Stevenson) for their excellent contributions in Committee and on Report.
    We shall vote against Third Reading for three reasons. The first is that the Bill imposes greater burdens on local authorities. Secondly, we shall vote against it because the Government did not keep their promise about full consultation with the local authority associations. Thirdly, we shall oppose Third Reading because of the most dangerous precedent of all in the Bill—that of retrospective legislation. For that third reason more than any other we oppose the Bill.
    Judge Chase, speaking in the case of Calder v. Bull, said that every law that takes away or impairs rights vested agreeably to existing laws is retrospective, generally unjust and may be oppressive, and it is a good general rule that a law should have no retrospective effect. The Government seek to break that precedent. Ministers will regret that decision, which will be reluctantly forced on reluctant councils. The legislation will come hack to haunt the Minister and the Government.
    9.44 pm
    Mr. Rendel: At the grave risk of being accused by Ministers of standing here merely to justify my position, I shall add a few points. Obviously, the main points that can be made against Third Reading are simply that the amendments that should have been passed tonight have not been, and that the Bill is unacceptable without them. It is also important, however, to point out that the Bill is a great missed opportunity. It deals with planning law and there is a lot wrong with planning law. It is a great pity that the Government have not included in the Bill the proposals that should have been included to rectify those faults.
    In particular, it is clear that there is a great disparity between the opportunities given to the big boys in planning—the local authorities, the Government and the major developers—and the much smaller opportunities given to the small man—the individual objector to a planning development proposal. That should and could have been rectified in the Bill. 1 too will oppose it and I hope that my party will do so.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 155.

    Division No. 171]

    [9.45 pm

    AYES

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Amess, David

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bowis, John

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Ashby, David

    Brazier, Julian

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Baker; Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Burt, Alistair

    Bates, Michael

    Butcher, John

    Batiste, Spencer

    Butler, Peter

    Bellingham, Henry

    Carrington, Matthew

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Carttiss, Michael

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Chapman, Sydney

    247

    Clappison, James

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Coe, Sebastian

    Legg, Barry

    Congdon, David

    Leigh, Edward

    Conway, Derek

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Lidington, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Lightbown, David

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Luff, Peter

    Couchman, James

    MacKay, Andrew

    Cran, James

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Day, Stephen

    Madel, Sir David

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Dicks, Terry

    Mabne, Gerald

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Mans, Keith

    Dover, Den

    Marlow, Tony

    Duncan, Alan

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Merchant, Piers

    Elletson, Harold

    Mills, Iain

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Evennett, David

    Nelson, Anthony

    Faber, David

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Fabricant, Michael

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Fishbum, Dudley

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Forman, Nigel

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Forsylh, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Pawsey, James

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Pickles, Eric

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Gallie, Phil

    Richards, Rod

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Riddick, Graham

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Gorst, Sir John

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Hague, William

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Sims, Roger

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Harris, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Steen, Anthony

    Hawksley, Warren

    Stephen, Michael

    Hayes, Jerry

    Stem, Michael

    Heald, Oliver

    Stewart, Allan

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Streeter, Gary

    Hendry, Charles

    Sweeney, Walter

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Sykes, John

    Horam, John

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Thomason, Roy

    Hunter, Andrew

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Jack, Michael

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Thurnham, Peter

    Jessel, Toby

    Trend, Michael

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Trotter, Neville

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Viggers, Peter

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Walden, George

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Knapman, Roger

    Waller, Gary

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Ward, John

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

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

    Waterson, Nigel

    248

    Wells, Bowen

    Wolfson, Mark

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wood, Timothy

    Whittingdale, John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wilkinson, John

    Mr. David Willetts and

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Mr. Simon Burns.

    NOES

    Ainger, Nick

    Hinchliffe, David

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Hoey, Kate

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Ashton, Joe

    Home Robertson, John

    Austin-Walker, John

    Hood, Jimmy

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Barnes, Harry

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Ingram, Adam

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Benton, Joe

    Jamieson, David

    Betts, Clive

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Blunkett, David

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Boateng, Paul

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Bradley, Keith

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Burden, Richard

    Lewis, Terry

    Byers, Stephen

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Callaghan, Jim

    Loyden, Eddie

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    McAllion, John

    Canavan, Dennis

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    McCartney, Ian

    Chidgey, David

    Macdonald, Calum

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Maclennan, Robert

    Clapham, Michael

    McWilliam, John

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Madden, Max

    Clelland, David

    Maddock, Diana

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Marek, Dr John

    Coffey, Ann

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Connarty, Michael

    Martlew, Eric

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Maxton, John

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Michael, Alun

    Corston, Jean

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Davidson, Ian

    Milburn, Alan

    Denham, John

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Dewar, Donald

    Morley, Elliot

    Dixon, Don

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Mullin, Chris

    Eastham, Ken

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Enright, Derek

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Etherington, Bill

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Fatchett, Derek

    O'Hara, Edward

    Flynn, Paul

    Olner, Bill

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Parry, Robert

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Pike, Peter L

    Foulkes, George

    Pope, Greg

    Fyfe, Maria

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Galbraith, Sam

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Gapes, Mike

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    George, Bruce

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Gerrard, Neil

    Radice, Giles

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Reid, Dr John

    Godsiff, Roger

    Rendel, David

    Gordon, Mildred

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Graham, Thomas

    Rooney, Terry

    Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

    Simpson, Alan

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Spearing, Nigel

    Gunnell, John

    Spellar, John

    Hall, Mike

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Hanson, David

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Harvey, Nick

    Stevenson, George

    Heppell, John

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    249

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Wilson, Brian

    Tipping, Paddy

    Winnick, David

    Touhig, Don

    Wise, Audrey

    Turner, Dennis

    Worthington, Tony

    Tyler, Paul

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Vaz, Keith

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Watson, Mike

    Mr. George Mudie and

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Mr. Jim Dowd.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Drugs (Glasgow)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
9.58 pm
Mr. Mike Watson: I am sure that in responding to the debate, the Minister will, as is traditional, congratulate me on securing a debate on this subject. I am sure, however, that he will understand when I say that it gives me no pleasure this evening to discuss drugs in Glasgow. The subject brings misery, chaos and pain to so many people in Glasgow and increasingly, even more sadly, it brings death.
In common with most cities throughout the world, the misuse of drugs is widespread throughout the city of Glasgow. Over the past 15 years, the range of drugs used and the number of people using them appear to have increased dramatically; that is particularly true of teenagers and young adults. Last year, the Greater Glasgow health board prepared a report on the scale and pattern of drug misuse in the city. The report shows widespread use of cannabis; Ecstasy and amphetamines are popular recreational drugs on the dance scene. LSD and cocaine, although less widely used, are found to be quite prominent. The misuse of pharmaceutical drugs is common. These include potentially addictive tranquillisers such as Temazepam and Valium, and opiate painkillers such as Temgesic. Some of these drugs originate from local NHS prescriptions, but many are illicitly obtained.
It was estimated that there were between 7,000 and 9,000 drug injectors in Glasgow—the figure has now been uprated—most of whom were in their twenties and lived in socially deprived—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
Mr. Watson: It was estimated that there were between 7,000 and 9,000 drug injectors in Glasgow, most of whom were in their twenties and lived in socially deprived areas of the city. That is an important aspect of drug addiction. Of those who died an often painful death in the city last year, few were categorised as being young trainee chartered accountants, student lawyers or chartered surveyors. It is increasingly people from the most socially deprived areas of the city who are caught up in the drug culture. Typically, heroin or Temgesic is injected daily by many of these people, and the drug is often taken in combination with Temazepam or a variety of other drugs, producing all too often a lethal cocktail.
As a spin-off from the culture of injection, at least 300 people in the city require care as a result of HIV infections. That places an additional burden on the medical services. Fatal overdose among drug injectors is the most important single cause of death among young adults in Glasgow. Although the prevalence of HIV infection among drug injectors remains relatively low, other dangerous blood-borne viral infections, such as hepatitis B and C, are widespread and could yet have long-term consequences.
In the face of those frightening statistics, Greater Glasgow health board has taken significant steps to deal with drug misuse, including the establishment of a

251
successful needle exchange service and a range of community drug services funded by the health board and managed by Strathclyde region's social work department. I pay tribute at this stage to the Glasgow drug problem service, which was introduced in 1993 and which provides specialist treatment for drug users, and to the Glasgow drug crisis centre, which was opened in-1994 and is run by Turning Point, the largest UK charity helping people with drink, drug and mental health problems. That centre consists of a 24-hour, one-stop help and assessment service, together with a 12-bed emergency, short-stay facility. In the short time in which it has been in operation, it has been inundated by demands for its unique services, such is the scale of the drug problem in Glasgow today.
In 1994, official figures showed that 95 people died throughout Strathclyde from drugs or drug-related causes. Many of those deaths occurred within the city and this year, including the tragic deaths last weekend of 26-year-old Roger Gallagher in Clydebank and 27-year-old James Edgar in Bridgeton in my constituency, the figure already stands at 47. At that rate, it will comfortably reach three figures by the end of the year.
One of the organisations that regularly has to deal with the effects, as they affect families and friends of those who have died, is the Glasgow Association of Family Support Groups. It is under no illusions; it knows that the official figures represent a considerable understatement. It has joined me in calling on the Scottish Office to hold a wide-ranging, public inquiry into the causes of drug-related deaths in the city. I have to report, with dismay, that Lord Fraser, the Minister with responsibility, has turned down that request. He maintains that the fatal accident inquiry held in 1993 dealt with the matter, but the Glasgow Association of Family Support Groups maintains emphatically that it did not, and I support that view.
The inquiry left many questions unanswered and failed to consider various areas of concern. First, there is the likely under-reporting of deaths if the cause is given simply as a physical organ failure or inhalation of vomit, or other similar reasons. Secondly, there is the frequency of deaths involving people on prescription drugs, such as methadone and other medically prescribed medication. Thirdly, there are the different policies of health boards in respect of prescribing substitutes, which might also include the issue of differing approaches to harm reduction policies. Fourthly, there is the question of how and in what circumstances autopsies are carried out on people who die from an overdose. There appears to be a particular issue in this respect related to deaths in prison. Fifthly, a number of people commit suicide while undergoing detoxification programmes or die immediately after leaving residential detox centres.
Lord Fraser has agreed to meet the Glasgow Association of Family Support Groups and me. While that will enable us to highlight to the Minister the points that I have mentioned and others, it will not bring them into the open in the full glare of public inquiry. That is what is needed and I shall continue to press for it.
In the meantime, the drug trade carries on, bringing untold misery to thousands and untold riches to a select few. Only last week it was reported that a Robert Maxwell—that does not seem to be a very lucky name—was gaoled for 12 years for trafficking in heroin. By his mid-30s, he was comfortably a millionaire. Although he now languishes—thankfully—behind bars, no one doubts that his place has been quickly and most effectively filled.
252
There is hope, however, that some more people may follow Maxwell's journey to gaol. That is largely a result of an anti-drugs campaign launched by the Evening Times two weeks ago, for which the paper is due great credit, not least because it shows that the art of campaigning journalism is not lost—as has appeared from the recent antics of other tabloid newspapers that used to carry out that function.
The main thrust of the Evening Times campaign is to encourage people in the communities throughout the city to use a special hot line telephone number to report names and addresses of suppliers and pushers who bring daily misery and often death to thousands of mainly young people throughout Glasgow. The hot line has been such a success that more than 700 calls have been received in the two weeks since it was opened. The police have already acted on the names supplied by the Evening Times and, indeed, the first arrests have been made.
For a long time it has been obvious to me that many people in the city know who the pushers and suppliers are, where their houses are and which cars to look for at any particular time of the week. People come to my surgeries in the various communities in my constituency such as Calton, Gorbals, Bridgeton and Royston and say, "We know that so and so is dealing in drugs", "We know that she operates a safe house," and "We know that he is on a street corner at 11 o'clock any morning and that he will give this, this and this drug." They have reported that information to the police and, too often, it has been impossible for the police to act on it because they do not have firm evidence.
The Evening Times hot line has reported that a surprising number of women are involved in supplying drugs. Indeed, it has also said that families are dealing. It seems that the drugs culture is so endemic that people are quite prepared to operate openly in the streets. I have seen it myself, as have many other people in the city. Graphic pictures in the newspapers have shown such activity occurring quite openly and—apparently—with impunity.
That is not to blame the police. I have been in regular contact with the Strathclyde police drug squad and I commend it for its job. If its resources were significantly increased, it would enable it to target certain areas, to which I shall return. My comments are not meant as a criticism of the police. Often it is simply impossible for them to catch the people who are known to be dealing because of an intricate system of signals and tip-offs. Often, shortwave radios are used to intercept police raids.
Certain names are given regularly to the hot line. I believe that those evil people have no right to anonymity, which the Evening Times is obliged, for legal reasons, to provide. I have a list of those people most regularly named by callers to the hot line. That the people named are guilty of dealing in death is not seriously in doubt. It is my sincere wish that they should be exposed and I now have the opportunity of doing so.
Before preparing this speech, I felt obliged to contact Strathclyde police for their view on what I intended to do. I believe that the people named should have no hiding place. Strathclyde police considered my views and the names which I was about to announce and urged caution on me. Their view was that my reading out a list of names would not be helpful to bringing prosecutions. Having taken their advice, it seems to make little sense to cast it aside.

253
The aim is, of course, to lock up as many of those people as possible, as quickly as possible, to get them off the streets and to ensure that they can no longer ply their evil trade. It is with considerable reluctance, therefore, that I will not name names at this stage, although I intend to do so on a future date in the House, if given the opportunity, should those people not be brought to trial. I want to do everything I can to assist Strathclyde police in bringing those people before the law. I am anxious that, were I to name names, that might prejudice any proceedings that might be brought against them. I obviously see no benefit from that course of action.
The Evening Times campaign will continue and I am proud to do what I can to support it. Action is needed and I hope that the Minister will provide some positive proposals in his response.
I joined many agencies, statutory and non-statutory, in welcoming the report of the Scottish drugs task force, which was published in October. It contained 60 recommendations, many of potential value. The first steps are now being taken to introduce some of those proposals; meanwhile I must draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the number of drug-related deaths has continued to rise in Glasgow. This year's total so far is greater even than that reached in 1994. An effective response to try to reduce that death rate requires an input from a range of agencies in a multi-agency approach.
Recommendation 25 of the task force report stated:
"The community Drug Problem Service model for providing services to drug misusers should be further developed with a view to achieving more referrals from and to generic social work services".
It has been argued that prescribing services can be effective only if they work in tandem with the social care agencies, particularly community-based drug services. I certainly support that view. Many of the community-based agencies still feel that the prescribing model operating in Glasgow could improve its links with other agencies to provide a more effective service.
Statistics from the Glasgow drug crisis centre, to which I referred earlier, show that 80 per cent. of its clients did not have secure accommodation and 25 per cent. were rootless. That makes access to primary health care and prescribing services difficult, if not impossible. The clients of the Glasgow drug crisis centre are the most at risk drug users. It is the subject of concern that they find it impossible to access the prescribing service even though they are likely to be in greatest need. That supports the need for an effective multi-agency approach, which was outlined in recommendation 37 of the task force report.
I am pleased to note that drug action teams have been established in the various health board areas, including Glasgow, and will produce strategies by the end of September. That is, however, some time off and I want to see effective implementation of recommendation 21 of the task force report, which stated:
"Future service development must be based on a systematic and comprehensive assessment of the nature, extent and distribution of need".
Action is needed in some specific areas. I am well aware that throwing money at any problem, not least the problem of drugs, is not the answer. I am not advocating that, but additional funding is needed for some specific provisions, particularly detoxification and rehabilitation centres. Two centres are operating in the Greater Glasgow
254
health board area—Red towers at Helensburgh and the recently opened Phoenix house in Keppochill, Glasgow. They provide a service the success of which is beyond question, as does the Calton Athletic recovery group. That group has a rather unorthodox means of dealing with drug users, but one which has, by its record, shown itself to be effective. The success of those centres is not in question, but they could do more with greater funding. For instance, the Phoenix house rehabilitation centre at Keppochill is running at only 60 per cent. of capacity. a year after opening. With greater funding it could be running at 100 per cent. capacity and helping more people accordingly.
I believe that the police need more dedicated drug squad officers to combat the ever-growing army of pushers and suppliers. In my experience drug-related offences are too often simply the responsibility of officers who are also dealing with car crime, assaults, house breaking and such crime. The police should be able to concentrate on drugs. I would like some form of rapid response group to be formed with responsibility for dealing with the suppliers identified by the public as well as drug-related crime. I have had discussions with Strathclyde police about the proposal, which I intend to continue, and I should be interested to hear the Minister's view on it. If the Minister has not prepared a response, perhaps he could let me know his view at a later date.
I believe that we must discuss whether the law needs to be re-examined with regard to the penalties for pushers and suppliers. I firmly believe that there should be a greater use of the charge of culpable homicide for those found to have supplied users who have subsequently died. That is particularly relevant in relation to some of the deaths that have occurred recently at raves and other dance clubs, where it is quite clear that some of the drugs offered for sale quite knowingly were lethal weapons.
Temazepam is a major factor in many of the drug deaths in the city. It is widely available, and it should be re-categorised from schedule 4 to 3 to allow prison sentences on conviction of possession. One of the points made to me by the Glasgow Association of Family Support Groups was that, if possible, Temazepam should be taken off the streets of Glasgow, and should certainly no longer be a prescribed drug.
I accept that the use of drugs is now so widespread that only containment is possible. It is not possible to eradicate drug abuse, and we must look at the problem in that setting. In the long term, some answers will flow from an economy that is more vibrant and gives people the opportunity for jobs, training and perhaps having a house and raising a family. There is a feeling of hopelessness among the young people I meet in Glasgow. I ask them why they get involved in the drugs scene, and their answer is, "Why not? What else do I have to look forward to?"
While it is a cliché, it is also a truism that people who have nothing, have nothing to lose. We must give people some reason not to get sucked into the drug culture. For too many young people in and around Glasgow, their hopes for a family and a job are non-existent. I am not trying to make party political points, because even with a change of Government we will remain a long way short of changing that bleak outlook. I hope that the Minister will offer some hope to the young people of Glasgow in his response.
10.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) has spoken about the misery, chaos and death caused by this evil trade, and I agree that it must be combated in an effective manner and in the best way possible. I would be hesitant about naming the names of those whom the hon. Gentleman believes to be involved because, as he said, that could easily prejudice proceedings. But if he or any of his friends or acquaintances has evidence readily available, I would strongly recommend that it is handed to the police.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about a rapid response force. The police would argue that they have in place arrangements to that effect, but I shall follow up the hon. Gentleman's point. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Operation Eagle initiative, which will operate for a period of six months with two main phases, each of which will run for a period of 90 days. Strathclyde police have strengthened their force, and the number of front-line officers has risen by nearly 250 in recent times, and that makes a considerable difference.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of Temazepam, and I can assure him that that is a matter of deep concern to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council set out on 10 May immediate steps to be taken to reduce its misuse. That has been done by imposing safe custody controls on manufacturers and wholesalers under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and by a proposal to ban the prescription of gel-filled capsules by general practitioners under the NHS. My right hon. Friend also confirmed that we are carefully considering the recommendation of the advisory council to reschedule Temazepam under the 1971 Act.
I can also confirm that consultation is now under way with a view to banning the prescribing of the gel-filled Temazepam capsules under the NHS. The consultation process will have two parts. The first stage was the issue of letters on 12 May to all manufacturers possessing product licences to supply Temazepam capsules, seeking comments on the proposal within 30 days. The next stage will begin shortly, with a more general public consultation.
Action has also been taken under section 11 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. I am glad to say that my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State will be meeting the hon. Gentleman and the Glasgow Association of Family Support Groups to discuss their concerns. We remain of the view that a public inquiry would add little to the information and knowledge currently available and is therefore not required.

Drug misuse is of immense concern to us all, be it central or local government, the health service, schools, local communities or indeed each one of us as individuals. It brings in its wake misery and despair, it devastates families, and it threatens communities. All too often it ends in death. In 1994 alone, drug misuse claimed the lives of 139 young people in Scotland who were known or suspected to be dependent upon drugs. That is an appalling statistic which graphically underlines why we regard drug misuse as one of the greatest challenges facing us today.
That is why public expenditure on drug misuse across a whole range of services—including the police, social work, education, urban aid, health and prisons—exceeds
256
£40 million every year. It is why, as I shall touch on later, we are absolutely determined to mount a fully integrated, co-ordinated and properly resourced assault on this evil scourge. The improved data now available and the new structures now in place at local and national levels will inform and facilitate the development of policy and the delivery of services.
The hon. Gentleman has properly focused on Glasgow from his constituency perspective, and I will respond to the detailed points that he has raised. But first I must mention that, conscious of the threat of drug misuse, in 1993 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set up a drugs task force under the chairmanship of my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State. We have also had the benefit of a comprehensive report from the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Taken together, the two reports provide a catalyst and a framework for a revitalised and informed response to the scourge of drug misuse to the end of the century and beyond.
The task force report emphasised the absolute importance of fully co-ordinated action against drug misuse; action which welded together the activities of all the agencies—statutory and non-statutory—into a synchronised and fully concerted approach, with common aims and objectives. Drug action teams—drawing together key personnel from the statutory and non-statutory bodies—have been set up in every health board area in Scotland. The teams are charged with organising and overseeing a corporate response to drug misuse in their areas. The teams began their work on 1 April and their first task will be to produce strategic plans for their areas by 1 October. We are funding the appointment of drug development officers to assist the teams in their work. They will be key figures, facilitating the implementation of the strategic plan and energising and co-ordinating drug-related work in their areas.
A crucial function of the teams will be to mobilise local action to confront drug misuse. I am increasingly impressed by the enormous reservoir of talent, energy and determination in the community which is willing to support action to turn the tide of drug misuse. We must tap that resource and harness community energy so that we deliver a powerful answer at local level to the threat of drug misuse. I commend the work of the local groups involved. To help stimulate local action, we are making available some £300,000 this year to fund innovative community-based schemes which respond to local circumstances, and I look to the drug action teams to submit imaginative proposals.
It is, of course, essential that resources are made available to facilitate the dynamic local response we are seeking to engender. In consequence, this year we are making available record resources of nearly £24 million to health boards to tackle drug misuse and HIV/AIDS. That is an enormous sum by any standards and it is evidence of our absolute commitment to meet drug misuse head on.
Schools have a vital role to play in the prevention effort. A sickening feature of the drugs scene is that increasingly younger age groups are being targeted by the dealers. We must respond to that by ensuring that, from an early age, our children are alerted to the dangers of drug misuse and that that awareness is maintained throughout their school careers. The task force identified a gap in the availability of materials for younger and older pupils and accordingly recommended that drug packages,

257
to complement Drugwise Too, should be developed, focusing on pupils under 10 and over 14 years. They will be ready shortly and will augment the range of materials available to teachers. All that will be complemented by public education campaigns, aimed at -maintaining the dangers of drug misuse and HIV/AIDS in the public consciousness.
Prevention will not by itself check drug misuse. We need effective services capable of tackling the whole spectrum of need. Encouraging progress is being made. I cite, for example, the crisis intervention centres in Glasgow and Edinburgh, which are invaluable assets in the panoply of services in those cities.
Substitute prescribing is an important ingredient of any range of service provision, but it is not a panacea and we have to create a framework in which it is delivered as part of a package of services tailored to the total needs of misusers and, where relevant, their families. We shall issue more specific guidance on substitute prescribing in due course, after consulting experts in the field.
In addition, the urban programme is very important. About 39 projects in Scotland dealing directly with drug misuse and representing funding of £3.7 million are currently being resourced in that way.
In Glasgow itself, 11 projects are at present being funded, at a cost of £1.4 million. Two further projects have been successful this year, completed at a cost of £250,000. I am glad to say that one of those was in Glasgow, with funding of £158,000, which is a welcome addition.
I should also say to the hon. Gentleman that it is worth noting for the future that detailed project selection will be done locally by authorities and their partners, in the framework of a regeneration strategy or programmes submitted to the Scottish Office. We are consulting local authorities and others about the way in which those changes will be implemented, for next year.
I now turn to Glasgow because all those measures are of relevance to Glasgow. The tragic consequences of drug misuse have time and again been demonstrated in the city. In 1994 alone, drug misuse claimed the lives of 72 young drug misusers in Greater Glasgow. That is an appalling waste, bringing grief and desolation to so many families, and I sympathise deeply with the families and friends who have been bereaved. Drugs can and do kill. The only safe answer is to avoid them at all costs.
The drug action team in Glasgow is now vigorously pressing ahead with the development of a strategic plan under the expert leadership of the Rev. Roderick
258
Campbell. I have no doubt that the team will bring a dynamic, innovative and strategic approach to the problems in Glasgow.
There is encouraging evidence of real progress, and I cite two examples. First, the Glasgow drug problem service, with its combination of counselling and treatment, is already making a substantial contribution. We are also giving Greater Glasgow health board almost £6 million this year specifically for drug misuse and for HIV/AIDS which, among a range of other initiatives, has enabled an expansion of the Glasgow drug problem service.
Secondly, the Glasgow drug crisis centre, which opened last October, is another valuable addition to the range of services available in the area, providing respite and care for misusers in crisis and in need of urgent attention. That is an excellent example of co-operation between the statutory and non-statutory sectors.
Injecting remains a serious problem, bringing with it, not only the risk of AIDS where needle sharing occurs, but death through overdosing. We have provided resources for nine needle and syringe schemes to be established in Glasgow, reducing the pressure to share needles and the risk of infection.
We stand ready to authorise further schemes where recommended. We are also considering recommendations by the task force and the Select Committee of how best the range of outlets for needles and syringes might be extended.
It is very important that we do everything possible to encourage young people to kick the habit of drug taking, as the only risk-free solution. Material communicating that message is being piloted by about 20 drug agencies in Glasgow, and an evaluation is under way. I am glad to say that the results so far are positive.
I hope that, by what I have said tonight, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are totally committed to turning the tide of drug misuse in Glasgow and throughout Scotland. Central Government will play their full part and more, but that alone will not suffice. What is required is a concerted, strategic yet targeted approach, which brings together the efforts of all the agencies, statutory and non-statutory. I believe that we now have the mechanisms in place, and that the drug action team will provide the catalyst for a sustained and committed response to drug misuse in Glasgow.
I cannot emphasise too strongly that we regard this as an evil trade, and we will stop at nothing to ensure that it is brought to an end. Young people should have a full and fulfilled life. Nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of that.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for every police force in England and Wales for each year since 1989(a) the total number of sickness days taken due to injury on duty and (b) the average number of days lost per police officer due to injury on duty. [28165]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of injuries sustained on duty is not held centrally. However, information has been kept since 1990 on days' sick leave taken due to assault and is shown in the table.

  Total Number of Days Sick Leave Due to Assault

  Forces

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Avon and Somerset

  1,402.00

  840.00

  868.00

  906.00

  Bedfordshire

  582.00

  831.00

  633.00

  341.00

  Cambridgeshire

  213.00

  589.00

  391.00

  400.00

  Cheshire

  1,109.00

  921.00

  777.00

  1,119.00

  City of London

  37.00

  6.00

  4.00

  9.00

  Cleveland

  731.00

  610.00

  654.00

  1,069.00

  Cumbria

  169.00

  358.00

  563.00

  457.00

  Derbyshire

  648.00

  1,135.00

  1,331.00

  1,502.00

  Devon and Cornwall

  865.00

  986.00

  423.00

  712.00

  Dorset

  406.00

  325.00

  456.00

  490.00

  Durham

  1,191.00

  1,129.00

  708.00

  448.00

  Dyfed-Powys

  622.00

  223.00

  636.00

  557.00

  Essex

  629.00

  454.00

  1,291.00

  582.00

  Gloucestershire

  259.00

  338.00

  475.00

  482.00

  Greater Manchester

  3,708.00

  3,618.00

  1,712.00

  1,427.00

  Gwent

  330.00

  126.00

  317.00

  342.00

  Hampshire

  2,170.00

  930.00

  1,030.00

  1,535.00

  Hertfordshire

  650.00

  640.00

  403.00

  214.00

  Humberside

  895.00

  856.00

  829.00

  727.00

  Kent

  542.00

  190.00

  231.00

  400.00

  Lancashire

  1,371.00

  2,422.00

  2,024.00

  1,160.00

  Leicestershire

  644.00

  678.00

  1,320.00

  469.00

  Lincolnshire

  670.00

  758.00

  639.00

  709.00

  Merseyside

  4,086.00

  4,264.00

  2,560.00

  2,825.00

  Norfolk

  381.00

  157.00

  405.00

  256.00

  North Wales

  623.00

  810.00

  531.00

  61.00

  North Yorkshire

  274.00

  419.00

  332.00

  119.00

  Northamptonshire

  132.00

  65.00

  538.00

  370.00

  Northumbria

  4,296.00

  3,993.00

  2,585.00

  4,048.00

  Nottinghamshire

  1,302.00

  1,081.00

  1,160.00

  1,161.00

  South Wales

  2,422.00

  2,874.00

  2,786.00

  3,414.00

  South Yorkshire

  1,297.00

  600.00

  813.00

  697.00

  Staffordshire

  1,120.00

  1,096.00

  622.00

  345.00

  Suffolk

  443.00

  333.00

  440.00

  122.00

  Surrey

  811.00

  641.00

  442.00

  240.00

  Sussex

  1,026.00

  1,708.00

  1,083.00

  738.00

  Thames Valley

  1,144.00

  761.00

  1,152.00

  668.00

  Warwickshire

  438.00

  275.00

  498.00

  375.00

  West Mercia

  487.00

  405.00

  598.00

  504.00

  West Midlands

  2,992.00

  1,279.00

  1,979.00

  2,054.19

  West Yorkshire

  2,455.00

  2,880.00

  2,396.00

  2,017.00

  Wiltshire

  456.00

  400.00

  266.00

  249.00

  Provincial Total

  46,028.00

  43,004.00

  38,901.00

  36,320 69

  Metropolitan Police

  7,598.00

  10,564.00

  8,122.00

  11,323.00

  England and Wales Total

  53,626.00

  53,568.00

  47,023.00

  47,643 69

  134

  Average number of days sick leave due to the assault

  Forces

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Avon and Somerset

  12.41

  7.43

  10.59

  10.53

  Bedfordshire

  11.41

  21.87

  22.61

  13.12

  Cambridgeshire

  7.34

  18.41

  17.77

  17.39

  Cheshire

  14.04

  17.71

  16.53

  19.29

  City of London

  7.40

  3.00

  4.00

  3.00

  Cleveland

  14.06

  16.05

  16.77

  19.80

  Cumbria

  8.45

  8.95

  20.11

  19.04

  Derbyshire

  12.00

  30.68

  21.47

  32.65

  Devon and Cornwall

  18.02

  12.97

  8.13

  10.79

  Dorset

  31.23

  10.16

  12.67

  18.85

  Durham

  26.47

  23.04

  19.67

  13.18

  Dyfed-Powys

  22.21

  22.30

  42.40

  27.85

  Essex

  12.58

  11.95

  25.31

  10.39

  Gloucestershire

  7.85

  13.52

  14.39

  17.21

  Greater Manchester

  15.32

  16.45

  8.65

  8.49

  Gwent

  10.65

  12.60

  19.81

  21.38

  Hampshire

  19.38

  16.61

  25.12

  17.64

  Hertfordshire

  12.50

  26.67

  13.90

  9.30

  Humberside

  18.27

  16.78

  16.58

  12.32

  Kent

  12.90

  4.52

  5.13

  9.30

  Lancashire

  12.81

  27.52

  23.26

  12.08

  Leicestershire

  12.63

  12.56

  32.20

  8.53

  Lincolnshire

  13.14

  15.79

  13.04

  12.66

  Merseyside

  25.86

  30.68

  20.48

  20.62

  Norfolk

  10.03

  5.61

  11.25

  7.11

  North Wales

  12.98

  4.68

  23.09

  4.36

  North Yorkshire

  14.42

  16.12

  11.45

  7.93

  Northamptonshire

  7.33

  5.42

  35.87

  18.50

  Northumbria

  23.22

  18.66

  16.46

  21.31

  Nottinghamshire

  25.53

  15.23

  14.50

  20.73

  South Wales

  14.33

  19.55

  18.82

  21.88

  South Yorkshire

  23.16

  14.63

  14.78

  20.50

  Staffordshire

  14.55

  17.68

  14.81

  9.34

  Suffolk

  19.26

  11.10

  19.13

  6.78

  Surrey

  17.63

  16.03

  13.39

  10.43

  Sussex

  16.29

  33.49

  21.66

  17.57

  Thames Valley

  30.11

  31.71

  46.08

  22.27

  Warwickshire

  15.10

  10.58

  22.64

  14.42

  West Mercia

  11.33

  11.25

  17.09

  14.82

  West Midlands

  17.00

  13.61

  3.50

  13.97

  West Yorkshire

  43.07

  24.20

  18.02

  13.36

  Wiltshire

  10.36

  10.53

  9.85

  10.83

  Provincial Total

  17.08

  16.89

  14.35

  15.51

  Metropolitan Police

  8.67

  13.47

  18.09

  12.36

  England and Wales Total

  15.02

  16.09

  14.88

  14.62

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he intends to send asylum seekers under 18 years of age, or who claim to be under 18, to Campsfield house detention centre when Group 4 sets up its tactical support unit at the centre; [29663]

  (2) if he will take into account the advice of an independent medical expert in helping to determine the age of an asylum seeker who claims to be under 18 years old when detention is being considered. [29673]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The availability of staff trained in control and restraint techniques is required to meet extreme operational demands. This facility will not affect the fundamental regime at Campsfield house, which will remain suitable for the detention of young people and those claiming to be under the age of 18.

  Asylum applicants who are, or claim to be, under 18 are detained only in the most exceptional circumstances where this appears appropriate in the light of all relevant considerations. In assessing the person's age, medical evidence may be taken into account and if that were

  135
  available from an independent medical expert that would be considered. However, I see no justification for formal arrangements to seek such independent evidence in all cases where the detainee claims to be under 18.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children are currently held in detention in connection with asylum applications; what are their nationalities; how many have been held for more than two months; and if he will list the detention establishments where they are being held. [29885]

  Mr. Baker
  As at 16 June 1995, there was one recognised minor who had claimed asylum in the United Kingdom being held in detention. This Algerian national, who is 17 years of age, was an illegal entrant and has been held at Campsfield house for less than two months.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if unaccompanied children seeking asylum will be excluded from the short procedure pilot scheme; and if he will make a statement. [29672]

  Mr. Baker
  Asylum applications made by or on behalf of unaccompanied children under the age of 18 are not included in the short procedure pilot.

  Special Security Unit (Whitemoor Prison)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the special security unit at Whitemoor prison will reopen. [30059]

  Mr. Howard
  The special security unit at Whitemoor prison reopened yesterday. Comprehensive changes have been made to the unit since it closed following the escape attempt last September. These changes are in line with the recommendations in Sir John Woodcock's report. They include: major construction work to upgrade physical security measures; mandatory operating standards which lay down procedures for staff; carefully selected with trained staff, and a reorganised management structure with clear lines of responsibility.

  I have also decided to introduce a policy of closed visits for all exceptional risk prisoners in the light of the Prison Service's assessment of their security requirements. By removing all physical contact between prisoner and visitor, the opportunity for the passing of weapons or other illicit items should be eliminated. As a result, all exceptional risk prisoners in the Whitemoor special security unit and the category A unit at Belmarsh prison will be subject to closed visits arrangements. The policy will be applied at the Full Sutton special security unit when it reopens following the construction work necessary to implement the Woodcock recommendations.

  Immigration
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his current policy on allowing switching after entry into the minister of religion category by people who are admitted to the United Kingdom, under the immigration rules, in another capacity. [30060]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The immigration rules require that a person entering the United Kingdom as a minister of religion must obtain an entry clearance for that purpose in advance. The purpose of the entry clearance requirement is to ensure that the bona fides of the applicant as a minister of religion can be fully assessed,136
  in the country where he lives and works, in advance of his coming to the United Kingdom. An application to remain as a minister of religion in the United Kingdom by a person who has not entered in that capacity is therefore to be refused. We would be prepared, exceptionally, to waive this requirement only where a bona fide minister of religion had been granted a visa or leave to enter as a visitor specifically to attend an interview for a job as a minister in the United Kingdom and was offered the job; or where a bona fide minister of religion, who had been granted a visa or leave to enter as a visitor specifically for a preaching tour of the United Kingdom, was asked to fill a vacant post as a minister in this country, the job offer appeared to be genuinely unexpected at the time the applicant entered the United Kingdom and there were good community relations reasons for allowing him to stay.

  Community Service
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted offenders failed to complete their community service orders, and were not taken back to court, in west Yorkshire in each year since 1985. [27706]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 13 June 1995]: Complete information about whether offenders who fail to comply with their orders are taken back to court is not collected centrally. The available information is given in the table.

  Termination of Community Service Orders, West Yorkshire Probation Service, 1985–93

  Year

  Percentage of CSOs completed without termination for breach or further offence

  Percentage of CSOs terminated because of failure to comply with requirements, conviction of another offence or other reason1

  1985

  74

  26

  1986

  77

  23

  1987

  75

  25

  1988

  72

  28

  1989

  71

  29

  1990

  71

  29

  1991

  69

  31

  1992

  71

  29

  1993

  69

  31

  1 Includes small proportion terminated due to changes in circumstances.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many designated establishments have ethics committees, operated by the Home Office inspectorate, for animal care and use under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will list them. [28677]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  None.

  The Animals (Scientific Procedures) inspectorate does not operate any ethics or animal care and uses committees in establishments designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. They may attend meetings of animal care and use committees set up by

  137
  designated establishments as invited observers when asked to do so.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [28502]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  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 below the Minister's reply.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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 non-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. [28521]

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

  Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals against the refusal of entry clearance were outstanding on 31 May or at the most recent date for which this information is available; how many appeals against the refusal of asylum were outstanding on this date; what action is being taken to reduce the numbers of outstanding appeals; and whether any priority is given to appeals against the refusal of asylum. [29793]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of outstanding appeals against refusal of entry clearance is not recorded as a separate figure. However, at 31 May 1995, approximately 9,369 non-asylum appeals were outstanding. The number of asylum appeals outstanding was 4,885. There are plans to recruit additional adjudicators and staff, and to expand existing court room accommodation, to enable more cases to be heard in future. In the short term, more flexible listing arrangements and an increase in the length of the sitting day will help to increase the disposal rate. The immigration appellate authorities are also able to offer parties in London a hearing at a provincial centre where waiting times are shorter.
  138
  The immigration appellate authorities endeavour to determine asylum appeals where the Secretary of State has certified the claim to be without foundation within seven days of their receipt, and all other asylum appeals within 42 days, in accordance with the Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1993.

ENVIRONMENT

  Negative Equity
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the environment, pursuant to his answer of 23 February,Official Report, column 268, if he will update the table on the number of households in negative equity. [27532]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Estimates of negative equity are sensitive to the house price index and other assumptions used. Based on Department of the Environment house price data, an estimate of the number of households affected by negative equity in the first quarter of 1995 and the value of negative equity by region is as follows:

  Region

  Number of households (thousands)

  Value (millions)

  South East

  374

  1,910

  Greater London

  1.00

  371

  South West

  97

  309

  East Anglia

  71

  309

  East Midlands

  33

  71

  West Midlands

  7

  6

  Wales

  11

  13

  Yorks and Humberside

  70

  153

  North West

  41

  29

  North

  28

  40

  Scotland

  53

  80

  Northern Ireland

  1

  1

  UK

  886

  3,292

  This table is intended to provide only a broad indication of the level of negative equity. Certain assumptions used in compiling the table may have overstated the number. My Department is reviewing with the Bank of England the reliability of those assumptions.

  Sewage Treatment
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what percentage of coastal discharge of sewage are given(a) no treatment, (b) preliminary and (c) secondary treatment; [28675]

  (2) what steps are being taken to achieve those provisions of the urban waste water treatment directive requiring all towns, whether or not with a population greater than 10,000 to apply secondary treatment before discharge. [28676]

  Mr. Atkins
  Some 96 per cent. of the UK population is connected to a sewerage system. Eighty per cent. of sewage is treated and 90 per cent. of this receives secondary treatment or better. The proportions, already high in comparison with those in many continental countries, will rise as a result of investment over the next few years in particular the implementation of the urban waste water treatment directive. More detailed
  139
  information on the proportion of the UK's population receiving different levels of sewage treatment and the programmes for implementing the directive are contained in the report produced by the UK under article 17 of the directive, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Temporary Accommodation
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the percentage and total number of families in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation who have kitchen facilities. [28808]

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

  Paper Pulp
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (I) what guidelines his Department has published for the disposal of paper pulp; [29271]

  (2) what discussions he has had with ADAS with regard to the disposal of paper pulp by spreading on land; [29272]

  (3) what representations he has received regarding problems caused by the disposal of paper pulp at Thieveley Pike, Cliviger, Burnley; [29273]

  (4) if he will call for an inquiry into environmental damage at Thieveley Pike, Cliviger, Burnley caused by the spreading of paper pulp; and if he will make a statement. [29274]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Responsibility for the enforcement of waste management controls rests with waste regulation authorities such as Lancashire county council. It is an offence under section 33(1)(a) or (b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to deposit, recover or dispose of controlled waste without a waste management licence or contrary to the conditions of a licence exemption. It is also an offence under section 33(1)(c) of the 1990 Act to carry out these activities in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health.

  We have provided exemptions from licensing in schedule 3 to the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. Subject to certain conditions, paragraph 7 of schedule 3 exempts the spreading of de-inked paper sludge on land used for agriculture. The exemption applies only where the actively results in benefit to agriculture or ecological improvement and the waste regulation authority for the area are provided with information about the spreading.

  We have provided guidance on this exemption in DOE circular 11/94 paragraph 5.66–5.86. I understand that Lancashire county council, as waste regulation authority for the area, is aware of the incident referred to by the hon. Member and has taken appropriate action. The Department has received no representation about the incident.

  The Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food has published codes of good agricultural practice for the protection of water in 1991 and for soil in 1993. The Department is also considering with MAFF the provision of technical guidance on the spreading of waste on land. In this context, officials have held discussions with ADAS and other consultants.

  National Superdome, Odsal
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what action will be taken in respect of safety issues such as fire risks, chemical fire or spillage at the proposed new national superdome at Odsal; [29005]

  (2) what action will be taken in respect of fire and other anticipated safety hazards in the development of the national superdome. [29006]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Should planning consent be granted for the superdome, these issues will be matters for the developers, the contractors the stadium operators and the appropriate safety authorities.

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals are being considered to minimise risks to the public from chemical works and associated industrial development in the area of the proposed national superdome. [29004]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A planning application for the superdome in Bradford has been referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the development plan and is being assessed to decide whether it should be called in for public inquiry. The relevance of risk from other development is a matter for consideration in the normal procedures of local planning authorities and, where necessary, consultation with the appropriate safety authorities.

  Conservation Areas
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when a national list of sites will be sent to the European Commission under the habitats directive. [29856]

  Mr. Gummer
  Following extensive local and national public consultation launched on 31 March, a first list of 136 candidate special areas of conservation was sent today to the European Commission.

  This list covers only sites on land and those that are already sites of special scientific interest. Consultation on possible marine sites will continue until 22 June.

  I will announce the submission of a further tranche of sites to the Commission as soon as points raised in the consultation exercise have been fully considered and resolved.

  A number of organisations have suggested additions to the list. These suggestions will be fully considered in accordance with the approach to site selection applied to the current list of possible sites and outlined in section 3 of "A list of possible Special Areas of Conservation in the UK" which was published on 31 March and placed in the Libraries. If the nature conservation agencies, through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, advise that any of these additions qualify as possible SACs they will be published for consultation in due course. As indicated in my written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 31 March at column 834, there will also be consultation on those sites proposed for certain habitats types and species where it is necessary first to complete further SSSI notifications or on which additional scientific information is being sought.
  141
  The list of sites which has been sent to the Commission is as follows:

  Sites

  Country

  Amat Woods

  Scotland

  Ardmeanach

  Scotland

  Ballynahone Bog

  Northern Ireland

  Barry Links

  Scotland

  Beer Quarry and Caves

  England

  Benacre to Easter Bavents Lagoons

  England

  Berwyn

  Wales

  Birklands and BIlhaugh

  England

  Black Bog

  Northern Ireland

  Black Wood of Rannoch

  Scotland

  Balwhorn Moss

  Scotland

  Blean Complex

  England

  Borrowdale Woodland Complex

  England

  Braehead Moss

  Scotland

  Bredon Hill

  England

  Burry Inlet: Dunes/Cilfach Burry:Twyni

  Wales

  Cannock Extension Canal

  England

  Carrine Common

  England

  Castle Eden Dene

  England

  Castle Hill

  England

  Chilmark Quarries

  England

  Chilterns Beechwoods

  England

  Cockinhead Moss

  Scotland

  Coed y Cerrig

  Wales

  Coedydd a Cheunant Rheidol/Rheidol Woods

  Wales

  Coedydd Derw Meirion/Merionnydd Oakwoods

  Wales

  Coleg Glynllifon

  Wales

  Cors Caron

  Wales

  Cors Fochno

  Wales

  Corsydd Mon/Anglesea Fens

  Wales

  Cothill Fen

  England

  Craigengar

  Scotland

  Cranley Moss

  Scotland

  Creag nan Gamhainn

  Scotland

  Crymlyn Bog/Cors Crymlyn

  Wales

  Cuilcagh Mountain

  Northern Ireland

  Culbin Bar

  Scotland

  Culm Grasslands

  England

  Cym Cadlan

  Wales

  Derryleckagh

  Northern Ireland

  Drostre Bank

  Wales

  East Hampshire Hangers

  England

  Eastern Mournes

  Northern Ireland

  Ebernoe Common

  England

  Eilean na Muice Duibhe

  Scotland

  Elenydd

  Wales

  Eryri/Snowdonia

  Wales

  Fairy Water Bogs

  Northern Ireland

  Fenland

  England

  Feur Lochain

  Scotland

  Flow of Dergoals

  Scotland

  Gang Mine

  England

  Garron Plateau

  Northern Ireland

  Garry Bog

  Northern Ireland

  Glac na Criche

  Scotland

  Glannau Mon: Cors heli/Anglesea Coast: Saltmarsh

  Wales

  Glannau Mon: Twyni/Anglesea Coast: Dunes

  Wales

  Glanau Ynys Gybi/Holy Island Coast

  Wales

  Glen Coe

  Scotland

  Godrevey Head to St. Agnes

  England

  Great Orme's Head/Pen y Gogarth

  Wales

  Great Yews

  England

  Hascosay

  Scotland

  Helvellyn and Fairfield

  England

  142

  Sites

  Country

  Hill of Towanreef

  Scotland

  Holme Moor and Clean Moor

  England

  Hoy

  Scotland

  Inchnadamph

  Scotland

  Invernaver

  Scotland

  Isle of Wight Downs

  England

  Keen of Hamar

  Scotland

  Kenfig/Cynffig

  Wales

  Kilhern Moss

  Scotland

  Kingley Vale

  England

  Kirkcowan Flow

  Scotland

  Lewes Downs

  England

  Limestone seacliffs of S W Wales/Clogwyni Calchfaen De-Orllewin Cymru

  Wales

  Lismore Lochs

  Scotland

  Llangorse Lake/Llyn Syfaddan

  Wales

  Loch Watten

  Scotland

  Lydden and Temple Ewell Downs

  England

  Magheraveely Marl Loughs

  Northern Ireland

  Merrick Kells

  Scotland

  Minsmere to Walberswick Heaths and Marshes

  England

  Mochrum Lochs

  Scotland

  Monadh Mor

  Scotland

  Monawilkin

  Northern Ireland

  Moniack Gorge

  Scotland

  Morrone Birkwood

  Scotland

  Mound Alderwoods

  Scotland

  Newham Fen

  England

  Norfolk Valley Fens

  England

  North Northumberland Dunes

  England

  North Pennine Dales Meadows

  England

  Oak Mere

  England

  Oldshoremore and Sandwood

  Scotland

  Oxford Meadows

  England

  Pasturefields Salt Marsh

  England

  Pembrokeshire bat sites/Safleoedd Ystlumod Penfro

  Wales

  Pettigoe Plateau

  Northern Ireland

  Pewsey Downs

  England

  Pitmaduthy Moss

  Scotland

  Prescombe Down

  England

  Preseli

  Wales

  Queendown Warren

  England

  Reidside Moss

  Scotland

  Rex Graham-Reserve

  England

  Rhinog

  Wales

  Rhos Goch

  Wales

  Rhos Llawr-cwrt

  Wales

  Rooksmoor

  England

  Rum

  Scotland

  Slieve Beagh

  Northern Ireland

  St. David's/Ty Ddewi

  Wales

  Staverton Park and the Thicks, Wantisden

  England

  Strath

  Scotland

  Stromness Heaths and Coast

  Scotland

  Tanat and Vyrnwy Bat Sites/Safleoedd Ystlumod Tanat ac Efyrnwy

  Wales

  Taynish Woods

  Scotland

  Teal Lough

  Northern Ireland

  The Mens

  England

  The New Forest

  England

  The Stipperstones and the Hollies

  England

  Thorne Moor

  England

  Thrislington

  England

  Tingon

  Scotland

  Tregonning Hill

  England

  Trotternish Ridge

  Scotland

  Tulach Hill and Glen Fender Meadows

  Scotland

  Tyne and Allen River Gravels

  England

  Upper Lough Erne

  Northern Ireland

  143

  Sites

  Country

  Wasdale Screes

  England

  West Midlands Mosses

  England

  Whitlaw and Branxholme

  Scotland

  Windsor Forest and Great Park

  England

  Wye and Crundale Downs

  England

  Opencasting
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department is taking to minimise detrimental environmental effects from(a) opencast mining and (b) quarrying. [29646]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Tight, improved guidelines which upgrade environmental requirements on opencast mining were published last July. Similar guidelines for quarrying were published in April 1994. These guidelines would apply to any new permissions for either opencast mining or quarrying.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the likely need for social housing in Britain up to 2001. [28108]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My Department estimates that the additional demand for new social lettings over the current public expenditure survey period lies within the range of 60,000 and 100,000 units per year.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the current timetable for recommendations to changes in part M of building regulations to be considered by the Building Regulations Advisory Committee; [29665]

  (2) what is the current timetable for bringing into force parts M5 and M6 of building regulations. [29666]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Officials in my Department are analysing all the many responses received to the consultation paper on part M of the building regulations issued earlier this year. I expect the Building Regulations Advisory Committee to consider this analysis in the autumn, after which its recommendations will be considered by Ministers. No decisions have been taken as to when any changes to part M should come into effect.

  National Parks
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment under what circumstances he will call in a proposal for major development in a national park. [29877]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Both within and beyond national parks, planning applications are, in general, called in for decision by my right hon. Friend only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. He is very selective about calling in applications to determine himself. Such cases may include, for example, those which, in my right hon. friend's opinion, could have wide effects beyond their immediate locality, which give rise to substantial regional or national controversy, which may conflict with national policy on important matters and 144
  those where the interests of foreign Governments may be involved.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will outline Government policy on major development proposals in national parks. [29879]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Special considerations apply to major development proposals in national parks. Such development should not take place in national parks, the Broads and the New Forest heritage area save in exceptional circumstances.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons it was decided not to call in the planning application for further minerals extraction at Swinden quarry in the Yorkshire dales national park. [29875]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State is selective about calling in applications for his determination and will, in general, take this step only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Each case must be considered on its individual merits. The decision not to call in the application to extend Swinden quarry, given the site's location in a national park, was taken only after the most careful scrutiny. The Secretary of State decided on the basis of the information before him that the application did not raise issues of more than local importance.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the application for development at Swinden quarry was in accordance with the structure plan; and if it was subject to an officer recommendation of refusal. [28878]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Yorkshire dales national park authority considered the application to be contrary to the provisions of the north Yorkshire county structure plan. It was subject to an officer recommendation of refusal.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received requesting him to call in the application for further mineral extraction at Swinden quarry. [29876]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State has received 55 letters asking him to call in the application for further mineral extraction at Swinden quarry. In addition a petition was received.

  Thames Tunnel
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give approval to London Underground Ltd. to go ahead with shotcreting the Thames Brunel tunnel to allow tunnel repair and associated works to go ahead. [29874]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  An application by London Underground Ltd. for listed building consent to carry out works to the Thames tunnel has been notified to the Secretary of State for the Environment in order that he may consider whether he should determine it.

  Very careful consideration is currently being given to whether the application should be called in. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to comment further on the matter.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the answer of 21 February given by the Secretary of State for Education,Official Report, columns 183–84, in relation to his statement in the debate on council budget capping on 15 June about comparative figures for Devon and Somerset local education authorities' central administrative costs; and if he will make a statement on whether the figures are correct. [29926]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Our decisions on capping were based on the figures put to us by the authorities themselves as a part of their representations, rather than the 1992–93 figures listed in the answer of 21 February. In the view of Somerset county council the difference between the Somerset and the Devon figures in the answer may reflect differences in definitions or accounting practices between the authorities.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who will serve on the Local Government Commission for England. [30058]

  Mr. Curry
  Sir David Cooksey will be chairman. We have asked four of the existing commissioners to remain on the commission and they have agreed to do so. They are: Professor Malcolm Grant, Ken Ennals, Robert Scruton and David Thomas.

  In addition, four new commissioners will be appointed with effect from 1 July 1995. They are: Peter Brokenshire, chairman of Redbridge and Waltham Forest family health services; Professor Michael Clarke, professor and head of the School of Public Policy, university of Birmingham; Helena Shovelton, chairman
  146
  of the National Association of the Citizens Advice Bureaux; and Norman Warner, managing director of Warner Consultancy and Training Services Ltd.

  Ministerial Meeting, Sofia
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to assist with the preparations for the pan-European conference of Environment Ministers to be held in Sofia in October. [30237]

  Mr. Gummer
  With the Austrian Minister of the Environment, I co-hosted and chaired a meeting of a number of Environment Ministers from western and eastern Europe at Lancaster house on 12 and 13 June to discuss key issues for the forthcoming Sofia conference and to guide the officials engaged in the detailed preparations. There was a consensus that the conference should focus on further implementation of the environmental action programme for Europe under which countries of central and eastern Europe are being assisted to tackle their most serious environmental problems, and that to this end enhancing environmental investment, encouraging the private and business sectors to become fully involved and protecting biodiversity were key areas for attention. My colleagues agreed that the Sofia conference should produce a number of concrete projects to demonstrate how new ideas could be realised, including the development of pilot projects for joint implementation under the climate change convention and the sulphur protocol.

  In addition we have co-sponsored with our Austrian colleagues a study of impediments to environmental investment from the perspective of central and eastern European countries and we are assisting the Bulgarians directly with the conference preparations through the provision of a high-level adviser.

TREASURY

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much Her Majesty's Government have paid to Barlow Clowes victims; [27272]

  (2) if he will publish the statement read out in court in the recent Barlow Clowes case; and if he will set out the full terms of the settlement; [27274]

  (3) what sums each of the relevant parties have agreed to pay to HM Treasury following the recent out-of-court settlement in connection with Barlow Clowes; [27270]

  (4) for what reasons Her Majesty's Treasury agreed to settle out of court in the Barlow Clowes case; and on whose authority the decision was taken; [27273]

  (5) what was the total cost to public funds of the action to obtain payment in the matter of Barlow Clowes recently settled out of court. [27271]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government's publicly stated aim is to pursue vigorously any claims showing prospect of reducing the cost to the public purse of the ex-gratia payments scheme. This has paid some £150 million to investors who suffered loss as a result of the collapse of the Barlow Clowes group of companies in May 1988.

  Consequently, the Government initiated litigation against a number of parties previously involved with Barlow Clowes companies. This litigation included proceedings against a group of professional advisers, comprising Midland bank plc, Rensburg and Co., Simpson Curtis, Singer and Friedlander Ltd., Singer and Friedlander (Isle of Man) Ltd., Sinjul Nominees Ltd., Spicer and Pegler, Spicer and Pegler (Gibraltar) and Touche Ross and Co.

  The decision to settle the litigation by acceptance of a substantial sum in respect of claims made in those proceedings, including interest and costs, was taken after receiving firm legal advice from leading counsel and solicitors, which also confirmed the commercial good sense of such a course.

  The settlement was signed and announced to the High Court on 24 May 1995. That statement made it clear the parties do not intend to make any further public statement, except as may be required of the Government by Parliament or of any defendant by its obligations to the stock exchange, concerning the settlement of these proceedings. I have arranged for a copy of the statement to the court to be placed in the Library.

  It is generally the Government's policy not to comment on the detail of legal proceedings or settlements relating to the Barlow Clowes litigation, so as not to influence the attitude and outcome of continuing actions. The Government continue to pursue vigorously any claims in relation to the Barlow Clowes companies which show any prospect of cost-effective recovery in order to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of the ex-gratia payments schemes.

  European Single Currency
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the report of the study group on the role of public finance in European 148
  integration chaired by Sir Donald MacDougall, published in 1977; and what are his conclusions on its findings on the effect on the size of the European Community budget, in the event of the creation of a single currency. [27671]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The MacDougall report was an early attempt to assess the role of the public finances in European integration. Its analysis reflected the thinking of the 1970s. The Government do not endorse its conclusions or its recommendation that the EC budget should grow to some five to seven per cent. of EC GDP to be compatible with monetary union. There is no provision in the Maastricht treaty for any such expansion of the EC budget and the Government remain committed to the firm ceilings on EC spending agreed at Edinburgh.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [28519]

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

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [28501]

  Mr. Nelson
  The chief executives of the four agencies responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer have delegated authority to reply to parliamentary questions on day-to-day operational matters within their responsibilities. Since October 1992, five questions to the Chancellor have been referred to chief executives for reply under these arrangements.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply of 9 June,Official Report, column 340, how many owners of chattels had been granted conditional exemption from inheritance tax as capital transfer tax in each year since 1987. [28851]

  Sir George Young
  The numbers of owners are as follows:

  1987: 35

  1988: 51

  1989: 44

  1990: 41

  1991: 69

  1992: 73

  1993: 55

  1994: 63

  149
  These figures are for owners of chattels which are currently conditionally exempt, and can be viewed by appointment.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply of 9 June,Official Report, column 340, if he will place in the Library a copy of the register of conditionally exempt works of art. [28853]

  Sir George Young
  The register of conditionally exempt works of art, which now has over 14,000 entries, was computerised in 1993. As the hon. Member may be aware, there are established guidelines on the acceptance of electronic data by the House of Commons Library. The feasibility of making the register available through the Library will be explored and I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply of 9 June,Official Report, column 340, how many owners of chattels which have been granted conditional exemption from inheritance tax as capital transfer tax have allowed access in the latest 12 month period for which figures are available to members of the public wishing to view conditionally exempt works of art. [28849]

  Sir George Young
  Records are not kept centrally of how many members of the public have exercised their rights to require owners of chattels conditionally exempt from inheritance tax or capital transfer tax to allow viewing of these works of art.

  VAT
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the

  Year

  Registrations at Halifax office

  Deregistrations at Halifax office

  Registrations in West Yorkshire

  Deregistrations in West Yorkshire

  1985

  2,228

  2,257

  7,905

  7,958

  1986

  2,254

  2,329

  8,299

  8,862

  1987

  2,256

  1,856

  8,469

  7,427

  1988

  2,634

  2,110

  10,274

  7,946

  1989

  3,284

  2,256

  11,385

  8,102

  1990

  2,646

  2,318

  10,013

  8,245

  1991

  2,486

  3,046

  8,871

  10,875

  1992

  2,147

  2,652

  8,302

  9,967

  1993

  2,207

  2,540

  8,240

  9,180

  1994

  1,891

  2,443

  7,373

  8,621

  19951

  482

  560

  1,605

  2,004

  1 To end March.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a person who is in receipt of incapacity benefit will be treated for tax purposes in exactly the same way as a person in receipt of retirement pension. [28979]

  Sir George Young
  Both incapacity benefit and state retirement pension are taxable, except for incapacity benefit payable in the first 28 weeks of incapacity, and additional payments of both incapacity benefit and retirement pension payable to claimants with children. For most claimants, arrangements for collecting tax are broadly similar in both cases.
  150
  Exchequer how much extra revenue would be raised from the extension of VAT to new building. [28884]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Treasury publication, "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs", shows that applying the standard rate of VAT to new dwellings is estimated to raise £1,950 million in a full year in 1994–95. This figure makes no allowance for behavioural changes.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses registered and deregistered for value added tax in(a) Batley and Spen and (b) west Yorkshire each year since 1983. [27710]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 13 June 1995]: Customs does not have information concerning the number of businesses registered and deregistered in the Batley and Spen constituency. The local VAT office at Halifax covers, in addition to Halifax, the towns of Batley, Huddersfield, Wakefield, Morley, Todmorden and part of Bradford. The local VAT offices at Bradford, Doncaster, Halifax and Leeds cover the west Yorkshire area. They are able to provide only the number of registrations and deregistrations for VAT at the Halifax office and in west Yorkshire since 1985. These are in the following schedule.

  Traders who are in business and trading below the registrations threshold may choose to register for VAT, if they wish. This gives them the advantage of being able to reclaim VAT paid on goods and expenses in connection with their business. Above the threshold level registration is obligatory.

  The effect of the substantial increase in the registration threshold in both 1991 and 1993 provides an explanation for the net decrease in the number of registered businesses since 1991.

  Gilts and Bonds
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Inland Revenue will make available a provisional compliance cost assessment on the proposals set out in the consultation paper on the taxation of gilts and bonds. [29242]

  Sir George Young
  My foreword to the Inland Revenue's consultation document makes clear that we are aiming for a major simplification of the current rules. This offers the prospect of substantial long-run compliance cost savings as well as wider efficiency gains. But the precise effects will depend on the details, a number of which have been expressly left open as matters for consultation.
  151
  If we decide to proceed with these proposals, the Inland Revenue will make available the compliance cost assessment once the details have been sufficiently settled and the responses given in consultation have been fully evaluated.

  Northern Electric
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has voted his shares either directly or by proxy in recent shareholder votes in Northern Electric; whether he supported the call for an emergency annual meeting; and what public statement he has made on whether Northern Electric is to accept the offer of Trafalgar House plc. [29774]

  Sir George Young
  At no shareholder meeting have Treasury shares been voted. The Treasury was prepared to vote its shares in March in favour of the full cash alternative in reference to a combination of cash and Trafalgar House shares. Not to have so voted our shares would have meant acceptance by default of the latter option and would have involved, unacceptably, the Treasury taking a new stake in a private sector company. In the event, the Trafalgar House bid was withdrawn. The Government's usual policy is not to vote our shareholdings to intervene in the commercial activities of a privatised company but, in the circumstances of last March, we took account of the fact that Northern Electric had recommended acceptance of the Trafalgar House bid. Treasury Ministers have made no public statements on this matter.

  Fundamental Expenditure Review
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Minister in his Department is responsible for the fundamental expenditure review process; and how many such reviews have been approved so far by that Minister. [29740]

  Mr. Aitken
  Secretaries of State in Departments have been conducting the reviews in co-operation with me. The Departments listed have produced final reports already, but the reviews were intended to look at long term spending patterns and follow-up work and implementation are continuing in most cases.

  Ministry of Defence

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Employment Department

  Department of Transport

  Urban spending by the Department of the Environment

  Home Office

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Department for Education

  Department of National Heritage

  Department of Health

  Department of Social Security

  HM Treasury

  Customs and Excise

  Inland Revenue

  Investor Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he proposes to meet the Securities Investment Board 152
  or the Personal Investment Authority to discuss the operation of the investor compensation scheme; and if he will make a statement; [29730]

  (2) what information he has on the solvency of the investors compensation scheme set up under the Financial Services Act 1986; and if he will make a statement. [29729]

  Mr. Nelson
  I meet senior figures from the Securities and Investments Board, the Personal Investment Authority and the investors compensation scheme to discuss matters of policy and interest from time to time. I recently met the chairman and chief executive of the ICS.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 6 April referred from the Department of Social Security regarding a constituent, reference 0595/38. [29669]

  Sir George Young
  A reply was sent on 19 June.

  Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he proposes to take to ensure that holders of appropriate personal pensions can rely on these policies to provide benefits at least as generous as those provided by SERPS. [27602]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: It would be inappropriate for the Government to guarantee the investment performance of a personal pension. However, the financial services regulators have rules designed to ensure that financial advisers are trained, competent and able to recommend only products which are suitable for the individual investor and whose risks are properly explained.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 May,Official Report, column 264, if he will provide comparable details on civil service early retirement packages on grounds of inefficiency. [29284]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: 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 superannuation benefits which would otherwise be preserved for payment at retiring age. There have been 15 departures from the Treasury on inefficiency grounds in the past five financial years, 11 of which were during probation. No compensation was paid in any of these cases.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the terms of reference of the Treasury inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the sale of PowerGen and National Power stock in March; if he will
  153
  name the official who is conducting this inquiry; if the completed inquiry report will be published in full; and if he will make a statement. [28841]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: The stock exchange has suggested further examination into the circumstances surrounding the Genco2 share sale, including the dissemination of information between various parts of the public sector and between the public sector and the market. Sir Terence Burns has asked Mr. John Beastall, a senior Treasury official and former Treasury officer of accounts, to take this work forward and draft the Treasury response. He has been asked to examine in detail the events surrounding the share sale and the role of all the parties involved and any lessons to be learned for future share issues by public authorities. Once the work has been completed, the Permanent Secretary, Sir Terence Burns, will respond to the stock exchange and, the response will be published.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 June 1995. [27975]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 June. [27976]

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

  President Clinton
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Prime Minister what contact he has had with President Clinton on plans for a visit to the United Kingdom. [27979]

  The Prime Minister
  I would welcome a further visit to the United Kingdom by President Clinton. We are discussing possible dates.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to persuade the French Government not to resume nuclear testing and to oppose any proposals taken by them to do so. [29739]

  The Prime Minister
  We are in regular contact with the French Government, who are aware of our views.

  BMARC
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister if the intelligence sources referred to in the oral statement on BMARC by the President of the Board of Trade of 13 June,Official Report, columns 595–606, and dated at July and September 1988 used material from within the Astra group of companies. [29722]
  154
  The Prime Minister
  It is not the Government's policy to comment on the sources of information contained in intelligence material.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 June to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, (Mr. Fatchett)Official Report, column 373, if he will list the external lawyers who have been used to provide advice for witnesses to the Scott inquiry; and if external lawyers have been used at the request of witnesses of Departments or of the Treasury solicitors. [29764]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government will have no objection to publishing the names of external lawyers who have been used to provide advice for witnesses to the Scott inquiry at public expense after Sir Richard Scott's final report has been published and provision of such advice has been concluded. External advice is provided at public expense either where the witness concerned requests it and the departmental legal adviser considers this reasonable or where, after consultation with his departmental legal adviser of the Treasury Solicitor, it is agreed that such advice should be sought.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 24 February, to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, (Mr. Cousins)Official Report, column 353, if further evidence has been taken in private by Lord Justice Scott. [29155]

  The Prime Minister
  Sir Richard Scott continues to obtain evidence, both oral and written, as the need arises. I am advised by the inquiry that the last evidence taken at a private hearing was on 4 May 1995.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Cabinet Office has received any information on allegations that British companies had circumvented export control regulations or guidelines covering Iraq or Iran, which have not yet been passed on to Lord Justice Scott. [29151]

  The Prime Minister
  All information received by the Cabinet Office and identified as required by Sir Richard Scott's inquiry has been passed to the inquiry.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has instituted any change in the system of distribution of intelligence reports to Ministers and their appropriate officials as a result of the problems outlined by Baroness Thatcher in her evidence to the Scott inquiry. [29150]

  The Prime Minister
  A number of improvements have been made, of which details have been given to the Scott inquiry.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 June given to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett),Official Report, column 373, how many requests for legal assistance for witnesses to the Scott inquiry have been turned down as unreasonable; and if he will break down the costs to public funds between the costs in respect of (a) external lawyers and (b) the Treasury solicitors. [29763]

  The Prime Minister
  Witnesses to the Scott inquiry who wish to seek legal assistance at public expense must first seek the approval of their departmental legal adviser
  155
  or the Treasury Solicitor's Department. Where necessary, the nature, scope, source and terms of such legal advice are discussed with the individual concerned. I am not aware of any case in which there was a disagreement over the provision of legal advice following such discussions. The information on legal costs is given in my answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) today.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden),Official Report, column 374, on leaks from the provisional draft report of Lord Justice Scott, who conducted the inquiry; what were the responses of those who were interviewed; and if he will publish the conclusions for the inquiry. [29519]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 12 June,Official Report, column 374.

  Security Vetting
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 24 April,Official Report, column 344, if contractors who carry out basic checks are now obliged to require their employees and potential employees to disclose to them any information concerning any criminal record, including those which are spent and if he will make a statement. [29770]

  The Prime Minister
  Contractors are obliged only to carry out basic checks on employees or potential employees who will have access to Government assets. As part of a basic check, employees and potential employees are not required to disclose spent convictions. Contractors have a duty to request from their employees and potential employees, a completed criminal record declaration form. However, employees and potential employees do not have to return the form to their employer; if they prefer, they can pass it directly to the contracting Department or agency.

  In my answer of 24 April, I also referred to exceptional cases where, in the interests of national security, and with the agreement of the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service and Science, extra inquiries are necessary in addition to those carried out for a basic check. Where these include a check against the national collection of criminal records, individuals are required to declare spent convictions, as permitted under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, and the rehabilitation of Offenders Act (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (Exceptions) Order 1979. This information is available only to the contracting Department or agency and is not accessible by the contractor.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 June,Official Report, column 374, which treaty gives authority to the common fisheries policy, and which is subject to amendment at the 1996 inter-governmental conference; and if he will make it his policy to seek withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. [28923]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 June]: Fisheries are part of the common agricultural policy
  156
  governed by articles 38–47 of the EC treaty which will be reviewed as part of the 1996 intergovernmental conference. The detailed rules of the common fisheries policy are set out in the Council regulation 3760/92 which comes up for formal review in 2002. We have no plans for UK withdrawal from the common fisheries policy, but we are continuing to work for improvements in the appropriate fora.

  Overseas Visits (Royal Family)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister when the royal household sought the advice of Her Majesty's Government on the appropriateness of a member of the royal family attending the Island games, Gibraltar, to be held in July. [28674]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 June]: Official visits overseas by members of the royal family are made on the advice of the Government. The Princess Royal had hoped to attend the Island games in Gibraltar in July but, in the event, she was unable to do so.

TRANSPORT

  Motorway Noise
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department takes to monitor noise levels faced by residential properties located near to motorways. [28166]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 20 June 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts MP, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the question of monitoring of noise levels faced by residential properties located near to motorways. No routine monitoring of noise levels adjacent to trunk roads or motorways is undertaken, there being no requirement on the Highways Agency to do so.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the sections of the British motorway network where noise levels exceed 68 db (A) at the facade of adjacent residential properties of which an increase of at least 1 db(A) is attributable to traffic on the new or improved motorway. [28167]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 20 June 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts MP, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question requesting a list of the sections of the British motorway network where noise levels exceed 68 db(A) at the facade of residential properties of which an increase of at least 1 db(A) is attributable to traffic on the new or improved motorway.
  The Highways Agency is only responsible for motorways in England. I cannot therefore comment on motorways in the other parts of the United Kingdom.

  157
  The Noise Insulation Regulations require an offer of insulation or grant to owners of residential properties which qualify in accordance with the criteria you have quoted within six months of a new or improved road being open to traffic, but statistics of such offers are not collected centrally.

  Driving Test
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest situation in the Government's planning for a theory test as part of the driving test; and what assistance and information is available for driving instructors to enable them to prepare for the change. [29361]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to a reply I gave on 23 May,Official Report, columns 567–68.

  Driving instructors are being kept abreast of significant developments as they happen. The Driving Standards Agency, which will have overall responsibility for this new test, plans to publish, in early spring, a handbook for candidates and their instructors about the new driving theory test which will include the official bank of questions.

  Air Accidents Investigation Branch
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements have been made for continued pathology support to the AAIB in the event of an alteration to the RAF Institute; and if he will make a statement. [29888]

  Mr. Norris
  The RAF Institute of Pathology and Tropical Medicine is to be disbanded, but the department of pathology is to be retained and co-located with the school of aviation medicine. They intend to continue to support the air accidents investigation branch in its accident investigation for the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions in the last five years the RAF Institute of Pathology and Tropical Medicine has assisted the AAIB in its investigations; and if he will list these occasions on a year-by-year basis. [29887]

  Mr. Norris
  The RAF Institute of Pathology and Tropical Medicine has assisted the air accidents investigation branch on 103 occasions since 1 January 1990. The lists are as follows:

  Cvilian accidents attended by RAF IPTM 1990–95

  Date

  Aircraft

  Location

  Fatalities

  9 February 1990

  Christen Eagle

  Pleshey Castle

  1

  18 March 1990

  Fournier Glider

  Rattlesdon

  1

  24 March 1990

  Cessna F150M

  Mere

  2

  28 March 1990

  Robinson R22

  Chinnor

  1

  5 April 1990

  Cessna 210

  Dunbrach

  2

  21 April 1990

  Microlight

  Chirk

  1

  28 April 1990

  Rollason Condor

  Tibenham

  1

  3 May 1990

  Grob G109

  Wolford Health

  2

  19 May 1990

  Piper PA28/ Tiger Moth

  Redhill

  4

  27 May 1990

  Ralleye Tobago

  Stranraer

  5

  27 June 1990

  Augusta

  Rocester

  2

  7 July 1990

  Piper PA28

  Cranfield

  3

  13 July 1990

  Bell 206

  Stanley

  2

  17 July 1990

  Cessna 150

  Skegness

  2

  158

  Civilian accidents attended by RAF IPTM 1990–95

  Date

  Aircraft

  Location

  Fatalities

  25 July 1990

  Sikorsky

  Brent Spar

  5

  4 August 1990

  Puchaez Glider

  Usk

  1

  31 August 1990

  Hughes

  Felsted

  1

  20 October 1990

  Partenavia

  Castle Donnington

  1

  20 November 1990

  Piper PA28

  Dunbar

  1

  1 December 1990

  Air Commander

  Lannocks Hill

  2

  27 December 1990

  Cessna F150F

  Lasham

  2

  10 March 1991

  Cessna 175

  Goodwood

  1

  31 March 1991

  Piper Tomahawk

  Coventry

  2

  13 April 1991

  Nieuport Scout

  North Weald

  1

  12 May 1991

  Glider

  Syresham

  1

  16 May 1991

  Cessna

  Llangollen

  3

  20 May 1991

  Provost

  Newbury

  1

  20 May 1991

  Piper PA28

  Lancaster

  2

  30 June 1991

  Dragon Rapide

  Audley End

  1

  6 July 1991

  Taylor

  Bristol

  1

  14 August 1991

  Microlight

  Ashbourne

  1

  17 August 1991

  Christen Eagle

  Ashampstead

  2

  8 September 1991

  Robinson R22

  Stratford

  1

  16 December 1991

  Cessna 210

  Goodwood

  1

  13 February 1992

  Piper Cherokee

  Keswick

  1

  15 February 1992

  Cessna 172

  West Thurrock

  2

  23 February 1992

  Robinson R22

  Oldham

  2

  28 March 1992

  Robinson R22

  Telford

  1

  8 April 1992

  Piper

  Teeside

  1

  28 April 1992

  Grob 115

  Loch Muick

  2

  4 May 1992

  Microlight

  Colchester

  2

  29 May 1992

  Robinson R22

  Chesham

  2

  27 June 1992

  Spitfire

  Manchester

  1

  27 June 1992

  Microlight

  Chester

  1

  12 July 1992

  Piper

  Kidlington

  2

  16 July 1992

  Piper Seneca

  Clitheroe

  1

  14 August 1992

  Jet Ranger

  Bracknell

  2

  22 August 1992

  Socata

  Jura

  4

  22 September 1992

  Dauphine

  Piper Oil

  1

  4 October 1992

  Cessna

  Barnstable

  1

  6 October 1992

  Jestream

  Prestwick

  2

  17 November 1992

  Pitts Special

  Latimer

  1

  7 December 1992

  Cessna

  Loxters Farm

  2

  9 December 1992

  Beechcraft

  Berkhamstead

  1

  13 January 1993

  Bandierante

  Sellafield

  2

  18 January 1993

  Piper Bravo

  Ayr

  2

  21 March 1993

  Socata

  Sevenhampton

  1

  8 April 1993

  Wassmer WA52

  Teignmouth

  1

  27 April 1993

  Boeing 707

  India

  1

  11 May 1993

  Hawker Hunter

  Sheffield

  1

  23 June 1993

  Microlight

  Sandown

  1

  20 July 1993

  Beechcraft Bonanza

  Ashford

  1

  13 August 1993

  Glider

  Buxton

  1

  15 August 1993

  Piper Navajo

  Guildford

  1

  15 September 1993

  Piper PA28

  Dumfries

  1

  3 October 1993

  Stardust III

  Bridport

  1

  16 October 1993

  Glider

  Ruthin

  1

  15 November 1993

  Auster

  Orpington

  1

  20 November 1993

  Robinson R22

  Abergavenny

  1

  11 December 1993

  Autogyro

  Almer

  1

  8 January 1994

  Mooney

  Telford

  2

  15 January 1994

  Bell Ranger

  Luton

  1

  17 January 1994

  Cessna 182

  Keswick

  2

  20 January 1994

  Socata

  Walsall

  4

  25 February 1994

  Viscount

  Stafford

  1

  20 March 1994

  Yak

  Warwick

  1

  22 May 1994

  Bell

  North Wales

  3

  30 May 1994

  Glider

  Dunstable

  1

  8 June 1994

  Robinson R22

  Hampshire

  2

  9 June 1994

  Glider

  Cheddar

  1

  25 June 1994

  Steen Skybolt

  Penzance

  2

  30 June 1994

  Airbus

  Toulouse

  1

  21 July 1994

  Microlight

  Stadbrooke

  2

  1 August 1994

  Morane Saulnier

  Parham

  2

  3 August 1994

  Glider

  Norwich

  1

  26 August 1994

  Glider

  Hereford

  1

  9 October 1994

  Grunman AA5

  Louth

  1

  2 November 1994

  Cessna 187

  Worthing

  2

  7 December 1994

  Squirrel

  Ballacuish

  1

  21 December 1994

  Boeing 737

  Coventry

  5

  26 December 1994

  Robin

  Stableford

  4

  159

  Civilian accidents attended by RAF IPTM 1990–95

  Date

  Aircraft

  Location

  Fatalities

  14 February 1995

  Harvard

  Maldon

  1

  13 March 1995

  Harvard

  Andover

  1

  21 March 1995

  Cessna 150

  Wakefield

  1

  15 April 1995

  Glider

  Buxton

  1

  28 April 1995

  Microlight

  Bromyard

  1

  30 April 1995

  Piper Cherokee

  Ipswich

  1

  5 May 1995

  Glider

  Leicester

  1

  5 May 1995

  Squirrel

  Glasgow

  1

  7 May 1995

  Glider

  Parham

  1

  25 May 1995

  Bandierante

  Leeds

  12

  11 June 1995

  Glider

  Abergavenny

  1

  Privatisation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those parts of his Department or departmental agencies which were privatised without an in-house bid; if he will indicate the expertise which was absent in his Department or departmental agencies which prevented an in-house bid taking place; which future parts of his Department or departmental agencies he intends to privatise; and which of them do not have the necessary in-house expertise to mount an in-house bid. [29431]

  Mr. Norris
  No part of the Department has been privatised without an in-house bid. The following services have been contracted out without an in-house bid, as part of the competing for quality programme:

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Internal audit services

  Waste collection

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Workshop

  Building and estate management

  IT Strategy

  Roller brake testing

  Library services

  Weighbridge maintenance

  Coastguard Agency

  Property management

  Central Transport Group

  File storage

  Procurement of office machines

  Reprographics

  Computer bureau services

  Stationery supplies

  Books and periodicals

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Microfilm, data storage and retrieval

  Providing information on expertise not available to the Department in relation to individual bids would involve disproportionate cost. Contracting out without an in-house bid can occur, for example, where the Department judges that the private sector is clearly better equipped to deliver a specific service, has a better understanding of market needs or has a capacity to invest in new technology. Where an activity is relatively small and peripheral to a
  160
  Department's functions, a strategic decision to contract out can also be taken.

  For the future, my right hon. Friend intends to privatise the Transport Research Laboratory and has announced his readiness to consider, among other sale options, an in-house bid from management and staff to take over the laboratory as a non-profit distributing company. The Department proposes to contract out the following services without an in-house bid, as part of the competing for quality programme:

  Central Transport Group

  Library services

  Inquiry services

  Publication services

  New Headquarters:

  building management and maintenance

  telecoms

  catering

  security

  post and messengers

  Central services (IT communications network)

  DOT publications

  Highways Agency

  Road surface and strength testing unit

  Topographical and architectural model making unit

  Management of land and property acquired for roads programme

  Administrative arrangements for public inquiries into road schemes

  Cones hotline

  Coastguard Agency

  Accommodation support services

  Training facility

  Marine Safety Agency

  Survey and certification

  Equipment approvals and seafarers sight testing

  Fishing vessel safety equipment inspections

  Cycle Lanes
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of cycle lane have been provided in each of the last five years. [29645]

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not available centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times per year the information contained in a driving licence can be changed; and how many prosecutions have been undertaken over the last three years of individuals who have failed to provide an up to date address. [29767]

  Mr. Norris
  There is no limit to the number of times per year the information contained in a driving licence can be changed.

  Information on the number of prosecutions against drivers who have not notified the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of a change of address is not available.

  Brent Spar
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information was received by the Coastguard Agency in respect of the arrangements for the towing of the Brent Spar. [29246]

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

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Ms Joan Walley, dated 20 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as the question deals with an operational matter, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.
  On 6 June 1995 the Regional Controller of HM Coastguard's North and East Scotland Region met with the installation operators, Shell, and Grampian Police to discuss the towage of the Brent Spar. At this meeting he explained that HM Coastguard's responsibility was to monitor the sea safety of all concerned in the operation, and to coordinate any search and rescue action that might be required.
  Aberdeen Coastguard received a fax from the towage contractors on 6 June in accordance with the normal procedures for moving offshore installations, giving notice that the tow was due to proceed on 8 June. A second fax was received on 12 June giving notification that the tow had commenced.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Public Gallery Queue
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what plans he has to provide shelter for the queue for the public gallery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Martin
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: Space currently exists in St. Stephen's Hall to provide shelter for some 80 visitors awaiting entry to the Public Gallery of the House. There are no plans to augment this at present.

EDUCATION

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total costs per Oxford and Cambridge colleges of the tuition fees top-up. [29360]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department estimates that total public funding payable through the mandatory awards system in the current academic year for undergraduate college fees at Oxford and Cambridge colleges to be approximately £56,000,000. The Higher Education Funding Council for England takes account of the Oxbridge colleges' fee income in determining the level of grant payable to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and abates those universities' grants accordingly.

  Charter Week
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the main events she is proposing for 162
  Charter Week; what is the total cost to public funds; and how many (a) civil servants and (b) other public officials will be playing a part. [29881]

  Mr. Forth
  Public service events planned by the Department for Education to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the citizens charter are likely to include the announcement of the content of the 1995 school and college performance tables and a briefing paper on value added for schools and colleges. There will be no additional cost or staff resources as a result of these events. The officials concerned will be working on them as part of their normal duties.

  Ofsted
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of establishing Ofsted. [18608]

  Mr. Boswell
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 April, column. 1195]: The establishment of Ofsted was contained within the existing departmental running costs, and was not separately identified. The £8.225 million transferred to Ofsted by DFE in 1992–93 was used to establish a new vote for Ofsted from which running costs later in the year were covered. None of the set-up costs fell to this vote.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the total running costs of all non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department, including the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and OFsted for each year since 1987. [17248]

  Mr. Boswell
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 April 1995 columns. 50–52]: The net running costs of OFsted in 1992–93 were £13.917 million and not £22.145 million.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Micro-enterprise Development
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will be announcing his decision on the request for support by the Grameen Trust; and if he will make a statement. [29671]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) on 23 May at column 511.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the additional projects to be funded, and the sums allocated, by the 31 million returned to the aid budget for 1995–96 from(a) the Pergau dam project and (b) three other aid and trade provision projects. [29342]

  Mr. Baldry
  The reimbursed funds were fully integrated into ODA's planning and were thus not reallocated on an individual basis. Details of a breakdown of the aid budget planning allocations for 1995–96 can be
  163
  found in table 30, page 61 of the ODA's departmental report.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the estimated rate of return on the Cigading/Serpong railway ATP project in Indonesia at the time of appraisal; what is the actual post-completion rate of return; on what date the project was approved by the sub-committee for aid and trade; and on what date the project was approved by the Minister for Overseas Development. [28297]

  Mr. Baldry
  A rate of return for the Cigading/Serpong railway project was not calculated at the time of appraisal. The developmental justification for the project was based on the use of rail as the least cost mode to transport coal from Cigading port to cement works at Cibinong. It is not possible to provide a post-completion rate of return because the line is still under construction. The project was approved by the sub-committee for aid and trade, and by the then Minister for Overseas Development, in November 1986.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of his Department's reports on the monitoring of the work of the UNFPA and IPPF. [28952]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: The Overseas Development Administration's recent case studies in certain countries on the work of the United Nations Population Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation were carried out using material and documents provided on the basis that the information and findings would be treated in confidence.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what written information was supplied to his Department prior to, at and following the last meetings of the UNFPA's governing body and the IPPF's annual donor's meeting. [28953]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: In respect of the United Nations population fund papers were supplied on the following: financial matters; policy and strategy; country programmes; and responses to the United Nations General Assembly resolutions on United Nations systems reform.

  In respect of the International Planned Parenthood Federation the principal document provided was the annual report supplement, copies of which have already been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the Chinese Family Planning Association's response to the Chinese Government's eugenics law. [28960]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: We understand that the China Family Planning Association has made no public statements on the new maternal and child health law.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received 164
  on the number of Chinese officials convicted of abusing their powers in implementing the Chinese programme of population control. [28961]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: We understand that no such records are available.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters have been discussed at meetings between officials from the British embassy in Peking and representatives of UNFPA in China. [28955]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: Officials from the British embassy in Peking have periodic contact with representatives of the United Nations population fund to discuss UNFPA's work in China as well as a range of issues relating to China's population policy and its implementation.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what sum of money has been provided by the UNFPA to population control projects in China over the last 10 years; [28957]

  (2) what sums of money have been provided to (a) the Chinese Family Planning Association and (b) other Chinese population control initiatives by the IPPF over the last 10 years. [28956]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answers 19 June 1995]: Neither the United Nations population fund nor the International Planned Parenthood Federation provides funds for population control projects. The IPPF has provided US$ 7.776 million to the China Family Planning Association since 1986 and the UNFPA has allocated US$ 152.451 million since 1979, for its programmes in China.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sums of money were donated by the UNFPA and IPPF from their core budgets to countries worldwide for the last year for which figures are available; and if he will list the recipient countries together with the amounts received from each organisation. [28959]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 30 November 1994, column 713.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those occasions in the last 10 years when aid has been tied to implementation of family planning programmes by donor countries. [28954]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: We are not aware of any donor countries which have tied aid to the implementation of family planning programmes during the last 10 years.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the recent World Health Organisation's study into the numbers of women worldwide who die after abortion distinguished between unsafe abortions and illegal abortions. [28958]
  165
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: The World Health Organisation study does not distinguish between unsafe abortions and illegal abortions.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  French Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to his French counterpart regarding the resumption of nuclear weapons tests by the French Government. [29462]

  Mr. David Davis
  We are in regular contact with the French Government, who are aware of our views.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make statement about the new mandate of the United Nations Mission in Rwanda force in Rwanda. [29505]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under United Nations Security Council resolution 997, the revised mandate of UNAMIR now includes assisting the Government of Rwanda in facilitating the voluntary and safe return of refugees and supporting its efforts to promote a climate of confidence and trust through the performance of monitoring tasks throughout the country. We hope that this revision will facilitate UNAMIR's efforts to promote national reconciliation in Rwanda.

  Births on Vessels
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ships masters have reported a birth aboard their vessels to a consular office during the last 10 years. [29592]

  Mr. Baldry
  Ships masters are not required to report or register births on board their vessels to consular officers. They report births, and deaths, to the Marine Superintendent at the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen, Cardiff.

  Chinese State Orphanages
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what measures he intends to take to promote proper care for abandoned children in Chinese state orphanages; and if he will make a statement; [29783]

  (2) what information he has received as to physical restraint of children in Chinese state orphanages; and if he will make a statement; [29781]

  (3) what representations his Department has made in the last two years to the Chinese authorities regarding allegations of the existence of dying rooms in Chinese state orphanages; [29792]

  (4) what representations his Department has made to the Chinese Government regarding their treatment of orphans and abandoned children; [29791]
  166
  (5) what reports he has received alleging absence of care in Chinese state orphanages; [29776]

  (6) what reports he received as to who cares for abandoned babies in Chinese state orphanages; and if he will make a statement. [29780]

  Mr. Goodlad
  We continue to be deeply concerned about reports of abuses of children in certain Chinese state orphanages.

  We have received varying reports about standards of care in Chinese orphanages. The Chinese Government provide social health care workers to look after abandoned babies. We believe that the ratio of staff to children, and the quality of staff, vary around the country. We believe that conditions in the orphanages also vary, but some include the use of physical restraint of children.

  We take every suitable opportunity, both bilaterally and in conjunction with our European Union partners, to express to the Chinese authorities our concerns about reports of human rights abuses in China. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, for example, discussed human rights in China with the Chinese Foreign Minister in New York on 18 April.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what statements have been issued by the Chinese Government on their missions to Great Britain regarding the standards of care in Chinese state orphanages and the existence of dying rooms. [29777]

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the hon. Member to the fact sheet on China's orphanages issued by the Chinese embassy in London on 13 June 1995, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if representatives of Her Majesty's Government will raise the issue of the condition of abandoned children in Chinese state orphanages at the United Nations conference on women in Beijing. [29778]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. We are deeply concerned about reports of ill treatment and neglect of children in Chinese orphanages, but the UN conference on women has not been called to address specific issues of this kind in individual countries.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Robin Cook
  to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to publish a White Paper outlining Her Majesty's Government's objectives and priorities for the 1996 intergovernmental conference of the European Union. [29670]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have no plans to publish a White Paper on priorities for the IGC. We shall continue to keep the House informed of our approach as it develops.

  Zaire
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about(a) the security situation in Zaire relating to disputes between the Rwandan refugees and local

  167
  Zaireans and (b) the likelihood of armed incursions by Hutu refugees into Rwanda. [29504]

  Mr. Baldry
  The initiative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to deploy Zairean forces and international liaison staff in the camps in eastern Zaire has significantly reduced tensions and incidents involving refugees and the local population.

  We are obviously concerned by the possibility of armed incursions into Rwanda. We therefore welcome the agreement of the government of Zaire to allow UN observers in eastern Zaire, to monitor the embargo imposed by the Security Council on supplies of arms intended for use within Rwanda.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Attorney-General 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. [28503]

  The Solicitor-General
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask Mr. Attorney General 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. [28484]

  The Solicitor General
  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 below the Minister's reply.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many farms are still affected by

  £000's

  Year

  Belfast education and library board

  Western education and library board

  North-Eastern education and library board

  South-Eastern education and library board

  Southern education and library board

  Voluntary grammar schools

  Integrated schools

  Total

  1987–88

  (a)

  3,932

  5,148

  5,013

  2,827

  5,396

  1,635

  0

  23,951

  (b)1

  3,824

  4,765

  4,213

  2,325

  4,759

  1,045

  0

  20,931

  1988–89

  (a)

  3,645

  4,699

  4,613

  2,743

  5,207

  1,411

  0

  22,318

  168
  restriction notices imposed due to radioactive contamination following the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986; what land area these farms constitute; and what percentage of available farmland in Northern Ireland this represents. [28601]

  Mr. Ancram
  In Northern Ireland 55 farms comprising 5,728 hectares and representing 0.54 per cent. of the area available for farmland, are still under restriction.

  Confectionery Sales (Schools)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under what authority the selling of confectionery in schools may be prohibited; and which schools have prohibited its sale. [28828]

  Mr. Ancram
  There are no specific statutory provisions relating to this issue and it is a matter for boards of governors of schools at a local level. All grant-aided schools are, however, required by law to have schemes of management and it is from these that the authority of the principal and board of governors for the day-to-day management of the school is derived.

  I am not aware of any schools in Northern Ireland where the selling of confectionery has been prohibited.

  School Meals
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what nutritional quality standards there are for school meals; and when was the last change in these standards. [28813]

  Mr. Ancram
  The current arrangements, as approved by the Department of Education, require that menus be planned within the following nutritional guidelines:

  School type

  Nursery

  Primary

  Senior pupils in special schools

  Total Protein

  27g

  27g

  27g

  Animal protein

  16.5g

  16.5g

  18.5g

  Fat

  32g

  32g

  32g

  Calories

  500–550

  650–7.00

  880

  Nutritional standards are not prescribed in post-primary schools. The last change in these standards was in 1981.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what was the net expenditure on school catering services(a) in total; and (b) for free school meals for each year since 1987 broken down by county. [28801]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:
  169

  £000's

  Year

  Belfast education and library board

  Western education and library board

  North-Eastern education and library board

  South-Eastern education and library board

  Southern education and library board

  Voluntary grammar schools

  Integrated schools

  Total

  (b)1

  3,525

  3,660

  3,518

  2,110

  3,852

  833

  0

  17,498

  1989–90

  (a)

  4,024

  5,197

  4,869

  3,027

  5,282

  1,465

  0

  23,864

  (b)1

  3,701

  4,252

  3,504

  2,304

  4,130

  843

  0

  18,734

  1990–91

  (a)

  3,918

  5,164

  5,105

  3,143

  5,438

  1,383

  0

  24,151

  (b)1

  3,603

  4,017

  3,8.00

  2,427

  4,191

  818

  0

  18,856

  1991–92

  (a)

  4,195

  5,669

  5,557

  3,287

  5,920

  1,812

  124

  26,564

  (b)1

  3,292

  4,381

  4,219

  2,717

  4,715

  996

  57

  20,377

  1992–93

  (a)

  4,247

  6,115

  5,618

  3,151

  6,199

  1,781

  219

  27,330

  (b)1

  4,020

  4,844

  4,389

  2,746

  4,930

  1,020

  98

  22,047

  1993–94

  (a)

  24,484

  26,280

  25,665

  23,302

  26,193

  1,859

  368

  28,151

  (b)1

  4,377

  5,132

  4,459

  2,678

  4,987

  1,109

  146

  22,888

  1 Estimated expenditure.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people from Northern Ireland were studying at a higher education institution in the United Kingdom in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [29033]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  1993–94: 40,149

  1994–95: 46,307 (Provisional)

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average A-level point score of students embarking on first degrees at Northern Irish higher education institutions in(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93 and (c) 1993–94; and if he will make a statement. [29036]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information for Northern Ireland universities is as follows:

  1991–92: 19.8

  1992–93: 19.7

  1993–94: 19.9

  Information for teaching training colleges in Northern Ireland is available only for 1993–94 when the average A-level point score was 18.0.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of Northern Ireland 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. [29037]

  Mr. Ancram
  In the 1992 UK-wide research assessment exercise, 71 per cent. and 3 per cent. of the units of assessments in higher education institutions in Northern Ireland received ratings of(a) three or above and (b) five respectively.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average mandatory awards and loan expenditure on each student from Northern Ireland in 1994–95; what proportion of the figure went on 170
  (a) student loans, (b) fee expenditure and (c) maintenance expenditure; what were the corresponding figures for those studying at the universities of (i) Oxford and (ii) Cambridge; and if he will make a statement. [29038]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the average fee expenditure for the 1994–95 academic year is estimated at £1,244 and that for ordinary and supplementary maintenance at £1,456 and £171 respectively.

  Final figures are not available for the average student loan in the current academic year. The latest year for which an actual figure is available is 1993–94 when the average student loan for Northern Ireland was £690.

  Figures for those studying at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Domestic Gas
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has reached any further conclusions about the choice of area for the second phase of the transition to a competitive domestic gas market. [29067]

  Mr. Eggar
  I announced on 9 March that the first phase of competition in supplying domestic households, which will start in April 1996, will comprise 500,000 gas consumers in Cornwall, Devon and Somerset. My decision regarding the second phase will mean that in 1997:the area for the first phase will be extended to cover a total of 1 million gas consumers in the south west; and
  competition will be introduced in a second area, also comprising 1 million gas consumers, in the south east.

  This will mean that from 1997 a total of around 2 million households will potentially be able to choose which company supplies their gas.

  The second phase of the transition will extend competition to about 11/2 million domestic gas consumers

  171
  in East Sussex, West Sussex, Kent, Dorset and Avon to add to the 500,000 gas consumers in Cornwall, Devon and Somerset from April 1996, who are covered by the first phase.

  The south-east received the second most support, after the south-west, in response to our recent consultation document on the choice of initial areas for the extension of competition to the domestic gas market. The chosen areas fulfil the criteria set out by the consultation document. They are clearly defined:
  both areas may be relatively disadvantaged by the transportation related charges—although the first supplier to declare its intention to enter the market in the south-west is still projecting average savings of 10 per cent. on BG's tariffs;
  two separate areas of this size will provide a thorough test of the technical and administrative systems in the second phase, ahead of the introduction of national competition in 1998;
  the areas have a mix of rural and urban areas and cross-section of types of customers.

  The consultation demonstrated the widespread support for competition in gas supply with responses from all parts of the country requesting that they be included in the area where domestic consumers first benefit from competition in the gas market.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department took following receipt of a letter from the chief executive of Bristol city council dated 17 September 1993 regarding official coal mining searches prepared by British Coal; and if he will make a statement. [29596]

  Mr. Page
  The letter referred to was passed to British Coal on 11 October 1993 as a matter falling within their responsibilities. I understand that the Corporation wrote to Mr. Robinson on 28 October 1993.

  Astra Holdings plc
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the decision to prosecute all but one of the former directors of Astra was taken, if he was consulted over the decision to prosecute; and what factors led to the decision not to prosecute the remaining director. [29482]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The decision to bring disqualification proceedings against certain of the former Astra directors was taken in May 1994 by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade after considering the advice of officials, Treasury Solicitors and counsel. This decision was taken after consideration of the conduct of those concerns as set out in the report of independent inspectors appointed under the Companies Act 1985 to investigate the affairs of Astra Holdings plc and published on 17 June 1993.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade from which hon. Members he has received correspondence or representations about the investigations into the conduct of, and ultimate prosecution of some of the former directors of Astra. [29721]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I list those hon. Members who have tabled questions before the House concerning the appointment of and subsequent report of the inspectors 172
  appointed to investigate and report on the affairs of Astra Holdings plc.

  Jim Cousins; Doug Hoyle; Allan Rogers; Austin Mitchell; Michael Meacher; Gerald Bermingham; Lord Clinton Davis has tabled a question before the House of Lords.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make available to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise the records of Astra and BMARC that were acquired in the course of his Department's inquiries into the affairs of Astra. [29485]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information obtained by use of the Secretary of State's compulsory powers is confidential and disclosure is subject to legal restrictions. No request has been made yet by HM Customs and Excise for information obtained by the inspectors appointed to investigate and report on the affairs of Astra Holdings plc, but I can assure the hon. Member that in discharging the Department's responsibilities I am conscious of and will take into account the strong public interest in ensuring that the proposed investigation by HM Customs and Excise is comprehensive and effective.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will suspend or withdraw his prosecutions of former directors of Astra until the HM Customs and Excise inquiry into Astra and its subsidiaries is complete. [29483]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The proceedings initiated by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade are for the disqualification as company director of certain former directors of Astra, not their prosecution, and are based on the report of independent inspectors appointed to investigate and report on the affairs of Astra Holdings plc. The inspectors' investigation and subsequent report did not concern itself with the subject matter of the HM Customs and Excise enquiry. On that basis I see no reason to suspend the disqualification proceedings. It is of course open to any of the respondents to seek an adjournment of the disqualification proceeding if they think there are sufficient grounds.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to ensure that the cost of the private sector operations of the Insolvency Service will not rise disproportionately. [27799]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The contracting-out exercise will explore possible charging mechanisms for contracting out although it is likely that an inclusive single charge for the work to be undertaken on each case will prove most appropriate. Under any such arrangements the cost of any work done by contractors would vary in proportion to the number of cases which needed to be dealt with.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes have occurred to the plans for the contracting out of services for the Insolvency Service as a result of experience of private sector insolvency services in Scotland. [27800]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None. Any contracting-out of official receivers' functions in England and Wales will be on the basis of value for money.
  173
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many official receivers' offices will be closed as a result of the contracting out of services of the Insolvency Service. [27801]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No decisions have yet been taken in relation to the residual size and location of the Insolvency Service should contacting out go ahead. It is not expected that a decision will be able to be made until conclusions on contracting out have been reached.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the implications of contractors referring to the Official Receiver only cases where a criminal offence is suspected for directors and people declared bankrupt in respect of cautions under section 67 and 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. [27802]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  It is anticipated that contractors would report to the official receiver in all cases so that they could decide whether any further investigation was required. Official receivers may require a bankrupt or company director to attend for interview on more than one occasion and any further interviews conducted by the official receiver once the case has been reported on by a contractor will be conducted on the same basis as at present so that the provisions of sections 67 and 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 will not apply.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the implications of a requirement on the official receiver to issue cautions under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for the provisions of the Insolvency Acts in respect of the requirement on directors and people declared bankrupt to answer questions. [27803]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Counsel's advice obtained by my officials is that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 does not currently apply to the official receiver's investigative work and that in the current state of the law contracting out would not alter the position.

  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 retain the terms and conditions of their original employment for the duration of their contracts. [28825]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  If, in the event of contracting out proceeding, staff were to transfer to the private sector under the terms of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, their existing terms and conditions would be retained. If TUPE were deemed not to apply, any staff who wished to transfer to successful bidders would, in the normal way, be responsible for agreeing the terms and conditions on which they were prepared to be employed.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the top 25 foreign companies by investment in the United Kingdom since 1979. [29869]

  Mr. Eggar
  Information on investment since 1979 can be provided only at disproportionate cost. The 1995 edition of "The Times 1000" gives details of the thousand United Kingdom companies with the highest turnover in 174
  1994. Among these, the foreign owned companies with the highest levels of capital employed were as follows:

  The "Shell" Transport and Trading Company PLC

  Unilever PLC

  Esso UK PLC

  Rank Xerox Ltd.

  Ford Motor Company Ltd.

  Amerada Hess Ltd.

  Stockholm & Edinburgh Investments Ltd.

  IBM United Kingdom Holdings Ltd.

  Chevron U.K. ltd.

  Marubeni U.K. PLC

  Courage Ltd.

  Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd.

  Gallaher Ltd.

  Seagram Holdings Ltd.

  Nissho Iwai Europe PLC

  Mobil Oil Co Ltd.

  Texaco Ltd.

  ICL PLC

  Hamilton Oil Great Britain PLC

  Kodak Ltd.

  Short Brothers PLC

  British Alcan Aluminium PLC

  Deminex UK Oil And Gas Ltd.

  Mitsubishi Corporation (UK) Ltd.

  Source: the 1995 edition of "The Times 1000", published by Times Books.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives he is considering to tackle the problem of mobile telephone fraud. [29664]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have decided to set up a study group of senior representatives from the industry, the Federation of Communication Services, officials from the DTI and Home Office and representatives from the law enforcement agencies as necessary, to consider how the Government can underpin the continuing work of the industry in fighting the escalating problem of mobile phone crime. The group will report back to me in September and will examine the technological aspects of the problem, how these are changing as the industry develops and in particular the increased use of scanners in the cloning of mobile phones and the theft of airtime.

  The Government intend to ensure that these problems are tackled on all available fronts. The study group will draw together the useful work that has already been done by the industry to pursue technological solutions and to improve industry control systems, and will consider in particular if there are any further steps which the Government can take in support of the industry.

  Mr. Martyn Gregory
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department is taking in respect of the libel action being brought against his Department by Martyn Gregory; and if he will make a statement. [27418]
  175
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I confirm that a writ has been received from Mr. Gregory's solicitors. As the matter is now subject to legal proceedings in the High Court I do not consider it appropriate to comment further.

  Detergents
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ask the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to carry out an investigation of the UK detergent market. [29487]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  This is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading, who, under the competition legislation, is responsible for keeping markets under review, and has independent powers to make a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  BMARC
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer on 28 April,Official Report, column 725, when he now intends to write to the hon. Member concerning BMARC and arms exports. [29031]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made a statement to the House on 13 June 1995,Official Report, column 606.

  I wrote to the hon. Member that day to inform him that the statement would embrace replies to his questions.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what matters were discussed and what decisions taken at the EU Ministerial Council on the Internal Market on 6 June; and what matters were voted upon. [26737]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 7 June 1995]: I attended the Internal Market Council in Luxembourg on 6 June.

  The Council agreed a satisfactory resolution on the effective application of Community law and penalties for breach of Community law provisions in the internal market field; a common position on the decision on notification of derogations from free movement of goods; and political agreement on the directive on legal protection of databases. There was no agreement on a common position on the novel foods and novel food ingredients regulation, as Germany, Sweden, Austria, Denmark and Greece voted against.

  The Council discussed the Commission's White Paper on the preparation of the associated countries of central and eastern Europe for integration into the EU's internal market. It also held a joint meeting with internal market Ministers from those countries. There was also a debate on improving the work and operation of the single market. This followed Commissioner Monti's outline of the Commission's forthcoming 1994 annual report on the single market.

  I presented a new study by the DTI, reporting on a survey of 250 businesses and 100 trade associations.

  The Council discussed the work of the Molitor group, set up to examine the impact of European Community and national legislation on employment and competitiveness;
  176
  Customs 2000 action programme; and the draft convention on insolvency proceedings.

  The next meeting of the Council is provisionally scheduled for Monday 9 October 1995.

  Copyright (Educational Material)
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total cost per year to primary, secondary and further education establishments in fees for the photocopying of copyright educational material. [29447]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: The Department of Trade and Industry does not have this information. However, I am informed by the Copyright Licensing Agency, the collecting society which administers the photocopying rights of nearly all owners of copyright in books, journals and periodicals, that licence fees received for financial year 1994–95 from local education authority schools was £2.2 million. Licence fees from grant-maintained and independent schools amounted to £934,000, and fees from further education establishments amounted to £2.5 million.

  Temazepam
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what monitoring his Department undertakes of the overseas export of temazepam; if his Department checks the licences of those who export the drug; what measures are in place to ensure that export licences of buyers in the medical/drug industry are legitimate; if his Department monitors the drug shipment after it has been purchased and until it reaches the foreign destination; and if he will make a statement. [29248]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no statutory controls on the export of temazepam, but companies have been warned to be on their guard for suspicious orders. Records from exporters are examined annually with information of amounts and destinations being passed to the International Narcotics Control Board. The details of any suspicious transactions are passed to the INCB and the authorities in the receiving country. Manufacturers and wholesalers require an operating authority. They are carefully vetted and inspected.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of parliamentary questions, which would have been answered directly to him or his Ministers prior to the establishment of executive agencies, are now referred to the chief executive of such an agency. [28492]

  Mr. Dorrell
  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
  177
  reply from a 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.

  Radio Stations
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will take into account the audience reach of radio stations when assessing the most efficient use of spectrum for policy purposes. [29737]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Government policy aims to ensure that frequencies are used so as to enhance the range of listener choice. Under section 123 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, the Radio Authority is obliged to ensure that the frequencies assigned to the authority are used as efficiently as is reasonably practicable.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will relax the restrictions on the concentration of radio ownership in major urban areas. [29738]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I announced on 23 May that the Government would be enacting immediate secondary legislation to liberalise the existing rules on radio ownership. One effect of these changes is to remove the current limit on the holdings of radio licences in areas where the number of persons over the age of 15 resident in the area for which the service is provided exceeds 1 million, but does not exceed 4.5 million. The Government

  Year

  Let by

  Activity

  Name of successful bid

  Won by in-house bid

  1992–93

  DNH

  Computer equipment and related services

  SEMA Group Ltd.

  No in-house bid

  1993–94

  DNH

  Consultancy for advice on competitive tendering of works management functions

  Watts and Partners

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Reprographics

  William Lea FM

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Central Typing and Secretarial

  Manpower Plc

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Mailroom

  Security Despatch Group

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Security

  Royal British Legion Association

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Minor Maintenance

  Richard Devine

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Cleaning

  Ramoneur

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Reception

  Manpower Plc

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Payments and Accounts Services

  Accounts Services Agency

  No in-house bid

  The Royal Parks

  Property maintenance management

  Tarmac Facilities Management

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kew Palace—Security Services

  Royal British Legion

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Hampton Court Palace— Gardens Litter Clearance

  SITA

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Hampton Court Palace

  Initial Cleaning Services

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace—Catering

  De blanks

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace—Cleaning

  Swanlux

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace—Cash Collection

  Armaguard/Security Express

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Banqueting House—Cleaning Services

  Sloane Cleaning

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Banqueting House—Security

  Royal British Legion

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Banqueting House—Porterage

  Universal

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Banqueting House—Catering

  10 companies used—selected by tender

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Banqueting House—Floristry

  Nancy Ford

  No in-house bid

  178
  intend to enact primary legislation at the earliest available opportunity which will remove the numerical limits on the number of licences that can be held, and regulate ownership by means of the existing points system. Regional, and local plurality will be safeguarded by the overlapping areas provisions, which prevent a licensee from holding more than one licence in each waveband in areas where services overlap. However, the changes will allow companies to expand significantly within local radio across the nation.

  Privatisation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list those parts of his Department or departmental agencies which were privatised without an in-house bid; if he will indicate the expertise which was absent in his Department or departmental agencies which prevented an in-house bid taking place; which future parts of his Department or departmental agencies he intends to privatise; and which of them do not have the necessary in-house expertise to mount an in-house bid. [29432]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Since it was formed in April 1992, my Department and its agencies have contracted out the activities listed below. As a newly formed Department central services had been supplied by former parent Departments and thus there were no existing staff to mount an in-house bid. In order to concentrate on its core policy tasks it was decided to contract out these activities. Activities contracted out in the past and planned for the future, are as follows:
  179

  Year

  Let by

  Activity

  Name of successful bid

  Won by in-house bid

  1994–95

  DNH

  Provision of works management services for certain properties in central London

  E. C. Harris

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Provision of works management services for central ceremonial activities

  Unicorn Consultancy Ltd.

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Provision of works services management at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich

  Taylor Woodrow Facilities ManagementNo in-house bid

  DNH

  Statue maintenance services

  Stonewest Ltd.

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Services relating to Trafalgar Square Christmas Tree and New Year Works

  Building and Property Facilities Management Ltd.

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Record Storage, Retrieval and Review

  Britannia Data Management

  No in-house bid

  The Royal Parks

  Management of Car Parking Facilities

  Apcoa Parking Ltd.

  No in-house bid

  The Royal Parks

  Audit Services

  Price Waterhouse

  No in-house bid

  The Royal Parks

  Estate management duties

  Daniel Smith

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  IT Consultants

  Internet Solutions

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Ticketing/EPOS Systems

  MHG Systems Select Ticketing

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Tower of London—Window Cleaning

  Metropolitan

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Tower of London—Computer Maintenance

  HMSO

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Tower of London—Commercial Guard Force

  RBLA

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Tower of London— Signage—Moat Gardens

  HB Sign Company

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Tower of London—Costumed Interpretation

  Past Pleasures

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Tower of London—Garden Maintenance

  Ground Control

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Hampton Court Palace Catering

  Town and County

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Hampton Court Palace—Costumed Interpretation

  Past Pleasures

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Hampton Court Palace—Recorded Tour Service

  Acoustiguide

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace—Catering

  De blanks/Digby Trout

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace—Cleaning

  Securior

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace—Cash Collection

  Armaguard/Security Express

  No in-house bid

  1995–96

  DNH

  Consultancy for provision of professional support and advisory services relating to other Royal Estate Division works responsibilities

  Tenders under consideration

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Services relating to Remembrance Day ceremony works

  Tendering exercise planned for later in the yearNo in-house bid

  DNH

  Stationery

  Not yet awarded

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Payments and Accounts Services

  CSL Managed Services

  No in-house bid

  The Royal Parks

  Car Park Security duties

  Reliance Security

  No in-house bid

  The Royal Parks

  Entertainment organiser

  Not yet awarded

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Computer Maintenance

  LCE Computer Systems

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Tower of London—Cash Collecting/Counting

  Security Express

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace—Catering

  Securior

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace—Cleaning

  Securior

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace—Cash Collection

  Armaguard/Security Express

  No in-house bid

  National Lottery
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the distribution of lottery money in(a) Sandwell, (b)
  180
  Dudley, (c) Wolverhampton and (d) Wallsall. [29494]

  Mr. Dorrell
  There have been two awards to date to projects based in Dudley. The Sports Council has awarded £71,350 to Halesowen Athletic and Cycling
  181
  Club and £17,118 to West Midlands Amateur Gymnastics.

  There have not yet been any awards from lottery proceeds to projects in Sandwell, Wolverhampton, or Walsall.

  Library Services
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, columns 150–1, from whom he envisages local authorities buying library services; and from whom diverse sources of finance would come. [29459]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My announcement reflected my concern that library authorities should clarify and specify the service they want to achieve for their customers, while accepting they need not necessarily provide that service themselves. This is consistent with the Government's overall approach to local authority provision. My consultation on the Aslib report makes it clear that I welcome views on how these ideas might be developed constructively. Similarly, the Aslib report contains several specific proposals for diversification of the sources of funding for public libraries, and I have sought views on those proposals and requested other practical ideas.

  Mr. Hanson
  to ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, columns 150–1, what is his Department's definition of the range of core library services. [29460]

  Mr. Dorrell
  As I made clear in my announcement, one outcome that I am seeking from the public library review, and in particular from the current wide-ranging consultation exercise on the Aslib report, is guidance for local authorities on a clearer definition of the range of core services which libraries should provide. I would expect any definition to draw on the core purposes and functions identified in the Aslib report and to be consistent with the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to the answer by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 9 June,Official Report, column 340, about works of art exempt from inheritance tax, how many chattels are available for viewing (a) at private dwelling houses, (b) at banks or other secure places or (c) at other private institutions. [28850]

  Sir George Young
  I have been asked to reply.

  Owners of works of art which are conditionally exempt from inheritance tax or capital transfer tax may satisfy the public access requirement by undertaking to arrange viewing by appointment and to lend the items on request to a public collection. Objects subject to such an undertaking are publicised by means of an entry in the computerised register of conditionally exempt works of art. The viewing arrangements, including the venue, are for agreement between the owner and the prospective viewer, and they must be reasonable for both parties. There is no requirement that owners must allow viewing in any particular location, although in practice this may often be the place where the items are normally kept.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Abandoned Offshore Installations
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research, prior to the signing of the UN law of the sea convention, his Department conducted into the effect on the fishing industry of the abandoning of offshore oil and gas installations. [28987]

  Mr. Jack
  The Department has maintained for many years an active research and monitoring programme into the effects on fishing and the marine environment of contaminants and wastes of all sorts including oil and oil-related products.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is undertaking to record the positions of abandoned oil installations and oil related debris; what assessment his Department has made of the hazard to fishing vessels; and what consideration has been given to arranging for compensation for fishermen for(a) loss of or damage to their vessels or (b) loss of access to fishing grounds as a result of such abandonment. [28984]

  Mr. Jack
  It is a requirement of the International Maritime Organisation guidelines and standards for the removal of offshore installations and structures that precise locations of any abandoned offshore installation should be notified to the hydrographic service for inclusion on nautical charts. It is Government policy to consider each abandonment proposal on a case-by-case basis. This will allow assessment of any hazards and include consultation with fishermen's organisations where appropriate. No special compensation arrangements have been made. Liability for any loss or damage consequent upon abandonment would remain with the companies concerned.

  Food Imports
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the volume of imports for(a) 1993 and (b) 1994 of pate de foie gras, tinned, preserved, fresh, chilled or frozen made from (i) duck livers and (ii) goose livers. [28930]

  Mr. Jack
  Official trade statistics for the volume of imports of pate de foie gras are not separately available. However, the totals of all prepared or preserved goose or duck liver imported into the United Kingdom from all sources were 116 tonnes in 1993 and 87 tonnes in 1994.

  Grants
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amounts received by each organisation which receives a grant from his Department for each of the last five years. [28968]

  Mr. Jack
  Listed are the amounts of grant in aid received by organisations from my Department
  183

  £'000

  Description

  1990–91 Outturn

  1991–92 Outturn

  1992–93 Outturn

  1993–94 Outturn

  1994–95 Outturn

  1995–96 Estimate Provision

  Agricultural Training Board

  10,349

  7,303

  6,7.00

  8,920

  1,797

  50

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  13,190

  16,204

  15,565

  14,946

  16,450

  15,581

  Food From Britain

  4,591

  4,479

  4,765

  5,030

  5,198

  5,419

  Note:

  The former ATB became a non-statutory, independent Organisation in March 1994. The figures shown for 1994–95 and 1995–96 represent remanet expenditure associated with the winding-up process. The figures for FFB include reimbursement of payments made to Speciality Food Groups and exclude Chairman and Members' remuneration expenses.

  Committee Membership
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the membership of the veterinary products committee for each year since 1972, giving details of declared interests in each case. [29732]

  Mrs. Browning
  The information requested is contained in the published annual reports of the Medicines Commission and other committees established under section 4 of the Medicines Act 1968. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will list the membership of the

  Independent members and annual declaration of interests in the pesticides industry

  Name of member

  Nature of interest

  Name of companies

  Current/former interest

  1994

  Chairman

  Professor Sir C. L. Berry

  None

  —

  —

  Deputy Chairman

  Professor G. R. Sagar

  None

  —

  —

  Members

  Dr. A. D. Carter

  Field Monitoring programme to determine fate of alachlor

  Monsanto Agriculture

  Current interest

  PSD/BAA funded work to develop a computer database on soils and environmental fate

  British Agrochemical Association

  Current interest

  Groundwater vulnerability maps

  National Rivers Authority

  Current interest

  Professor N. M. Cherry

  None

  —

  —

  Professor M. F. Claridge

  None

  —

  —

  Professor A. D. Dayan

  Shareholding

  ICI plc

  Current interest

  Mr. J. S. Leahy

  None

  —

  —

  Professor D. L. Lee

  Antifouling compounds

  International Paints

  —

  Dr. A. T. Proudfoot

  None

  —

  —

  Dr. E. Roman

  None

  —

  —

  Mr. R. Tayler

  None

  —

  —

  Professor J. P. G. Webster

  None

  —

  —

  1993

  Chairman

  Professor Sir C. L. Berry

  None

  —

  —

  Deputy Chairman

  Professor G. R. Sagar

  None

  —

  —

  Members

  Dr. A. D. Carter

  Field Monitoring programme to determine fate of alachlor

  Monsanto Agriculture

  Current interest

  PSD/BAA funded work to develop a computer database on soils and environmental fate

  British Agrochemical Association

  Current interest

  Groundwater vulnerability

  National Rivers Authority

  Current interest

  184
  pesticides advisory committee for each year since 1972, giving details of declared interests in each case. [29731]

  Mrs. Browning
  Details of the year-end membership of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides for the years 1984 to 1994 are contained in the committee's annual reports for those years and are reproduced as follows. Details for previous years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The chairman is required to have no industry interests. Since 1991, declarations of interests have been required of other members and their involvement in discussions to which these interests are relevant has been restricted. Prior to 1991 members were not appointed to the committee if they had interests in the pesticides industry.
  185

  Independent members and annual declaration of interests in the pesticides industry

  Name of member

  Nature of interest

  Name of companies

  Current/former interest

  maps

  Professor N. M. Cherry

  None

  —

  —

  Professor A. D. Dayan

  Shareholding

  ICI plc

  Current interest

  Professor E. B. G. Jones

  Pharmaceutical products

  Cyanamid (USA)

  Current interest

  Pharmaceutical products

  Pfizer

  Current interest

  Pharmaceutical products

  Schinoggi

  Current interest

  Marine paints

  Blakes Marine Paints

  Current interest

  Pesticides

  Cruachem Ltd.

  Current interest

  Pesticides

  Maxicrop International

  Current interest

  Pesticides

  Shell

  Current interest

  Pesticides

  ICI

  Current interest

  Pesticides

  BP

  Current interest

  Pharmaceutical products

  Beechams

  Current interest

  Pharmaceutical products

  Glaxo

  Current interest

  Mr. J. S. Leahy

  None

  —

  —

  Professor D. L. Lee

  Antifouling compounds

  International Paints

  —

  Dr. A. T. Proudfoot

  None

  —

  —

  Mr. R. Tayler

  None

  —

  —

  Professor J. P. G. Webster

  None

  —

  —

  1992

  Chairman

  Professor C. L. Berry

  None

  —

  —

  Deputy Chairman

  Professor G. R. Sagar

  None

  —

  —

  Members

  Dr. A. D. Carter

  Field Monitoring programme to determine fate of alachlor

  Monsanto Agriculture

  Current interest

  PSD/BAA funded work to develop a computer database on soils and environmental fate

  British Agrochemical Association

  Current interest

  Groundwater vulnerability maps

  National Rivers Authority

  Current interest

  Professor A. D. Dayan

  Shareholding

  ICI plc

  Current interest

  Professor E. B. G. Jones

  Pharmaceutical products

  Cyanamid (USA)

  Current interest

  Pharmaceutical products

  Pfizer

  Current interest

  Pharmaceutical products

  Schinoggi

  Current interest

  Marine paints

  Blakes Marine Paints

  Current interest

  Pesticides

  Cruachem Ltd.

  Current interest

  Pesticides

  Maxicrop International

  Current interest

  Pesticides

  Shell

  Current interest

  Pesticides

  ICI

  Current interest

  Pesticides

  BP

  Current interest

  Pharmaceutical products

  Beechams

  Current interest

  Pharmaceutical products

  Glaxo

  Current interest

  Mr. J. S. Leahy

  None

  —

  —

  Professor D. L. Lee

  Antifouling compounds

  International Paints

  —

  Dr. A. T. Proudfoot

  None

  —.

  —

  Mr. R. Tayler

  None

  —

  —

  Dr. K. L. Woods

  None

  —

  —

  1991

  Chairman

  Professor C. L. Berry

  None

  —

  —

  Deputy Chairman

  Professor G. R. Sagar

  None

  —

  —

  Members

  Dr. T. C. Aw

  Medical consultancy: Occupational health advice

  Harcos Chemical Group

  Current interest

  Dr. A. D. Carter

  1. Consultancy: Field monitoring of the herbicide Alachlor. To investigate the potential of ground and surface water contamination.Monsanto AgricultureCurrent interest

  2. Consultancy: Literature review of the Insecticide Phorate regarding environmental fate and behaviour.

  MTM ChemicalsFormer interest (December 1990)

  186 187

  Independent members and annual declaration of interests in the pesticides industry

  Name of member

  Nature of interest

  Name of companies

  Current/former interest

  Professor A. D. Dayan

  Shareholding

  ICI plc

  Current interest

  Professor E. B. G. Jones

  None

  —

  —

  Mr. J. S. Leahy

  None

  —

  —

  Professor D. L. Lee

  None

  —

  —

  Dr. A. T. Proudfoot

  None

  —

  —

  Mr. R. S. Tayler

  None

  —

  —

  Dr. K. L. Woods

  None

  —

  —

  1990

  Chairman

  Professor C. L. Berry

  Deputy Chairman

  Professor G. R. Sagar

  Members

  Dr. T. C. Aw

  Professor R. Clark

  Professor A. Dayan

  Professor G. Jones

  Mr. J. Leahy

  Professor D. Lee

  Dr. A. Proudfoot

  Mr. R. Tayler

  Dr. K. Woods

  1989

  Chairmanv

  Professor C. L. Berry

  Deputy Chairman

  Professor G. R. Sagar

  Members

  Dr. T. C. Aw

  Dr. B. Buckley

  Professor R. Clark

  Professor A. Dayan

  Professor G. Jones

  Mr. J. Leahy

  Professor D. Lee

  Dr. A. Proudfoot

  Mr. R. Tayler

  Dr. K. Woods

  1988

  Chairman

  Professor C. L. Berry

  Deputy Chairman

  Professor G. R. Sagar

  Members

  Dr. B. M. Buckley

  Professor R. B. Clark

  Professor A. Dayan

  Professor E. B. G. Jones

  Mr. J. Leahy

  Professor D. Lee

  Dr. A. T. Proudfoot

  Mr. R. S. Tayler

  Dr. K. Woods

  188
  1987

  Chairman

  Professor Sir T. Kilpatrick

  Members

  Professor C. L. Berry

  Professor R. B. Clark

  Dr. L. E. Coles

  Professor E. B. G. Jones

  Professor J. Knowelden

  Professor R. I. McCallum

  Dr. A. T. Proudfoot

  Professor G. R. Sagar.

  Mr. R. S. Tayler

  1986

  Chairman

  Professor Sir R. Kilpatrick

  Members

  Professor C. L. Berry

  Dr. R. L. Carter

  Professor R. B. Clark

  Dr. L. E. Coles

  Professor E. B. G. Jones

  Professor J. Knowelden

  Professor R. I. McCallum

  Dr. A. T. Proudfoot

  Professor G. T. Sagar

  Mr. R. S. Tayler

  Professor P. N. R. Usherwood

  1985

  Chairman

  Professor R. Kilpatrick

  Members

  Professor C. L. Berry

  Dr. R. L. Carter

  Dr. L. E. Coles

  Professor E. B. G. Jones

  Professor J. Knowelden

  Professor R. I. McCallum

  Dr. T. A. Proudfoot

  Professor G. R. Sagar

  Mr. R. S. Tayler

  Professor M. J. Way

  1984

  Chairman

  Professor R. Kilpatrick

  189
  Members

  Dr. R. Goulding

  Professor C. L. Berry

  Dr. R. L. Carter

  Dr. L. E. Coles

  Professor E. B. G. Jones

  Professor J. Knowelden

  Professor R. I. McCallum

  Professor G. R. Sagar

  Mr. R. S. Tayler

  Professor M. J. Way

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the proposals by the European Commission to issue another consultative document on the issue of dietary supplements; and if he will make it his policy to oppose the development of any further directives limiting access to vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements. [28872]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: The EC issued a discussion paper in December 1991. Since then the Commission has reviewed the situation but has issued no further documents. If the Commission does issue a consultative document we shall ensure that all interested parties have a chance to comment. UK policy in this area is to seek to achieve a balance between ensuring public health and maintaining the availability of safe, correctly labelled, products.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to defend the access of United Kingdom consumers to vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements of their choice. [28873]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: There are no proposals to change the current regime of foodstuffs legislation under which such products are sold. If necessary the UK would continue to defend the access of consumers to vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements.

  Selenium
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are relative levels of selenium content in North American wheat and European wheat; how levels of consumption of each of those wheats has changed in England and Wales over the last 25 years; and what effect such a change has had on dietary selenium levels. [28874]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: The selenium content of wheat varies according to its source. North American wheats contain an average 0.42µg/g1 and European wheat 0.025µg/g2 to 0.14µg/g3. The levels of usage of North American wheat and European wheat over the last 25 years are set out in the table.

  Trade Data

  000 tonnes

  Wheat

  1970

  1993

  1994

  Imports Total

  4,921

  1,629

  1,146

  190

  Trade Data

  000 tonnes

  Wheat

  1970

  1993

  1994

  of which

  EU 8/EU 11

  883

  1,384

  899

  3rd Countries

  4,038

  244

  247

  of which

  US

  684

  0

  0

  Canada

  1,533

  227

  225

  The effect of the above change has been a fall in selenium intake from bread. However recent measurements2 3 of selenium in a wide range of non-cereal foods suggests that many foods, especially meat and eggs, have a higher selenium level than those measured and reported by MAFF in 19781. The estimated mean daily intake of selenium reported in 1978, based on 1974 intake, was 60µg/person/day. As I explained in my answer of 16 May 1995, Official Report, column 201, the estimations of average intake based on results from two independent analyses of the Ministry's 1991 total diet study and a separate research project in 1994 are either 30–40 µg/day or 50–60µg/day, depending on the method of analysis and estimation of intake used. A newly published study carried out at Kings college London on the selenium content of foods has estimated the average intake as 62.2µg/g3.

  Notes:

  1 Thorn J. Robertson J., Buss D. H., Bunton N. G. (1978). Trace nutrients. Selenium in British Food. British Journal of Nutrition 39, 391–396.

  2 Barclay M. N. I., MacPherson A. and Dixon J. (1994). Analysis for selenium. (Available from MAFF Library).

  3 Butcher M. A., Judd P. A., Caygill C., Peach S. and Diplock A. T. (1995) Current Selenium content of foods and an estimation of average intake in the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, in press.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to undertake a survey of selenium consumption in the population; [28875]

  (2) in how many regions the average selenium intake is above the lower reference value; and in how many of those regions the average selenium intake level is above the higher reference value. [28876]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: There are two main ways in which MAFF determines intakes of minerals such as selenium by the population. The first is through surveys of food purchase or consumption which include the national food survey, a continuous survey of all foods brought into the household, and the national diet and nutrition survey programme of individuals. The second is a total diet study which involves the analysis of complete diets. However, as I stated in my reply of 16 May 1995, Official Report, column 201 there is some uncertainty e analytical results and it is not therefore possible to provide reliable intake figures for selenium by region. We have a programme of work under way to try to resolve this issue.

SCOTLAND

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each enterprise zone(a) the total office and other floor space built or proposed to be built, (b) the percentage occupancy of the space available and (c) the average stay of occupation. [28235]

  Mr. Kynoch
  In the case of Inverclyde enterprise zone, the office and industrial floorspace provided amounts to 922,780 sq ft, of which 831,882 sq ft is occupied, with a further 14,492 sq ft under offer. Information on the average period of occupation on zone properties is not available, although the majority of companies which have occupied zone properties remain in occupation.

  In the case of Lanarkshire enterprise zone, the office and industrial floorspace provided amounts to 400,000 sq ft, with a further 582,000 sq ft proposed: 156,000 sq ft of floorspace is already occupied. Information on the average period of occupation of zone properties is not available but no company has vacated zone property following occupation.

  M8
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve the signposting of the M8 motorway to include signage for Paisley, Johnstone and Elderslie from at least the stretch of motorway from Glasgow city centre, and if he will make a statement. [28538]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The Secretary of State is responsible for the M8 motorway west of junction 26 at Hillington. The existing signing on this stretch of the road is considered to identify the principal destinations within the constraints of space and safety. There are therefore no proposals to amend the existing signing. The urban section of the M8 motorway east of Hillington through Glasgow to Baillieston is currently the responsibility of the local roads authority, Strathclyde regional council.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to provide adequate lighting along the entire stretch of motorway from Glasgow to Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement. [28529]

  Lord James Douglas Hamiltion
  The responsibility for the M8 motorway and A8 all-purpose dual carriageway between junction 8 Baillieston and junction 2 Newbridge rests with the Secretary of State. The urban section of the M8 motorway from Baillieston through Glasgow is currently the responsibility of the local roads authority, Strathclyde regional council. The new M8 extension from Claylands to Edinburgh city bypass opens later this year and the new interchanges and associated slip roads at either end of the extension will be lit. Lighting will also be provided on the new motorway planned between junction 8 Baillieston and junction 6 Newhouse. There are no other plans to provide additional lighting on the sections of road for which the Secretary of State is responsible.

  Appointments
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what appointments he will be required or able to make within the next 12 months; if he will list each relevant body and the name, age, place of residence and existing or previous employment of the current incumbent; what is the rate of remuneration and expected time commitment; and if he will make a statement. [28555]

  Mr. Lang
  The only information which is held centrally on appointments is that relating to those public bodies listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1994", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. As the information on appointments reaching the end of their term in the year from 15 June 1995 is extensive, I have arranged for it to be placed in the Library of the House. The name, age, place of residence and existing or previous employment of the current incumbents of these appointments is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I shall in due course be making appointments to the new water authorities and customers council, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what ratio or other measurement of public open space to housing density in urban areas he uses in determining appeals against the refusal of planning consent; how this is expected to apply to the development of the recreational space at(a) Spateston road and (b) Miller street, both in Johnstone; and if he will make a statement. [28576]

  Mr. Kynoch
  In determining an appeal a reporter has regard to any relevant policy of the development plan, and to any further matters which are drawn to his attention. This would include ratios of public open space to housing density, if those matters are covered in submissions.

  This would apply to any appeals relating to the sites referred to, but no such appeals have been received to date.

  Windyhill Farm
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to reach his final decision on the proposal by Scottish Aggregates to develop a quarry at Windyhill farm, Elderslie. [28530]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The reporter will shortly submit her report with recommendations to my right hon. Friend for his consideration. The decision on this proposal is expected within two to three months from the receipt of the report.

  Scottish Folk Music
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of(a) the Scottish Arts Council, (b) designers of curricula and
  (c) providers of education to discuss their role in raising the awareness of the role and importance of Scottish folk music in cultural development within schools and colleges; and if he will make a statement. [28579]
  193
  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend and I meet senior representatives of the Scottish Arts Council from time to time to discuss a range of issues. Traditional music projects have benefited from substantial increases in funding by the council over recent years. The council also played an important advocacy role in the recent decision by the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama to introduce in autumn 1995 a degree course in traditional music.

  My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibilities for education in Scotland, opened a forum on Scottish resources sponsored by the Scottish consultative council on the curriculum on 24 February 1995. An aim of the forum was to ensure that the framework of teaching and learning for all Scottish schools identified opportunities for Scottish culture, including music and dance, to flourish.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been received by(a) Strathclyde regional council and (b) Renfrew district council from the European regional development fund and European social fund since their inception; and if he will make a statement. [28567]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information relates to payments made under the respective funds:

  European Regional Development Fund (since January 1989)

  Strathclyde Regional Council £131,299,306

  Renfrew District Council £3,436,167

  European Social Fund (since January 1990)

  Strathclyde Regional Council £64,690,986

  Renfrew District Council has not received any ESF awards.

  Information on ERDF payments pre-1989, and ESF payments pre-1990, are not readily available centrally as this period predates the introduction of programmes under the 1989 reform of the structural funds and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information may be available from the local authorities.

  Allowances
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the existing rates of allowances and payments to elected members of Scottish regional, district and unitary authorities; if he will include in the table details of what the(a) attendance allowance, (b) special responsibility payments, (c) travelling allowances and (d) subsistence rates would be at today's prices had they kept pace with inflation since 1974 and had the method of payment remained the same since that time; and if he will make a statement. [28524]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested is complex and will take time to compile. I will, however, write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.

  Food Poisoning
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of food poisoning have been reported in Scotland this year. [28616]
  194
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  During the period 1 January to 9 June 1995 1,522 cases of food poisoning were reported in Scotland.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of reported cases of salmonellosis in Scotland in each year since 1979; and what is the latest available figure for this year. [28617]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total numbers of cases of salmonellosis reported by laboratories to the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health are as follows. These figures do not necessarily reflect the total incidence of the infection in the community, since doctors do not routinely send specimens from every case for laboratory confirmation.

  Year

  Number of notifications

  1979

  1,483

  1980

  1,577

  1981

  2,526

  1982

  2,621

  1983

  2,288

  1984

  2,221

  1985

  1,690

  1986

  2,015

  1987

  2,286

  1988

  2,580

  1989

  2,578

  1990

  2,441

  1991

  2,330

  1992

  2,992

  1993

  2,919

  1994

  2,973

  19951

  857

  1 As at 9 June

  Pleading Diets
  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 the pleading diet being brought within 21 days; and if he will make a statement. [28634]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Court Service. I have asked its chief executive, Michael Ewart, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Michael Ewart to Mr. Gordon McMaster, dated 20 June 1995:
  Lord James Douglas Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question regarding the timing of pleading diets under summary procedure.
  Almost all summary criminal prosecutions in the Sheriff Courts are called at pleading diets which fall within 21 days of the date on which the papers are lodged with the Sheriff Clerk.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farms are still affected by restriction notices imposed due to radioactive contamination following the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986; what
  195
  land area these farms constitute; and what percentage of available farmland in Scotland this represents.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Currently, 41 holdings in Scotland remain affected by post-Chernobyl controls on the movement and slaughter of sheep. These holdings cover around 43,000 hectares which represents 0.7 per cent. of farm land in Scotland.

  Victim Support Groups
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase funding to victim support groups; and if he will make a statement. [29275]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am pleased to be able to advise that the funding support given by the Scottish Office to victim support (Scotland) increased from £890,000 in 1994–95 to £985,000 for 1995–96, an increase of 9.64 per cent.; £700,430 of this grant is set aside for distribution by the independent funding panel to provide local co-ordinator posts. Victim Support (Scotland) will put its financial proposals forward later this year in respect of 1996–97, and this will be carefully considered along with the proposals put forward by other voluntary organisations.

  Administration costs

  £000

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Health board area

  1990–91 Administration

  Purchaser

  Provider

  Purchaser

  Provider

  Purchaser

  Provider

  Argyll and Clyde

  17,710

  4,588

  14,375

  7,170

  15,662

  5,235

  19,838

  Ayr and Arran

  13,182

  3,839

  11,353

  4,236

  12,741

  3,854

  12,495

  Borders

  3,923

  1,358

  3,710

  1,370

  3,650

  1,837

  3,941

  Dumfries and Galloway

  5,481

  2,247

  4,750

  2,475

  4,864

  2,829

  5,761

  Fife

  12,014

  3,013

  9,933

  3,874

  10,780

  5,276

  12,399

  Forth Valley

  10,124

  2,945

  9,154

  3,623

  10,380

  4,402

  10,438

  Grampian

  20,466

  6,140

  17,838

  7,259

  22,968

  6,864

  24,799

  Greater Glasgow

  53,052

  12,563

  46,110

  9,585

  57,758

  15,552

  61,192

  Highland

  9,422

  2,668

  8,777

  2,327

  11,470

  2,657

  11,974

  Lanarkshire

  17,596

  3,417

  16,298

  4,762

  18,612

  6,484

  21,739

  Lothian

  33,098

  7,494

  29,704

  9,220

  37,490

  11,355

  38,034

  Orkney

  723

  424

  407

  529

  508

  541

  596

  Shetland

  1,176

  1,117

  364

  647

  454

  646

  972

  Tayside

  18,680

  5,146

  16,145

  5,401

  17,381

  5,328

  19,564

  Western Isles

  1,622

  1,101

  719

  1,197

  1,246

  995

  1,653

  Scotland total

  218,269

  58,060

  189,637

  63,675

  225,964

  73,855

  245,394

  Contaminated Blood Products
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his most recent estimate of the number of people in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland infected with hepatitis C from contaminated blood products; and how many of these people are haemophiliacs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A "lookback" exercise is currently under way to seek to identify, counsel and treat patients who may have been exposed to the hepatitis C virus via blood or blood products. It is estimated that around 650 people throughout Scotland may have been infected in this way, 350 of whom are likely to be haemophiliacs. A breakdown for Inverclyde and Strathclyde is not available.

  NHS Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the administrative costs incurred by(a) NHS purchasers and (b) NHS providers in each region in each year since 1990–91. [29095]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In Scotland the equivalent to regional health authorities are health boards. The information shown in the table has been given for each board area and has been taken from the annual accounts for each health board and NHS trust.

  The figures in the table represent the total administrative costs for purchasers and providers, comprising administrative salaries and wages, supplies and services, office expenses and agency services. The format of the accounts for 1990–91 does not allow for a split between the purchaser and provider functions. Figures for 1994–95 are not yet available.

  The administration figures for providers include senior nurses and clinicians who have transferred to the general/senior managers' pay scales, particularly in latter years. These changes, together with accounting policy changes and transfer of provider functions to NHS trusts since 1992–93, mean that the annual figures are not comparable.

  Ear, Nose and Throat Units
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines he has issued about the maximum distance any patient should be from an ear, nose and throat unit; and if he will make a statement. [28324]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No such guidelines have been issued.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the ear, nose and throat units in(a) Renfrewshire and (b) Strathclyde. [28325]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Hospitals in Strathclyde and Renfrewshire with ear, nose and throat units1 at 31 December 1994 are as listed:

  Renfrewshire

  Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley

  197
  Strathclyde2

  Crosshouse Hospital, Kilmarnock

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital, Greenock

  Law Hospital, Carluke

  Monklands District General Hospital, Airdrie

  Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley

  Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow

  Stobhill Hospital, Glasgow

  Stonehouse Hospital, Stonehouse

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  Western Infirmary, Glasgow

  Notes:

  1 Hospitals with two or more staffed ear, nose and throat beds on average in the quarter.

  2 Comprises Argyll and Clyde, Ayrshire and Arran, Greater Glasgow, Lanarkshire health board areas.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the forecast for expenditure on mandatory awards and loans given to students from Scotland during the current year; and if he will make a statement. [29039]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The planned expenditure in the 1995–96 financial year on awards and loans in respect of students domiciled in Scotland is £291 million and £95 million respectively.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the proportion of young people from Scotland entering higher education in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [29030]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The age participation index of young people aged under 21 from Scotland entering higher education in the UK for the latest two years available is as follows:

  1992–93: 35.1 per cent.

  1993–94: 38.3 per cent.

  Source: Statistical Bulletin 'Scottish Higher Education Statistics 1993–94.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the proportion of students obtaining(a) first class and (b) upper second class degrees at Scottish higher education institutions in (i) 1991–92 and (ii) 1992–93, and if he will make a statement. [29034]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is for students obtaining first class and second class degrees at Scottish higher education institutions and is shown in the table:

  Percentage of students obtaining first and second class degrees at Scottish higher education institutions

  Total (= 100 per cent.)

  1st Honours per cent.

  2nd Honours per cent.

  1Others per cent.

  1991–92

  15,252

  7.0

  54.0

  39.1

  1992–93

  16,663

  7.3

  54.8

  37.8

  Note:

  Figures in the above table may not total 100 per cent. due to rounding.

  1 3rd Honours and unclassified degrees.

  198
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students were studying at a Scottish Higher Education Institution in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994-95; and if he will make a statement. [29104]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Number of students studying higher education courses at Scottish Higher education institutions:

  1993–94

  112,167

  20,306

  1994–951

  116,472

  20,523

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average A-level point score of students embarking on first degrees at Scottish higher education institutions in(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93 and (c) 1993–94; and if he will make a statement. [29026]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: The information requested is not readily available. Most students embarking on first degrees at Scottish higher education institutions possess Scottish certificate of education higher grades rather than A-levels.

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Health Trust
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure has been incurred by the Ayrshire and Arran community health trust in its campaign to have the proposed south east Ayrshire community hospital sited in Cumnock; under what powers they have incurred such expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [29668]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The current review of community services in south-east Ayrshire is being carried out by Ayrshire and Arran health board to ensure that the best quality services are readily available for patients. The Ayrshire and Arran community healthcare trust has incurred £3,996 towards the preparation of a business case for a new community hospital at Cumnock. Under paragraph 16, schedule 7A to the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, an NHS trust has the power to take any action which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the discharge of its functions.

  House Repossessions
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of house repossessions which occurred in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole in each of the past 10 years. [28162]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: We do not hold this information centrally. However, figures supplied by the Council of Mortgage Lenders suggest that, in 1994, 1,791 properties were taken into possession by mortgage lenders in Scotland. This represents 0.22 per cent. of the total number of properties with mortgages outstanding. The comparable figures for 1993, were 2,330 and 0.29 per cent. respectively. The rate in Scotland remains less than half of that for the rest of the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Teachers' Parental Leave
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bring the entitlement for teachers' parental leave into line with the EU directive on parental leave. [29492]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: Matters concerning the terms and conditions of service for teachers are for the Scottish joint negotiating committee to determine and not for my right hon. Friend.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of grants of regional selective assistance made to Scottish companies and the number of companies involved for each financial year since 1979–80. [25346]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 23 May 1995].: The available information relates to offers accepted by companies with projects in Scotland. For earlier years, this is published in the Industrial Development Act 1982 annual report, copies of which are available in the Library. In 1994–95, 248 offers were accepted by companies with projects in Scotland.

HEALTH

  Dentistry
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives are being pursued to increase the number of students entering dentistry; and if she will make a statement. [27724]

  Mr. Malone
  There are currently 3,908 dental students in the United Kingdom.

  There are no reasons to believe that, in England, there will be too few dentists. The Nuffield report, published in September 1993, recommended that greater use should be made of dental auxiliaries in general practice as part of a dentist-led team. That could have an impact on the level of dental manpower required and, therefore, on the level of student intake needed. The Department will review the position regarding student intake in the light of decisions taken about the Nuffield recommendations.

  Residential Institutions (Abuse)
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to tackle the problem of physical and sexual abuse of people with severe learning difficulties in residential institutions. [27725]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have in place a programme of guidance and inspection and have funded projects to support good practice in such residential care to lessen the likelihood of abuse, to identify it and to take appropriate action if it does occur.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received regarding federation of services between NHS Trusts. [27726]
  200
  Mr. Malone
  We have received no representations other than three letters from the hon. Member.

  Incomes and Health
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by her Department as to the relationship between incomes and health; and if she will make a statement. [27727]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) on 16 May at column 161.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received concerning compensation for those affected with the hepatitis C virus; and if she will make a statement. [27728]

  Mr. Sackville
  Representations this year about payments include five parliamentary questions, a short debate in another place and four early-day motions. In addition, Ministers have received 214 letters.

  Capital Projects
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many capital projects(a) have gone ahead since 1990–91 and (b) are currently under way or planned in the south Thames region. [27729]

  Mr. Sackville
  Records of schemes with a total cost of less than £2.5 million are not collected centrally. Fifty six capital schemes each at an approved total cost exceeding £2.5 million have gone ahead since 1990 in South Thames region, nine of which are still under way. A further six schemes are approved to proceed to construction.

  Details are not available about schemes at an early planning stage.

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many capital projects have(a) gone ahead since 1990–91 and (b) are currently under way or planned in the North Thames region. [28357]

  Mr. Sackville
  Records of schemes with a total cost of less than £2.5 million are not collected centrally. Forty seven capital building schemes each at an approved total cost exceeding £2.5 million have gone ahead since 1990 in North Thames region, eight of which are still under way. A further scheme has been approved to proceed to construction.

  Details are not available about schemes which are at an early planning stage.

  Care Services
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the level of demand since April 1993 for care services; and if she will make a statement. [27730]

  Mr. Bowis
  Centrally available information, which largely covers provision of services rather than demand, is published in a range of statistical publications and is brought together in "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding mixed-sex wards in NHS trust hospitals; and if she will make a statement. [27731]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received about 100 representations in recent months. Under the patients charter, patients have the right before entering hospital for a planned treatment to know whether that treatment is to be provided in a mixed-sex ward, so that their preferences can be made known and, if possible, catered for. In addition, all patients can now expect single-sex washing and toilet facilities. How much further national health service trusts can go in meeting individual patient preferences is a matter for local determination in the light of local circumstances.

  Access to Information
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will limit fees chargeable under the guidance to NHS trusts allowing access to information; and if she will make a statement. [27732]

  Mr. Sackville
  The guidance to national health service authorities and trusts on the implementation of the code of practice on openness in the NHS makes it clear that, in the vast majority of cases, information will be provided free of charge. In exceptional circumstances, for example where dealing with a request would require significant diversion of resources, a reasonable charge may be made.

  Asthma-related Prescriptions
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the increase in the expenditure on asthma-related prescriptions in Berkshire since 1988. [27733]

  Mr. Malone
  The net ingredient cost of national health service prescriptions for medicines and appliances used in the treatment of asthma and related conditions in Berkshire family health services authority was £5.6 million in 1993 and £5.9 million in 1994. The net ingredient cost is the basic price of a drug before discounts and the addition of dispensing costs or fees. Retrieval of data from earlier years could be made only at a disproportionate cost.

  Blood Stocks
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the current levels of blood stocks. [27734]

  Mr. Sackville
  Blood stocks held on 16 June 1995 were 16,707 units. The National Blood Authority, which is responsible for our blood services, collects sufficient blood from our volunteer donors to meet the needs of hospitals.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated daily requirement of red blood cell units for each of the eight NHS regions in England and Wales; and what was the total number available in each region for each of the last 30 days. [29524]

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Blood Service aims to meet, each day, from stock, the national demand from 202
  hospitals for blood. Figures are not collected on the basis of national health service regions.

  The last complete period for which figures are available from the National Blood Authority, for issues and stock, is April 1995. During that period, nationally, the average number of units of red cells issued daily was 8,500. During the same period the average daily national stock was 17,000.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing hospital waiting times. [27735]

  Mr. Malone
  Excellent progress has been made in reducing waiting times. Since 1987, when the waiting time initiative was first introduced, the national health service has almost completely eliminated waits of more than 18 months for in-patient or day case treatment, and the number of patients waiting more than a year for such treatment has fallen from around 210,000 to less than 32,000 today. The average time a patient has to wait has been cut from more than nine months to less than five months. In addition, we have recently introduced for the first time a standard for first out-patient appointments as part of the patients charter. All patients should be seen within 26 weeks of being referred by their general practitioner; nine out of 10 should be seen within 13 weeks.

  City and East London FHSA
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to deal with the financial irregularities highlighted by the district auditor's management letter of November 1994 to the City and East London family health services authority. [27736]

  Mr. Malone
  North Thames regional health authority has commissioned a report from independent auditors. Implementation of the report's recommendations is being monitored by the national health service executive regional office.

  Capital Projects
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many capital projects(a) have gone ahead since 1990–91 and (b) are currently under way or planned in the Northern and Yorkshire region. [27737]

  Mr. Sackville
  Records of schemes with a total cost of less than £2.5 million are not collected centrally. Fifty-five capital schemes, each at an approved total cost exceeding £2.5 million, have gone ahead since 1990 in Northern and Yorkshire region, 18 of which are still underway. A further eight schemes are approved to proceed to construction.

  Details about schemes that are at an early planning stage are not available centrally.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total saving of contracting out services to date. [27738]
  203
  Mr. Sackville
  Cumulative total savings since 1983 as a result of market testing National Health Service services is now estimated to be in excess of £1 billion. The improved value for money achieved has released additional resources for spending on direct patient care services.

  Detailed information on savings of £7.7 million arising from the Department of Health's market testing programme to 30 September 1994 was published on 9 January 1995 in the "Market Testing Bulletin Special Report", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on care in the community in Essex. [27739]

  Mr. Bowis
  Essex county council is responsible for assessing the needs of its local population and deciding on the appropriate services to provide. Between 1990–91 and 1995–96 the council's total resources for community care rose by 95 per cent. in real terms—well above the national average. It is for the council to spend these resources efficiently and effectively.

  Measles
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of how many children were immunised against measles in the recent campaign. [27740]

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest figure for the number of children in England immunised during the measles/rubella campaign is 6,585,661.

  General Practitioner Fundholding
  Mr. Mike O' Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much general practitioner fundholder practice budgets per patient have changed as a percentage and in real terms in each of the last two years; and if she will make a statement on differences between provider price rises and fundholding price rises and their impact on patients. [25207]

  Mr. Malone
  Between 1993–94 and 1994–95, the most recent years for which national information is available, the hospital and community health services element of fundholder budgets increased by an average of 5 per cent. per patient—3 per cent. per patient in real terms.

  Relevant information on provider prices is not available centrally. Fundholders' budgets represent their patients' fair share of local resources. It is for fundholding general practitioners, like health authority purchasers, to contract with hospitals to achieve the best balance of care for their patients.

  Nurses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses were(a) qualified and (b) in training in (i) 1979 and (ii) the last year for which figures are available; what estimate she has made of the number of qualified nurses needed by the National Health Service in 2000; and what plans she has to meet this requirement. [28234]
  204
  Mr. Sackville
  The figures for the number of nurses who were qualified and in training in 1979 are not available centrally.

  For the number of qualified nurses in 1994, I refer the hon. Member to the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing and Midwifery, which provides the information requested.

  The number of nurses in training during the last year for which figures are available is shown in the 1993–94 annual report of the English National Board for Nursing and Midwifery, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Estimates for the number of qualified nurses needed by the national health service in 2000 will be calculated from 1996–97 onwards. Action to ensure that the NHS has the number of qualified staff required, including those required to train, is primarily a responsibility for local employers.

  Drug Misuse
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to impose greater controls on the use of illegal drugs in psychiatric hospitals. [29270]

  Mr. Bowis
  Drug misuse is serious wherever it takes place and psychiatric hospitals are as susceptible to these problems as other parts of the community. Providers of psychiatric services should develop agreed local policies to tackle on-site drug misuse.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will specify the categories and amounts of expenditure on health, other than on spending on the national health service, contained within the estimates for health expenditures in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97, as set out in table 6A.3 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96." [28965]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table. The figures in table 6A.3 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" are for spending by the Department of Health and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys combined, as the notes to the table make clear.

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  National Health Service

  31,971

  32,937

  Personal Social Services

  43

  42

  Civil Defence

  3

  3

  Central government grants to local authorities

  760

  114

  Credit approvals

  144

  137

  Total Department of Health

  32,921

  33,234

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  36

  38

  Total DH and OPCS

  32,957

  33,271

  Notes:

  These details were published in the Departmental Report (Cm 2812) in March 1995.

  Funding plans in the Financial Statement and Budget Report are by convention rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  The apparent decrease in central government grants to local authorities between 1995–96 and 1996–97 is because resources for local authorities' new community care responsibilities for 1996–97

  205
  are currently held in the Department of the Environment's local government programme.

  Section 64 Grants
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the amounts received by organisations which receive a grant from her Department for each of the last five years. [28969]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department makes a large number of grants to voluntary organisations. The main channel is the section 64 general scheme. For details of grants given in 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1994–95 I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) by my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) on 21 May 1991) at column 435–39; the reply given to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) by my hon. Friend for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) on 18 January 1993 at column 96; the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 21 June 1993 at column 34–39; and the reply I gave the hon. Member for Barking (Mrs. Hodge) on 5 April 1995 at column 1212. Details of grants given during 1993–94 will be placed in the Library.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what Government-funded research is being undertaken into leukaemia and other bone marrow related diseases. [29087]

  Mr. Malone
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available, the MRC spent a total of £5,084,000 on research directly related to leukaemia. In addition, a further £796,000 was spent on a number of research projects of relevance to bone marrow disease and transplantation.

  The Childhood Cancer Research Group—CCRG—funded by the Department at the University of Oxford, is responsible for the national registry of childhood tumours and carries out a programme of epidemiological studies of childhood cancer and leukaemia, together with follow-up studies of children treated for these diseases. The Department funds the CCRG by some £350,000 per year.

  Pollution
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports she has commissioned or evaluated on asthma development and air quality with particular reference to pollution from road traffic. [29090]

  Mr. Sackville
  The independent expert Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) advises Government on the health effects of air pollution. At the request of the Department of Health, COMEAP established an expert sub-group to undertake a major review of asthma and air pollution. This group will report later in 1995.

  Medical Cost Inflation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the rate of medical cost inflation in each of the year since 1993–94; and what it is in the current year. [28966]

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no separate measure of medical cost inflation. The retrospective measure of current inflation in the hospital and community health services in 1993–94 is provisionally estimated at 3.4 per cent. Estimates for later years are not yet available.

  St. Helier Hospital, Wimbledon
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many official complaints the health service authorities have received about practices or procedures in the St. Helier hospital, Wimbledon, in each year since 1990. [29867]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Jeremy Elwes, chairman of St. Helier national health service trust, for details.

  Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary for Health when she expects the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee to make its second report; and what plans she has for providing funding for NHS spending associated with teaching and research in 1996–97. [30160]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am pleased to announce that the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee has completed its second report. It is published today and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Over the past two years, MWSAC has examined a wide range of issues that affect the medical profession. I am grateful to Sir Colin Campbell, the chairman, and the members of the committee for their continued work on forecasting long-term medical work force requirements. The Government accept the committee's main recommendation of a gradual increase in the United Kingdom target medical school intake from 4,470 to 4,970 by 2000. We will discuss its implementation with interested parties.

  For 1995–96, as an interim measure, I increased by £40 million the service increment for teaching and research (SIFTR), which I announced on 22 November 1994 at column 489. SIFTR funds national health service spending in association with teaching and research so that these costs are not borne out of allocations for patient care. For 1996–97 I intend to transfer a further £40 million into the levies which will replace SIFTR.

  From 1996–97, funding for NHS spending associated with teaching will be separated from that associated with research. The research element will form part of the single research and development budget described in the plan for implementing the recommendations of the NHS research and development task force published on 11 April 1995. Proposals for the teaching element—the service increment for teaching—were published for consultation on 23 May at column 518. I shall announce details of the way the £40 million increase for 1996–97 is to be allocated after the end of the consultation period.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times the London ambulance service was called out in the past year; what is the current average response time of the London ambulance service; what are the comparable figures for the recent past; and if she will make a statement. [27977]

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for 1993–94 and previous years are contained in the annual publication "Patient Transport Services, Summary information from form KA34", copies of which are available in the Library. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr. Martin Gorham, chief executive of the London ambulance service, for specific information.

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the differences between the variety of conditions grouped under the acronym CFS. [27978]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department recognises the use of the term chronic fatigue syndrome—CFS—for an as yet incompletely understood condition characterised by severe fatigue along with a range of other symptoms and signs. A number of definitions, disease descriptions or diagnostic criteria have been proposed for CFS but there is no general consensus amongst the professions and/or among patient groups as to which should be used. The report of the national task force on CFS. PVFS (post viral fatigue syndrome)/ME (myalgic encephalomyelitis) has considered matters concerning CFS, including the matter of nomenclature. With a view to securing progress and promoting the development of a professional consensus, the Chief Medical Officer has invited the Conference of Medical Colleges to consider the report. The views of the Conference of Medical Colleges will be of much assistance to the Department in helping to determine the best way forward.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of patient fatalities amongst those on the waiting list for heart surgery in the latest period for which figures are available. [27980]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), then the Minister for Health, gave the

  Hospital medical consultants by full-time and maximum part-time contracts for each region—30 September 1990–1993 (numbers)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Full-time

  Maximum part-time

  Full-time

  Maximum part-time

  Full-time

  Maximum part-time

  Full-time

  Maximum part-time

  Northern

  750

  170

  8.00

  2.00

  8.00

  170

  750

  140

  Yorkshire

  550

  360

  560

  390

  670

  4.00

  770

  350

  Trent

  730

  4.00

  740

  410

  810

  400

  880

  360

  East Anglian

  330

  230

  340

  240

  350

  250

  350

  250

  North West Thames

  540

  300

  590

  250

  530

  290

  520

  260

  North East Thames

  500

  470

  500

  480

  560

  480

  580

  470

  South East Thames

  510

  470

  540

  470

  510

  460

  520

  450

  South West Thames

  350

  380

  370

  380

  430

  320

  460

  320

  Wessex

  390

  350

  390

  370

  470

  310

  460

  350

  Oxford

  310

  310

  310

  310

  340

  300

  420

  310

  208
  hon. Member for Bristol. South (Ms Primarolo) on 19 May 1994 at c. 557.

  Road Traffic Act 1988
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much income was received by trusts as a result of charges levied under the Road Traffic Act 1988 for each year since 1988. [28107]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisations concerned with the needs of people with mental illness or their families have made representations expressing(a) support for and (b) opposition to her Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill; and if she will make a statement. [29526]

  Mr. Bowis
  Consultations did not take place on the Bill as such but on the three proposals for inclusion in it. We consulted widely on these. It is not possible to categorise the responses in the way referred to in the question, but the numbers indicating support for the principles of each of the three proposals substantially exceeded those expressing opposition.

  National Blood Service
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects the National Blood Authority to submit to her Department its final recommendations for the re-organisation of the National Blood Service; and when the final report will be published. [29523]

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Blood Authority will submit its revised recommendations shortly. A copy of the authority's report will be placed in the Library as soon as the recommendations have been considered and announced.

  Consultant Contracts
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) full time and (b) maximum part-time consultant contracts were held by regions for each year since 1990. [29525]

  Mr. Malone
  The table shows numbers of consultants on full-time and maximum part-time consultants in each region.
  209

  Hospital medical consultants by full-time and maximum part-time contracts for each region–30 September 1990–1993 (numbers)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Full-time

  Maximum part-time

  Full-time

  Maximum part-time

  Full-time

  Maximum part-time

  Full-time

  Maximum part-time

  South Western

  450

  340

  490

  330

  510

  310

  540

  320

  West Midlands

  770

  610

  810

  610

  850

  600

  880

  560

  Mersey

  440

  220

  520

  160

  560

  140

  520

  230

  North Western

  650

  500

  800

  420

  750

  490

  860

  450

  Special Health Authority

  190

  70

  180

  60

  170

  80

  180

  80

  England

  7,390

  5,140

  7,780

  4,960

  8,180

  4,830

  8,530

  4,770

  Note:

  Some doctors have contracts in more than one Region. For this reason the England total is less than the sum of the Regional figures. Figures rounded to the nearest '10'.

  SHA data includes Special Hospitals.

  Supervision Registers
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities had introduced supervision registers by 1 May. [29527]

  Mr. Bowis
  Supervision registers have been established in all health districts. The National Health Service Executive is continuing to monitor the position to ensure that the registers are operating effectively.

  Hospital League Tables
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many regional newspaper editors she expects to attend her briefing on the hospital league tables at the Department of Health; and what financial provision has been made for the provision of hospitality at this meeting. [29520]

  Mr. Sackville
  The number will depend on the level of acceptances. Light refreshments will cost around £5 a head.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answers of 15 June,Official Report, columns 623–24, on prescriptions, what is the difference between the figure of £909 million for 1993 and the figure for the total net ingredient costs of all 100 items in the list she regards as "Commercial; in Confidence;" and if she will make a statement. [29927]

  Mr. Malone
  The data supplied to Chester and Ellesmere Port community health council differed from information supplied in my answer of 15 June for two reasons:

  The information supplied to the community health council was for drugs only and excluded dressings and appliances. The information supplied on 15 June was based on all prescription items.

  There was also an error in the extraction of data supplied to the community health council which resulted in the exclusion of six drugs from the top 100 and, consequently, in the inclusion of six others with lower total net ingredient cost.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Market Policy
  Mr. Macshane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the federations of employers with whom he regularly meets to discuss labour market policy. [26643]

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State meets many organisations representing both employers and employees such as the Confederation of British Industry and Trade Union Congress, from time to time, and discusses a wide range of labour market issues with them.

  Decency Threshold
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of the working population earns less than the threshold level of the lowest acceptable wage as assessed by the Committee of Independent Experts. [27656]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Council of Europe's so called decency threshold has not been accepted by any EU Government and was not accepted by the United Kingdom when it was introduced in 1977. The threshold for the UK was £221.50 per week in April 1994 and 32 per cent. of the full-time working population earn less than this.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many written parliamentary questions were tabled for answer by his Department in each of the past five years; and 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. [28511]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of parliamentary questions, which would have been answered directly by
  211
  him or his Ministers prior to the establishment of executive agencies, are now referred to the chief executive of such an agency. [28491]

  Miss Widdecombe
  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 to the hon. Member by letter. The chief executive's letter is published in Hansard below the Minister's reply.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, what time was spent by the Health and Safety Executive's DSI grade on standard setting work in each of the national interest groups. [29210]

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

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the industry advisory committees will be consulted about the recommendations of the Health and Safety Executive's management arrangements feasibility study as they affect(a) the area office network and (b) the national interest group structure. [29226]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Industry advisory committees will not be specifically consulted about the recommendations of the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division management arrangements feasibility study.

  However, relevant industry advisory committees will be consulted about any implications for them which may arise from a review of national interest groups now in progress.

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage contact time spent by principal factory inspectors in(a) the London South area office and (b) the Nottingham area office of the Health and Safety Executive between 1 April 1994 and 1 April 1995. [29209]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The contact time by principal factory inspectors as a percentage of their total available time between 1 April 1994 and 31 March 1995 averaged 15.1 per cent. in the north midlands (Nottingham) area, and in the London South area averaged 10.5 per cent.

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes to the Health and Safety Executive's efficiency or effectiveness have arisen from the recommendations of the management arrangements feasibility study. [29225]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Recommendations of the management arrangements feasibility study remain the subject of consultation with Health and Safety Executive staff. No decisions have yet been made by HSE about their implementation.

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information the Health and Safety Executive will maintain on the new FOCUS computer 212
  system on (a) the number of visits undertaken by inspectors and (b) the time spent on these visits; and what information of this type the Health and Safety Executive currently maintains on its existing computer system. [29219]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  FOCUS will record all visits by inspectors, and doctors and nurses, in the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division. It will record the time spent on each of these visits, and will provide an aggregate.

  There are currently different recording systems for different disciplines within FOD. Whilst all enable aggregate time spent on planned activities to be assessed, only one isolates visit time.

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, how many(a) doctors and (b) nurses were employed by EMAS in each of the Health and Safety Executive's area offices on (a) 1 April 1994 and (b) 1 April 1995. [29211]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The following tables show the number of doctors and nurses of the employment medical advisory service working in each of the Health and Safety Executive's area offices on 1 April 1994 and 1 April 1995.

  Area

  Doctors

  Nurses

  1 April 1994

  South West

  2

  3

  South

  3

  3

  South East

  2

  2

  London North

  2

  3

  London South

  1

  0.5

  East Anglia

  2.5

  2

  Northern Home Counties

  1

  2

  East Midlands

  1

  2

  West Midlands

  1

  3

  Wales

  3

  4

  Marches

  2

  2

  North Midlands

  2.5

  1

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  3

  2

  West and North Yorkshire

  2.5

  2

  Greater Manchester

  3.5

  2

  Merseyside

  2.5

  1

  North West

  2

  2

  North East

  3

  4

  Scotland East

  4

  3

  Scotland West

  1.5

  2

  Total

  45

  45.5

  1 April 1995

  South West

  1

  3

  South

  3

  3

  South East

  1

  1

  London North

  1.83

  1.67

  London South

  1.83

  0.83

  East Anglia

  2.5

  1

  Northern Home Counties

  1

  2

  East Midlands

  0

  2

  West Midlands

  1

  2

  Wales

  2

  4

  Marches

  1

  1

  North Midlands

  2

  1

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  2

  2

  West and North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  Greater Manchester

  3

  2

  Merseyside

  1

  1

  North West

  1

  1

  213

  Area

  Doctors

  Nurses

  North East

  3

  4

  Scotland East

  2

  3

  Scotland West

  1.68

  2

  Total

  32.84

  38.5

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the categories of information made available for public scrutiny by the Health and Safety Executive under the open government provisions; and if he will list the location and format in which each category of information is available. [29081]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Under the commitments in the code of practice on access to Government information and the requirements on the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, the Health and Safety Executive makes publicly available on request all health, safety and environmental information it holds, subject to the exempted categories of information in the code, the excepted categories of information in the regulations and any other statutory restrictions on the disclosure of information it holds.

  Requests may be made to HSE's Sheffield information centre or to any HSE area office. Information will be provided in the format requiring the least use of public resources.

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many visits were made by the Health and Safety Executive's factory and agricultural inspectorates in the 12 months to 1 April. [29218]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive's field operations division factory, agricultural and quarries inspectorates carried out 136,889 planned inspection visits in 1994–95.

  Travel-to-interview scheme
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list the general grounds for rejection of financial assistance from the travel-to-interview scheme; [29203]

  (2) how many applications have been received, on a regional basis, for financial assistance from the travel-to-interview scheme since its inception; what is the total cost of the scheme; and what is the total budget allocation for the scheme; [29201]

  (3) how many appeals have been held as a result of rejection of financial assistance from the travel-to-interview scheme; and how many times the rejection of financial assistance has been overturned on appeal; [29204]

  (4) how many applications, on a regional basis, for financial assistance from the travel-to-interview scheme have been rejected since its inception. [29202]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment 214
  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. Ian McCartney, dated 20 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions on the Travel to Interview Scheme (TIS).
  The Travel to Interview Scheme helps unemployed people attend job interviews beyond normal daily travelling distance by meeting the costs of the journey, and where necessary the costs of an overnight stay. In accordance with the rules of the scheme, the general grounds for rejection of applications are as follows:

  application was not made in advance;

  applicant was not unemployed for four weeks or more;

  interview was not beyond normal daily travelling distance;

  applicant was not resident in the area for the past four weeks;

  job was for less than 30 hours per week;

  job was not expected to last for more than 12 months;

  job was for self-employment;

  the salary was above £25,000 limit;

  interview was not in the United Kingdom;

  no help can be given for second or subsequent interviews.

  However, I should explain that we are presently testing changes to the rules in the North West region. The changes include the removal of the salary limit, help with second and subsequent interviews, help for some self-employed jobs, and a more relaxed interpretation of the 12 month rule.
  The scheme was introduced in late 1986. The total cost of the scheme between April 1987–March 1995 has been £8.7m enabling attendance at over 395,000 interviews. The allocation of funds for 1995/96 amounts to £2.2m.
  The normal process for appeals against rejected TIS applications operates on two levels. Initially, applicants can ask for their case to be reconsidered by the jobcentre manager. Where the jobcentre manager endorses the original decision and the applicant is still dissatisfied with the explanation, a final appeal can be made to the Employment Service Head Office.
  I cannot give you the total number of appeals for Head Office consideration since the schemes's inception, as records are kept for 2 years only. The following figures cover the period from April 1993–March 1995:

  appeals 34

  number of rejections overturned on appeal 6

  The number of appeals cleared at the local office level is not recorded.

  The table below shows the number of applications made from April 1987–March 1995 and the number of applications rejected by region.

  Regions

  Applications made from April 1987–March 1995

  Applications rejected from April 1987–March 1995

  Northern

  36,989

  7,485

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  40,510

  9,188

  East Midlands and Eastern

  40,540

  10,620

  London and

  South East

  56,045

  13,040

  South West

  37,328

  9,437

  215

  Regions

  Applications made from April 1987-March 1995

  Applications rejected from April 1987-March 1995

  Wales

  27,081

  7,843

  West Midlands

  29,311

  7,429

  North West

  61,827

  10,713

  Scotland

  54,245

  13,117

  I hope this is helpful.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth may expect a definitive reply to the matter raised in his letters of 23 March, 28 April and 2 June. [28942]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I will look into the circumstances of this case as a matter of urgency and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Offshore Installations
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated number of operational safety cases for new offshore installations, or mobile installations entering United Kingdom waters for the first time, which will be submitted to the Health and Safety Executive in each of the next three years. [29077]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive estimates that a total of 15 to 20 cases for offshore installations and mobile installations entering UK waters for the first time will be submitted in each of the next three years.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) improvement notices and (b) prohibition notices have been issued by the offshore safety division of the Health and Safety Executive in each year since 1991. [29075]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The figures are as follows:

  Year

  Improvement notices

  Prohibition notices

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  0

  2

  1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  19

  5

  1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994

  22

  3

  1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995

  34

  5

  1 April 1995 to 8 June 1995

  3

  0

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the expected number of well operations notifications per month which will be submitted to the offshore safety division of the Health and Safety Executive under the provisions of regulation 11 of the Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 1992; and what is the HSE's planned personnel allocation to the handling of these notifications. [29079]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive estimates that around 65 well notifications will be submitted per month.

  Sixteen staff who are currently engaged on approving well consents will be employed in managing the notification scheme when this comes into effect. The
  216
  offshore safety division is also able to draw on further specialist staff as required.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the first revised safety case is due to be submitted to the Health and Safety Executive under the provisions of regulation 9(4) of the Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 1992; and how many such revised safety cases are expected to be submitted to the HSE in each of the subsequent three years. [29078]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The first revised safety case due to be submitted under the provisions of regulation 9(4) of the Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 1992 is expected to be submitted in January 1997. from 1997 onwards the Health and Safety Executive estimates that 60 revised safety cases will be submitted in each of the next three years.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many offshore installation safety cases have been submitted to the offshore safety division of the Health and Safety Executive to date; and how many of these have been formally accepted by the Health and Safety Executive. [29076]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  At 31 May 1995, a total of 260 safety cases for offshore installations had been submitted to the Health and Safety Executive, of which 17 were design safety cases which are not formally accepted by HSE. At the same date, 102 safety cases had been accepted by HSE.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many exemptions have been granted to the time deadline requirements for safety case submission, as provided for in regulation 17(2) (a) of the Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 1992. [29080]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  No exemptions have been requested or granted to the time deadline requirements for safety case submission, as provided for in regulation 17(2) (a).

  Foreign Companies
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the top 25 foreign companies in the United Kingdom by the total numbers of personnel employed. [29868]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Statistics of Trade Act 1947 prohibits the disclosure of information which could be identified as relating to an individual employer. In the circumstances, I cannot provide the information requested.

  Ministerial Visit, Manchester
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next intends to visit the Greater Manchester area to discuss matters relating to employment with local authority representatives. [29872]

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, will next visit Stockport and Manchester on Wednesday 21 June 1995 when he shall discuss employment matters with people from a cross section of employment and training organisations. He has no specific plans to meet representatives from local authorities separately.

  Training-for-Work
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what advice his Department gives to unemployed people in the Greater Manchester area who cannot find places on the training-for-work programmes. [29870]

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are a large number of training places for those seeking them, and for whom training is the best course of action, but training is not necessarily the priority need for all unemployed people. That is why all Employment Service offices offer a structured and coherent advisory service, which is aimed at helping people back into work as soon as possible. ES provides unemployed people with information and advice about the full range of jobs, training and other programme opportunities available to them. About 1.5 million opportunities are available through ES this year.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment with what frequency, and with what sanctions, inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive monitor the adherence of sheep farmers to the advice contained in the HSE leaflet "Sheep Dipping", reference AS29 revised. [29735]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The frequency of visits by Health and Safety Executive inspectors is prioritised on the basis of a number of factors: these include the risks to those at work or the public. Around 30,000 visits per year are made to agricultural premises, though not all of these will, of course, be sheep farms.

  Where inspectors find poor conditions the available sanctions range from verbal or written advice to improvement and prohibition notices and, in extreme cases, prosecution.

  Unemployment, Manchester
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with other EU employment Ministers on measures to reduce unemployment in the Greater Manchester area. [29871]

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State and I regularly discuss employment matters with our fellow Employment Ministers at the Social Affairs Council. We consistently urge them to make job creation the first priority and not to pursue new restrictions and regulations which can only destroy jobs. Our aim is to improve employment prospects in all areas of Britain, including Greater Manchester.

  Charter Week
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the main events he is proposing for Charter Week; what is the total cost to public funds; and how many(a) civil servants and (b) other public officials will be playing a part. [29884]
  218
  Miss Widdecombe
  A number of events are planned to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the citizens charter, including:local events organised by the Employment Service, for example, to promote services for long-term unemployed people and to launch client consultation groups on a pilot basis;
  publication of revised versions of the Health and Safety Executive's two key statements of service standards.

  These activities were planned as part of normal departmental business, although in some instances the timing has been adjusted to coincide with Charter Week and the charter content has been made more explicit. There will be no additional cost or staff resources required as a result of holding the events in July. The officials concerned will be working on the events as part of their normal duties.

  Working Abroad
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many United Kingdom citizens were working abroad in each of the last 10 years. [29280]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: The information requested is not available.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) on how many occasions in each of the last five years he has taken action against employers failing to notify his Department of impending redundancies under section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; and what action was taken on each occasion; [29452]

  (2) on how many occasions in each of the last five years he has learned of failures by employers to notify his Department of impending redundancies under section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. [29451]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: Information on the number of allegations of an employer's failure to notify my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State in accordance with section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is not recorded, though appropriate inquiries are made in such cases. The number of instances in each of the last five years where the Department was notified, but where the notification did not fully meet the requirements of section 193 of the Act is as follows:

  1990: 2,828

  1991: 4,021

  1992: 4,724

  1993: 2,630

  1994: 1,918

  In each case an explanation was sought and the full requirements of the legislation brought to the employer's attention. The legislation provides that where it is not reasonably practical to comply with the full requirements, the employer should take all reasonable steps to comply as far as possible. Taking account of this, it has not so far been found appropriate to prosecute an employer.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Business Appointment Rules
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps are being taken to monitor conditions imposed under the business appointment rules; and if conditions are made known to those offering appointments to which conditions are applied. [29168]

  Mr. Horam
  Conditions are monitored through routine contact between former employing departments and new employers or their competitors. The Government are considering the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that the operation, observance and objectives of the business appointment rules should be reviewed. Conditions are made known to new employers where appropriate.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place a copy of the business appointment rules in the Library. [29163]

  Mr. Horam
  The business appointment rules form part of the civil service management code, a copy of which is already in the Library.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the membership of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, the number of meetings attended by each member during the year 1994–95 and the total cost of remuneration or compensation to the membership of the committee in 1994–95. [29165]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 23 May 1995,Official Report column 535. The committee met twice during 1994–95; it handles the bulk of its work by correspondence. Committee members do not receive remuneration or compensation.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce the possibility of a ban on the acceptance of an appointment under the business appointment rules. [29169]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Charter Week
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the main events he is proposing for Charter Week; what is the total cost to public funds; and how many(a) civil servants and (b) other public officials will be playing a part. [29880]

  Mr. Horam
  A number of public service events are planned to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the citizens charter, including:the publication of NHS performance tables for England, Wales and Northern Ireland;
  the launch of the charter standard statement for community services in Northern Ireland;
  the publication of the revised Customs and Excise travellers charter;
  a reception for users who have nominated organisations for the 1995 charter mark and representatives of the nominated organisations; and
  the publication of the a guide to consultation.
  220
  There will be no additional cost or staff resources required as a result of holding these events in July. The officials concerned will be working on the events as part of their normal duties.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those parts of his Department or departmental agencies which were privatised without an in-house bid; if he will indicate the expertise which was absent in his Department or departmental agencies which prevented an in-house bid taking place; which future parts of his Department or departmental agencies he intends to privatise; and which of them do not have the necessary in-house expertise to mount an in-house bid. [29422]

  Mr. Horam
  Those parts of the work of the Cabinet Office, its agencies, HMSO and COI which have been contracted-out without an in-house bid are as follows:

  Agency

  Central OPSS

  Consortium Reports

  Publishing and Print Procurement Service

  CCTA

  GTN (Long-Distance)

  Chessington

  UNISON (Phase 1)

  CS College

  Prospectus Distribution

  RAS

  Catering Services

  Cleaning Services

  IT Hardware Maintenance

  IT Software Support Services

  HMSO

  Print Order Processing System

  Software Development: Business Supplies

  Software Development: Finance

  COI

  Videotext Unit

  The Cabinet Office, its agencies, HMSO and COI have contracted-out activities without inviting in-house bids where it has been judged that the private sector is clearly better equipped to deliver a specific service, has a better understanding of market needs, or the capacity to invest in new technology. Other decisions to contract-out services without inviting in-house bids have been taken where an activity is relatively small and peripheral to the Department's functions.

  There are no current plans to contract-out any activities within the Cabinet Office, its agencies, HMSO and COI without inviting an in-house bid.

WALES

  Male Unemployment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage of male unemployment in Dyfed in 1984, 1989 and 1994. [28692]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The annual average male unemployment rates in Dyfed for 1984, 1989 and 1994, based on the claimant count, were 13.8, 8.3 and 10.8 per cent. respectively.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage of male unemployment in the county of South Glamorgan in 1987, 1990 and 1994. [28969]
  221
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The annual average male unemployment rates in South Glamorgan for 1987, 1990 and 1994, based on the claimant count, were 14.2, 8.6 and 13.2 per cent. respectively.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage of male unemployment in Gwynedd in 1985, 1990 and 1994. [28690]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The annual average male unemployment rates in Gwynedd for 1985, 1990 and 1994, based on the claimant count, were 16.9, 9.0 and 12.5 per cent. respectively.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage of male unemployment in the county of Gwent for 1988, 1992 and 1994. [28694]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The annual average male unemployment rates in Gwent for 1988, 1992 and 1994, based on the claimant count, were 12.9, 14.2 and 13.8 per cent. respectively.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage of male unemployment in Mid Glamorgan in 1981, 1985, 1990 and 1994. [28693]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The annual average male unemployment rates in Mid Glamorgan for 1985, 1990 and 1994, based on the claimant count, were 20, 12.2 and 16.4 per cent. respectively. A comparable figure for 1981 is not available. However, the average registrant male unemployment rate for Mid Glamorgan in that year, expressed as a percentage of employees and registrant unemployed, was 17 per cent. This average excludes the figures for March and April 1981, which are not available.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage of male unemployment in the county of West Glamorgan in 1981, 1985, 1990 and 1994. [28697]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The annual average male unemployment rates in West Glamorgan for 1985, 1990 and 1994, based on the claimant count, were 19.1, 9.7 and 14 per cent. respectively. A comparable figure for 1981 is not available. However, the average registrant male unemployment rate for West Glamorgan in that year, expressed as a percentage of employees and registrant unemployed, was 16.7 per cent. This average excludes the figures for March and April 1981, which are not available.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage of male unemployment in Clwyd in 1986, 1991 and 1994. [28691]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The annual average male unemployment rates in Clwyd for 1986, 1991 and 1994, based on the claimant count, were 15.3, 9 and 10.1 per cent. respectively.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current percentage of male unemployment in the county of Powys. [28695]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The unadjusted male unemployment rate in Powys, based on the claimant count, in May 1995 was 5.1 per cent.

  School Meals
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what nutritional quality standards there are for school meals; and when was the last change in these standards. [28812]

  Mr. Richards
  The nutritional quality of school meals is a matter for local education authorities or, in some cases, the governing bodies of schools.

  Business Start-up Scheme
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those areas in Wales where no business start-up schemes are available for the unemployed. [28612]

  Mr. Richards
  All training and enterprise councils in Wales operate the business start-up scheme.

  Complaints
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what use is made of complaints referred to his Department concerning the conduct and or practice of doctors within national health service hospitals; [28971]

  (2) if he monitors complaints made against medical practitioners who work in the national health service; [28970]

  (3) what advice his Department gives to health authorities in how they deal with complaints made against medical practitioners. [28972]

  Mr. Richards
  Guidance on the handling of complaints is issued to health authorities and trusts and is revised in the light of experience. The most recent advice from the Department is WHC(93)75. It is the responsibility of health authorities and trusts to investigate complaints and take action on matters involving the conduct or practice of doctors employed by them.

  The Department monitors the number of complaints received by health authorities and trusts and publishes the information.

  Minerals Planning Guidance
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to revise mineral planning guidance note 1. [28994]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend is considering what revised guidance is needed in Wales to supersede that contained in minerals planning guidance note 1.

  Agricultural Grants
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the mean, median and standard deviation for the length of time between receiving a claim and the payment of a claim for each agricultural grant handled by his Department. [29456]
  223
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information required could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I published the targets for the payment of claims for grants and subsidies in March this year. Details of performance against targets will be published after the end of the financial year.

  Employment
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the work force in(a) Swansea, (b) West Glamorgan and (c) Wales is employed on a temporary basis. [29512]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the work force employed on a temporary basis in Swansea and West Glamorgan is not available centrally. The latest available information for Wales is based on the labour force survey conducted in winter 1994–95—three months ending February 1995—and relates to employees rather than the work force. It estimates that 9 per cent. of employees of working age in Wales had jobs that were not permanent in some way.

  National Museum of Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to enable the national museum to expand its collection of fine art. [29637]

  Mr. Richards
  The national museum of Wales receives an annual specimen purchase grant from the Department; the amount for 1995–96 is £1,140,000. Decisions on how the grant is spent are a matter entirely for the museum.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people from Wales were studying at higher education institutions in the United Kingdom in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [29032]

  Mr. Richards
  In 1994–95, provisional data suggest that there were 48,228 full-time and sandwich Welsh domiciled higher education students in the United Kingdom. The data were collected by the Higher Education Statistics Agency.

  In 1993–94, only data for Welsh domiciled students at institutions in England and Wales are readily available. This total was 44,303 and represents the great majority of Welsh domiciled students. In 1994–95, only 556 Welsh domiciled students were at institutions in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

  Student Degrees
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the proportion of students obtaining(a) first class and (b) upper second class degrees at (i) the university of Wales and (ii) Welsh higher education institutions as a whole in (1) 1991–92 and (2) 1992–93; and if he will make a statement. [29035]

  Mr. Richards
  The information available on the proportion of first degree students obtaining first class or upper second class honours degrees at the constituent colleges of the university of Wales and at higher education institutions in Wales is shown in the table:224

  First degree students in Wales

  1991–92

  1992–93

  University of Wales1

  Number

  Per cent. awarded

  Number

  Per cent. awarded

  Awarded

  First Class Honours

  296

  5.9

  315

  5.5

  Other Honours2

  4,379

  86.7

  5,018

  87.4

  Ordinary Degrees

  377

  7.5

  411

  7.2

  Total

  5,052

  5,744

  Notes:

  1 As at December.

  2 Includes upper second, lower second and third class honours.

  Source:

  Universities Statistical Record.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Higher Education Institutions1

  Number

  Per cent. awarded

  Number

  Per cent. awarded

  Awarded

  First Class Honours

  101

  3.9

  120

  3.9

  Upper Second Class Honours

  804

  31.2

  1,004

  32.3

  Other Degrees2

  1,673

  64.9

  1,987

  63.9

  Total awarded

  2,578

  3,111

  Notes:

  1 As at November.

  2 Include lower second, third class and ordinary degrees.

  Source:

  Examination Results First Destination Survey.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Performance
  Ms 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, 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.
  225
  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 of each agency. Each of them will write to the hon. Member.

  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 within 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 1994/5, 1781 replies were sent by our operational sections in respect of letters addressed to Ministers or myself with 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 may by the WPCs are fully considered. Information on how to contact ex-service organisations or the WPCs is contained in leaflets
  226
  available from the Agency and our national network of War Pensioner's Welfare Service offices.
  I hope you have found this information useful.

  Contributions Agency
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances the Contributions Agency is sending out a form asking people why they believe they are in receipt of benefit. [29014]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Operational matters relating to the Contributions Agency are the responsibility of Mrs. Faith Boardman, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Ms Dawn Primarolo, 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 question concerning forms sent to people asking why they believe they are in receipt of benefit.
  Whilst there are no formally laid down circumstances in which this question is asked of a customer, there are occasions where it may be necessary to do so. For example, when the Agency is investigating non-payment of National Insurance contributions by self-employed contributors it is possible that the contributor may allege that he or she was, or is, in receipt of benefit. This might affect both the amount of National Insurance contributions outstanding and the course of action that the Agency will take. It may prove necessary in these circumstances to contact the person concerned for more information about any benefit claims.
  Alternatively a person may learn, possibly from a notification issued by the Agency, that insufficient contributions were paid in a particular year to make that year qualify for benefit purposes, and may query this. It is possible that the customer may be entitled to credits for periods in which benefits were paid that could make up the shortfall. In investigating some of these cases it may be necessary to contact customers to obtain details of benefit claims so that their National Insurance records can be put right.
  These two examples do not cover every eventuality which could result in such enquiries being made. And we avoid making such enquiries when we have enough information to resolve the customers enquiry internally. I hope these examples indicate why it is sometimes important, and in individual customers' own interests, that the Agency sometimes asks questions about benefit claims.
  I hope that you will find this information useful. If I can be of any further assistance please let me know.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current average length of time taken to decide an application for assistance from the social fund in the Doncaster and Mexborough area of the Benefits Agency; what is the national average figure; and what were the comparable figures for 12 months ago. [28260]

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

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 19 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State of Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the current average clearance times for applications to the Social Fund (SF), both nationally and in Doncaster and Mexborough.
  When the Benefits Agency was established in April 1991, a major restructuring programme resulted in existing offices being grouped

  227
  together to form Districts. Mexborough Branch Office is one office within the District of Rother and Dearne. Information has, therefore, been supplied for the Doncaster and Rother and Dearne Districts as figures for Mexborough cannot be given separately.
  Unfortunately it is not possible to provide the current average length of time taken to decide an application for assistance from the SF. We are, however, presently looking at whether an average processing time would be a helpful way forward.
  At present, our performance is measured against a standard time for processing each type of claim. This is based on the time it takes to clear the more straightforward of cases. For instance, for SF Maternity payment claims, we aim to process 65% in the standard time of 5 days. To ensure proper emphasis is given to the remaining claims, a secondary measure is set which in the same example is 95% in 20 days. Our performance measure for SF Crisis payments is that we aim to process the claim on the day it is received. We aim to achieve this in 95% of cases.
  Appendices A - C outline the clearance times for the period I April 1993 to 31 March 1994 and 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995. Appendix A outlines the national figures, Appendix B the Doncaster District and Appendix C the Rother and Dearne District figures.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Appendix A: Clearance times of applications to the social fund, nationally. 1 April 1993–31 March 1994 and 1 April 1994–31 March 1995.

  Application type

  Target

  Achieved Per cent.

  i. 1993–94

  Crisis loans

  On day need arises

  96.28

  Community care grants

  65 per cent. in 7 days

  81.13

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  96.94

  Budgeting loans

  65 per cent. in 6 days

  77.89

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  97.40

  Maternity payments

  65 per cent. in 5 days

  73.31

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  96.84

  Funeral payments

  65 per cent. in 12 days

  71.70

  95 per cent. in 35 days

  96.10

  ii. 1994–95

  Crisis loans

  On day need arises

  97.40

  Community care grants

  65 per cent. in 7 days

  87.00

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  98.20

  Budgeting loans

  65 per cent. in 6 days

  83.97

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  98.27

  Maternity payments

  65 per cent. in 5 days

  80.89

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  98.02

  Funeral payments

  65 per cent. in 12 days

  75.52

  95 per cent. in 35 days

  96.96

  Appendix B: Clearance times of applications to the social fund, Doncaster 1 April 1993–31 March 1994 and 1 April 1994–31 March 1995.

  Application type

  Target

  Achieved Per cent.

  i. 1993–94

  Crisis loans

  On day need arises

  96.46

  Community care grants

  65 per cent. in 7 days

  82.47

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  97.19

  Budgeting loans

  65 per cent. in 6 days

  79.34

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  97.36

  Maternity payments

  65 per cent. in 5 days

  74.08

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  97.33

  Funeral payments

  65 per cent. in 12 days

  70.97

  95 per cent. in 35 days

  96.81

  ii. 1994–95

  Crisis loans

  On day need arises

  97.67

  Community care grants

  65 per cent. in 7 days

  84.47

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  97.47

  228

  Appendix B: Clearance times of applications to the social fund, Doncaster 1 April 1993–31 March 1994 and 1 April 1994–31 March 1995.

  Application type

  Target

  Achieved Per cent.

  Budgeting loans

  65 per cent. in 6 days

  83.55

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  97.71

  Maternity payments

  65 per cent. in 5 days

  82.87

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  97.55

  Funeral payments

  65 per cent. in 12 days

  69.81

  95 per cent. in 35 days

  97.50

  Appendix C: Clearance times of applications to the social fund, Rother and Dearne. 1 April 1993–31 March 1994 and 1 April 1994–31 March 1995.

  Application type

  Target

  Achieved Per cent.

  i. 1993–94

  Crisis loans

  On day need arises

  99.17

  Community care grants

  65 per cent. in 7 days

  73.61

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  97.44

  Budgeting loans

  65 per cent. in 6 days

  79.02

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  98.62

  Maternity payments

  65 per cent. in 5 days

  75.69

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  97.82

  Funeral payments

  65 per cent. in 12 days

  68.32

  95 per cent. in 35 days

  98.02

  ii. 1994–95

  Crisis loans

  On day need arises

  98.44

  Community care grants

  65 per cent. in 7 days

  88.98

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  99.30

  Budgeting loans

  65 per cent. in 6 days

  85.53

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  99.22

  Maternity payments

  65 per cent. in 5 days

  83.83

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  98.77

  Funeral payments

  65 per cent. in 12 days

  69.58

  95 per cent. in 35 days

  97.82

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance he has issued regarding the assessment of debilitation caused by myalgic encephalomyelitis in relation to incapacity for work benefit; and if he will make a statement. [28575]

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of Incapacity Benefit is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Gordon McMaster, dated 19 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the guidance that has been issued regarding the assessment of debilitation caused by myalgic encephalomyelitis in relation to incapacity for work benefit.
  No guidance has been issued as the basis of the new test of incapacity for work is the effect of a customer's medical condition on their ability to work and not the medical condition itself.
  The new test provides an assessment of the effect of the medical condition on the person's ability to carry out a range of work-related activities. All medical conditions are addressed and the Benefits Agency Medical Services doctors involved have been provided with detailed and comprehensive training in all physical, sensory and mental conditions.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has about the expected timetable for clearing the arrears of applications submitted for an allowance for lowered standard of occupation. [29013]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Robert Maclennan, dated 19 June 1995:
  I am writing in reply to the Parliamentary Question that you raised concerning the clearance of arrears of applications for the Allowance for Lowered Standard of Occupation (ALSO).
  Some 982 cases were stockpiled pending legal advice on how legislation should be applied. Following that advice, we were obliged to change the way in which we dealt with certain claims for ALSO.
  We again began to process applications, under the new criteria, at the beginning of May and, as of this morning, 692 applications had been cleared. We expect to clear all but a small number of the remainder by the end of this month.
  The only cases remaining will be those where we have not yet fully established how the criteria should be applied but we expect to resolve the outstanding questions very shortly and for those cases not to be be delayed much longer.

  Income Support
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department has commissioned on the adequacy of income support rates for providing a balanced diet for pregnant women. [28806]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No amounts are separately identified within income support for particular household budgetary items such as food.

  Whatever the research, there has to be a subjective assessment of what is an appropriate level of benefits. This is especially true of diets where individual preferences vary substantially.

  Income Support
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effects on the special medical and dietary needs of the poorest sections of society of the changes in allowances implemented in the Social Security Act 1986, from April 1988, in Wales. [29153]

  Mr. Hague
  None. The 1988 reform of income-related benefits replaced a multiplicity of additions for special needs with a more rational and fairer structure of allowances and premiums for the most vulnerable and needy groups.

  Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have(a) claimed and (b) been awarded disablement benefit for vibration white finger PD A11, in consequence of exposure to vibration in the coal-mining industry. [28944]
  230
  Mr. Hague
  Information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The available information is in the table.

  Initial assessment of disability by a medical board for Vibration White Finger (PD A11) in the deep coal mining industry

  Total initial assessments

  Assessments of 14 per cent. or more

  1992–93

  683

  5

  1993–94

  492

  6

  Source:

  B127–100 per cent. count of cases where PD A11 has been diagnosed.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department has commissioned to assess the impact of the activities of the Child Support Agency in respect of encouraging lone parents into work; and when he expects to be able to publish the results. [29522]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department has commissioned a continuing research programme with the Policy Studies Institute to look at the circumstances of lone parents. Two reports have been published:"Families, Work and Benefits", Marsh and McKay. PSI Publishing 1993.
  "Lone parents and Work", McKay and Marsh. DSS Research Report No. 25.
  A further study of lone parents is planned for 1995–96.

  In addition, the Department has commissioned research by the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough university to investigate the incentives and disincentives to leaving income support. This will include information about lone parents and a report is expected to be published in the DSS series within the year.

  The CSA aims to secure regular payment of maintenance, this will give lone parents a secure financial base from which they can make a decision about moving into employment.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 13 June,Official Report, columns 293–94, if he will detail further the changes in his forecasting techniques which have lead to a further £1.7 billion saving in social security expenditure up to the year 2000–01. [29736]

  Mr. Hague
  The £1.7 billion saving in social security benefit expenditure in 2000–01 attributed to forecasting changes was due partly to the use of more up-to-date information in the later forecasts and partly to the use of improved forecasting techniques.

  The improvements to forecasting techniques include the introduction of new models for forecasting housing benefit and the earnings-related component of retirement pension as well as improvements to the forecasting models for several other benefits including income support.

  Appeals
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals to the disability appeals tribunal have been waiting more than the average clearance time; what is the average; and what is the longest time an appeal to a disability appeal tribunal has been outstanding. [29873]

  Mr. Hague
  I have been informed by the president of the independent tribunal service that approximately 10,000 appeals have been waiting more than the average clearance time of 23 weeks and that the longest time an appeal has been outstanding is six years.

DEFENCE

  Arms Exports
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when his Department was informed that British arms were being exported to Iran via Singapore; and if he will make a statement; [29463]

  (2) when his Department received notice of allegations that BMARC was exporting arms via Singapore to Iran. [29474]

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1991 my Department was made aware of allegations to this effect as a result of evidence given to Trade and Industry Select Committee.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the types of military equipment exported to Iran via Singapore by the British firm BMARC. [29464]

  Mr. Freeman
  As stated by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, on 13 June 1995 at columns 595–606, there may be grounds for believing that the final destination of GAM B01 naval guns, spares and associated ammunition exported by BMARC could have been Iran. This type of equipment is fitted in many surface ships of the Royal Navy and other naval forces including the Singaporean navy.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations were made to his Department during the period of the Iran-Iraq arms embargo to permit British arms to be sold to Singapore. [29466]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Ministry of Defence receives frequent inquiries from British companies who are interested in exporting defence equipment to Singapore or other countries. We do not keep records of all such inquiries.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of arms exports sold to Singapore since 1980. [29467]

  Mr. Freeman
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal the value of defence exports to individual countries. However, the value of exports by geographic region is contained in table 1.11 of UK defence statistics.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports his Department has received that British arms exports are currently being sold to Iran through Singapore. [29468]
  232
  Mr. Freeman
  It is not normally the practice of my Department to comment on intelligence reports. The possibility of British arms exports to Iran through Singapore, or other countries, is kept under regular review interdepartmentally and appropriate action taken.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the normal procedure undertaken by his Department following requests from the Department of Trade and Industry for information on British arms export licences; and if he will make a statement. [29469]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department of Trade and Industry normally circulates export licence applications, to the FCO and MOD. Unless the exports concerned have already been the subject of MOD scrutiny they are normally circulated within MOD for the appropriate operational, security and intelligence assessments. A MOD view is then co-ordinated and sent back to the DTI.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures his Department adopts to prevent British arms from being sold to Iran; and if he will list the changes to these procedures in the last 10 years. [29471]

  Mr. Freeman
  All export licence applications are looked at on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the available evidence and our national and international policy commitments.

  In the case of Iran, since December 1984, this has been undertaken by a Ministry of Defence working group and an interdepartmental committee, which includes representatives from FCO and DTI.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the duties of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in the export procedures of British arms; [29472]

  (2) what role the right hon. member for Thanet, South, (Mr. Aitken) had in respect of the export of arms to Singapore while acting as Minister for Defence Procurement. [29473]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement has responsibility within MOD for, inter alia, promoting defence exports within Government policy. He also has ministerial responsibility in relation to the advice on exports his Department gives to the Department for Trade and Industry, as licensing authority.

  Sea Dart
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the contract for the Sea Dart airframe refurbishment contract to be placed. [28887]

  Mr. Freeman
  A response to the single-source invitation to tender is currently the subject of detailed evaluation. Contract award will be dependent on the negotiation of an acceptable price which can be demonstrated as offering value for money.

  RAF Redundancy Programme
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the RAF redundancy programme. [29449]
  233
  Mr. Freeman
  A total of some 8,600 Royal Air Force redundancies are planned in two phases over 1995–96 and 1996–97. Those leaving in 1995–96 will be volunteers. Work is continuing on the composition of the second phase in 1996–97, which will be made up of volunteers and some compulsory redundancies. It is hoped that as many places as possible will be taken by volunteers.

  Ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with other members of NATO about ballistic missile defence. [28920]

  Mr. Freeman
  The NATO summit in January 1994 commissioned work to develop a NATO policy to address the risks posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. Since then there have been regular meetings both bilaterally and multilaterally with allies in a number of fora to review all aspects of this problem, including ballistic missile defence. The most recent discussions were at the last defence planning committee in Brussels on 8 June.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is her Majesty's Government's policy towards the procurement of a ballistic missile defence system for the United Kingdom. [28922]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 12 June 1995,Official Report, column 364.

  Multifunction Electronically Scanned Adaptive Radar
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the Mesar system and its application for ballistic missile defence. [28921]

  Mr. Freeman
  The multifunction electronically scanned adaptive radar is being developed with a number of air defence applications in mind, including most surface-to-air missile systems. It is also the key element of a technology demonstrator programme which, as I announced to the House on 18 October 1994,Official Report, column 239, could have an application for ballistic missile defence. This programme will take some two and half years to complete, including tests, and aims to develop technologies where the UK is an acknowledged world leader.

  Eurofighter 2000
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current estimate of the likely cost of each aircraft in the Eurofighter 2000 project. [29160]

  Mr. Freeman
  The current estimated unit production cost of the Eurofighter 2000 aircraft for the UK is £37.3 million at today's prices.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) service personnel, (b) retired officer grades and (c) other non-industrial civil servants were employed in each of the service areas dealing with quarterly or estates functions in each year since 1979. [28791]
  234
  Mr. Soames
  Personnel data are not held for this particular function, and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Institute of Pathology and Tropical Medicine
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed at the RAF Institute of Pathology and Tropical Medicine. [29886]

  Mr. Soames
  As at 16 June 1995, 16 civilian and 74 service personnel were employed there.

  Charter Week
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the main events he is proposing for Charter Week; what is the total cost to public funds; and how many(a) civil servants and (b) other public officials will be playing a part. [29883]

  Mr. Soames
  A number of Ministry of Defence events are planned to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the citizens charter, including:

  1 July: RAF Quedgley, Gloucester—Open Day

  8–9 July: Wirral Show, Wallasey—Defence Policy Exhibition (DPE)

  11–13 July: Great Yorkshire Show, Harrogate—DPE

  16 July: RAF Sealand, Chester—Open Day

  18–20 July: East of England Show, Peterborough—DPE

  19–29 July: Royal Tournament, Earls Court

  22–23 July: International Air Tattoo—DPE

  These events were scheduled to take place as part of MOD's normal arrangements for keeping the public informed about defence policy and on what taxpayers' money is spent. No additional costs or staff resources will be required.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ex-service personnel have been examined to date by his Department's medical personnel, or on behalf of his Department, concerning Gulf war syndrome. [28625]

  Mr. Soames
  To date a total of 270 individuals have been medically examined as part of my Department's Gulf war medical assessment programme, 190 of whom were former members of the armed forces at the time of their assessment.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Gulf war syndrome. [28623]

  Mr. Soames
  We continue to investigate the allegations of a Gulf war syndrome with scientific rigour, principally through a medical assessment programme. To date 270 veterans have been examined as part of the programme and any remaining veterans concerned about their health are encouraged to come forward for assessment by a service consultant. Preliminary findings of the assessment programme, published in the British Medical Journal on 22 April 1995, show that there is no evidence from these clinical examinations that United Kingdom Gulf personnel are suffering from any syndrome or unexplained pattern of illness.
  235
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial and other assistance is made for ex-military personnel suffering from Gulf war syndrome. [28626]

  Mr. Soames
  There is comprehensive assistance for all ex-service personnel. In addition, those ex-service personnel who are concerned about their health as a result of service in the Gulf conflict have repeatedly been urged to come forward for a medical examination by a service consultant under my Department's Gulf war medical assessment programme. Financial assistance is available to help with the travel and subsistence costs of attending the programme. Veterans coming forward for assessment are given a comprehensive medical examination and offered a diagnosis.

  As the prime responsibility for the health of former service personnel rests with the national health service a medical report is forwarded to the individual's civilian general practitioner to assist with further treatment.

  Claims for compensation will of course be met by Department if it is proven that a liability in common law exists in respect of the claimed illnesses but to date no detailed grounds for such claims have been submitted by solicitors representing Gulf veterans.

  Personnel discharged on medical grounds for whatever reason my be eligible for benefits under the armed forces benefit scheme. In addition, all former service personnel can apply to the War Pensions Agency of the Department of Social Security for a war disablement award if they consider that they are suffering a disability as a direct result of their armed forces service, including service in the Gulf conflict. To date 153 such awards have been made to Gulf veterans, although none is in respect of the alleged Gulf war syndrome. Finally, all former personnel have access to the various welfare organisations and charities associated with the services.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases of Gulf war syndrome have been reported since 1990. [28624]

  Mr. Soames
  The first cases of the alleged Gulf war syndrome among United Kingdom Gulf veterans were reported in 1993. Since then, 302 individuals have responded to requests from my Department for those who are concerned about their health as a result of service in Operation Granby to come forward to examination under the Department's Gulf war medical assessment programme. Around 240 of these are from a group of some 530 individuals on whose behalf notification has been received from solicitors that they intend to make a claim against my Department in respect of illnesses alleged to result from service in the Gulf. Our investigations have not established any medical or scientific evidence to support a connection between Gulf war service and the reported illnesses.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the final report by the RAF Police into the alleged low flying incident over Barnoldswick and Earby in January. [28814]

  Mr. Soames
  No. Service police reports are prepared for internal purposes and are considered confidential to the Ministry of Defence. However, the conclusions and 236
  summaries of the findings of RAF Police investigations into alleged breaches of low flying regulations are provided to those Members of Parliament or individuals who report the incidents to my Department.

  In the case in question, the hon. Member was provided with this information during the Adjournment debate on low-flying military aircraft on 28 April, Official Report, column 1159 and in the letter of 7 June from my noble Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence.

  Annual Reports
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many inspecting grade officers of his Department's police were awarded box 4 assessments for their overall performance in their annual staff reports during the period between 1990 and 1994; and how many of these officers then had his Department's inefficiency procedure initiated against them. [28632]

  Mr. Soames
  Four inspecting officers were awarded box 4 assessments for their overall performance between 1990 and 1994. Only one had inefficiency procedures initiated against him.

  Atlas Equipment Company
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts his Department has placed with the Atlas Equipment Company based in London for periods for which information is available since 1979. [28996]

  Mr. Freeman
  According to the Defence Accounts Agency database the Procurement Executive has had no contact with any company of this name in London as far back as our current records date, which is to 1990.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [28515]

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

  Royal British Legion
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what public funds are available to branches of the Royal British Legion who wish to mount events to commemorate VJ day; and if he will make a statement. [28526]

  Mr. Soames
  Public funds are being made available only for Government sponsored events which are scheduled to take place in London, Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh. They are not available for local, privately organised events.

  BMARC
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many documents seized by his Department's police from the offices of BMARC in April 1990 have been withheld for(a) security and (b) other reasons. [29662]

  Mr. Soames
  All the documents taken by the Ministry of Defence Police which previously belonged to Astra/BMARC, and of which we are aware, have been sent to the liquidators.

  Arms Sources (Iran-Iraq War)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made by his Department on the source of arms used by the Iranian Government during the Iran-Iraq war; and if he will make a statement. [29470]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department broadly agrees with the assessment contained in the 1987 edition of the SIPRI Yearbook on World Armament and Disarmament, which shows that some 40 countries supplied arms to Iran during 1980–86.

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.

Judges: Performance Appraisal
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce an effective formal system of performance appraisal for judges.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice recommended the creation of a formal system of performance appraisal for the judiciary. The recommendation is being considered in consultation with the senior judiciary and the Government will respond to it in due course.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Royal Commission reported two years ago next month, which means that there has been an inordinate delay over the simple principle that there should be appraisal of Her Majesty's judges? Would it not be possible for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues to implement the proposal as soon as possible?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is true that the recommendation was made some time ago. It was one of a large number of recommendations, and these matters take some time to consider. It is not as easy as it seems to have a formal system of performance appraisal for judges. One must take account of the fact that judges, more than members of any other occupation I know, perform their duties in public. There is therefore constant public appraisal of what judges do. There are also arrangements for appeals in which the decision of a subordinate court is subjected to analysis and appraisal by the Appeal Court. I know of no occupation in respect of which there are more elaborate provisions for correcting mistakes than there are in the judicial hierarchy. Therefore, it may well be that we have in place already the best possible form of formal appraisal of the judiciary.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, who would undertake the appraising? Would it be those whom the judges found guilty or those whom the judges found innocent?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important question. Considering the nature of litigation and that on the whole it is difficult to satisfy both parties, the number of complaints received against the judiciary is remarkably small. Perhaps that is made all the more manifest by the fact that when anything possible can be said against a judge by way of complaint it is often magnified out of all proportion.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord not recognise that the notion of formal performance appraisal being appropriate for all ordinary mortals in business, industry or the Civil Service but not for judges does not convince the public? Will he confirm as a matter of fact that the principle of monitoring has already been accepted in relation to part-time members of the judiciary, recorders, deputy district judges and those who chair Benches of magistrates? Does the noble and learned Lord agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, whose report he recently welcomed, when he says that he,
"sees benefits in a more general extension of monitoring"?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord's report contains material on certain aspects of judicial work which he believes might benefit from consideration for appraisal. As regards part-time judiciary who are under consideration for appointment to full-time office, there is a system in place for ascertaining how well they do. Competition for such appointments is strong and therefore it is important to know how well people do in part-time appointments. The noble Lord is correct on the facts relating to that part of his question.
As regards convincing the public, I believe that they have considerable confidence in the judiciary. If there is one manifestation of that which is more evident than any other it is that if there is a matter of real concern, the person who is asked, usually by all parties in the other place, to carry out an inquiry is a member of the judiciary.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that for centuries an automatic form of judicial appraisal has been in operation; namely, considering whether a judge has been upheld or reversed on appeal? That is truly realistic. Any other system would have to be extremely good in order to be better.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the appeal system is an important aspect of any form of appraisal. I would not necessarily attribute a great deal of importance to the number of times a judge had been upheld or reversed. Sometimes there is more than one reason for that, and one would need to examine the full circumstances of the case. The full circumstances are available. Anyone who is interested can usually read the reasons given by the judge and the reasons given by the Appellate Court for either upholding or reversing the judge. Crude statistics of decisions upheld or reversed would not of themselves be reliable. I am sure that my noble friend does not refer merely to a crude analysis of the statistics. But the appeal system enables judgments to be made which are well-informed, formal and effective.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that we agree with him that when problems arise demands are made in the other place for a member of the judiciary to come forward and conduct an inquiry? That being so, is he aware that we particularly regret the campaign which has been waged against Sir Richard Scott by a number of Members of another place to undermine confidence in the report which he is soon to produce?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not aware of a campaign of the kind to which the noble Lord refers. The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I have the fullest confidence in Sir Richard Scott. He is conducting an inquiry in circumstances and according to a procedure which he has explained publicly. I very much regret that what he intended to be confidential communications with a view to giving people fair notice of views he has formed in order that they may be considered fully before he reaches a final conclusion have emerged in the public media, quite contrary to his wishes.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor not agree that following strict logic the fact that judges sit in public and that there is an appeal system is utterly irrelevant to the fact that there is no effective formal performance appraisal? Those points are not relevant to that particular subject. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that every time a request for public appraisal is made, professions always complain that it will be damaging; yet it is working for such professions as the police, teachers, solicitors and so on? Therefore, why should it not work for judges?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, on this aspect my fundamental disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for whose views I have the greatest respect, is that I consider that what I have said is relevant. It is a very general, open form of consideration of the adequacy or otherwise of a judge's work. Therefore, as I said, the judiciary stands in a very different position from those mentioned by the noble Lord in relation to public examination of its work. That is an extremely important consideration in relation to the recommendation of the Royal Commission.

Nuclear Disarmament
2.48 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they are making towards their goal of complete nuclear disarmament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, we have already made significant reductions in our nuclear forces and made clear that we would join multilateral negotiations for the global reduction of nuclear weapons when reductions by the United States and Russia bring their forces to a level comparable to our own minimum deterrent.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in signing the non-proliferation treaty and in order to make it permanent, the Government, as a nuclear power, reaffirm their undertaking to pursue:
"in good faith negotiations on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament"?
What action, other than the measures which the Minister has already mentioned, are the Government taking or proposing to take in pursuance of that undertaking?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are doing just that and we are pursuing such measures in good faith. But as I made quite clear, we see little point in reducing further our nuclear deterrent, which has already been reduced by some 59 per cent. in terms of the total explosive power of the warheads since the early 1970s. It is at a minimum and we see no case for reducing it further until we see further reductions on the part of the nuclear superpowers.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, as a matter of strict accuracy, does the Minister agree that the non-proliferation treaty makes no reference whatever to complete nuclear disarmament? Does the Minister also agree that complete nuclear disarmament—leaving advanced conventional weapons and other weapons of mass destruction untouched—would be a very dangerous process? Is not the correct goal general and complete disarmament under international control, however distant and Utopian that might be?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct. I believe that he refers to Article 6 which talks about pursuing such matters in good faith, which we shall do. However, it also talks about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. As the noble Lord implied, that is possibly a Utopian goal. But it does not stop us pursuing it.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has just been extended for another five years. However, with the collapse or near disintegration of most of the Russian navy, army and airforce, the only forces which are still doing extremely well are the Russian strategic forces, which have no intention of cutting down; nor, may I say, do the Americans. Therefore, does my noble friend the Minister agree that this is definitely not the moment for our Government unilaterally to disarm our nuclear deterrent?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. Perhaps I may assist her and add that the non-proliferation treaty has been extended indefinitely and not just for a period of five years. As I made clear in my original Answer and as I have made clear on many occasions when answering the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, we believe that it is necessary to maintain just a minimum nuclear deterrent.
Lord Howell: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the view that the Government take of the announcement by the United States' Government that they intend to resume nuclear testing underground and that of the French Government that they intend to do the same in the Far East? In view of the fact that those nations signed up to the nuclear test ban treaty, do the British Government regard those announcements with the same dismay as, apparently, do all the other nations? Further, can the Minister assure us that, despite pressure from British scientists, the Government have no intention at all of resuming nuclear testing, which is unnecessary given the facilities now available for doing so by computer in the laboratory?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is entirely a matter for the French themselves to decide whether or not they wish to test. Obviously, the main objective is to conclude the comprehensive test ban treaty. We welcome the fact that

149
the French are still committed to that treaty. As regards the Americans, I am aware of press reports to that effect. However, we are in fairly regular contact with the United States on nuclear matters. We have no reason to believe that they have any intention of abandoning their moratorium on tests. We have no plans to test while their moratorium is in force. But we have made clear that, while working for a comprehensive test ban treaty which will seek to ban all nuclear weapon tests, we reserve the right and have made clear the fact that we must be allowed to take adequate steps to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, if Afghanistan had had a nuclear bomb once upon a time, it is highly improbable that the Soviet Union would have invaded that country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I suspect that that is unlikely. However, that is a hypothetical question. The point is that we would prefer not to see a greater proliferation of nuclear weapons in states which are possibly not quite as stable as the states in which we have the fortune to live.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, on this side of the House, we do not believe that the French decision to resume nuclear testing is one for the French alone? Indeed, it is a matter for the world. Does the Minister agree that, if the United States were to open up the Nevada desert for further testing, it would give the British Government the opportunity—should they wish to take it—to test again in the Nevada desert facilities? Will the Minister give the House an absolutely categorical assurance that the British Government will not avail themselves of that opportunity?
Lord Henley: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's second question, the answer is no. In response to the first question, I have to say that, unlike the party opposite, I am not the French Government. I believe that it is a matter for the French Government and not for us.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has reiterated the fact that he is concerned with the minimum nuclear deterrent? However, a minimum deterrent is often defined as one capable of inflicting unacceptable damage on a possible adversary. Many people would say that a dozen warheads would be enough for that. Why then are the Government insisting on 20 or 30 times that number of warheads?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that we are insisting on what is a minimum deterrent; that is exactly what we are setting out.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I included the word "complete" in my initial Question, because it does in fact appear in the United Nations' document, but that I did not, if I recall correctly, include it in my supplementary question? Does the Minister agree that, if complete disarmament in the however distant future does take place, it will of necessity include nuclear disarmament?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is possible that I was not careful enough in noting the precise distinction between the noble Lord's original Question and his supplementary question.

University and Cadet Forces
2.56 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley Lord Craig of Radley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What level of savings were assumed in last year's defence costs study for the services' involvement in universities and in the cadet forces, and whether these will be achieved.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the defence costs study assumed no level of savings against the services' involvement in universities and the cadet forces. However, we are considering how greater value for money can be obtained in all university and cadet force activities.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does the noble Lord agree that the cadet forces provide a most valuable source of high calibre recruits for the Armed Forces? Can he confirm that the stability which has been promised to the Armed Forces will also apply to the arrangements made as a result of the defence costs study for the cadets and the university service units and that they will be allowed a long period in which to carry out their excellent work?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would be the first to join the noble and gallant Lord in confirming that the cadet forces and the various university forces provide a very valuable source of recruits, although I do not believe that that is their principal value. I believe that their principal value goes far wider than my department; it benefits the entire community and society as a whole. It is for that reason that I and colleagues in my department have had discussions with other departments and especially with my noble friend Lady Blatch in the Home Office on how we can extend assistance to the role of the cadets in various ways.
I should also like to see as much stability as possible throughout the cadets and the various university forces. It is right, however, to continue with a certain amount of work which is in hand to identify savings in terms of bringing greater cost effectiveness while not in any way seeing a diminution of the role of the cadets or of the various university officer training corps or the university air squadrons and their naval equivalent.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us who work with young people who are disturbed, difficult and disadvantaged appreciate very greatly what he says about the attention he is giving to the possibility of extending the cadet force, which is such an enormous help in reinforcing the self-confidence of such people?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very valid point. We would certainly like to do whatever we can to see where cadets can help within the community. That is why, as I said, I have been having discussions with other colleagues throughout government.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his statement is both important and encouraging? Does he recollect a recent debate on the cadet forces which emphasised that although they are useful to the Armed Forces, it is their non-military work which is absolutely

151
essential for the community? If the Minister's reply means—as I believe it does—that he is in touch with other departments to increase the cadet forces, that would be very warmly welcomed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. Obviously, the cadets have some military role, but we believe that their wider role goes beyond the department. However, that is not a reason why the department would seek to abandon them. We feel that they can contribute a great deal to society.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the major expansion in the number of universities over the past few years with the incorporation of polytechnics and so on as universities, will the Government consider undertaking a major public review of the involvement of the Armed Forces in universities and other areas of post-school education?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord recognises the major expansion of higher and further education under a Conservative Government that has taken place over 17 years. As regards whether a major public inquiry is necessary to examine the role of the university air squadrons, the university officer training corps or the university royal naval units, that is another matter. But we will continue to support those we have and on some occasions we will establish new ones. We established six new university royal naval units in various universities in September last year. We will continue to keep the position under review.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, with the closure of the junior training establishments which provided so many good young men and women straight from school into the regular forces, does the noble Lord agree that the role of the cadets is vital today? Will he confirm that all initiatives which are proposed by the cadet organisations will be supported by the Government?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that depends very much on what initiatives they are. The role of the cadets is very, very important but one should not overstress that role in terms of recruiting. It could very easily damage their role in terms of what they do in the community if they were thought purely to be a recruiting organisation. We recognise their value in terms of recruiting but they are not principally a recruiting organisation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in response to the question of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, about stability, I understood the Minister to say that there was a certain stability but that there were still areas where cost savings might or might not be achieved. In view of the fact that there is apparent stability for the rest of the Armed Forces, can we hear from the noble Lord exactly what cost savings the Government are studying—and where—in the cadet force, as well as a response to the other matters mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord?
Lord Henley: My Lords, to give just one or two examples, I can confirm that the headquarters of the air cadets and the headquarters of the university air squadrons are being co-located at RAF Cranwell and that that will bring significant savings of something of the
152
order of £600,000. We think that there are other aspects of the organisation, particularly of the army cadet force and the air training corps, where rationalisation could be achieved without affecting the service provided to the cadets, and we will continue, as I said, to pursue those.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!

Wheelclamping
3.2 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that further regulation is needed to restrict the clamping of motor vehicles by private persons.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government believe that the activities of some wheelclamping companies are not acceptable. But any remedy to this problem of unscrupulous clampers should not interfere with sensible measures to control parking on private land. The Government see the need to protect both the landowner and the motorist. We are looking for a solution which is cost-effective and which will work.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. Did she note a case last month in which civil proceedings were successful in Newcastle, but only through the determination and the persistence of the victim? Should not more now be done in England and Wales to prevent pirates from operating on waste or unsupervised land, and holding their victims to ransom for large sums? This of course does not affect the need to get permission to park on private land. Will the Government now announce a clampdown on cowboy clampers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first of all, we recognise that to seek redress through civil courts can take a long time and we are seeking solutions which will offer clamped motorists a more speedy solution to their problem. I should also say that only last week my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor warmly welcomed the publication of Lord Justice Woolf s interim report, which will of course speed up the process. We think that will help. But I repeat what I said at the beginning, we recognise that this is a problem. We want a solution but it must be enforceable and cost-effective; and at the end of the day it must work.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is high time to deprivatise the whole of this clamping racket?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure if deprivatising the whole of it is the answer; but your Lordships will know that there has been a good deal of debate over the private security industry—perhaps more than there has been over the wheelclamping industry. I am not sure that the two industries are entirely comparable although I agree that there is some overlap. The important thing is to find a solution which works for wheelclamping

153
and which is cost-effective and enforceable. Where wheelclamping is handled responsibly, it prevents the tiresome habit of parking which sometimes blocks important pathways—for example, pathways into hospitals and schools and other places. But what we want is a sense of balance. Where the cowboys are operating, we want to establish an effective system to do something about that.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House what conclusions were drawn from the consultative paper issued last year?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that it was inconclusive. I am afraid that there was no consensus. There was a good deal of useful information but I am afraid there is no real consensus on this issue. There is a landowning interest; there is a proper business and commercial interest; and there is the interest, as I have already said, of schools and hospitals. However, there is also the interest of getting rid of the tiresome business of cowboy operators in the field. What we are looking for is a solution that will work and will do something about that.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, quite apart from the cowboys, is an owner of private land entitled to detain vehicles and clamp them? How long is he allowed to keep them, and is he entitled to levy fines before they are released?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as the law stands at the moment, someone on private land can put up a notice and can suggest that anyone who parks on that land will suffer the consequence of his vehicle being clamped and in order to retrieve the vehicle a fee will need to be paid. One of the problems—I suspect this was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy—is that some people are operating without putting up notices spelling out the consequences of certain actions, and sometimes they are operating without even the permission of the owners of the land. Some people are operating as clampers freely on anyone's piece of land. An owner of private land can use clamping as a deterrent against people parking on the land.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the present legal situation, which was not designed for this at all, is rather confused and is highly unsatisfactory? Is it the understanding—is this right—that the Government are considering the formulation and the introduction of some new legal regime; some new regulations? If they are, can they consider including in that a provision to make it an offence for anyone to clamp a car on private land, or any vehicle on private land, that displays a disabled person's orange badge?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is right; the law is under consideration on this matter and it is inadequate. As my noble friend probably knows, many of the cases which underpin the law of trespass in civil law are of some antiquity and are based on straying animals rather than wrongfully parked vehicles. The relevant legal principles cannot therefore always be stated. My noble-friend also mentioned orange badges. The consultation
154
exercise acknowledged the need to consider the position of orange badge holders. We have not moved from that view—we are looking into that, too.

Business of the House: Debates, 21st June
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Dean of Beswick set down for tomorrow shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Baroness Turner of Camden set down for the same day to two-and-a-half hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Land Registers (Scotland) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill I pay my compliments to the Bill's sponsor in another place, Mr. David Jamieson, the Honourable Member for Devonport, Plymouth for the persistent way he has pursued the subject until finally he received the full support of the Government and of the whole House in another place. I also wish to express my thanks to the Minister in this House for the kind and considerate way that he dealt with the Bill in facilitating its passage through this House.
When the Bill becomes law shortly it will provide safer facilities for young people up to the age of 17 who wish to indulge in sports activities out of doors and may well go a long way to preventing a recurrence of the terrible tragedy in Lyme Bay in which four young people were drowned while canoeing.
Again, I thank everyone concerned. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Dean of Beswick.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Dean of Beswick.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Child Support Bill
3.11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I apologise for the state of my voice, but I wish to ask the noble Lord how far it is expected to go tonight and how late we are expected to sit.
When your Lordships debated the report of the Group on Sittings of the House we were assured that in the general way, other than exceptionally, we would adjourn at a reasonable hour. On the basis of that assurance your Lordships even consented to sit on a Friday before a bank holiday in order to debate the most important Bill of the year, the Finance Bill.
The other place has now reformed its hours of sitting and adjourns at a reasonable hour. It is quite wrong that your Lordships' House, a second Chamber—and in the way of second Chambers in general more elderly than the first—but, unlike most second Chambers, unsalaried, should be expected to sit until the very late and very early hours.
The issue is particularly important on this Bill because this Bill is designed to correct the egregious errors that were committed in the 1991 Act. It is accepted that in that respect it is an important Bill. On the 1991 Bill we habitually sat very late at night and into the early hours of the morning. Under those circumstances there could be no effective Division on any amendment. It is only up to, say, nine o'clock that it can be expected that there can be a representative selection of Peers in your Lordships' House to listen to a debate.
The 1991 Act was a legislative disaster. There have been unparalleled protests to Members of the other place. Their postbags have never been so full. That was because your Lordships were effectively prevented from amending the 1991 Bill. Practically everything in the present Bill is designed to correct the 1991 Act on lines that were suggested in your Lordships' House in 1991 and brushed aside with contumely.
Last night I asked how late we would sit and was told that we should continue without any time being fixed. In fact, the House did not get as far as planned but sat until after midnight. That is wrong. It prevents your Lordships from playing a proper role in the constitution. It does not treat your Lordships' House as an effective legislative Chamber. By about 10 o'clock the House was empty except for two Peers on the Opposition Front Bench, one on the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Minister and a Whip on the Treasury Bench. For all the good that was done, the debate might have been carried on round a comparatively small table with a secretary to take down what was said.
I ask with all the force at my command what time we are expected to sit until tonight, and I ask again that it should be a reasonable hour.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps I may say that there were two noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I support very strongly what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who more than once in the past has done the House very good service by raising this matter. We want to be told by the Minister not only how late it is intended to sit tonight but also to be given an
156
undertaking that we shall not sit very late with the result that there is no proper debate to allow this House to function properly as a debating Chamber.
There is a further point. We have recently had these very late sittings because there has been a lot of work to do. However, with one recent exception, we have not sat on Fridays. If the volume of business is such, then in order that it should be debated properly it is surely right that instead of sitting late on a Thursday or any other night the House should sit on a Friday, during the hours of daylight, and have a proper debate on these important issues.
If it is not thought likely that we shall be able to conclude the business intended to be dealt with today, I urge my noble friend the Minister that we should instead sit in addition on Friday.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I shall give all my support to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I shall try not to repeat what I said yesterday, but I believe that we must go on protesting at the procedure of this House in Committee on matters of this kind until something is done.
We are not being worthy of our role as Members of your Lordships' House when we conduct our business under the conditions in which it was conducted last night. My noble friends on these Benches are insatiable, incorrigible and almost tireless, but there is a limit to what they can do usefully after midnight, and indeed for many hours before, unless they have other Members of the House with them. I try to help to get the business through at night, up to a certain point. However, .I shall protest and continue to protest until we have a system which is more businesslike.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said that those who remain in the House are not representative. They would not even be representative of a Standing Committee. They are a backroom group coming to the front. They get nowhere. One has only to look at the proceedings. Never were more amendments moved in a parliamentary Chamber and withdrawn than in this one. What is the point of amendments that are moved, seconded and replied to and then withdrawn? Why cannot we have a procedure by which replies to many of the amendments are given in writing? Those who receive those replies can then decide whether to pursue the matter on the Floor of the House. There are many alternatives and ideas as to how we might conduct our business, but this is not the way.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale asks: what time are we going to sit until? Unfortunately the answer does not lie in the hands of the Minister. He would probably be prepared to get the business over and done with and stop at about six o'clock.
What is the other place doing? Has it not debated the Bill? What has it done with the Bill? How is it that so much still remains to be done? What sort of mess are we in? I believe that the Child Support Agency is one of the disasters of this Parliament; and that is saying something. We cannot go on like this. As long as I have a voice at my command, my noble and learned friend will have my support.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the most important thing—it has not been stressed—is that it is impossible to have a proper vote late at night when there are so few people around. If you cannot vote at Committee stage, you are reduced to voting at Report stage. That is most unsatisfactory because you can speak only once at Report stage. The voting time is in Committee, but you cannot do so at 12 o'clock at night when there are only about six noble Lords present. When the people are not here to vote, it destroys the whole constitutional process of revising legislation in this Chamber and of having votes.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, as an alternative to sitting on Fridays—there is already a rumour going around the Palace of Westminster that we shall have a Summer Recess of three months—surely a shorter Recess would eliminate the problem of having to sit until midnight.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in supporting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, in his question, it is worth remembering that it is possible to have Divisions late at night. If there are not enough noble Lords present, the House effectively stops sitting and automatically rises. However, we need to be careful when considering the question. One of the glories of the House of Lords is that we consider virtually all of our business on the Floor of the House where every Member has the chance to contribute. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, mentioned that there seemed to be few people in the Chamber late last night. But I know from personal experience—I was here until the end and I listened to some of the debates from below the Bar, apart from sitting in the Chamber—that a number of other Members were not necessarily in the Chamber but were around the precincts taking note of what was being discussed. It is important that we remember this. It is essential that our business is taken on the Floor of the House wherever possible.
We ought to consider seriously the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that we sit on Fridays. The other suggestion was that we might not have such a long Summer Recess. That is also a matter that we should consider seriously. However, the idea that we should take business off the Floor of the House should be rejected. One of the terrific strengths of our House is that we consider business on the Floor of the House and everyone has the opportunity to take part if they feel it necessary.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the Government Chief Whip responds in a way which I am sure will be helpful, as one of the "usual channels", perhaps I may refer to a dilemma that we face when the time to be allocated to a Bill is considered. One acts with the best of intentions. On this occasion my colleagues who lead so splendidly for these Benches agreed, accepted and approved the suggestion that two days for the Committee stage of the Bill would be sensible. In the event, having agreed that two days were sensible, we are very much "in pawn" to what happens thereafter regarding the number of amendments, whether they are able to be grouped, and whether people are prepared to make progress against the background, the desire, that the House should rise at about 10 o'clock. One then comes up against great difficulties. There is no problem regarding rising at about 10 o'clock, provided that there is an
158
unlimited amount of parliamentary time. As has clearly been seen on this occasion, when considering the manner in which progress has been made, with a Statement spatchcocked into procedures yesterday afternoon, one could have done with more time.
None of the problems is new; they have all been considered previously. I simply state from these Benches that we recognise the great difficulty of trying to marry the two points. My noble friend Lord Monkswell stated that colleagues in this House fiercely protect their right not only to put down amendments but also—it is unusual in comparison with another place—to insist that each be taken separately. As a consequence, in deciding to run its affairs in that way, the House comes up against the problems that we have in this instance.
We have no objection to meeting on Fridays. However, the problem then is that on matters of this kind there could be votes, and Whips could be applied. Colleagues are stating that the solution is not to sit after 10 o'clock but to sit on Fridays until four o'clock or five o'clock, perhaps having to respond to Whips.
Those difficulties have to be taken into account. I simply say that we on these Benches are party to the arrangements that have been made but recognise the difficulties that have arisen.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend on what basis the usual channels decided that the parliamentary time would be only two days. We all know that it is a contentious Bill. We all know that it will take time. How did the usual channels decide that the Bill would take only two days?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from our experience, one looks carefully at the amount of time that has been taken in another place. The noble Baroness shakes her head; she either indicates that we do not do so, or that we should not do so. I simply tell the House the procedure. When considering an estimate of how long is required in this House, we consider the length of parliamentary time that has been taken in another place. We look at the level of controversy that has arisen in another place. We consider the estimate that has been put to us, perhaps two days or three days, and we simply accept it, or say that we can do the job in two days. If we had insisted on three days, there may have been a problem. I speak only for our Benches. The Government have their own timetable to keep. We try to accept our responsibility in Opposition. It is our job to expose defects in a Bill as often as possible. At the same time, we are not in the business of filibustering needlessly.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, although the questions were posed to my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who moved the Motion to resolve the House into Committee, perhaps I may be given the opportunity of replying to this brief debate as I do in part bear some responsibility as to the conduct of business in this House.
I can assure all noble Lords who spoke that I am always deeply concerned when Back-Benchers complain about the lack of time made available to discuss Bills on the Floor of the House. It is of particular concern when senior Back-Benchers, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord

159
Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter raise their questions in the way in which they have.
It is not only my desire but also the desire, I am sure, of the whole House that we should rise regularly as early as possible. However, we do not live in a perfect world where we can organise everything in the way that we would necessarily like.
There are a number of alternatives. Some have been raised in the report to the previous Leader of the House from senior Back-Benchers. The report discussed the case for Friday sittings as well as early rising—up until 10 o'clock. That was all part of a package which included many other aspects, such as the Moses Room procedure for Committees of the Whole House off the Floor of the House, and informal committees between Second Readings and Committee stages. Those ideas are at but an experimental stage. No sooner than the end of the current Session we shall be able to tell whether we can move in the requested direction so as to reduce the amount of time during which the House has to sit late.
As for this Bill, I am happy to admit that maybe in this instance the usual channels got it wrong. Perhaps I may follow the Opposition Chief Whip in explaining the discussions that take place and the considerations that are taken into account before reaching a decision. None of that is arbitrary; it is all carefully worked out. We naturally take into account the discussions in another place, the controversy of the Bill and the debate that took place at Second Reading in this House. In all those cases the discussions indicated that the Bill should be dealt with perfectly well in two days. However, between making that decision and the Committee stage, a great many amendments were put down and it was still uncertain how long it would take to deal with them. As it was, last night's proceedings went far later than any of us would like.
There is another consideration: the overall time in the parliamentary year. I suspect that it is the desire of most noble Lords that this important Bill should receive Royal Assent before the Summer Recess so that its provisions can be put into place. Given that and the minimum timings that we have between the different stages of Bills, it is imperative that the Bill complete its Committee stage this evening.
I hope that there is no doctrine in the House that we should not vote after nine o'clock in the evening. I am sure that the Opposition Chief Whip would disagree with that doctrine, and I am not sure that I should like to be bound to a new convention if that were the case. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said about last night, that although the Chamber may not have been full, in a number of places around the House small groups of Peers were discussing and debating a variety of issues.
I also hope that the House recognises that this year has not been unusual in the number of late night sittings. I hope it agrees that there have been a number of evenings when we adjourned far earlier than was originally predicted.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked a straight question about this evening. I am always in the hands of those who have put down amendments for
160
today, but I hope that tonight we shall not go much beyond 10 or 11 o'clock. However, I repeat that I am very much in the hands of the House on the matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he answer this? If, as he said, it is imperative that the Committee stage should be concluded soon, is it imperative that it should be concluded before Friday? Would it not be possible to meet the general timetable for the Bill by finishing the Committee stage on Friday?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the usual channels always find themselves in the hands of Back-Benchers. But the anecdotal evidence I have is that, although some people may be keen to sit on Fridays, overwhelmingly the response I receive when I suggest that the House should do so is, "That's all very well, but not on my business". There may be an inevitability about sitting on Fridays on this Bill. That depends on the progress that we make this evening.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question of the noble Lord. Will he bear in mind on the allocation of time for future business that time taken in another place may be a misleading guide on Bills such as this, where much of the criticism comes from the Cross-Benches and from our own Benches?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that I indicated, as did the Opposition Chief Whip, that what happened in another place was but one consideration taken into account before the usual channels came to a conclusion on the allocated time.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion. I confess that I was not surprised to hear the words "the usual channels"; indeed, I would have been astonished if they had not come up. We owe a great deal to the usual channels. Although, no doubt, their primary concern is government business, they have regard to our convenience and we are grateful to them. Moreover, we have learnt to admire the individuals who compose the usual channels.
However, we should not be beguiled by their general charm and efficiency, for several reasons. First, the usual channels do not flow through the Cross-Benches. There are now 300 Members on those Benches and so far as I know none was consulted; certainly no one who took an interest in the Bill was consulted.
The second reason is that, on experience, the usual channels seem to have primary regard to putting through government legislation. That is the fundamental problem. There is a tendency to regard your Lordships' House merely as a machine for churning through a mass of legislation. Let us not forget that this piece of legislation is only required because, despite your Lordships' protests, the 1991 Act was defective.
There is a tendency to regard any amendment as something to be rejected, as was summarily done last night. The only amendments to be favourably considered are those embodying the draftsman's second thoughts.

161
There is also this to be said about the usual channels. I venture to adopt what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, once said, that the usual channels are regarded as a conspiracy against the Back Benches. I only add, "and the Cross-Benches". However, in the end we shall find ourselves time and again in this kind of trouble if we have a mass of legislation, much of it ill-digested, some of it quite unnecessary and most of which would have been unnecessary if proper attention had been paid to the criticisms of previous legislation. In the end I hope that that fundamental lesson will have been learnt.
The Chief Whip answered one of my questions directly by saying that we were to try to finish the Committee stage tonight. He answered the other question indirectly by saying that he hoped that we would finish by 10 or 11 o'clock. I cannot conceive of it being possible, with proper discussion, for us to reach the end of the Committee stage of the Bill by that time. I hope that the Chief Whip will be in his place at 10 o'clock tonight to take cognizance of the situation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
3.39 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 58:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
(". In Schedule 1 to the 1991 Act, leave out paragraph 11 and insert—
Effective date of assessment
"11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), a maintenance assessment shall take effect on such date as may be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, and that date may be earlier than the date on which the assessment is made.
(2) Where no maintenance assessment is in force with respect to the person with care and the absent parent, the effective date of a new assessment shall not be earlier than the date on which the assessment is made or, where a notice threatening an interim assessment has been issued under section 12(4) of this Act, the date on which such notice was sent to the absent parent.
(3) This paragraph shall have effect from 5th April 1993.".").
The noble Earl said: I have been listening. Not moved.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 61:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Information: late arrival of assessed maintenance
. In section 14 of the 1991 Act, after subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
"(5) If any maintenance assessed under this Act fails to reach the parent with care within one week of the time when it is due, the Child Support Agency shall so inform the Benefits Agency within 48 hours of being notified of the non-arrival of such maintenance." ").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 61, I am afraid, is moved. I have not become totally immobile. The amendment deals with the distressingly frequent situation where maintenance has been assessed and does not reach the parent with care. Her benefit has been reduced in regard of the maintenance so she is left with the reduced benefit and without the maintenance—and sometimes is in very considerable hardship. I asked the Minister
162
yesterday whether Clause 25 of the Bill might make amendment in this area unnecessary. The point arose on Amendment No. 2. The Minister was not briefed on that point yesterday. I hope that he may be briefed on it now, because, if so, I shall be able to withdraw this amendment quickly. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This new clause in Amendment No. 61 adds to Section 14 of the 1991 Act, which deals with gathering and disclosing information. It proposes that where child support maintenance is normally paid direct to the parent with care and a payment is at least a week late the Child Support Agency will report the delay to the Benefits Agency within 48 hours of being notified of non-receipt. In practice, a parent with care on benefit is more likely to approach the Benefits Agency first when her maintenance does not arrive rather than the Child Support Agency. Even so, this is a good example of why it is necessary for the Child Support Agency to have powers to disclose information to the Benefits Agency, and vice versa.
Although there are already adequate powers in Section 14 of the 1991 Act to allow for this sort of exchange of information, I have some sympathy with the sentiment behind the amendment. However, this is purely an operational issue between the Benefits Agency and the Child Support Agency; it is not appropriate for primary legislation. Both agencies have operational constraints. It would be wrong to require a particular action to be taken which might mean that other action that rightly should have a higher priority has to be put to one side.
In its November 1994 report on child support, the Social Security Select Committee recommended that procedures be introduced between the two agencies so that full benefit was restored as quickly as possible whenever maintenance was not paid properly. As a result, a working party was set up which is currently examining ways to improve the procedures. Some changes have already been made to forms, and general liaison arrangements have been improved.
If a parent with care opts for income support gross, which is the subject of Clause 25—I believe I am right in saying that at least two-thirds do so opt—the maintenance and income support are therefore paid together. She will have no problem. When maintenance decreases, she is already receiving the full amount. Therefore she ought to have no problem along the lines the noble Earl mentioned.
I return to the noble Earl's point about a parent with care who receives a payment directly from the absent parent. I have indicated what the two agencies are doing. I am happy to pass on the point made by this amendment to the working party that I mentioned which is considering procedural changes between the two agencies. While, of course, it is vital that information is transmitted quickly, I do not believe that we ought to require them to adopt a mandatory timescale as set out in the amendment.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am grateful for his sympathy and for the practical expression of it. I am pleased to hear about the working party and happy to accept the reference to it. I understand, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the point that he makes about this provision not being suitable for primary legislation. I believe that it is a rule of

163
construction of statutes that when a point like this gets into primary legislation, you know that it has been going wrong in the past. Since the Minister also knows that, and is concerned about it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 62:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Repeal of s. 14 of 1991 Act
. Section 14 of the 1991 Act shall be omitted.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 64, although it is not grouped with it, and deal separately with Amendment No. 63, although that is grouped with Amendment No. 62. I think that that is the more convenient grouping. I apologise that I did not have an opportunity of mentioning that approach to the noble Earl and to the Minister. I hope that it does not inconvenience them.
Amendment No. 62 proposes to omit Section 14 of the 1991 Act whose rubric is:
"Information required by Secretary of State".
There are no prizes for guessing how that section opens. The words are:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations".
Those regulations require people to give information that is not of the kind normal creditors are entitled to demand. It is exceptional information that is vouchsafed to officials because they are officials.
At Second Reading I cited a passage from the famous book, The Law of The Constitution. One of the tests of the rule of law—but only one of the three—is that officials are subject to the normal law of the land. They are amenable to the same law as that to which citizens are subject. The Bill gives them quite exceptional power. Let us see what they can do with it.
Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 3 to the Bill, under the strange heading, "Minor and Consequential Amendments", states as an amendment to the Child Support Act 1991 in Section 14, the one to which I just referred, that the Secretary of State may hand on the information that is required under that section. He may,
"make use of that information for purposes of any of the benefit Acts or of the Jobseekers Act 1995,"
or equivalent Northern Ireland Acts. In other words, not only is the Secretary of State given exceptional power to interrogate individuals and get information, but he can hand that information on to other social services organisations.
I said that I intended to take this amendment with a subsequent amendment which deals with powers of entry. Section 15 of the 1991 Act reads:
"(4) An inspector"—
that is an officer of the Child Support Agency—
"shall have power—

(a) to enter at all reasonable times … any specified premises … and … any premises which are not specified but which are used by any specified person for the purpose of carrying on any trade, profession, vocation or business; and

(b) to make such examination and inquiry there as he considers appropriate.

(5) An inspector exercising his powers may question any person aged 18 or over whom he finds on the premises.
(6) If required to do so by an inspector exercising his powers, any person who is or has been"—
there follow four different categories—
"shall furnish to the inspector all such information and documents as the inspector may reasonably require".
There is a little left to read but it is not much. Subsection (9) reads:
"If any person … without reasonable excuse, refuses or neglects to answer any question … he shall be guilty of an offence".
Remembering the definition of the rule of law, the Committee will ask where we are going now. The inspector may enter the premises on pain of a penalty. He may put questions to an employer or fellow employees which they must answer on pain of a penalty.
Everybody ought to observe his engagements. Anybody who owes a debt ought to pay it. But let us take the case of a wife under a separation agreement. She has no power to detail a private detective—even if she is owed money under that agreement—to enter premises on pain of a penalty, interrogate her husband, his fellow employees or his employer in order to secure her redress. That is the private individual. The case of any other creditor is similar. Why in this case should exceptional powers be given to the officials of the Child Support Agency? I might further ask whether it has shown since 1991 that it is worthy of such powers. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: The noble and learned Lord, as usual, is quite right. These are the powers to which he alluded in his speech on Second Reading—powers which threaten the rule of law. One of the points about the rule of law is that it should produce a slightly less unequal relationship than would otherwise exist between government and governed. It should impose an orderly relationship between them. The activities of big brother should be controlled by the activities of the rather bigger parent. That is what the rule of law is all about.
The first amendment that we are discussing deals with demands for information. It has already been used for demands for the most indelicate information from women about the details of their private life. I shall not repeat to the Minister the example that I gave him at Second Reading. I am sure that he remembers it.
The second amendment deals with the confidentiality of Inland Revenue information. It has been hard enough, since taxes began—which is as far back as we have had the state—to get people to give accurate information to the Inland Revenue so that their taxes can be assessed. We can only ask them to do so if they can have reasonable confidence that that information will not be used against them for other purposes. I have known people who would not even go to a tax accountant in their home town for fear that their financial details would become known

165
elsewhere. I thought that this Government were aware of the dislike of paying taxes. But it seems that in this Bill they have forgotten even that.
The third amendment deals with the powers of inspectors who are given rights of entry and questioning in practically any circumstances. In fact, it is the power of snooping. I notice that they have the right to enter:
"any specified premises, other than premises used solely as a dwelling house".
In other words, they may enter the corner shop which is also used as a dwelling house.
If inspectors, without warning and before they have identified themselves, start to enter people's houses in the middle of the night, they may risk a response which might tend to breach the peace. The Government are bringing their own servants into danger. I do not think that that is fair on them.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: We should be grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale for keeping an eye on the defects of legislation passed under the influence of prejudice. The year 1991 saw a flowering of the new despotism under the present Government. There had been the Environmental Protection Bill of 1990; and then in 1991 came the Dangerous Dogs Bill and the Child Support Bill. They all encroached on the rights of the citizen, without redress, because the Government felt that the prejudice of the public against the subjects of the legislation would allow them to transgress the normal considerations of individual liberty. The 1991 Child Support Act did that in some important respects. This provision is one of them. Another is the right given to the child support officer, with the sanction of the Inland Revenue, to inspect the pay records in the hands of the inspector of taxes.
I have already said many times that that Act conceded to child support officers what is denied to the police except in the case of murder. That shows the lengths to which the Government will go when they are in search of culprits. The Act was directed against culprits, defaulters, undesirable people—men who had deserted their children and wives. Nothing bad enough can be said against such people. One need stop at nothing when dealing with these people. I shall return to the Dangerous Dogs Act on subsequent occasions. But to deprive the magistracy of its historic right of discretion in sentencing people convicted under matters within their jurisdiction is nothing short of a crime. Yet it was done. The Government persist in insisting that it continues to be done lest the people's terrier might bite somebody.
I believe that that situation is disgraceful. This provision is disgraceful. The incursion into the confidentiality of Inland Revenue records is disgraceful. Why are there such facilities to pursue the objects of this Act?
We must bear in mind that we are handling legislation which is directed against certain persons in the community in the interests of other persons in the community. It is a Bill which rearranges the relationships between people and the community and people and people. It is a delicate operation. There is no question of keeping the balance here; the balance is against the
166
persons who are judged to be in default. No pains are spared in getting at them and pressing them to fulfil their obligations to their families.
Under this Bill we are part of the prosecuting authority. Parliament has put an instrument into the hands of the administration which goes beyond the normal role of the magistracy or the police. This Committee should be inquiring more closely into who is doing this; into whose thousands of hands the implementation of the Bill is being placed? What qualifications do they have? Where do they come from? What is the standard of remuneration? What is the standard of recruitment? They all speak in the name of the Secretary of State. That is why I described the original Bill, when it came before Parliament in 1991, as the grubbiest piece of legislation that I have struck in 42 years in Parliament.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I do not believe that I have ever heard a more moving speech than that made by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I had not intended to talk in this debate but I am minded to because I saw the wise grey head of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. I seem to remember when the Labour Party was in power that Mr. Healey, now the noble Lord, Lord Healey, introduced very wide powers of search and entry for the Inland Revenue. We on this side of the House railed against the rights of entry and the abuse of the state power over private individuals.
What my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale described reminds me of those wartime escape films and of somebody in a long grey overcoat saying, "Ihre Papieren, bitte". This is the instrument of dictatorship. There is already too much of it in existing legislation. Too much power is given to people to enter and search. It should be stopped and reversed for the sake of privacy and the freedom of the individual. We must take notice of what my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I can be clear about what we are doing. I was under the impression that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was moving Amendment No. 62 and speaking to Amendment No. 64.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: That is so. But the noble Earl, Lord Russell, joined in the Motion and also spoke to the second amendment. I entirely adopt what he said; indeed, that was the main theme of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. It is best if all three amendments are taken together because the power of entry, the power of questioning and the power of the infringement of the Inland Revenue confidentiality all go together.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I was going to mention that the noble Earl appeared to speak to the other amendment and I was seeking to be sure that I could reply to all three and perhaps save the Committee a few minutes.
These amendments would result in the removal of the Child Support Agency's powers either to gather or disclose information, which is essential to enable maintenance assessments to be made. It perhaps sits a

167
little oddly with the assurance I gave around 20 minutes ago that the Benefits Agency and the Child Support Agency could exchange information about parents with care in order to ensure that parents with care did not fall between the two stools of income support and absent parent maintenance.
If the amendments were agreed, it would mean that different parts of the Department of Social Security would not be able to exchange information. It would make it very difficult for the agency to trace absent parents with the degree of success they currently achieve. It would mean that the agency would be unable to give details of an application, or a maintenance assessment, to a child support tribunal. Finally, where the agency needs to use a court for enforcement or to establish paternity the CSA would be severely limited as to the information it could give to the court.
Schedule 2 to the 1991 Act allows the Child Support Agency to obtain from the Inland Revenue the current address or the current employer of an absent parent. It also allows the agency to obtain from local authorities details of housing benefit or council tax benefit which are needed in the assessment formula. These amendments would prevent all of those arrangements. I do not believe that it is a great challenge to civil liberties; in fact quite the contrary. It would be ridiculous to forbid the agency from seeking information along the lines I have just mentioned.
We recognise that the gathering and disclosure of information is a sensitive subject. Equally, I hope the Committee recognises that parents with care will not always know the absent parent's whereabouts, nor will parents always be able to give the other details needed by the agency. There was some discussion during the Second Reading of the Bill about the information which the Child Support Agency could obtain from the Inland Revenue. I would like to reiterate that the only information that is given to the agency by the Inland Revenue is the current address of the absent parent or the current employer of the absent parent. I must stress that the agency does not have access to anyone's tax returns. However, although the amount of information available to the agency is not extensive, it is vital in the agency's attempts to trace absent parents either directly or through their employers. I am sure that those of us who want the agency to work, who want the parent with care to receive the maintenance due, will find these powers well within what we consider to be reasonable.
In the past year the agency successfully traced over 49,500 absent parents whose whereabouts were unknown to the parent with care. In the past there has been talk of the agency failing to target the so-called "feckless fathers". The agency can be proud of its success in tracking down fathers, or indeed mothers, who disappear without facing up to their responsibilities to their children. The ability to obtain information from the Benefits Agency, the Contributions Agency, the Inland Revenue or employers is essential in this process. Without the help of the information provided, the number of successful traces would reduce to a trickle.
The second arm to Schedule 2 is the provision of relevant information from local authority records. That information has been prescribed in regulations as the
168
eligible rent for housing benefit purposes, the entitlement to housing benefit, the council tax payable and the entitlement to council tax benefit of either the person with care or the absent parent. Those are far from being draconian powers. In fact, the provision is benevolent as it allows for the agency to collect information which would otherwise have to be obtained by the parent.
An important element of the calculation of a maintenance assessment is the housing costs which are net of housing benefit. Details of council tax are needed for assessing protected income which ensures the absent parent and his new family remain significantly above the level of income support. Failure to obtain this information could reduce the speed and accuracy of some assessments.
On the question of the powers of entry, the effect of Amendment No. 64 would be that inspectors appointed under the Child Support Act would no longer have the right to enter premises and request information. The amendment would render Section 15, which provides for the power of inspection, effectively redundant since an inspector would have no greater powers to seek information than a child support officer already has without the benefit of Section 15.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, outlined in the debate at Second Reading and again today his objection to the power of inspection. He argued that these powers were contrary to the rule of law, or at least exceptional powers because they were not rights enjoyed by ordinary citizens. Furthermore, he implied that these powers were in some way unique and specific to the activities of the agency, a point, I suspect, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I said in that earlier debate—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I think the noble Lord is mistaken. I never thought that they were peculiar. In fact I warned against the precedents and that this would be used as a further precedent.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful for that recognition that there are precedents for this power. I was just coming to that for the benefit of those Members of the Committee who may be concerned about these powers. For example, over many years there have been powers to appoint national insurance inspectors. Similar powers exist in regard to Customs and Excise and to the Inland Revenue. Indeed, the powers of appointment available to the agency are a good deal more restricted than those available to other government bodies, since, as the noble and learned Lord will know, child support inspectors can be appointed only for one-off investigations and for a limited and specified period.
The powers of inspection are designed to deal primarily with cases where absent parents, more often than not self-employed absent parents, refuse to provide information or provide information that is wholly implausible. They are intended to be used primarily to gain access to records of business held either by the absent parent or his accountant. The agency can approach employers for information as a matter of course; and while it is possible that inspectors could be appointed to seek information from employers, that is not the primary purpose of the power.

169
The suggestion has been made that the inspectors might enter premises which are also dwelling places in the middle of the night, and that suggestion managed to get the hairs of my noble friend standing up on the back of his neck. But inspectors will not enter premises in the middle of the night or unannounced. The department has proved over many years that it can exercise this kind of power sensibly and sensitively. An inspector can only ask for admission to premises; he certainly cannot force his way in.
To date the agency has used these powers very sparingly. Since it began operations they have been used on a total of just fewer than 50 occasions. I do not accept that these are unusual or draconian powers, and it is clear from the number of times they have been used that they are used only in the most exceptional circumstances. The amendment would be extremely damaging since the power to appoint inspectors in a small number of often high profile and exceptional cases is the last resort in securing justice for the parent with care. Furthermore, while little use generally is made of the powers, the very fact that the agency possesses them is a deterrent to non-co-operation or indeed a deterrent against the provision of wholly false information.
The powers of inspection relating to establishing the income of the absent parent, or in a few cases the parent with care, are clearly the ones I have been dealing with, but there are a small number of cases, which were raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, involving personal questions. There are a small number of cases where paternity is one of the issues and it may be necessary to ask personal questions of the type the noble Earl mentioned. But I stress to the Committee that these kinds of questions are undertaken only in a very small number of cases where paternity comes into question. This is not at all related to the question of powers of inspection, which these three amendments cover.
I do not believe at all that these are in any way draconian, unique or unusual powers. They are sensible powers to give to the agency to enable it to carry out its task, which is to ensure that the absent parent pays the maintenance properly assessed and can be properly assessed for maintenance which can then be paid to help the parent with care and the children of his former marriage. I hope that the noble and learned Lord and the noble Earl will withdraw the amendments in their names. But if they do not, I hope my noble friends will support me in the Division Lobbies.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Listening to the speech of the noble Lord, one would think that he had picked up a brief from the Home Office on the detection of crime.
The Earl of Onslow: Can we not have these people going to get a warrant? If we had the old English system of being given a warrant by the magistrates for inspection, everyone would be happy. What sticks in some of our more libertarian minds is the fact that someone can just go and do it. This is an excuse which is heard every single time these powers are sought for other agencies. The. moment one more power for another agency is produced it is said that it is exceptional but that there is a precedent. That is how the argument on VAT was lost—the noble Lord, Lord Healey, said that the Tories had introduced it
170
for something else. There is this ratchet, ratchet, ratchet—more powers of entry and more abuse of individual liberties. The bureaucratic reasoning of convenience is getting too, too dangerous for our society. We ought to be very, very wary of it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Surely the whole thing depends on the wife who is left with a child by a man who by now dislikes her and has another wife. It is perfectly obvious that that man will not easily pay what he ought to pay. It seems to me that this is a long argument to try to stop what is right being done, and I am very surprised, having sat right through it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Either last night or at Second Reading—I have forgotten which—I asked rhetorically what is the Conservative Party doing supporting this Bill, the 1991 Act and the kind of powers that your Lordships have immediately under review. I was therefore particularly gladdened by the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. The noble Lord the Minister does not seem to realise the kind of powers that are exceptionally—I say "exceptionally"—being demanded. They may not be exceptional in the sense that other government departments may have already grabbed them. But they are exceptional in that individuals who have a grievance, to whom a debt is owed, have no such power and rightly have no such power. It is intolerable in a civilised society that people should have the power of entry and interrogation on the most private matters and to the detriment of a fellow citizen. We give no such power, for example, to the individual mother who was instanced; the individual wife who has been deserted and is owed maintenance. But we give the power to government departments. I was glad to hear a voice—a familiar voice to me—of the Conservative Party protesting against such powers.
I repeat what those powers are. They are now all under the review: the power of entry under penalty; the power of interrogation under penalty, including as to private matters. Those are not the only circumstances in which paternity is an issue, but we would not dream of allowing those powers in any other case. Therefore, the second power is the power of interrogation, including into private matters of finance, marital status and paternity.
The third is very important and was referred to—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to intervene. I hope that I made it clear—if I did not, this gives me another opportunity—that the inspectors with whom we are concerned would not be the people asking the questions about paternity. The child support officers would be asking those questions in the very small number of cases in which paternity is an issue. The question of inspectors and premises is quite different from the issue of trying to establish paternity where it is denied.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord will forgive me if I say that that is no answer at all; because it is an official who has the power, and no matter if that applies in only a small number of cases. It should not apply to any case.

171
The last matter is that of Inland Revenue confidentiality. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has spent many years of his youthful life in the service of the Inland Revenue in one form or another. He is also acutely aware of the social problems with which the Bill and the Act face us. The noble Lord rejects entirely—and entirely correctly—the infringement of Inland Revenue confidentiality. We have a very ancient and peculiar Inland Revenue principle in this country, going back right to the beginning of the system under the second Pitt. I refer to the principle of self-assessment. We rely on the individual to provide information to the Inland Revenue, and we assure him that if he does so and if he gives information honestly, his confidentiality will be respected. The information will not be handed round to any government agency which might care to use it against him. That is what is being done here, and I ask the Committee roundly to reject it.
4.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 62) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Airedale, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Northbourne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Onslow, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Palmer, L.

David, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Faithfull, B.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Fitt, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Foot, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Gregson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Halsbury, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shepherd, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Simon, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L. [Teller.]

Haskel, L.

Stedman, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tope, L.

McNair, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Addison, V.

Bridges, L.

Aldenham, L.

Butterworth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cadman, L.

Annaly, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Astor, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carnock, L.

Balfour, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Blake, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Blatch, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Boardman, L.

Courtown, E.

Borthwick, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

172

Cumberlege, B.

Milverton, L.

Davidson, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Morris, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dormer, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dundonald, E.

Moyne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Munster, E.

Elles, B.

Nelson, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Norrie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Northesk, E.

Gainford, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Orkney, E.

Glenamara, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Goschen, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Granard, E.

Radnor, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gridley, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hacking, L.

Rees, L.

Hail sham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Romney, E.

St. Davids, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Savile, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe, B.

Henley, L.

Selborne, E.

Hives, L.

Sharples, B.

Holderness, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hood, V.

Slim, V.

Howe, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Inglewood, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Lucas, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lyell, L.

Swinton, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Terrington, L.

McConnell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Trumpington, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Manchester, D.

Vivian, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Middleton, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.31 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 63 to 66 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 67:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Enforcement of assessments
.—(1) Sections 31 to 40 of the 1991 Act are hereby repealed.
(2) An assessment of child support maintenance shall be enforceable in accordance with this section, and not otherwise.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this section, an assessment of child support maintenance shall be enforceable in the same manner as an order made by a magistrates' court (or in Scotland, a sheriff court) for the making of periodical payments for the maintenance of a spouse.
(4) An assessment of child support maintenance shall not be enforceable unless and until there has been obtained from the magistrates' court (or in Scotland, the sheriff court) within whose district the person liable under the assessment resides ("the relevant court") an order authorising its enforcement.
(5) An application for an order authorising enforcement of an assessment may be made to the relevant court by the Secretary of State, or by the person entitled to receive payments under the

173
assessment; and the Secretary of State, the person entitled to receive payments under the assessment, and the person liable under the assessment, shall be made parties to the application.
(6) Before determining such an application, the court shall ensure that all the parties to the application have been given an adequate opportunity to be heard; and any such party may be represented before the court by any person authorised by him, whether or not the representative would otherwise have a right of audience before the court.
(7) The court shall not make an order for the enforcement of an assessment unless it is satisfied that each of the following conditions is fulfilled—

(a) that the time-limit within which an application for a review or appeal in respect of the assessment under sections 17, 18 or 20 of the 1991 Act may be requested or lodged has expired, and that any such review or appeal which has been requested or lodged has been carried out or disposed of; and

(b) that the making of the order for enforcement will not create or contribute to the creation of a serious risk of causing substantial harm to the welfare of any child who is likely to be affected; and

(c) that the making of the order for enforcement will not cause serious hardship or injustice to any person.

(8) The relevant court shall have the following powers—

(a) to make an order for the enforcement of part (instead of the whole) of the periodical amount currently payable under the assessment; and

(b) to remit arrears which have arisen under the assessment.

(9) Any order for the enforcement of an assessment shall specify—

(a) the periodical amount currently payable under the assessment, and the periodical amount (being the whole of part of the amount currently payable) for which enforcement is authorised by the court; and

(b) the amount of arrears existing at the date of the order (ascertained in the light of any evidence of payments made which has been received by the court), and the amount of arrears remaining after any remission ordered by the court.").

The noble Earl said: This amendment deals with the procedure for enforcement. The Act contains numerous special provisions on enforcement; for example, a deduction of earnings order. It is purely an administrative act. It is without any judicial intervention or any consideration of surrounding circumstances. The principle of this amendment is that enforcement would be carried out as with an order of a magistrates' court for spousal maintenance. So an attachment of earnings order by a magistrates' court would remain possible after a proper judicial hearing in which all the circumstances would be considered. It is this consideration of all the circumstances which is vital to us.
If he wanted an order, the Secretary of State would have to apply to a magistrates' court for it. That would have to be done before any enforcement measures. The court would have the right either to grant the order or to refuse it if a review or an appeal were pending if it was not satisfied that the child's welfare was sufficiently safeguarded or that hardship or injustice would be avoided. The court would also be empowered to authorise only partial enforcement and to remit arrears. That is a problem to which we must return.
I understand that this Act was brought in to deal with a real problem. The problem of securing maintenance for the parent with care was urgent and to which attention was overdue. But it is a rule that pendulums always swing too
174
far and that rule has not been broken in this case. The parent with care has rights; but as I listened to the Minister replying to the previous amendment, he seemed to believe that those rights existed with such paramount importance that they blotted out everything else. That is not correcting injustice, but standing injustice on its head. It is a sadly common performance, but it is one which I do not believe has ever done very much to improve the world. I beg to move, and to get back to the rule of law where we belong.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Both amendments seek to introduce substantial and wide ranging changes to the methods of collecting and enforcing child support maintenance. Like so many of the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, they give undue priority to the absent parent at the expense of the parent with care; the children for whom she is responsible, and at the expense of the taxpayer.
If either amendment were accepted, all cases where the absent parent did not voluntarily make arrangements for paying maintenance and any arrears, the Child Support Agency would have to apply to the magistrates' court for an enforcement order. That would cause delays in obtaining payment of maintenance for the parent with care; increase significantly the costs of enforcement, by more than £20 million a year; and result in big increases in the amount of work for the magistrates' courts.
Those courts would also have wide powers to refuse to grant an enforcement order if they considered the order would create or contribute to the risk of serious risk or harm to the welfare of any child likely to be affected, or the order would cause serious hardship or injustice to any person. They would also have the power to write off arrears. But most significantly, Amendment No. 67 gives the power to the magistrates' court to make an enforcement order for less than the full amount of the formula assessment.
The noble Earl has frequently made clear his opposition to this Act and this amendment would totally undermine its principles. The formula assessment was introduced precisely because the previous court system failed parents with care, the children and the taxpayer. Maintenance awards varied considerably and were generally of a low amount, with payment of maintenance often being given a low priority in the absent parent's obligations and expenditure. The formula system which we have devised gets away from these problems and gives an opportunity to the parent with care to look to the absent parent for fair maintenance to be paid on time and as agreed by the agency. The formula already contains a number of safeguards to ensure that the absent parent is asked to pay only an amount reasonable in his circumstances.
The main provision in this Bill is for a departure scheme. We have already discussed these provisions in some detail. The scheme will enable the maintenance assessed under the formula to be reduced in those cases where exceptional circumstances mean that the payment of the assessed amount would cause hardship. No absent parent will be asked to pay an unreasonable amount of maintenance. This not only means that it

175
would be wrong for the magistrates' court to have the power, in effect, to reduce the assessment, but that there is no justification for arrears to be written off.
The amendment contains a number of other provisions that would further undermine the ability of the agency to obtain payment of maintenance in those cases where the absent parent deliberately seeks to avoid his responsibility to his children. It removes the ability of the agency to impose deduction from earnings orders without reference to the magistrates' courts. At present deduction from earnings orders can be issued without the need for this, providing a quick and effective means of getting maintenance into payment when absent parents do not co-operate. It is important for parents with care that maintenance is put into payment as soon as possible and, where absent parents refuse to pay, the deduction from earnings orders procedures help to ensure this. It takes about 25 days to issue a deduction from earnings order via the agency, but would take about eight to 10 weeks to obtain a liability order. Of course, if absent parents comply with their obligations to pay maintenance, the need for a deduction from earnings order does not arise.
In addition, applications to magistrates' courts could be made only when all reviews and appeals had been cleared. But that would create an incentive to absent parents who wanted to avoid paying maintenance to make vexatious applications for reviews of the assessment, or change of circumstances reviews, and to lodge spurious appeals to delay the point at which payment of maintenance could be enforced.
If any Member of the Committee believes that I am imagining those suggestions they should read some of the publications of one of the more vociferous organisations representing absent parents. Sadly, it is true that a minority of absent parents are committed to avoiding their responsibilities. It takes a minimum of several months to go through the process of completing a review and a child support appeal tribunal hearing and then only if all the relevant information is to hand and there are no delays of any kind. If one added to that the later intervention of the courts it is clear that unscrupulous absent parents could see delay being added to delay. The parent with care would be left wondering whether the absent parent was ever going to be called to account to pay maintenance.
We believe that the provisions in the Bill strike a balance between the needs of the absent parent, the parent with care, the children and the taxpayers. The effect of either of the new clauses would be totally to undermine the Child Support Agency's ability to collect and enforce maintenance effectively. There has been some criticism that the Bill does not give sufficient help to the parents with care. These amendments would be of considerable disadvantage to the parents with care because they would have to wait very much longer for maintenance to be paid, even assuming that the magistrates' court granted the liability order.
I believe that there is no justification for the amendments now before the Committee and I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw them. However, I can
176
understand where he is coming from in respect of this matter and that he may feel strongly about it. He may well wish to test the opinion of the Committee and, if so, I hope that other Members will see the force of my argument and will support me in the Lobbies.
Earl Russell: I ask the Minister to withdraw the suggestion that this amendment does anything whatever to encourage those who deliberately refuse to pay their maintenance. An attachment of earnings order from a magistrates' court is not a negligible instrument to secure payment. The Minister's objection to it is that it would produce a delay of 39 days. I believe that 39 days to check whether you have got it right in a matter that is so important to the lives of all the parties concerned is not a negligible expenditure of time. It was extremely unjust and inaccurate of the Minister to make that suggestion. I repeat to him my invitation that he should withdraw it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sure that the noble Earl has no intention of encouraging anyone to delay making their proper payments. I was simply pointing out that there are such organisations. I have the newsletter of one of them in front of me; it is called NACSA. Reading through its pages one sees that the organisation is encouraging absent parents to use any possible means at their disposal, including trying to bring the whole workings of the agency to a halt, to prevent them having to pay their assessment.
Earl Russell: If the Minister wishes, as I do, to discourage that method of responding to political discontent he needs to provide an alternative outlet for that discontent. He needs to persuade people that it is possible to change things by legitimate political channels. That calls for rather more flexibility on his part than he has yet shown.
It is both inaccurate and unnecessary to attempt to count the amendments moved by any Member of the Committee to see which favour one sex and which favour the other. In any event, the Minister has done so before we have reached the benefit penalty, on which I shall have a good deal to say. Therefore, he has a grossly distorted figure. In relation to these issues, to be on the side of one sex or the other regardless of the facts of the case is a cheap and footling way of going about it. Both sexes are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
Justice is proverbially blind. Until we started debating this Bill I had not realised how important that symbolism is. Justice is not interested in which sex you are; it is interested in the facts of the case. I know that the Minister's formula has become a fetish to the Government but the point about a formula is that it gets away from the facts. The Minister has deliberately invited me to seek the opinion of the Committee. I am capable of resisting temptation but I hope that before we return to many issues of this kind on Report there will have been a certain amount of thought on the other side of the Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 69:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Enforcement of liability orders by distress
. Section 35 of the 1991 Act shall be omitted.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment seeks to leave out Section 35 of the 1991 Act, which gives power to the appropriate official to levy distress on non-payment of a liability order. I have a letter from the Minister, for which I am grateful, but I am afraid that it arrived only yesterday even though I raised the matter on Second Reading and in debates on the 1991 Act. I confess that I did not altogether understand the letter but that may be because I have no recent experience on this technical branch of the law; the law of distress.
Distress is an extraordinary remedy. It goes back to a primitive state of jurisprudence; namely, the state of self-help. Members of the Committee will know that the most striking feature of that time was the vendetta—the blood feud—in which revenge was taken for an injury. The very first steps on control of the self-help was limitation on the number of persons who could seek revenge and on the relationship to the offender of those on whom vengeance might be taken. That is the state of the law from which distress originates.
In other words, it is a remedy of self-help. The creditor could help himself to the repayment of a debt without any judicial process. He did that by seizing the goods of the debtor and holding them until the debt was paid and, if necessary, selling them and recouping himself for the debt.
Obviously, that remedy of self-help, of distress, required to be as anxiously guarded against for its abuse as the vendetta and the blood feud. Both common law and statute intervened to limit the way in which distress might be levied in order to ensure that it should not be abused. As I understand the noble Lord's letter—and I confess that I have not had time to study it properly—he is saying that Section 35 does not provide any extraordinary remedy; that it merely provides the same sort of right of distress that is now available to any citizen who alleges that he is owed money. If I have that wrong, the noble Lord must correct me.
If that is so, I fail entirely to see why the section is necessary at all. Why cannot the matter be left to the ordinary law of debtor and creditor? Bearing in mind the extraordinary powers which have been asserted and claimed and, indeed, vindicated recently in the Division Lobby without a hint of any concession at all, I view the distress provisions with very great suspicion.
If they do anything more than that which is available to the ordinary citizen who is a creditor, they give exceptional powers to officials. As I asked before: what are a Conservative Government doing to put forward such claims? What is the Conservative Party doing to support such a Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I support the amendment. Distraint is the ultimate degradation of the citizen. The right to invade his house without his sanction should surely be reserved only for the police with a warrant in search of a fugitive from justice.
Section 35 is an indication of the depths to which the Thatcher administration would sink in the pursuit of a vendetta against a section of the community which the Prime Minister felt was getting away with something. "Make the blighters pay", said she. "Go and do it". This Bill was the outcome.
Although distraint nominally remains in the hands of the taxation authorities, it is extremely rarely necessary to use it these days. We are dealing not with fugitives from justice but with citizens who are in a different relationship to their obligations from others. It is not a criminal matter and should not be accompanied by the extreme power to enter and remove goods and sell them in order to recover the debt. That is the rock bottom of the evils of the Bill which contains so many injustices to a section of the community.
I cannot contain my indignation about the spirit of hostility behind this Bill against people who are believed to be so much in default of their obligations that they have to be treated as though they are thieves and vagabonds, and are subject to every possible device to track them down and bring them to face their charges of neglect.
Therefore, I support the amendment. I must express my regret that the debates at the Committee stage of the Bill have not shown the strength of the Labour Party on issues which affect personal liberty and the freedom of the citizen that I hoped they would show. Populist tactics are all right as far as they go but when you lie low on an issue of profound political and ethical importance, you should be prepared to stand and deliver. I am very sad indeed about that. But I shall not rest on this, as on some other matters, because if there is any point at all in being in Parliament, it is to protect incursions into the rights of citizens which are so easily taken away in panic and fear and in sheer cussedness sometimes because you want to get your own back on somebody who is, in your opinion, not performing properly his citizen's duties.
I do not know what my noble friend thinks about the amendment. It may be that there is something in the letter which he has only just received and which I have not been privileged to see. I have a whole bundle of letters which I have received in the last several days from various sources. I wish that I had received them a week ago. There is a letter in my file which is addressed, "My dear Jack". I assume that that is one of the letters to which the noble and learned Lord referred, but I do not believe that it is the letter relating to this amendment. "My dear Jack, what are you going to do?" I am prepared to support the amendment if the opinion of the Committee is sought.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendment removes totally the provisions relating to the levying of distress. It would undermine the ability of the Child Support Agency to obtain payment of maintenance on behalf of the parent with care and children in those cases where the absent parent does not co-operate in meeting his responsibilities.

179
I repeat again that the agency makes every effort to reach an agreement with the absent parent about the repayment of arrears. There are a number of safeguards in place that limit the amount of arrears payable, the amount that the agency will seek to collect, and the maximum amount of current maintenance and arrears repayments in cases where he makes prompt arrangements to meet his liabilities. I should re-emphasise that enforcement action is considered only in those cases where the absent parent persistenty seeks to avoid his liabilities.
I accept that it is unpleasant for an absent parent to have bailiffs turn up at his house. But we must remember that the absent parent can avoid the need for this by co-operating with the agency. It is—dare I say to the Committee?—up to him.
With regard to the procedures, I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, would be at least partially satisfied by the fact that the agency has to go to a magistrates' court in England and Wales and to a sheriff court in Scotland in order to obtain a liability order before the final steps are taken.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: But is it not correct that the magistrates' court cannot review the order? It has to take the matter as it is stated by the Child Support Agency.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure about the answer to that question, but certainly the court cannot start to look into the details of the assessment and re-judge the issue. What the court is able to decide is whether or not, in the circumstances presented by the agency, a case has been made—presumably on the grounds that the person has not paid and has persistently declined to do so. It is very much the last possible step that the agency would take. On those grounds, the magistrate or sheriff would have to be satisfied before he took such a step, as is the case with any magistrate or justice of the peace before he actually signs any kind of document in terms of the various orders that he is asked to sign. One has to satisfy oneself that the person appearing and asking for whatever order it may be—and in this case it would be a liability order—has made a justifiable case.
Therefore, while the magistrates' court cannot query the assessment itself, as I explained, like justices of the peace and other such people who are asked to sign documents regarding a wide range of matters in the law, those concerned must be satisfied that the person asking them to sign has made a proper case.
However, the important point is that we are dealing with someone who has had every possible opportunity to obey the law and pay the maintenance to the parent with care of the child or children. That is a fact. We are discussing the stage where we are, so to speak, at the end of the line. No one—such as the agency or the Government—likes to make use of the distress provisions. But, frankly, in those cases I do not see what else one can do except to say to the absent parent, "Well, it's a fair cop. You've won and we can't do anything about it. You can walk away and we can't do anything".
In the case of someone who has a wage, we can use the other order procedure. But, for example, in the case of
180
someone who is self-employed, I regret to say that if he persistently and over time refuses to pay, I believe that the agency must have such a power as a last resort. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
5 p.m.
Baroness Seear: The Minister has told us what he thinks the crux of the matter is. However, for those of us who support the noble and learned Lord, the crux of the matter is that the power is in the hands of administrators and not those of the judiciary. That is what we cannot and will not tolerate.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Hear, hear!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not in the least surprised by that because the party that the noble Baroness represents has made it perfectly clear all along that it would repeal the Act; that it does not like the agency; and that it would prefer to go back to the previous system with all its imperfections which, of course, are only imagined by those of us who think of it as imperfect. The noble Baroness obviously thinks that the system was perfectly fair and reasonable.
Baroness Seear: What the Minister is saying is totally untrue. Of course we do not support the wrongs which were done before. It is not a choice between two things; what we object to is what the Government are continuously doing. They are undermining the independence of the judiciary and putting the power into the hands of administrators. That is what we will not tolerate.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that there is a gulf between us on the matter. The previous system did not work in the view of most people. It certainly did not work in the view of the great majority of parents with care. We believe that if the agency had the chance it would and could run properly; indeed, it will run properly once the refinements in the Bill are introduced.
Earl Russell: No one is maintaining that the previous system was perfect. However, did the Minister hear what I said on the previous amendment; namely, that pendulums always swing too far? Will he respond to it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure whether it is the law of physics that pendulums swing too far. If that were so, I do not believe that clocks would work. I understand the noble Earl's point and, to a certain extent, he is right. We are introducing the departure system in the legislation. That means that we recognise that there are some legitimate concerns about the workings of the 1991 Act. We are taking such steps in the Bill and, when they are in place, we believe that the system will run very much better. It is to be hoped that it will work to the benefit of the many parents with care who were not and are not receiving their maintenance because of the behaviour of some absent parents.
However, I believe that there is a political divide. Of course, I am well aware that the Liberal Democratic Party is hoping to gain considerable support from

181
parents with care. In fact, the NACSA newsletter which I have in front of me invites its members to canvass for the local Liberal Democrats.
Earl Russell: Will the Minister take note of the fact that the amendment was moved from the Cross Benches?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Minister has not answered the question that I asked. It is possible that I put it too generally. I asked whether this gives exceptional powers to the agency or its officers—or, indeed, to the Secretary of State—which are not available to the ordinary individual creditor. Perhaps I should put it more specifically.
Section 35(2) of the 1991 Act says that the,
"Secretary of State may levy the appropriate amount by distress",
and "the appropriate amount" is set out in paragraph (b) which refers to,
"an amount, determined in such manner as may be prescribed, in respect of the charges connected with the distress".
Is there any power, except in retrospect, for a private individual levying distress through the courts in the way that the Minister described to fix his own amount of the charges? That is the first specific question.
Looking a little further on at subsection (5), one finds the words:
"No person levying a distress under this section shall be taken to be a trespasser—

(a) on that account".

Is that not an extraordinary provision? The law normally says that any illegality constitutes the person levying the distress a trespasser.
However, subsection (7) says:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations supplementing the provisions of this section".
Is that not also an extraordinary provision? What other creditor can alter the rights of distress? But it does not end there. Subsection (8) says that the Secretary of State may,
"provide [by regulations] that such a distress shall not be deemed unlawful on account of any defect or want of form in the liability order".
If my recollection of the law of distress is anything like correct, that, too, is an extraordinary provision.
I believe that I passed over a subsection that I should have mentioned. Subsection (6) refers to,
"special damages by reason of any irregularity",
whereas subsection (5) refers to a person being "taken" to be a trespasser,
"from the beginning, on account of any subsequent irregularity in levying the distress".
Is that according to the ordinary law? My recollection is that certainly an illegality relates back. I do not understand the reference to an irregularity. There are three things that are hedged round the law of distress. One is that an illegal distress renders the proceedings void from the beginning and gives rise to special damages, the second is an irregularity and the third is an excessive distress. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain the meaning of irregularity here and explain whether it does not—as in the cases to which I have referred since intervening on this occasion—confer an
182
extraordinary power on officials which the ordinary individual creditor going through the court does not enjoy.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not intend to get into a legal debate with someone of the noble and learned Lord's eminence any more than I would take myself to Wimbledon in the next week or two and ask to play against the No. I seed. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept that I am not going to get into too deep legal waters with him—I fear he knows his way about much better than I. In the first place of course an ordinary individual can apply to the court for a debt judgment and can then apply for distress—and the CSA is no different—once the liability order is obtained from the magistrates' court. Therefore, the procedure of distress is—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I come back to my very beginning. If this is no more than any ordinary creditor can enjoy, why do we have this section at all?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I knew that I should not have played legal tennis with the noble and learned Lord. It is a matter of where the agency starts in making these formula assessments. As I said earlier, the magistrate (or the sheriff in Scotland) will not be in a position to get into the detail of how the formula assessment has been made up and whether it is right or wrong. That is not part of his role. I am not sure what the magistrate or the sheriff does in the case of an ordinary and private individual and to what extent the sheriff or the magistrate would explore whether the debt was a proper debt and what evidence was in front of him that it was a proper debt. Clearly the agency starts from the assessment formula—it is a public agency—and therefore it comes to the court with a debt which it has arrived at through the formula and through the fact that the absent parent has not paid, not just for a week or two but for some considerable time.
The noble and learned Lord asked whether I could give any other examples as regards the regulation-making powers. The regulation-making powers relating to distress mirror the provisions in the County Courts Act 1984. On the question of the provision relating to trespass and whether it accords with the ordinary law, there are parallel provisions in the same—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again. I am afraid that I do not understand—probably because I have not looked at it recently—his reference to the County Courts Act. Surely under that Act there is no power for the individual creditor to fix the charges. But that is what is done in this statute and that is the matter to which I referred. The noble Lord is looking at the Act. It gives the Secretary of State power to fix the charges which he considers are incidental to the distress. It is that I am asking him about.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The position is as I have tried to explain. The Secretary of State of course, from this point of view, is the agency, and that applies too to its officers who are going to the court. I imagine

183
that the charges are the charges relating to what the absent parent owes. I shall not continue to discuss these legal technicalities with the noble and learned Lord because, as I said, it would be as if I had attempted to play the No. 1 seed at Wimbledon when my tennis is not just poor but non-existent. The point is one of principle and that is what I invite the Committee to agree with me on.
The point of principle is that, if in the last analysis an absent parent has proved to be totally unwilling to pay his maintenance to the parent with care and to the children, we either take these drastic steps—I accept that they are drastic and I trust that they would be used only in extremis— or we simply hold up our hands and say, "Well, boy, you have got away with it. You have played us to the end game and the House of Lords has taken away our powers to make sure that you pay at the last". I do not believe that the Committee wants to do that.
Earl Russell: Does the Minister understand the case that argues that no intention, however good, should be pursued in total isolation from other considerations? His intention is good, but the Minister knows what is paved with good intentions.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The intention is indeed good and I am glad to hear the noble Earl underline that. The problems of the absent parent ought to have been and will have been attended to through the assessment and through the departure, but we are talking about someone who is simply not paying. In those circumstances, as I have said, there has to be a final stop so that the absent parent cannot get away with it. Organisations like the one I mentioned would advise every absent parent to take the same route and, regrettably, a few would probably do so.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: This is the first opportunity that we have had in this Chamber to review the Act which was passed several years ago and of which the Government have now had several years of experience. The noble Lord will have seen this amendment down on the Marshalled List. Can he say what use Section 35 has been in the recovery of payments from any person under the 1991 Act? Is there any known case of distraint? If not, or if it has been practically unused, can we not remove this theoretical incursion into the dignity and the rights of individuals? Why keep it in and let it stand as part of the monument of hostility and venom against this group of our citizens?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The process has been used by the agency. I indicated why I thought it was necessary. The important point is that it is there also as a deterrent. It is not just a matter of the number of occasions on which it has been used, but the number of occasions on which it has been helpful to show an absent parent in these circumstances that, if he does not pay, there is a final action which the agency can take, which is unpleasant for everyone concerned and which the agency does not want to take but which has to be there if people are not to get away scot-free and pay nothing at all.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: We have at last got to the point of principle. The noble Lord says in effect that no one need suffer the inconvenience and humiliation of distress if he pays the debt. That is like saying that no one need suffer a black eye from the police if he is prepared to go quietly. That simply will not do.
The debate has been worthwhile, if only for the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It ill-becomes the noble Lord or anyone on the Treasury Bench to sneer in those terms at the Liberal Democrats. They have played a valiant part in this Bill, as in the 1991 Act, approaching it with great knowledge of the social background, the benefits system and with respect for the rule of law.
I asked the noble Lord a number of questions, which he declined to answer on the grounds that they were legal questions. In my defence, I say that I questioned this provision back in 1991 and again at Second Reading. However, the Minister may want to think about what has been said. It is obvious that this is a matter to which we shall wish to return at Report Stage, if only to highlight the particular matters to which I referred and which the Minister sidestepped. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 70:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Commitment to prison: evidence
. In section 40 of the 1991 Act, in subsection (11) (c), before "evidence" there shall be inserted "prima facie").
The noble Earl said: This amendment also concerns the rule of law, but is in a very much more minor key. It is one to which I hope the Minister may respond favourably without too much difficulty or without great sacrifice.
The amendment deals with the clause in the 1991 Act bestowing a power of imprisonment, against which my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris fought so heroically in 1991. At present I am not attempting to remove that power. I am taking up only one point in subsection (11) (c) of Section 40 of the 1991 Act, which concerns evidence. It states:
"that a statement in writing to the effect that wages of any amount have been paid to the liable person during any period, purporting to be signed by or on behalf of his employer, shall be evidence of the facts stated".
I propose to insert the words "prima facie" before "evidence".
I do not object to the use of the evidence, I ask for it to be possible to deny it. The word "purported" in the 1991 Act itself indicates the possibility of a need for challenge. I ask for the support of any Member of the Committee who has ever received an inaccurate payslip. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the amendment relates to the provisions for committal to prison. As the noble Earl pointed out, its purpose is to give less weight to statements obtained from an absent parent's employer that wages had been paid. Such evidence is of course relevant for the court to consider when deciding if there was wilful refusal or culpable neglect on the part of the absent parent.

185
In our earlier debate on issues surrounding collection and enforcement of child support maintenance, I made it clear that we do not envisage that the provisions relating to committal to prison will be used on many occasions. The agency has never used them. However, there will be some cases when it appears that the absent parent had the ability to pay but deliberately refused to do so and an application for committal will be appropriate.
Presumably the noble Earl intends with this amendment to make it more likely that a court will refuse an application. However, I can see no reason why a statement from an employer should carry less weight than other evidence, even when I hear the noble Earl mention mistakes in payslips. It is also important to understand that the Act does not make a statement from an employer conclusive evidence. It is for the magistrates to consider that evidence, along with any other evidence put forward by the Child Support Agency or the absent parent. In the previous court system there was always the power to send maintenance defaulters to prison. Therefore, this is not a new provision in this particular field.
My response to the noble Earl touches on a very fine point. It is for magistrates to consider that evidence. I suggest that if payslips are wrong, that is part of the evidence that the absent parent will lead.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister. When he said that it is not conclusive evidence, he gave me the point for which I ask. It is possible to challenge it. I am very glad of that assurance, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 71:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Arrears
. In subsection (3) of section 41 of the 1991 Act, at end there shall be inserted, "provided always that, if the absent parent shall resume residence with the parent with care, the Secretary of State may, with the agreement of the parent with care, waive any arrears, or any portion of arrears; if it appears expedient to him to do so, and provided always that no arrears shall be collected unless it is conducive to the welfare of the child to do so."").
The noble Earl said: This again is an issue which I argued at some length in 1991. It concerns the levy of child maintenance from the absent parent on income support. Income support is not a particularly generous benefit.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wonder whether the noble Earl is speaking to the right amendment. Amendment No. 71 was grouped and discussed with a previous amendment. I wonder whether the noble Earl is perhaps speaking to Amendment No. 72?
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I should be speaking to Amendment No. 72. However, at least I am talking about the right subject. After the Jobseekers Bill I am very relieved about that.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 72:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Contribution to maintenance by deduction from benefit
. Section 43 of the 1991 Act shall be omitted.").
The noble Earl said: I rise to move Amendment No. 72, which deals with the levy of child maintenance from an absent parent on income support.
When we debated Amendment No. 52 last night the Minister said that the income support rates provide a benchmark for assessing need. I told the Minister then that I was grateful for those words and that he would hear them again. That is precisely the point. It is not a generous benefit. It is not intended that such a large surplus should be left over that people are capable of paying large sums in addition.
That is not all. We have heard many times in this Chamber, many of them before the Minister came here, of the number of deductions to which people on income support may be subject: for gas, water, electricity, rent, Social Fund loans, court fines and many others. There is a rule in the department that deductions should not normally rise above 15 per cent. If the Minister were to wish to give me a crumb rather than the whole substance of the amendment, he might concede that levies of child maintenance should be subject to the 15 per cent. rule, because beyond that people are getting very near the bone. They are getting to the point where one needs to consider the risk of malnutrition.
The Minister may also consider whether, from the point of view of the department, the procedure is cost effective. At the moment the levy of £2.30 a week is levied on 18,300 parents, which is 10.5 per cent. of the total assessments. That is an awful lot of work to collect a very small amount of money. I am not sure whether it is a cost-effective use of money, and I am sure that it is not a cost-effective use of the time and effort of the agency. It takes a great deal of time to collect these small sums, and the Minister must face the fact that the agency has been overburdened with work to a far greater extent than the Government ever foresaw.
If the Minister gives his usual reply that the absent parent must pay and that maintenance must take priority over all else, and he gives that priority over the need to avoid malnutrition and over the interests of the Treasury and efficient government, then I shall think that the Minister is in danger of obsession. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment seeks to remove the requirement for absent parents who receive income support to make any contribution to child maintenance by way of either current payments or arrears.
I have made it clear sufficiently often that the Government believe that all absent parents should normally provide at least a small contribution towards their children's costs. The amendment would mean treating income support recipients more favourably than absent parents with similar levels of income from other sources. The standard current maintenance contribution in these cases, £2.35 per week from April 1995, provides a small but continuing recognition of the financial responsibility which parents have for their children.

187
When I mentioned the bench mark, I was well aware that the noble Earl would come back at me. However, £2.35 is not a huge amount, although I fully accept that we are not talking about large incomes. On the other hand, I believe that the point about the continuing recognition of financial responsibility is important. We recognise that it would not be right to expect absent parents to pay maintenance in all circumstances. Therefore there are some groups which are not expected to make that contribution. Those who are aged under 18, those who are sick or disabled, or those who have a child living with them are not expected to make that contribution. The income support recipients who contribute will be those aged 18 or over who are seeking work. When they find work the fact that they are already paying the modest amount of £2.35 will be a useful indication and reminder to them that when they start work they will have to provide support for their children.
We also recognise the need to provide additional safeguards for those absent parents who have failed to budget for other essential expenditure and who could face eviction from their homes or disconnection of fuel or water supplies. Deductions from income support to meet rent arrears or fuel or water charges are given priority over child maintenance. It is the one exception that I think I shall make to my usual principle—just in case the noble Earl jumps up to say that I contradict much of what I said. However, in those very special cases we accept that those deductions should be given priority. When those deductions apply, the £2.35 contribution to child maintenance is not required.
Given the existence of those safeguards, I do not believe that it would be right to go the step further and treat all unemployed absent parents who receive income support differently from those with similar income from work.
I hope that with my explanation of the exceptions that are in the system already the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: Before we go further, perhaps the Minister will assist me by telling me what general principle governs the few cases which are excepted from the Government's normal rule. If we can discover the general principle, we may be able to consider it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Sometimes one looks at the practicalities. The practicalities are that we are talking about people on income support. As I mentioned earlier, we have already excepted those who are aged under 18, sick or disabled, or who have a child living with them. They are not expected to make a contribution. We have considered the special circumstances of those who have problems paying their rent arrears or fuel or water charges. We believe that in those circumstances it would be right to make a small breach in the general principle. I am a little surprised that the noble Earl encourages me to stick to the broad principle.
188
A principle is not in any way limited if we are prepared in very exceptional circumstances to depart from it. I believe that these are very exceptional circumstances, whereas most of the other circumstances from which I have been invited to depart are not exceptional.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I should know this, but I do not. I am not sure whether the Minister should have mentioned the Social Fund loan deductions. If he did so, I did not hear him. Do they also take precedence? My understanding is that they do. In other words, one is not referring only to the mandatory court-imposed repayments, but also to the Social Fund loans.
We come up against a real problem. There is so much top slicing of benefit that living standards are depressed well below income support levels. Perhaps the Minister can give guidance on this.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall have to take advice before I can give any guidance on Social Fund loan repayments.
Earl Russell: The Minister misinterpreted me. I do not object to his having more than one principle. With regard to principles, there is genuinely safety in numbers. Principles need social sense just as much as human beings. If the Minister has a second principle which can keep company with his first principle, I hope that they may have a reproductive faculty so that in the end we gain a few more.
I ask the Minister a slightly different question. What is the general category to which the individual list of exceptions belongs? Is there a general category, or are the exceptions arrived at randomly? If he will enlighten me on that, I should find it helpful.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The exceptions are not in a general category; nor are they arrived at randomly. Each individual circumstance is considered. Like the other three more general cases to which I referred—the child living with the person, those under 18, and those who are sick or disabled—a decision has been taken that an exception shall be made in the case of rent arrears and fuel and water charges.
Earl Russell: I wondered whether the Minister might say that the common factor in those cases was that they all involved hardship. Indeed they do. My contention is that this also is a case which involves hardship. The basic levels of income support do not leave much margin for safety. As the noble Baroness said, benefit is so consistently top sliced by deductions for this, that or the other that it is normally down to the bone. For example, I do not see why child maintenance and Social Fund loans should be forced into competition with each other so that if you pay one, you necessarily have to default on the other.
The Minister was not present when we last debated the National Children's Home report on levels of debt and hardship among those on benefit. It was somewhat distressing. So was the National Consumer Council report, Your Food: Whose Choice?, which argued that

189
in a great many areas of the country, especially those remote from cheap shops, there is real difficulty in securing an adequate diet on income support.
It is in that context that I believe the attempt to levy child maintenance on absent parents on income support causes real hardship. If hardship were the governing principle of the Minister's exceptions, I believe that he would accept the amendment. Perhaps he will consider the issue before a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 73:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Applications by those receiving benefit: failure to comply
. Section 46 of the 1991 Act shall be omitted.").
The noble Earl said: The amendment concerns the 20 per cent. penalty on the parent with care if she refuses to name the father of the child. This House defeated the Government on that issue in 1991. However, as that occurred on Budget day, no one outside these walls noticed.
It is an issue of considerable importance. A great many women for a great many reasons—some good, some bad and some indifferent—are extremely reluctant to name the fathers of their children. It may be that they are protecting someone's reputation. It may be that they are afraid of violence. Although we are grateful for the provisions relating to harm and undue distress, there are still problems regarding their operation.
For many centuries sporadic attempts have been made to force women to name fathers. Those attempts have always failed. The sense that it is a sheer impertinent intrusion into privacy has a great deal more power than this Government have ever understood. That is one argument.
The second is the level of the benefit penalty, which is 20 per cent. of the absent parent's income support, followed by a further period of 10 per cent. I have already argued against the 5 per cent. deduction from the absent parent, so a fortiori I must argue much more strongly, as I have done before and will do again, against a much larger deduction from the parent with care. This is yet another case in which the welfare of the child principle in Section 2 of the Act does not bite on the Bill as it should.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who argued with great confidence that the deduction of 20 per cent. from the mother's benefit had no harmful effect on the child. That is not credible. The removal of 20 per cent. from the household budget cannot be without effect on the child. One does not have separate small portions of butter, one marked "hers" and the other marked "theirs". If there is a total reduction in household income, the whole household must suffer. This is a draconian penalty which shows that the Bill is not being brought in in the interests of the parent with care—much though they have been invoked—nor in the interests of the children, but in what was mistakenly believed to be the interests of the Treasury.
We have heard of about 18,000 cases where the benefit penalty has been imposed. I have given the Minister notice that I wish to ask what has happened
190
to those cases. How many of them have, under duress, subsequently named the father of the child? How many have refused to do so and remained on reduced benefit through to the end of the period? When they have, has the reduced benefit penalty been imposed on them a second time for refusing to do it? How many of them have succeeded in corning off benefit in lawful ways? How many have been arrested? How many have simply disappeared from the records? A government who claim, as this Government persistently do in social security matters, to monitor the effects of their legislation cannot refuse to monitor the effect of the benefit penalties which they impose. If the Minister has no answer to the questions, it is an alarming piece of ignorance.
Many women have come off benefit altogether rather than submit to the intrusive personal inquiries. The last figure I saw for them was, as I recollect, 50,000. However, that was some time ago and it may well be out of date so I am willing to be corrected. The Secretary of State suggested that that was a measure of fraud. I asked at Second Reading—so the Minister has had notice of my question and he has also had notice privately—whether there was any evidence for that suggestion of fraud. If so, in what proportion of the large number of cases? We need to know why those people have gone off benefit and what has happened; what visible means of support they have, what hardships they have endured and what ways they have found of scraping a living. It may be miserable or degrading. If we do not have that information, we cannot monitor the effect of the policy. Here we have a continuing injustice—of which this House disapproved once and I hope that it still does. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Section 46 of the 1991 Act provides for a child support officer to impose a reduced benefit direction in respect of a parent with care who has refused to co-operate in the pursuit of maintenance without good cause. The purpose of the benefit reduction is to make a parent with care think carefully about her decision not to co-operate. Just as we expect absent parents to meet their responsibilities and pay maintenance where they can afford to do so, so it is right that parents with care should co-operate in the pursuit of that maintenance unless they have good reason not to do so. It is not right that the burden should fall to taxpayers, many of whom have children of their own.
No parent with care has her benefit reduced without very careful consideration and, even after the benefit reduction has taken effect, she is able to come forward with fresh representations at any time. I probably misheard the noble Earl, but I should make clear that the reduction is 20 per cent. in the initial stages and then 10 per cent. of the adult income support allowance for people aged over 25. It is not 20 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the parent with care benefit. It is the adult component.
Before I turn to the noble Earl's major point, he mentioned the parent with care protecting someone's reputation. The agency will do everything possible to preserve confidentiality. For example, it will correspond

191
with the absent parent at an address other than his home. It will not say that it is the Child Support Agency if it has to telephone the absent parent's workplace in order to contact him. The agency will take steps to try to ensure that confidentiality is observed. However, I do not believe that it should become such a great concern that it overrules the facts. I frankly suspect that in the circumstances being considered the person may be well able to look after the child and pay maintenance.
The noble Earl asked a more general question about what happened to women who go off benefit, which he has asked on a number of previous occasions. The department does not keep details of people who cease to be benefit claimants. There is clearly much coming and going with benefits and it would be a huge task to keep details of everyone who left benefit and what happened to them. Would it be for a week, a month or a year? I can imagine a Bill being brought forward to give some agency the power to follow someone in their career and what they do in order to ensure that it can collect the information required to obtain a picture of what that person does after she comes off benefit. I can imagine a Minister presenting such a Bill and the kind of reaction that he might deservedly receive.
As to the specific point of reduced benefit directions, I have already mentioned that 18,000 parents with care have had a reduced benefit direction. It is worth emphasising again—and I do so from memory so someone will correct me if I am wrong—that about 73,000 parents with care have had their reasons accepted for not saying who the father was. Returning to the figure of 18,000 parents, we do not have specific information about the outcome of reduced benefit directions and what happened with them. If it is some consolation to the noble Earl, the department is currently conducting a wide-ranging review of the operation of the good cause provisions on the instigation of the Social Security Select Committee of another place. The review has already invited comments from groups advising parents with care, including the Child Poverty Action Group and Women's Aid group, seeking to gather evidence of the impact of the policy from a wide range of sources. The report will be presented to the Select Committee in this financial year.
I hope that that shows that we may be in a position to give the noble Earl some indication on one of the questions which he asked. I also hope that he will agree that the power to impose the 20 per cent. reduction is regrettably needed; otherwise parents with care would simply decide that they did not wish to have any more to do with the absent parent or would rather carry on with income support and not draw the absent parent into the agency's ambit. That would be wrong because the person who picks up the tab for that decision is the taxpayer.
Earl Russell: Before the Minister sits down, can he answer my questions about the women who have gone off benefit altogether rather than face the provisions of this Act?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought that I had answered that question when I said that we do not keep track of people who go off benefit, either in general or
192
specific terms. I am afraid that we do not have any particular evidence that we can give about what happens to women who leave benefit in those circumstances.
Earl Russell: If the Government have no evidence, why did the Secretary of State say that these cases were evidence of fraud? Had the Secretary of State any basis for making that charge?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am interested that the noble Earl has raised the question of fraud. At least some of those cases will represent collusive desertion; collusive desertion does exist. In other cases, we accept that the partner with care has perhaps had second thoughts and the partners have returned to living together. That may well be one of the outcomes. The parent with care may have taken up work, or may be living with a new partner. It is certainly difficult to believe that parents with care leave income support and then proceed to live on nothing. After all, they would be better off refusing to co-operate and accepting a reduced benefit direction. So they are not just saying, "I am not going to say who the father is. I can't really give you any good reason, but I am prepared to accept the reduction". They are in fact saying, "I don't want any income support". There are probably a considerable number of reasons why they leave income support. But it seems hard to believe that they choose to live on nothing when they could have stayed on income support, even at the reduced levels.
Earl Russell: The Secretary of State has used the whole of this category of women as evidence of fraud. Indeed, he has taken it as a quantification for fraud. Can I take it that the Secretary of State made that allegation entirely without evidence? If so, will the Minister convey to him my request that he will withdraw it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall certainly look at what my right honourable friend said. I am not prepared just to accept this discussion on its face value. As I indicated, there will undoubtedly be some who will have been in collusive desertion; some who go back to their partner; some who re-partner; and some who find a job. If the noble Earl thinks that government ought to indulge in the kind of work that would be necessary to answer all these questions, then one or two people may agree with him. I do not agree with him at all.
Earl Russell: What I do believe is that governments should not adopt policies in total ignorance of their likely effects. The Minister knows perfectly well that I do not suggest that everybody who is not on benefit should be studied all the time. The Minister knows—or at least, he knew when he made the last up-rating statement—the word "pilot". The Minister knows that there is such a thing as academic research, which can be done with a controlled sample. It is perfectly possible to commission research on the effects of disentitlement to benefit or reduced benefit directions. It is criminally irresponsible of the Government, and indeed careless of public money, to implement this provision without having any idea of its effects.
The Minister once again invoked the interests of the taxpayer. Once again, let me remind him that I am a taxpayer and as such I am ashamed that my comfort

193
should be based on taking bread out of the mouths of women and children who have done nothing wrong except wanting to protect their private lives. I can see no justification for that.
We simply do not know what has happened to most of those who have gone off benefit. I agree with the Minister that they are probably not living on nothing—from which the question necessarily follows: are they living legitimately? That raises a question as to whether they may be costing public funds a great deal more than they otherwise would.
The Minister praised the confidentiality provisions. In the light of a lot of the cases that have come into my postbag, I am extremely surprised that he is so confident of the confidentiality provisions of the agency. If the Minister were a woman, dealing with a man in a prominent position in the public eye and in whom the press might take an interest, would he take the risk that the confidentiality provisions would be observed? If the person were in the entertainment industry and certain tabloid newspapers would pay many thousands of pounds for the information, would the Minister trust junior, ill-paid officials to resist the temptation in all circumstances? I am not sure that I would. And I am not sure that a great many other people would, either. There is a great deal more mischief in this provision.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should have thought in the kind of hypothetical situation that the noble Earl suggests, the man involved might happily be perfectly prepared, and certainly able, in the light of the kind of definition that the noble Earl put forward of his position, to pay the maintenance required for any such child on a private basis, and the mother would not have to go to the income support system in order to seek maintenance for herself and the child.
Earl Russell: I did not for one moment suggest that the man in this situation would be blameless; quite the opposite. Indeed, the woman in this situation might be suffering from foolish good nature. But is that a quality to which we must apply such ferocious legislative penalties? Is a lingering affection for somebody one has once loved so gross a crime? I am very surprised that the Minister should think so. In the meantime, I do not think that I can get any more answers out of him, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 76:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Fees
. Section 47 of the 1991 Act shall be omitted.").
The noble Earl said: I can deal with this amendment quite briefly. It deals with the requirement to pay fees to the agency for its services.
There is a problem with the agency in that the amount ii is demanding is too heavy. It is causing very great
194
hardship. On top of that, to be asked for fees for a service that one did not request, appears to many people to be adding insult to injury.
I appreciate that agencies cost money. But whether those costs should fall on individual parents, or whether they are costs that are more properly attributable to the whole of society, and indeed to those very taxpayers whom we are so often told are benefiting from the Act, is a question that deserves consideration.
The fees can create a real burden. They certainly cause a great deal of anger. They certainly contribute to the cumulative shock when the maintenance demand, the fees and the arrears all arrive at one and the same time.
The Minister is rightly concerned with the need to collect money. But a lesson that he might have learnt from the failures of the poll tax is that the best way to collect more money is to acquire a rather greater degree of consent to the procedures that are being operated than he has at present. If the Government want to make the agency popular enough to work, this is something that they could very well do. As the Minister's honourable friend Mr. Burt said in the other place on 15th December last, the agency does indeed need friends. Is the Minister not prepared to do a tiny little hit to win it some? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sure that those who are interested in this particular field will be aware that fees have been suspended for two years from April of this year. As the Child Support Agency .acknowledged, it has not been able to provide the level of service that people have a right to expect. The principle of charging fees remains entirely sound. Where the Government provide a service, it is usual to charge a fee which recovers the full cost of the service provided. I must point out to the noble Earl that under the previous system of child maintenance, parents often had to meet the legal costs of consulting solicitors and going through the court system.
Now that the Child Support Agency provides that service, it would be wrong for the taxpayer to subsidise those parents who can afford to pay. It is important to remember that fees are charged only to those parents with care and absent parents who are in a position to pay the fees; in other words, non-benefit cases. Parents with care and absent parents receiving income support, family credit or disability working allowance and absent parents whose maintenance is restricted by the protected income provisions are exempt from the payment of fees.
The fees have been suspended. But, leaving that aside for the moment, it is not that they are imposed on absolutely everyone. A very large number of people who come into the categories I mentioned are not asked to pay fees. It is only those non-benefit cases who are asked to pay fees. As I pointed out, under the previous system, to which the noble Earl would like to move back provided there were some changes, such parents undoubtedly would have had to meet legal costs and the costs of going through the court system.
However, the point that I want to make to the noble Earl is that the fees have been suspended for two years.

195
because, as I acknowledge, the agency has not delivered the service that it ought to have done. With that reminder—I am sure that he was well aware of it—I hope that the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: As the Minister suspected, I was aware that fees had been suspended. "Suspended" is described in "1066 And All That" as "a modified form of hanging". My request was to delete the modification. I do not see why the fees have not been abolished.
The Minister's comments about the services of a solicitor show that he has not understood the point of the amendment. In paying fees to a solicitor, you pay for something which you yourself have requested. There is a certain fairness in that. In this instance, people are being forced to pay for a service which they most certainly have not requested and which in many cases they most earnestly desire to avoid. That is a very different matter. It shows how much the customer model of public service has got out of hand. These people are not the customers of an agency any more than the inmates of a maximum security prison are its customers. I am aware that in strict government logic I ought now to call them such, but I do not do so.
There has not been a meeting of minds. We cannot go any further now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 77:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Obtaining information by menaces or false information,
.—(1) Section 50 of the 1991 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) A child support officer who obtains information under section 6(9) (a) by means of menaces or false information shall commit an offence and in all such cases the Child Support Agency shall pay damages to the parent with care, and shall have no further jurisdiction in the case." ").
The noble Earl said: This is another amendment which covers the case about which I wrote to the Minister last Tuesday and which we discussed last night on Amendment No. 45. The Minister will remember it well. I should like to thank his honourable friend Mr. Burt for the speed with which he replied to my letter. His reply was in my box yesterday evening and I found it this morning.
As the Minister may remember, the issue was whether the case should have been before the agency at all. In effect, Mr. Burt's argument was that it was right that it should be before the agency because the parent with care made a voluntary application for maintenance. What he does not deal with is the other part of the letter that I wrote to him about that case. The parent with care did sign an application for maintenance, after an interview in which she was told that she would lose all her benefit if she did not sign it. That was "all"—not 20 per cent. but the whole lot.
I do not for one minute blame the Government for that. I have written to Ministers about many similar cases in the past. Their responses have lacked for nothing in concern, courtesy or consideration. I do not suggest that they have one scintilla of blame for that. I suggest that this is only the umpteenth of a long succession of cases of that type and that Ministers have not so far been able to stop them.
The Minister may say that the provisions of this amendment are draconian. They provide that a child support officer who obtains information by menaces or false information shall commit an offence and in all such cases the Child Support Agency shall pay damages to the parent with care and shall have no further jurisdiction in the case. That is draconian. Any historian finding that in a statute would immediately conclude that milder provisions had not been effective. Any future historian looking at this amendment and drawing that conclusion would be right. So, should the Minister say that it is too draconian, I hope also to hear from him some way in which he can make certain that such a case does not happen again and that, if it does happen, something will instantly be done about it and redress will be offered. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Child Support Agency has been aware of the sensitive nature of its work from the outset. All staff likely to be involved with the interviewing of parents with care, or absent parents, undergo training which was devised in co-operation with Relate, which was formerly the Marriage Guidance Council.
In the agency's annual report, it admits that mistakes have been made. Forms have been sent to the wrong people; errors have been made in calculations. But those mistakes need to be kept in perspective. In my experience there are usually two sides to every story. Often, the press are quick to work up some small event into a sensational headline. But staff in the agency cannot defend themselves by revealing the true story without breaching their rules of confidentiality.
The noble Earl mentioned a particular case regarding a letter that he sent to my honourable friend Mr. Alistair Burt. I mentioned it last night and said that a reply was on its way to the noble Earl. As I said then, I cannot go into any of the details of that case because of those same rules of confidentiality. They bind Ministers just as surely as they bind staff. But, as the noble Earl is well aware, we are more than willing to look into specific cases brought to our attention where support staff have used menaces or lies. I can assure him that they will be thoroughly investigated.
I know that Miss Chant, the Chief Executive of the agency, takes allegations of that nature very seriously indeed. If such a case did come to light, the staff involved would be subject to the strong disciplinary action that is available within the agency. Civil servants, including child support officers, are expected to maintain a high standard of integrity at all times. They should remain impartial in their dealings with clients. The agency's staff rules and conditions of service set out the relevant provisions and any breach of these rules may result in disciplinary action being taken against the officer concerned.

197
There is no reason for such unacceptable behaviour. Where the parent with care refuses to give the information without good cause, even though she knows the whereabouts of the absent parent, there is a proper procedure to be gone through and, ultimately, the sanction that we discussed earlier. The Secretary of State also has considerable powers for tracing, which involve using the department's own records, information which is a matter of public record, the Inland Revenue's records, and information from the absent parent's employer. All that should mean that unacceptable behaviour is absolutely and totally unnecessary, as well as uncalled for.
I do not see the jurisdiction of the CSA as something to be taken away because of a perceived mistake, or even misconduct, by an officer of the agency. The child support system is now the main method of getting child maintenance in this country. There will always be a need for the courts to become involved in a minority of cases—for example, where one of the parties lives abroad. However, I cannot see any situation where it would be right for the agency to lose jurisdiction as a form of punishment.
This amendment is unfair to the very many civil servants who are doing an honest job in what is a difficult and sensitive area of people's lives. With my explanation and assurance to the noble Earl that any cases which he draws to our attention will certainly be investigated, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: While not supporting the wording of the amendment as it stands, nonetheless the noble Earl, Lord Russell, touched on a very real fear. I am sure that the Minister believes the words of his brief and every Member of your Lordships' Committee hopes that what he said would prove in the end to be correct. The trouble is, we all know that in other areas of life—for example the workings of bailiffs, private security firms, debt collectors and so forth—there is a culture of being "heavy" to obtain information.
Perhaps the Minister can help us on this. Can he give us an assurance that no collection of such information will ever be privatised outside the directly employed Civil Service? Most of the experience of that kind that I have had in local government has not been through the bailiffs attached to the sheriffs' courts, where they are properly trained and legally certified officers, but with the introduction of private "heavies" who operate by menaces. Can the Minister give us that assurance?
Secondly, can the Minister also assure us that explicit and careful guidance will go out to the officers of the CSA and that such guidance will be posted in the Library so that we can look at it, and if we are not happy with it, we can come back with Starred or Unstarred Questions at a later date? If the Minister can give us those assurances or perhaps come back to us with information at a subsequent date between now and Report stage, then some of our worries may be removed. However, the noble Earl has a real cause for concern, knowing, as I do from local government experience, just how slender is the pathway between what is an acceptable quest for legitimate information and an unacceptable quest.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I complained yesterday—humbly, I hope—that the Minister had set his face against every single amendment that we put forward; that there was no sort of flexibility, no resilience; that he was apparently oblivious of the fact that this Bill and its provisions have been necessitated because that was the attitude taken during the proceedings on the 1991 Bill, when one amendment after another moved in your Lordships' Chamber was rejected in much the same manner as the Minister manifested yesterday.
I have been waiting avidly for this amendment because I thought that here at last there would be something that no reasonable Minister could possibly reject. The amendment asks that the obtaining of information by menaces by an officer of the Child Support Agency, or by false information, should constitute an offence. Should it not? Obtaining money or property by menaces is an offence under the Theft Act and this is just a step to obtaining property and in fact obtaining money. It is no answer to say, "There are disciplinary proceedings to deal with it".
This jurisdiction has been seized, has been arrogated from the magistrates' courts. The magistrates have been exercising this jurisdiction since 1895 and suddenly, in 1991, there is a hunger for arrogation in Whitehall and at a sweep the whole jurisdiction is removed from the magistrates to the Child Support Agency. Judging from the Minister's assured performance at the Dispatch Box, one would have imagined that the original Act had been an unqualified success. In fact we know it was a major legislative disaster. If it had been left in the magistrates' courts, what would one say of a magistrates' clerk who elicited information in these circumstances—by menaces and by force or by false information? Would it be an answer to say that no clerk ought to behave in that way; that if he did the Magistrates' Courts Committee could take disciplinary action? Anybody saying that would be laughed to scorn.
It would be an offence and rightly an offence. That is no more than the noble Earl is asking and I find it depressing in the extreme that the Minister is sticking to the same brief: that nothing must be altered beyond what has been conceded under pressure; the very least being given, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter. It seems to me that, if there has even been one instance of this sort of behaviour on the part of a statutory agency which we erected to perform this jurisdiction, we ought to be saying that obtaining information for the purpose of the agency, for the purpose of the Treasury—I take no objection to that myself, naturally—in that way is an offence and should be declared an offence. I hope that the noble Earl will persist. .
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe I am in some difficulty with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I understand that on this issue whatever I do I shall not satisfy him, short of actually returning this jurisdiction to the courts.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In relation to this amendment I would be perfectly satisfied—it is really for the noble Earl—if he accepted the amendment subject to any necessary redrafting.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was intending to go on to say that of course some amendments open up the considerable divide between the noble and learned Lord, the noble Earl and myself in regard to the agency. I have tried, in at least some of the amendments—not, I accept, all of them where it was a bit more head to head—to explain how the procedures work and I hope that I have encouraged Members of the Committee who tabled the amendments to believe that the position is not as bad as they fear; that the situation they have devised to bring before the Committee is not the real one and that checks and balances are in place in the system.
That is what I tried to do in relation to this amendment. I tried to say, in the first instance, that there are two sides to many of the stories we read and, of course, confidentiality means that the staff of the agency and indeed Ministers cannot answer the cases. I am not complaining about that. That is perhaps the downside of confidentiality in regard to the agency.
I indicated that where any member of the staff goes down the road suggested in the amendment, then the agency itself will take vigorous action on those breaches of the rules and that may result in disciplinary action within the agency. That is a system which works within the whole Civil Service, not just the agency. I hope therefore that the idea has been scotched that an official of the agency, a child support officer, could act in the kind of way described in the amendment and get away with it.
Turning to the two points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, we have no plans to privatise the agency. Our present concerns are much more directed at, and our time is taken up by, making sure that the agency actually works. The noble Baroness inviting me to contemplate other changes is just going many, many bridges too far. I am happy to give her the assurance she asks for.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It was not quite that point, although I am glad to have the Minister's statement on the record that he does not contemplate privatising the Child Support Agency, for which much thanks, I suppose. I was asking really whether he contemplates the Child Support Agency using other than its own officers to collect information; in other words, whether he expects possibly to use other means, mechanisms, bodies or people as information collectors who might then seek to collect that information by inappropriate means. I was asking whether all such tasks will only and entirely be performed by accredited civil servants.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I would have to be careful about answering that question because I would need to know exactly all the ins and outs of the agency at the moment and whether it uses some outside resources from time to time of different kinds from the ones the noble Baroness specifically asked me about. For example, going back to an earlier question, if it had to use bailiffs, it is doubtful whether they would be
200
bailiffs employed by the agency. They would be outside bailiffs. They might be sheriff's officers or other bailiffs. But, so far as concerns the central core of her question, my answer stands. The people involved in this kind of work would be civil servants.
The noble Baroness asked about guidance. I think I have answered this point on a number of occasions but I shall have to check whether this kind of guidance is in the form of guidance notes or a guidance booklet. As I think I indicated yesterday, such guidance is available to the public on request.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful in different ways to the noble Baroness, the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord the Minister. I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble he has taken. The noble Baroness has got us assurances which I am glad to hear and which I am afraid I shall look in the mouth because that is, after all, the duty of Opposition Benches. The noble and learned Lord is of course right that obtaining money by threats or false information is an offence. A disciplinary proceeding is not always an adequate response to an offence. But I will say to the Minister that I did not intend this as an attack on the agency as a whole, on Ministers as a whole or on anything but the fact that there are a certain number of jacks in office who, given power, do abuse it. I am well aware that the agency makes mistakes. I have read the press reports of the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee yesterday in which Sir Michael Partridge called the target of one in four assessments—no more—being wrong by 1996 an ambitious one. As I have said many times, I do not blame the agency for that. I blame the body of work that it has been asked to undertake.
What I really did not hear from the Minister was any mention of the word "redress". I heard what he said about disciplinary proceedings. That is not as good as what the noble and learned Lord and I wanted but it does at least show what I am certain is a genuine concern. But a wrong has been done to an individual here. In this case the woman has been forced to inflict an immense burden on the father of her child, the man whom she loves and the man with whom she is now living. That is a burden of arrears which he is unlikely to pay off over the rest of his life. That will have been an injury to her. To force her to do that by means of false information is something for which reparation is owed to her.
I understand why the Minister said that depriving the agency of jurisdiction was an extreme power. But there is such a thing as the law of agency. The agency does have a responsibility for the doings of its employees. If our employees do wrong to someone, we may, if they are about our official business, be answerable. It is under those circumstances that I recommended the remedy of loss of jurisdiction. I am not wedded to the remedy specifically but I think there is a certain equity in it. What I am really concerned about is that right should be done to a person who has been wronged. In this case wrong has been done both to the absent parent and to the parent with care. I have taken up both cases, I hope with equal vigour. That, I am certain, is typical of the agency. I should like to think it is typical of me also. But I suspect that on the individual case, as regards

201
which I agree with everything that the Minister said about confidentiality, we shall do better talking about it privately.
The noble and learned Lord has tempted me, just as the Minister previously tempted me. I am afraid that once again I must resist temptation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 78:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Disclosure of absent parent's address or telephone number,
.—(1) Section 50 of the 1991 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1B) Where an absent parent instructs the Child Support Agency not to reveal his address or telephone number to the parent with care, any employee of the Child Support Agency who reveals them shall be guilty of an offence, the Child Support Agency shall be liable in damages to the party affected, and it shall have no further Jurisdiction in the case." ").
The noble Earl said: This is another amendment dealing with matters of confidentiality and again arises from my postbag. That postbag is becoming enormous and I am not sure that I would not support repeal of the Act just to get rid of the postbag. That is not the most serious of reflections and I hope it is taken in the spirit in which it is meant.
The case involved an absent parent whose ex-wife was addicted to the making of harassing telephone calls. Any of your Lordships who have been victims of harassing telephone calls may understand the kind of irritation that they cause and the sense of intrusion into the privacy of one's own home. That man was also facing an assessment which was cutting him absolutely to the bone. Looking at the figures, I did not see how he was managing to pay it. He not once but twice had his phone number disclosed to his former wife, who starting making harassing telephone calls at all hours of the day and night. He was forced, not once but twice, at considerable expense to himself which he could ill afford, to change his phone number.
Confidentiality applies to both parties. The argument of wrong to the individual for which redress is deserved applies to both parties and the arguments about the law of agency apply to both parties. I have raised one of these questions for a parent with care and one for an absent parent. They have much more in common in their common interest in opposing the Act than either has with the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I respectfully suggest that we should take care not to do anything without justification which will be deeply resented by the staff of the Child Support Agency. There are staff instructions to cover this point. I doubt whether we are justified in making a rule in an Act of Parliament about it. I offer this only as a cautionary note about carrying something a little too far. I feel quite certain that the staff will have the strongest instructions as to how they are to behave. The main risk is not the disclosure of confidential information so much as applying undue pressure on an absent father to come to terms, and if he fails to do so then there is a penalty in the locker that can come out to persuade him.
202
It is undue persuasion. I would not go so far as to say it is coercion but I do not think there is a need to safeguard anyone from menaces. However, we have just gone over that ground. I have something of a distant brief for my old colleagues in the Civil Service. I do not want to see them given the kind of treatment that the Act is giving to the absent father. We can take the civil servant as being a straightforward and honest person who complies with the general rules of behaviour in a very difficult occupation. I can think of no more difficult occupation than that of a child support officer.
A friend of mine was talking to me about being in the Customs and Excise enforcement division for small businesses. I asked him whether he was liking his work. He replied, "Well, there are too many tears in it". I believe that there are too many tears in this legislation. There should be some consideration in this regard.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for his remarks. It is pleasant to be roughly on the same side just occasionally. He makes a very valid point, which I have made on a number of occasions, about civil servants and the officials of the agency.
This amendment addresses the matter of where an employee of the agency gives the absent parent's address or telephone number to the parent with care after the absent parent has specifically said he does not want the information revealed or where a parent with care has made representations about good cause and then has her address revealed to the absent parent. The noble Earl's amendment would have that employee guilty of an offence. The Child Support Agency would be liable for damages and would lose jurisdiction.
It may be helpful if I explain that Section 6(2) of the 1991 Act applies where a parent with care is not required to authorise the Secretary of State to recover maintenance because if she did there would be a risk of her or any child living with her suffering harm or undue distress. Normally this decision will be made before the parent with care has given the agency any details of the absent parent. Where the parent with care has not authorised the Secretary of State to act, the Child Support Agency will not contact the absent parent if from other sources he knows who he is and where he lives.
I would like to draw attention to Section 50(1) which the noble Earl seeks to amend. It says:
"Any person who is, or has been employed in employment to which this section applies is guilty of an offence if, without lawful authority, he discloses any information which (a) was acquired by him in the course of that employment and (b) relates to a particular person".
That means that, subject to the other provisions in Section 50, an employee of the agency who without permission reveals information, including the address of an absent parent or a parent with care, is guilty of an offence. That applies in all cases unless the parent has agreed to the information being disclosed. There are no provisions for the address of one parent to he given to the other.

203
Regulation 8 of the Child Support (Maintenance Assessment Procedures) Regulations, Regulation 9A of the Child Support (Information Evidence and Disclosure) Regulations and Regulation 17 of the Child Support Appeal Tribunals (Procedure) Regulations expressly prohibit the disclosure of an address or other information which could lead to a person being located. I am satisfied that these existing provisions are entirely adequate.
Of course, agency staff are human and there is always the possibility that information may be given in error. There is always the possibility that someone may be able to read the forms upside down, for example. Where that happens the staff would certainly be subject to internal disciplinary action and the agency would consider whether compensation was justified in each case.
I hope that I have assured the noble Earl that there are defences in place to prevent the staff of the agency giving the name and address of one to the other. I hear what he said about the cases. I reiterate that there are two sides to every situation. When I was listening to the noble Earl, I thought that if I were one of the parents and wanted to find out where the other lived, on the assumption that I had any relationship with the children—and all of us who have children, even if they are now grown up, will know that they can easily be induced to part with knowledge—I would have a readily accessible source for that kind of information.
Lord Kilbracken: That is to be greatly deplored. Should not the child be prevented from obtaining information from one parent for the other?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was making a point about where the parents lived. Obviously the child is going to live with one of them, and the other will be well aware of where that is. The child perhaps visits the other and is also well aware of the address. The main point of my argument is that there are many more easily accessible ways to find the name and address of the other half than trying to get it from a Child Support Agency officer. I hope that my assurances about the powers which exist to prevent that kind of thing happening are helpful to the noble Earl and that he can withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Earl decides what to do about his amendment, I ask the Minister whether he is aware of any such cases. Can he tell the Committee what disciplinary action followed for the officers concerned?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not believe that the noble Baroness will be surprised when I say that I cannot answer that question at the moment. I shall certainly look into it and return to it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I can understand the Minister being unable to respond in a detailed way. The point is that there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence to suggest that there is a wide gap between what the Minister wishes to be the case and what may he happening. I believe that the most helpful way in which we can pursue the degree to which there is that
204
gap and the degree to which we need to strengthen the Bill to make sure that it is narrowed and not widened is to get a reply in the form which the Minister has just indicated.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall certainly do two things. Depending on the outcome of this amendment, I shall draw the concern of the Committee to the attention of Miss Chant and I shall seek answers to the questions posed. I shall write to the noble Baroness with the usual copies.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for pinpointing exactly our concern. It is the difference between what the Minister wishes and what we wish was the case and what in fact is the case.
I also heard the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I take his point about the reactions of other staff of the agency. I repeat again that I was making no attack on the agency as a whole. The agency has been put there to do a job and it is not to blame for the job it has been asked to do. In the end, the responsibility must rest with Ministers for giving it that job.
I insist that this is taken only as a way of controlling an individual Jack-in-office and not as a reproach to the whole of the agency staff. I take the point which the noble Lord makes, that were this provision to be on the statute book, that might be a distinction which I would be unable to sustain. I do not intend to press this amendment, as I believe the noble Lord suspected. While I am on my feet I make that distinction clear.
I say once again to the Minister that this type of disclosure is happening far too often and causing a great deal too much harm and distress. It is diminishing the reputation of the agency and making it harder that it should ever succeed. He knows that as well as I do and there is no point in wasting words on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 80:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
Day to day care
(.—(1) The definition of "day to day care" contained in regulation 1(2) of the Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations 1992 (as amended) shall be amended as follows:
(2) For "104 nights", or each occasion where that expression occurs, there shall be substituted "26 nights".
(3) At the end of the definition there shall be inserted—
"(iii) a person shall be taken to have care of a child where he would have actual care if a court order which is in force were being properly complied with by another person, and a person shall be treated as not having care of a child where she has actual care in consequence of her failure properly to comply with a court order; and for this purpose a court order shall be regarded as properly complied with by a person only if she makes every reasonable effort to give effect to its terms and purposes.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment deals with the 104-night rule, which has caused a good deal of concern. The rule is that in cases of shared care, if the child spends 104 nights in the year with the absent parent, the absent parent gets financial recognition for

205
being responsible for shared care. If the child spends 103 nights with one parent or, in the case which the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, recounted to us last year, 99 nights of the year, that is 99 not out. It counts for nothing. No century is achieved. Naturally, that has caused a good deal of ill feeling. It is an arbitrary line and the reason given for specifying 104 nights—that it represents every weekend in the year—rather savours of being plucked completely out of the air because no arrangement happens every weekend of the year. There are things such as illness.
The second part of the amendment deals with cases where the child should have spent 104 nights of the year with the other parent but access has been denied. I know that the Bill is not intended to deal with that. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained that clearly in 1991, but the 104-night rule, as it works at present, gives the parent with care an incentive to deny access. The amount of anger that is caused by such cases is hardly imaginable if one has not encountered it. Giving people an incentive to do that is extremely unwise.
The inflexible insistence on 104 nights is not necessary for any reason that I have yet heard. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about why he thinks that it is necessary and about how more flexibility could be achieved. It seems that whenever flexibility would be a good thing, the Government do not want it, but whenever it is a bad thing, they seem to want it. If the Minister can tell me that I am mistaken in that, I should be very grateful. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: I wish to support the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as strongly as possible on this amendment and particularly on subsection (2), the purpose of which he has explained with his invariable lucidity. As he indicated, I have an interest to declare in the shape of a young son who is now 13 and who spends a very considerable part of each year with me, although much less than I had thought until I came to work it out for the purpose of speaking here today.
The noble Earl mentioned the figure of 99 days. That was indeed the number of days that Sean spent with me at that time, but the years go by. I suppose that he comes to me more than 95 per cent. of such children can visit their fathers; namely, for half of every holiday, half of every half holiday, and every other weekend. Nowadays he goes to school on Saturday mornings, so he does not come to me until about 12 o'clock. If he stays until midnight on the Sunday, for the purposes of this provision that counts as only one night.
Therefore, I have calculated that there are about 38 weeks of term time in the year, which contain 35 weekends, and he comes to me for 17 nights. There are about 100 days of holiday and he comes to me for half of them, which is another 50 days, with three extra nights for half-terms. That means a total of only 71 nights a year, which is nowhere near the figure of 104 which is the minimum for this purpose. Yet I really do not see how he could come to me much more. Obviously, he will come for only half of each holiday
206
and will have every other weekend with his mother. That seems to be just about the maximum amount of time that that child can spend with his father. Furthermore, if he were a weekly boarder or a termly boarder, he would spend exactly the same amount of time each year—the same number of nights—with his mother and with me, yet in calculating the amount that should be paid by the father under the Child Support Act, that cannot be taken into account at all, although not only is it costing the so-called "absent father" a lot of money in living expenses and so on, but during that time the child's mother is not incurring any expenses. In addition, in my own case I have to buy three return tickets from London to Ireland, which cost about £400, yet that cannot be taken into account either.
I cannot understand why the figure of 104 days (or the provision in general) should be included in the Bill. If the child is with the absent parent for any period of time, clearly what that parent is spending he is saving the mother in expenses and he should not have to pay as much as would otherwise be the case.
I cannot sit down without saying once again how deeply I and, I suppose, all divorced fathers resent the description of them as "absent fathers" or "absent parents" and the description of the mother as "parent with care". That gives the impression of the mothers being so caring and of the fathers not caring at all. It implies that the father is absent when, in my case, I am present for 71 nights of the year and it is his mother who is the absent parent. I suppose that that phrase is now passing into accepted legal language. Perhaps it is a lucus a non lucendo, but in any case I resent it very much.
I should also like to draw attention to one point on subsection (3). At the bottom of page 7 of the Marshalled List we start off in the male gender—here I use the word "gender" in its correct sense for once. The amendment states:
"to have care of a child where he would have actual care".
However, when we turn the page we move into the female gender because the amendment then states:
"a person shall be treated as not having care of a child where she has actual care in consequence".
I wonder what implications the noble Earl may see in that switch. We are always told that the male embraces the female, but is it also the case that the female embraces the male?
Earl Russell: Yes, it is. It is a politically correct use of non-sexist language, but I do not think that it does any harm.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not think that I shall follow the noble Earl down that road. It is nice that the noble Earl has had to answer a question about one of his amendments. That makes a change from the general run of things this afternoon.
This amendment seeks to reduce the number of nights of care which an absent parent has to provide for a child before his maintenance liability is reduced. It also provides for an absent parent to be treated as caring for a child where the person with care is denying him his rights of contact with the child under the terms of a court order.

207
The existing provisions mean that an absent parent's maintenance liability is reduced where he is providing a significant amount of care for a child. The Government believe that an average of two nights per week—104 nights per year—continues to provide an appropriate benchmark. We do not consider that the proposed benchmark in the noble Earl's amendment, which amounts to one night of care per fortnight, represents a genuine sharing of responsibility. That level of care does little to help a parent with care with the day-to-day problems of bringing up a child.
The noble Earl invited me to contemplate some flexibility. It is interesting to note that his amendment is no more flexible than the current situation. It simply reduces the number of days from 104 to 26. I suggest that he has chosen to do that because it would be difficult to devise any kind of guidance or system which would be flexible in this regard. I freely accept that it is difficult to decide where the borderline comes. A line must be drawn; my line is 104 nights and the noble Earl's is 26.
I know that maintenance and contact are sometimes linked in the minds of parents, although they are separate issues. Maintenance is a legal and financial obligation that absent parents are required to discharge irrespective of whether or not they have contact with their children. Contacts are a matter for the courts to decide in the best interests of the child. We understand the frustration of people who are denied any right granted to them under a court order, in particular where the right is in respect of a child. The important consideration for the absent parent is that he should have the contacts with his children that the court has agreed and it is open to him to apply to the court to have his order enforced.
It would not be right for the agency to become involved in those sensitive issues. The only proper question for the agency is how long a child is, in fact, spending with his parents, since that affects the actual level of costs incurred by the parents. The task of deciding who bears the main costs and who has the main care of the child is difficult. If one were to reduce the number of nights from 104 to 26, many parents with care would find their maintenance reducing without, I suspect, their outlay reducing in any way.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, raised the question of fares and so forth. Of course, the departures will be the yardstick on this issue and what is just and equitable as regards the fares required to maintain the contact between, if I dare say it, the absent parent and the child or children.
This is an issue in respect of which I believe a line must be drawn. I understand the noble Earl's point that 104 is a little high and that 26 is his preferred number. I feel that 26 is far too low. Taking an average of two nights per week is, I think, a reasonable way to look at this. That does not mean to say that it will necessarily be two nights every week. Of course it will not, because holidays will come into the picture and on occasions it may in fact be seven nights per week. What is important is the total and the way in which we balance it. If the absent parent has the child for no more than 104 nights,
208
clearly the parent with care has the principal responsibility for looking after the child and the main costs. That is the reality of the world. She—in the main it will be the mother, and I am not even beginning to be politically correct—will have the main costs of looking after the child. She must ensure that the child is ready for school and is clothed and that she provides a home for him or her so that the child can live the majority of his life with the parent with care. That is the reality.
Lord Kilbracken: I forgot to mention that I have no financial interest to declare because my financial affairs do not come under the aegis—if aegis it be—of the Child Support Agency. I emphasise the fact that most young children go to their fathers from early on Saturday morning to late on Sunday evening. That long period is counted as only one night for the purpose of reckoning up the 104. The Minister appeared to indicate that there may be an intermediate figure and that the 104 would be reduced a little. Anything would be better than nothing.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. His case is one which compels attention. The point he makes about the weekend being defined as one night is significant. If we are talking about benchmarks, we need to know the general principle that is to be met before we can even begin to discuss what is the appropriate benchmark. You cannot make a benchmark until you know what you want to use the bench for.
My general principle is that one should recognise shared care where possible. In normal circumstances—not all—it is better for children to live with two parents than with one, even if they have to do so in two different homes. Therefore, I would recognise any sharing of care subject only to a de minimis rule. I believe that 26 nights is an ample interpretation of a de minimis rule.
I do not know what the Minister's general principle is. It sounds as though he is acting on the assumption that there is only a single parent who can have care. That is not in accord with the way in which modern family law is going. It is not in accord with the way in which cases are settled under the Children Act. It is not in accord with the way in which many men think about fatherhood or with the way in which many women now think about motherhood. I think this is an old-fashioned general principle and I believe it may have the effect of making separation even more traumatic for many children than is necessary. If that is the Minister's general principle, it is not satisfactory.
He has not told us why he believes that 104 nights is an appropriate benchmark. If I put words into his mouth I shall be entirely happy for him to tell me what is his general principle and I shall give way to him to do so. But I shall take his silence for consent if he does not intervene. The Minister spoke constantly about money going from the parent with care to the absent parent as a result of accepting the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, was right in saying that, while the child is staying with the other parent, the absent parent is for the time being the parent with care. It shows how difficult it is to reconcile the terminology of the Bill

209
with real family life. I have no more to say on the subject now. I hope that there will be further thought later and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Deferral of right to apply for maintenance assessment]:
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 86 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 14, line 38, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 87 relates to a Henry VIII clause, which is Clause 18(5). That clause allows the Minister to bring pre-1993 cases within the scope of the Act at some future date best known to himself.
Henry VIII clauses are always looked at with care in this House. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee recommended that it be subjected to the affirmative procedure. I would not argue with that if I were concerned only with the exercise of delegated powers. In fact, I am not; I am concerned also with the policy intention that is embodied in that delegation of power. Therefore, I have a double cause for concern.
The effect of this is to allow the Secretary of State under the spirit of the commencement clause in the 1991 Act, which I once described as being by Henry VIII out of Humpty Dumpty, to bring pre-1993 cases into the Act at any time he sees fit. The Government, in paragraph 3 of their memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, argued that this power should be looked on kindly because it is for a beneficial purpose. That begs a big question. I am aware that the Government intend the Act to be beneficial—I did not say to whom. They must be aware by now that that view is not universally shared. They must be aware in particular that that view is not shared on these Benches. I take a dim view of giving the Minister a power to do something which should not be done at all by means of a Henry VIII clause without any further legislation. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It was originally the Government's intention to take on during 1996–97 those cases where there was an existing maintenance arrangement and the parent with care was not receiving benefit. In order to allow the agency to concentrate upon the introduction of the departures system, we have had to introduce the measure in Clause 18 of this Bill which defers the take-on of those cases. The subsection which the noble Earl seeks to delete will enable the Secretary of State to reactivate the take-on of these pre-1993 non-benefit cases by order. We cannot currently predict when that might be as first we shall need to ensure that the departures system is working effectively.
It has always been the Government's policy intention that all cases should eventually have access to child support maintenance under the 1991 Act. That has been fully explained and is well understood. Clause 26 of the Bill provides a clear commitment to allow parliamentary debate about the eventual take-on of the pre-1993 non-benefit cases by seeking to repeal these deferral
210
provisions by way of an affirmative order, which is the strongest system of control over secondary legislation. In these circumstances, although the Committee may well regard this subsection as containing a Henry VIII power, it is wholly appropriate to provide for it. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee concluded that:
"The House may consider that the affirmative procedure provides the appropriate degree of parliamentary control".
Therefore, it is a rather special kind of Henry VIII clause which deals with the decision that we have taken to defer the take-on of those cases. It gives the Secretary of State power, through an affirmative order, to start the take-on of those pre-1993 cases. I suspect that the noble Earl would prefer that the cases were never taken on. But I hope that he will accept my explanation, although I realise that he will perhaps not agree with it, and withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: The Minister is quite right that I would prefer those cases never to be taken on. I notice that Miss Chant yesterday, giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, said that people resented the reopening of court settlements. I do not believe that the Government have ever taken on board quite how intense that resentment is. In fact, it led one person to write to me saying that the 1991 Act was unconstitutional. I explained to him with some care why those words could not be accurate but I understood the sentiment behind them. Those are dangerous sentiments. If the Minister wishes to avoid them growing, he should not attempt to override court settlements by means of a power which is itself inherently likely to be rather debatable. Therefore, in this regard the power is debatable and the policy intention is debatable. I object to the union of those two together.
If the Minister must insist on the take-on of previous cases and if he is still in a position to do that, I suggest that he should do it by primary legislation because this will be a major contentious issue. I still see some force in the old convention that regulations should deal only with minor matters. The Minister may wish to claim that this is a minor matter but it is not; it is contentious. If it must be done at all, this is not the right way to do it. I hope that the Minister will think again. However, I do not believe that he will do so this evening, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I suspect that it is something of a record that at seven o'clock in the evening the Opposition begin to move their amendments. However, it may be worth making clear that we have not intervened on the vast majority of the amendments moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because on these Benches we are not seeking to wreck the Bill or to substitute a different sort of Bill. We arc trying to make this Bill work more equitably and efficiently than it has done so far. As my honourable friend in another place said, we are not engaged in trench warfare. I hope that the Minister and the Committee have had evidence of that this evening.

211
I should like to ask a number of questions in relation to this debate. First, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said on a previous amendment that Clause 18 will defer indefinitely the taking on of all maintenance cases where the parent with care is not receiving benefit. In those cases, the existing court settlement stands. On these Benches we have always said that we did not believe that the Act should have been retrospective. We believe that it should have started in 1991 with a clean sheet and with new cases only from then on.
Virtually all the problems which the Government have faced have been caused by retrospection, where settlements have been overturned which were entered into in good faith as a result of court decisions. Those settlements may have been generous or they may have been unreasonable, but people went on to shape the rest of their lives in the expectation that they would stand. Indeed, in consequence of that, we have urged the Minister to accept that court settlements in relation to property should be taken into account in the maintenance formula. Therefore, we start from the position that we do not believe that the 1991 Act should have been retrospective. It should have started with a clean sheet, as happened in Australia. The vast majority of the distress and concern may not have occurred had the Government gone down that road.
However, the Government have overcome one unfairness—that of making the law retrospective—by removing that but only for a particular class of absent parent. For some there is retrospection but for others there is not. That seems unfair because it depends entirely on whether the parent with care is on benefit. Therefore, by removing one unfairness the Government have created more unfairness.
Perhaps I may illustrate the unfairness. The Government made the point repeatedly that the old court system was unfair. It was erratic in relation to the awards made and was inconsistent. We do not disagree with the Government's assessment. Yet now they are allowing those court settlements to stand even though they have judged them to be erratic and inadequate where the parent with care is not on benefit. In other words, a mother on a low income who is in work and receiving maintenance is not eligible for the more realistic CSA maintenance figures or collection and enforcement role. She is dependent on a court settlement. In theory she may return to court to seek a revision upwards to bring the settlement in line with something more realistic, but unless there are new circumstances, and without legal aid, it is likely to be a fruitless exercise for her. Therefore, a parent with care who is on a very low income will be stuck with a court settlement which when it has suited the Government has been denounced.
The right answer may be for that mother with care to have the court order adjusted to a more realistic level, but there is a problem of inequity in that regard. In particular, it means that lone parents with care who have come through the CSA because they were receiving income support and then go on to work a year or two later will receive much higher maintenance awards than those who never received benefit. Therefore, it is
212
advantageous to come out of work and move on to benefits so that the maintenance contribution is forced up through the CSA and then return to work. I suspect that that was an unintended consequence of what the Government have done. But I foresee that becoming a path that it will be in the interests of many parents with care to follow. That would be regrettable.
I turn now to my third point, where I believe I may have the support of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is the matter of retrospection for parents with care who are on benefit but not for those who are not on benefit. That is also unfair to many absent fathers, half of whom are in second families. The new partner of such a man is very likely to bring children with her—the absent father's new step-children. On that marriage, the new partner has lost her own right to income support as she is now in a new relationship. Therefore, she has lost her independent right to use the CSA to collect maintenance from her first husband. He may now get off scot-free.
That means that the absent father of the first family is now supporting his own first children, his partner's step-children and any natural children of that second marriage. But, through her, he does not have any way of making the father of his partner's children contribute to their maintenance because the CSA has withdrawn from that collection role. In other words, he is being asked to support not just his present family and his second family; he is being asked to support three families: his present family, his first family and the first Family of his new partner. That is financially impossible. That is what the Government have constructed in their, perhaps, hasty changes.
The Government found themselves in a position where many parents with care did not want the old system overturned. However, the Government overturned it whether or not they wanted it where they were on benefit. The Government also found that other parents with care would like the old system overturned, but that is not possible because they are not on benefit. In other words, the Government have gone not with the grain of what people want; they have gone with the grain of what the Treasury demanded—to claw it back when people are on benefit whether or not they want to do so and ignore it where they are not on benefit whether or not they want it.
We understand the Government's dilemma, but they put themselves in that position in the first place because of the inappropriateness of the 1991 legislation. What they have now done, while seeking to mitigate some aspects of it, is to create new unfairnesses. I await to hear what the Government say as to how they propose to address the new unfairnesses that they have created while addressing the old unfairnesses of the 1991 Act.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The background to Clause 18 is well known. Within the finite resources available it was clearly necessary for the Child Support Agency to take on cases in stages. The original programme was for those cases where the parent with care was not receiving benefit, and there was an existing maintenance arrangement, to he able to apply to the

213
agency on a phased basis during 1996–97. Clause 18 defers the take on of those cases and ensures that the courts retain their powers to act in determining maintenance in those cases.
The measure will leave the agency free in 1996–97 to focus its attention on the introduction and smooth implementation of the departures system. I think that we are all agreed that everything possible must be done to secure the efficient operation of the new system. It would be extremely imprudent to overload the agency with a fresh tranche of cases during the same period, particularly as it is likely that many of those cases would want to apply for departures.
We have been criticised for not learning from our past mistakes. By deferring the take on of those cases we will ensure that the CSA will not be in the position of having to assimilate and deliver new procedures, at the same time as it experiences the increase in workload that would inevitably follow if a new group of people were allowed to apply to the agency.
The cases being deferred will only be ones that have access to the court system, although of course I fully accept, as the noble Baroness said, that that system is less than ideal. We are agreed on that point. That is why we are both keen on the idea of a child support agency: a consensus between parties which I thought might have appealed to some people in this country who are always saying that we are too confrontational and that there should be more consensus. But the moment we have a consensus on something—even if it is just in principle and not on some of the detail—they promptly start screaming and changing the word "consensus" to collusion. However, that is quite a different tale and perhaps I should not be tempted too far down that road at this time of the evening. But it is an interesting phenomenon that we are seeing and political correspondents may well take note of it.
As I said, those cases will be those that have access to the court system. Therefore, as well as protecting the taxpayer, our priorities must lie with the group of parents who have most to gain from applying to the CSA: those who currently have no child maintenance. If that is because there is no court order, or written maintenance agreement which was made prior to 5th April 1993 and the parent with care does not receive income support, family credit or disability working allowance, the parent may apply to the CSA immediately.
Where the parent with care is receiving one of those benefits and wishes to be taken on, she may ask the CSA for early take on and the agency will treat that request sympathetically. The only cases which Clause 18 defers involve those who are able to take action for maintenance through the courts. While some parents with care in that category would undoubtedly obtain more from a child support assessment, as the noble Baroness pointed out, they cannot be said to be the ones with the most to gain.
Therefore, the highest priority for take on are those people who have no access to the courts or those who are claiming benefit and who are being supported by taxpayers. Of course, as I said, I have some sympathy for those parents with care who receive only a small
214
amount of maintenance through a court order while their current partners pay out a larger amount in child support maintenance. I believe that that was one of the examples mentioned by the noble Baroness. However, those parents with care are able to apply to the courts to have their orders varied.
As I said, I believe that that is an example of the Government doing what we have been encouraged to do on a number of occasions not only in this Committee but also in other committees; namely, to learn from our mistakes, from what went before and from our experience with the agency. We are doing that and we are attempting to ensure that the phasing arrangements of new people coming into the agency's care will in fact be such that the agency will be able to cope with the cases that it already has and, indeed, cope with the new departure system which is a recognition by the Government that some steps must be taken to improve the situation.
The noble Baroness mentioned Australia where there was no retrospection. I am afraid that my reading—and I must say that it is rather one-sided because it tends to come from a source hostile to agencies in principle—suggests to me that the Australian experience was not exactly painless. Therefore, I am not entirely sure whether that is the best case to pray in aid. The justification for doing so is the experience that we have had. We wish to be sensible and ensure that the system beds down with the new departures. I fully accept that some of the cases brought to my attention by the noble Baroness appear to be unfortunate and that it would he better if we could deal with them inside the agency. But the simple fact of the matter is that we must look at the wider picture of making the agency work eventually for everyone. That is why we have taken the powers in Clause 18.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may briefly respond to the Minister. First, I do not believe that any of us would deny the administrative pressure that the agency is under and the need to ensure that it not only delivers assessments but also that it does so accurately, especially in the light of the report of the Public Accounts Committee. At present, I believe I am right in saying that one assessment in two is incorrect. Therefore, it is clearly right that the agency should slow down its speed of taking on new cases to ensure that the assessments are accurate. We do not challenge that fact. However, given the need to prioritise the taking on of cases by the CSA, we object to the fact that it is taking on first not the cases where the parents want the agency to intervene but where the Treasury wants it to do so.
Where parents want the CSA to set the maintenance level and to be the collection enforcement agent, we believe that that should be the mechanism for prioritising rather than the mechanism which the Government have adopted which is to take on, whether they want it or not, those cases where parents are on benefit and ignore, again whether they want it or not, those cases where the parents are not on benefit. It seems to me desirable at this stage, given that this Act has had such an unfortunate history, if the Government

215
can now work with the grain of what people wanted rather than against it. This discussion has allowed the Minister to make moves in that direction.
The second point I want to make is in terms of the level of awards based on court settlements that are going to families where the absent father's new partner is bringing her children into the relationship; in other words, the step-children. We hope that court settlements will gradually float up to a more realistic level; but again I hope that between now and Report stage, when we may want to revisit some of these issues, the Minister can give us some guidance whether as regards a family in that situation who are, as it were, looking after the children from the three forms of family, there is some way to encourage court settlements to move upwards, possibly through a departure system where this can be taken into account. I do not know whether there could be a departure system for the CSA as a collection agency but perhaps we can explore this further. I think there is a real problem here which may, if we are not careful, damage the second family to such a degree that that family breaks down, as the first family has already done. That was one of our fears.
Finally, I was delighted to hear the Minister say, to the sound of violins, that he was learning from past mistakes; that we of course wanted him to learn from past mistakes; that he will continue to learn from past mistakes and why should we prevent him from learning from past mistakes? That is splendid! What we actually want is that the Minister should learn from his past mistakes, but that he will also recognise that those mistakes might not have occurred if the Minister had done something else—that is, listen to the Opposition at the time. I hope that as we go through to the Report stages of other Bills which are currently before the Chamber which concern social security and other fields, the Minister will say to his colleagues, "Do not do as I have done, which is to be forced to learn from my past mistakes; but do as I ought to have done, which is listen to the Opposition at the time the Bill is going through the Chamber. If you do that we may get better legislation and less legislation because we shall not need to return to it to amend it".
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Fees for scientific tests]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 16, line 31, after ("out") insert ("(otherwise than under a direction or in response to a request)").
The noble Lord said: Clause 21 provides for the Secretary of State to recover DNA test fees where—
Baroness Trumpington: My noble friend should speak also to Amendment No. 89.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend has pointed out that I am also speaking to Amendment No. 89. The noble Baroness said that it was some time since she spoke; it is some time since I moved a government amendment, as is quite clear. Perhaps that is a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon
216
of Glaisdale, has made on a number of occasions today. I shall start again. In moving Amendment No. 88, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 89.
Clause 21 provides for the Secretary of State to recover DNA test fees where, following a DNA test, an alleged parent admits paternity or a court judges him to be the father. This amendment restricts this recovery power so that where the test is taken at the direction of the court, the Secretary of State must apply to the court for the fees to be included in costs awarded to him if he is successful in establishing paternity. It would not be right for officials acting for the Secretary of State to have the right to recover DNA test fees in the circumstances where a judge also has the discretion to award these fees as part of the costs of a court case. In theory there could be a conflict in that in the unlikely event that a court declined to award costs to the Child Support Agency, it would still be able to recover DNA test fees using the new statutory right provided in Clause 21. This amendment recognises the important principle that officials should not be able to bypass the court's discretion to award costs. I invite the Committee to accept these two amendments. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I have no objection to the substance of these amendments, but it is an appropriate place to ask one question that I have been wanting to ask the Government for some time. They show a great deal of confidence in DNA testing. Are they aware that that confidence is by no means entirely shared by all the academics who are competent to judge it? Are they aware of the dispute in this area; are they following it, and will they keep a scintilla of an open mind and consider that their reliance on DNA might just possibly be mistaken?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Government follow all these matters with considerable interest and have some high-powered scientific advisers who can give them advice. I cannot vouch for the present one, but I can certainly vouch for the chief scientific adviser to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, who has recently retired. He was an eminent scientist and he was a Scot, needless to say. I am quite sure that he and his colleagues would follow all these matters. I have done so because I have a small interest in the world of science.
I know that there is a little bit of an argument—as the noble Earl has drawn to my attention—but when it is a matter of paternity cases where there are three samples and we know where they have come from, the matching is extremely accurate. I think the doubts the noble Earl has cast in that case would not be justified. However, I can assure him that the Government are always open to new advances in science. I hope that he can accept that assurance. As I have said, in the particular case that we are considering, the science is pretty well accepted by everyone. The noble Earl shakes his head. I was going to say that does not include every scientist because there is always one person who still does not believe what all the rest believe.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 17, line 12, after ("tests") insert:
(""direction" means a direction given by a court under section 20 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 (tests to determine paternity);
"request" means a request made by a court under section 70 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 (blood and other samples in civil proceedings);").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before twenty-five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Civil Evidence Bill [H.L.]
7.27 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: 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.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Viscount St. Davids in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
Admissibility and proof of Ogden Tables
(".—(1) The actuarial tables (together with explanatory notes) for use in personal injury and fatal accident cases issued from time to time by the Government Actuary's Department are admissible in evidence for the purpose of assessing, in an action for personal injury, the sum to be awarded as general damages for future pecuniary loss.
(2) They may be proved by the production of a copy published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
(3) For the purposes of this section—

(a) "personal injury" includes any disease and any impairment of a person's physical or mental condition; and

(b) "action for personal injury" includes an action brought by virtue of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 or the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.").

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 9 and 10. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has explained that he sadly is unable to be with us this evening, asked me to consider including in the Bill the recommendation of the Law Commission that what are known as the Ogden Tables should be admissible evidence in personal injury actions. These are actuarial tables issued from time to time by the Government Actuary's Department and published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. They can
218
be used to determine the capital value of the sum to be awarded by the court as damages for future pecuniary loss. The recommendation was contained in the Law Commission's report on structured settlements and interim and provisional damages. The Government announced on 22nd March this year that they had accepted the report.
The draft clause makes it clear that the tables and notes are admissible evidence, notwithstanding that they are hearsay, and provides that they can be proved simply by producing a copy published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. The notice provisions in the Bill are not appropriate to their use.
The Law Commission commented in its report that the use of Ogden Tables should make for greater consistency in courts and that their use should be encouraged.
I hope that the clause that I have brought forward will be satisfactory to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I commend it to the Committee.
Amendment No. 2 extends the new clause on the admissibility of the Ogden Tables to Northern Ireland. The rest of the Bill does not so apply, since the hearsay rule is currently the subject of consideration by the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland. It is right that it should have the opportunity to consider that general matter, which is the main subject matter of the Bill. The applicability of the Ogden Tables in Northern Ireland seems a wise move. Therefore I have tabled Amendment No. 2.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are amendments to the Long Title of the Bill to take account of the introduction of the new clause on the admissibility and proof of the Ogden Tables. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 14 agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Clause 15 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 11, at end insert:
("() Section (Admissibility and proof of Ogden Tables) (admissibility and proof of Ogden Tables) also extends to Northern Ireland.
As it extends to Northern Ireland, the following shall be substituted for subsection (3) (b)—
S. I. 1977/1251 (N.I. 18)
"(b) "action for personal injury" includes an action brought by virtue of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Act 1937 or the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order I977.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 10, line 45, leave out ("in subsection (1) above").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. Amendment No. 3 is a drafting amendment to remove

219
a redundant phrase and to ensure consistency between the English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish drafting. Amendment No. 8 removes a redundant phrase from the consequential amendment to the Vehicle and Excise Registration Act 1994. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 11, line 13, leave out from ("`"copy'") to ("and") and insert (", in relation to a document, means anything onto which information recorded in the document has been copied, by whatever means and whether directly or indirectly,").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 4, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
Amendment No. 4 is a drafting amendment. Most of the consequential changes to legislation in Schedule 1 provide a free-standing definition, using that in the Bill, instead of referring readers to the Bill to find the definition. In other words, if one is looking at another statute, instead of having to come to this Bill to find the new definition, one can find the new definition included in that statute by amendment.
However, not all of the amendments do that consistently. This and the following three amendments ensure that a consistent approach is followed throughout the schedule. The amendment covers the definition of the word "copy" in Section 72 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have a similar purpose. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7:
Page 11, leave out line 16 and insert (""has the same meaning as in Part I of the Civil Evidence Act 1968" substitute "means anything in which information of any description is recorded.".").
Page 11, leave out lines 45 to 47 and insert:
(""5.—(1) In Part II of this Act—
'document' means anything in which information of any description is recorded;
'copy', in relation to a document, means anything onto which information recorded in the document has been copied, by whatever means and whether directly or indirectly; and
'statement' means any representation of fact, however made.
(2) For the purposes of Part II of this Act evidence which, by reason of a defect of speech or hearing, a person called as a witness gives in writing or by signs shall be treated as given orally."").
Page 12, line 40, leave out from ("proceedings'") to end of line 41 and insert ("means civil proceedings before any tribunal in relation to which the strict rules of evidence apply, whether as a matter of law or by agreement of the parties, and references to 'the court' shall be construed accordingly;".").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, and since the amendments are all connected, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 13, line 18, leave out ("in subsection (1) above").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
In the Title:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
Line 1, leave out ("and").
Line 2, after ("evidence") insert (" and the admissibility and proof of official actuarial tables").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill [H.L.]
7.36 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 15 [Evidence of agreement to marry]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 11, line 31, leave out ("of betrothal").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 represent minor and drafting amendments that have arisen following further consideration of those agreed at the Report stage of the Bill.
Amendment No. 1 is intended to widen the types of ceremonies which can be adduced in evidence of an agreement to marry. The amendment therefore includes those who have undergone a marriage ceremony outside the requirements of English law, as well as those who have undergone betrothal ceremonies. Your Lordships will remember that that question was raised by a number of noble Lords. I believe that we have found a neat way to accommodate an enlargement of the circumstances that might be covered, by shortening what was already contained in the Bill.
Clause 17(1), which was added as a result of consideration by your Lordships in Committee and on Report, currently refers only to an undertaking being given by a respondent. A situation could arise, however, where it was necessary to take cross undertakings. That point was drawn to our attention by a practitioner who saw the Bill as reported. The point was made to us that undertakings might well be given by others than the respondent. Obviously your Lordships would wish to cover those undertakings. I am grateful for that information. It shows the importance of practical points of that kind being drawn to our attention in time. Amendment No. 2, therefore, is intended to clarify that the court is able to accept such undertakings from the applicant, the respondent or any other party to the proceedings.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 represent minor drafting improvements to Schedule 3. Amendment No. 5 represents a consequential amendment to Schedule 5, deleting "rights of occupation" in favour of the new term "matrimonial home rights".
Amendment No. 6 is intended to allocate to the Family Division of the High Court proceedings arising from an appeal from an order or decision under Section 63(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to enforce an order of a magistrates' court. The amendment adds proceedings under the Bill to paragraph 3(d) of Schedule 1 to the Supreme Court Act 1981.
As your Lordships see, all the amendments' are minor and drafting amendments. Therefore, I have spoken to them together. I beg to move.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted a few words on Amendment No. 1. It is a happy issue out of our afflictions. The amendment addresses the one unresolved issue which remained after Report stage in relation to the questions: who are associated persons, and how is that status to be established? The amendment completely meets our anxieties and we are most grateful.
Perhaps I may add my tribute to the draftsmanship, which is hardly short of genius. By the deletion of two superfluous words, the entire problem is removed. Would that all government amendments were at once so accommodating and so economical.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I completely associate myself with those words. In general, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his officials for their continued consideration of the Bill through all its stages, with the result that it arrives in this form. In particular, I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, in congratulating the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the lateral thinking which has brought about this rather neat amendment, Amendment No. 1.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the amendment. I believe that the matter arose from an amendment that I put forward at Committee stage which attempted to bring back into the Bill one of the group of associated persons which was in the Law Commission Bill but not in the Government's Bill.
It has been quite a long and interesting haul from Committee stage, through Report stage, to Third Reading. However, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He has written to me about the matter. He has taken infinite trouble to try to get it right. We are all grateful, and happy at the result. I support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Undertakings]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 12, line 13, leave out ("the respondent") and insert ("any party to the proceedings").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to Amendment Nos. 2 to 6 with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Amendments of Children Act 1989]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 25, line 42, leave out from ("authority") to ("period") in line 44 and insert ("have removed the child from the dwelling-house from which the relevant person is excluded to other accommodation for a continuous").
Page 27, line 32, leave out from ("applicant") to ("period") in line 34 and insert ("has removed the child from the dwelling-house from which the relevant person is excluded to other accommodation for a continuous").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 5 and 6:
Page 32, line 7, at end insert ("and for "rights of occupation" there is substituted "matrimonial home rights").
Page 32, line 45, at end insert:
("The Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54)
. In Schedule 1 to the Supreme Court Act 1981 (distribution of business in High Court), in paragraph 3 (Family Division)—

(a) in paragraph (d), after "matrimonial proceedings" there is inserted "or proceedings under the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Act 1995", and

(b) in paragraph (f) (i), for "Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976" there is substituted "Family Homes and Domestic Violence Act 1995".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I nearly missed the cue. It would be quite remiss of me if I did not say that at its inception this was a Bill which we on the Opposition Benches were as anxious to see enacted as were the Government. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accepts that. We owe a debt of gratitude to the Law Commission. As it celebrates its 30th anniversary, it is good to see if not a stream, at least an escalating rivulet, of Law Commission Bills proceeding to the statute book.
Our proceedings have demonstrated how a Bill which in essence is not controversial can improve from an exercise in listening to informed witnesses, and, perhaps even more importantly, listening to one another. That we owe in large part to the chairmanship at the Committee stage of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. We owe him a great debt of gratitude.
I should add our thanks, too, to those who took the trouble to give evidence in Committee, both orally and in writing. I found myself persuaded on a number of issues by having the benefit of their experience and wisdom.
I believe that it was a good Bill when it was introduced, and that it has improved in the course of our deliberations. May that be the fate of many future Law Commission Bills.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I echo everything that has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. Indeed, this was a good Bill; it is now a better Bill as it passes from this House. The procedure of the Jellicoe Committee which this Bill enjoyed has proved

223
particularly valuable. It enabled the Special Public Bill Committee of the House to give detailed thought to the Bill. I would certainly wish to join in paying a sincere tribute to our chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. It was quite apparent to everyone on the committee that he undertook an immense amount of concentrated work behind the scenes.
It is a characteristic of the Jellicoe procedure that there arrives a large amount of solicited and unsolicited material which has to be absorbed in a relatively short period of time. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, marshalled that evidence before the Committee, in such a way that it was presented to us in a manageable and logical form. It enabled the questioning of the witnesses who gave oral evidence to be greatly enhanced in both content and form. I hope that the procedure will be used again in similar circumstances and that future Committees will have the services of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman.
I pay tribute to the responsive and speedy way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his officials, and indeed the draftsmen of the Bill, dealt with the various suggested amendments for the benefit of the Committee, and subsequently for the benefit of the House at Report stage and Third Reading.
The remarkable feature of the Bill is that at every stage there has been room for some further improvement. I hope that your Lordships will wish this Bill well as it proceeds to another place.
Baroness David: My Lords, as a Member of the Special Public Bill Committee on the Bill, I should like to associate myself with what has been said. It is almost the first time that this procedure has been followed with a Bill that is not too controversial, with success. However, it was to me the most fascinating experience. The Bill had been prepared by the Law Commission; we considered it rather good to start with. There were only two exceptions in the Bill produced by the Government to what had been proposed in the Law Commission Bill. It was of particular interest that in the course of the Committee stage a good many more changes were brought about as a result of the evidence and the lawyers on the Committee. However, I still believe that it was good that we had a few lay Members to ask some questions. I refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is a lawyer. He probably is. However, Members of the Committee, and in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, brought forward many questions. I believe that it is a much better Bill than the Bill which came before the Committee in the first place.
It has been an extremely interesting experience. I hope that more Bills will go through this process, although I understand that it involves an enormous amount of work for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I should like to add my tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. He undertook a huge amount of work in the background. The first index of queries that he produced was of tremendous help to the Committee. I pay great tribute to his chairmanship.
224
I wish the Bill well. I hope that it will hurry through the other place and will soon receive Royal Assent.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I feel somewhat overwhelmed by the kind remarks which have been made on my chairmanship. Leaving that aside, I am a committed supporter of the Jellicoe procedure. As we have a few moments to spare, perhaps I may add a few words about the procedure. Apart from the fact that it saves much time on the Floor of the House, in my submission it tends to produce a much better Bill of the type suitable to be referred to the Committee than if the Bill had proceeded along normal lines. The procedure is not suitable for a party political Bill on which the Government or the Opposition will put a Whip, but for other Bills it has a great future.
As some noble Lords know, before the Committee sits, the Bill is sent to about 100 informed sources, as I shall call them, for written comments. After that, a few people appear before us in person who give us their views orally. As a result, any problems are exposed in due time and the improvements which can be made come before us for consideration. After that has taken place we have an informal discussion on draft amendments before anything is done formally. Then after that informal discussion we meet for a proper Public Bill Committee.
As a result of the preliminary discussions, we usually seem to reach a consensus and only occasionally do we need to divide. When we sit as a Public Bill Committee, we all vote as informed Peers. We know what we are voting about and the result is that at the end of the day we have a much better Bill than would have resulted from the normal process.
I wish to add only one further point. In December of last year, the Select Committee on Procedure of the House made eight recommendations. The first was that further opportunities should be found for the use of Special Public Bill Committee procedures, in particular for Law Commission Bills and also for other Bills introduced into either House. So far, a Special Public Bill Committee has dealt with only law reform Bills, three in number. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor can say whether there is any prospect of the procedure being used for Bills other than law reform legislation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the last question which my noble and learned friend asked before I come to more general matters. The criteria for using the system would be that the Bills were not of a party political controversial nature; secondly, that they are of a type which would profit from the extended examination of evidence which is involved in the Jellicoe procedure; and, thirdly, that they are generally welcomed in principle in the House when they are given a Second Reading. In the cases in which the procedure has been used, I have been careful to seek to secure agreement in advance for the whole course of the Bills. I wish to acknowledge openly and warmly the assistance that I have received from the Opposition parties. The result has been that the procedure has been

225
based on a confidence that the matter has been thoroughly examined here before the Bill is sent to the other place.
I believe that Bills other than Law Commission Bills would fulfil those criteria. The subject matter could be quite varied and I hope that in due course my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman will have the opportunity to sit on a Jellicoe committee dealing with a Bill which did not originate from the Law Commission. I do not believe that I can go further than that at present.
I warmly associate myself with all that has been said about the distinguished chairmanship of my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman. I learnt of some of his many distinguished qualities in my earlier existence, but this is another and extremely important chapter in his achievements. He has sat as chairman on three occasions: once last Session and twice this Session. The first two were extremely technical Bills in the sense that they were of interest to lawyers and perhaps only those who practise law. Obviously, any law has consequences for others, but the Bills were of particular interest to lawyers.
This Bill is quite different; it is of great interest and importance to a wide spectrum of practitioners and people who have a general interest both in domestic violence and in matrimonial homes. We received help by way of evidence from a large spectrum of organisations with knowledge relevant to the Bill. At the beginning, I was slightly nervous about that applying, but I could see it as a way forward and hoped that it would work. The results have fully justified seeking the agreement to use the procedure which I obtained from those representing the Opposition parties.
At one time it was suggested that the Jellicoe procedure allowed matters to go through the House on the nod. I do not believe any noble Lords who served on any of the Jellicoe committees would regard that as remotely being true—quite the opposite. The Bills that are taken by this method are thoroughly considered in all their aspects and exposed to testing by the views of those who are expert on the subject. For my part, I feel confident that the Bill in its present form has been fully considered, and that we have had the benefit of great help.
I join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and all other noble Lords who have spoken, in thanking the organisations and practitioners who have taken part and given so fully of their time in helping us. I am sure that the Bill is better as a result. I do not think it would be right to single out particular people because we were helped by many organisations, as noble Lords who were on the Committee know. All the assistance was extremely valuable.
I also wish to say how grateful I am to those noble Lords who served on the Committee. It is a demanding task; much time and effort was devoted to it. One cannot become a master of such a Bill without a good deal of time and effort which all members of the Committee gave. I am grateful to them and I am sure that the result is all the better for it.
On behalf of my officials and myself, I am grateful for what was said about us. We have found it a rewarding way of helping matters to proceed. The
226
measure is extremely important, it deals with a sad area, and all of us would like to see domestic violence completely eliminated. However, we are dealing with the real world and I hope that we have managed to produce the best possible regime for dealing with such delicate matters.
I join with noble Lords who wish the Bill a speedy passage in the other place. It goes there in a state such that the other place can have confidence that it has been thoroughly examined. I join also in the thanks to the Law Commission for the work that it did, not only in preparing the draft Bill and the report with which it was associated, but also for the help that it gave us with our evidence during the course of our proceedings.
On the whole this has been an extremely valuable exercise. I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part. I am also grateful to those who did not take part in the Committee but who have been confident in our work and have been willing today to pass what we have done.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Baroness Trumping ton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8 to 8.25 p.m.]

Child Support Bill
House again in Committee.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 90:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
("Certain arrears
. —(1) This section applies to arrears of child support maintenance which are payable under an assessment which was made at a date later than the dates of the period in respect of which the arrears in question are payable, and which were not also payable under an assessment which was in force during the period in respect of which they are payable.
(2) Arrears to which this section applies shall not be enforceable except with the leave of a judge of the Family Division of the High Court (or, in Scotland, of the Court of Session).
(3) In any proceedings concerning such leave, the person entitled under the assessment, and the person liable under the assessment, shall be entitled to be heard; and unless the judge otherwise orders, their costs of the proceedings shall be payable by the Secretary of State on an indemnity basis.
(4) In any such proceedings—

(a) the judge shall not give leave unless he is satisfied that it would be unjust not to do so, and

(b) he shall have power to remit all or part of the arrears in
question.").

The noble Earl said: This amendment deals with arrears. The Committee may be aware that the procedure has been that arrears accumulate from the date when the parent with care signs the maintenance application form but they come as a bill to the absent parent only when he gets the maintenance assessment. Since the agency has been so severely overburdened and since the body of work has been such that it could not keep up with it, a very long time has been elapsing between those two events.
One of the biggest shocks affecting those who have received maintenance assessments is the enormous weight of arrears that comes with the assessment. I have already mentioned a case in which the arrears for someone with very little income had accumulated to £2,600. I believe that probably that resulted from an error, but the perfectly genuine cases of arrears become backbreaking.
That may have the effect of preventing the absent parent from paying a maintenance assessment which he might otherwise have been perfectly well able to pay. It is never worth breaking the camel's back when one has to rely on regular financial support afterwards. Here there is a situation with which it might be in the Government's interests to deal, apart from any consideration of justice.
I understand that a concession has been made on this matter for the future. No doubt the Minister is about to tell the Committee all about it. But the effect of the amendment would be to extend that concession back to 1993. So it would deal with weights of accumulated arrears which in many cases will never be paid off and which lie on people who have a horror—with which this Chamber is familiar—of being severely in debt.
In any of those cases applications over arrears would have to be made to a judge of the Family Division, who would have to decide that it was unjust not to enforce them. So before the Minister starts to hold forth as he has done many times about absent parents deliberately evading their obligations, let me stress to him that this amendment would do absolutely nothing for any absent parent who was deliberately evading his obligations. If, in the opinion of the judge—I have confidence in our judges and I hope that the Government do too—it would be unjust not to enforce them, then they would be enforced. But where the arrears arise perhaps from the agency's inability to keep up with its work or where they arise from complications, cock-ups or inaccurate information in the assessment, they might be remitted. Some remission is essential both for the absent parent's ability to go on paying and for any kind of continuing consent to the system, in which the Minister has an interest. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In my time it was the general practice of the judges of what is now the Family Division not to enforce arrears of more than one year. That practice was based on long experience of justice. So far the amendment of the noble Earl is entirely in line with it. I also venture to think that the discretion that he gives to the judge would be exercised precisely in the way that he claims.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment provides that arrears of maintenance due for the initial period—that is, the period from the date on which liability commences up to the date the assessment is made—shall be enforceable only with the leave of the Family Division of the High Court. It also enables the court to remit all or part of the arrears, and requires the Secretary of State to meet all the costs of the application unless the judge orders otherwise.
228
It will always be the case that initial period arrears will occur in cases where there is no court order in force because in such cases liability starts before the date on which the assessment is made. The noble Earl alluded to the two changes introduced in April that will limit the arrears payable in such cases. First, where the absent parent returns the maintenance inquiry form within four weeks of its issue providing certain basic information to enable the case to be progressed by the agency, the liability for maintenance will start eight weeks from the date the maintenance inquiry form was issued, rather than the date on which it was issued. Secondly, in cases where delay by the Child Support Agency has contributed to the arrears, only six months' arrears will be enforced if the absent parent pays his ongoing maintenance and maintains an agreement to repay the six months' arrears.
But where initial period arrears do arise and the absent parent does not co-operate in making arrangements for payment, there is no reason why normal enforcement action should not be taken. When the maintenance inquiry form is issued the absent parent is given clear advice about the date from which he will be liable to pay maintenance. In addition the Child Support Agency will make every effort to reach an instalment undertaking that repays the arrears at a reasonable rate over a period of time, before enforcement action is considered. In such cases payment of arrears and current maintenance will be limited to a maximum of 33 per cent, of net income, ensuring that the absent parent does not face an undue burden in repayment.
To require an application to the Family Division of the High Court in cases where the absent parent refuses to come to an agreement in respect of initial arrears is entirely unnecessary. Given the advice to absent parents about the date from which liability starts, the provisions relating to instalments, and other provisions relating to the date liability starts and the amount of arrears that will be collected, there is no justification for arrears to be remitted by the court. Furthermore, it would be wrong for the taxpayer to have to meet the costs of the application to the court, as provided for in the amendment, since such an application would only be necessary in cases where the absent parent refused to come to an agreement with the agency about repayment.
Although the noble Earl hoped I would not say this, it is worth pointing out that the new arrangements we are putting into place will encourage an absent parent to respond timeously, and if he does, then the amount of potential arrears—as long as he pays—will be greatly reduced. As I say, the agency can come to an arrangement within the 33 per cent, of the net income on repayments, which we believe is reasonable. Any parent about to come into the circumstance of being an absent parent must by this time know that he will be expected, via the agency, to pay maintenance to his children if they are being looked after by his former wife and not by himself.
The noble Earl said that the amendment would have a retrospective effect. I am advised that it would not have a retrospective effect; any arrears before the Act came into force would still be due even with his

229
amendment. I do not believe he meant that, but that is the case. From now on the situation will be as I described; that is, that previous arrears will still be due. I would hope that the agency would be able to come to a reasonable arrangement with absent parents in regard to paying them. They are not simply arrears to the agency; they are arrears to the parent with care.
Earl Russell: Many times today I have been reminded of a debate in 1991 on whether the payers of 20 per cent, poll tax should be pardoned any further pursuit. That was the occasion when the Opposition Benches tabled an amendment, together with us, to put that practice of pursuit to a stop. The Government brought in the noble Lords, Lord Hanson and Lord White—those well-known champions of the poor—to oppose it, and succeeded in voting it down. With his obsessive concentration on wilful refusal, the Minister is beginning to sound rather like that. It is a familiar voice—Whitehall playing the tune of the retreat from Moscow, and it does not do it very well. The Minister seems to think that from now on all arrears will be entirely justifiable to collect; that nothing can possibly go wrong again and they all live happily ever after. It is not like that, as anybody who has the misfortune to deal with the CSA already knows very well.
Let me take as an example the case of a regular payment direction pending appeal for a departure. That regular payment direction may be set at a level which is actually too high for the absent parent to bear successfully. That could give rise to arrears. There are many other circumstances in which arrears could arise, including failure to co-operate by the parent with care. I was interested that Miss Chant said yesterday to the Public Accounts Committee that even mothers will not co-operate. I do not know why she is so surprised; I warned her in 1991 that that would be the case; or rather, to be more precise, I warned her predecessors.
The Minister does not understand the horror which a great many people feel on facing a great load of debt. He does not remember the very effective speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on the student loans Bill in 1990. He brought that horror to the attention of this Chamber. His prophecies about what people would feel are entirely accurate. To people who feel that way, saying that they can pay in instalments is not adequate. They feel stigmatised by carrying a load of debt. If the Government really have hostility to inflation as they make out, they should not so much stigmatise thrifty habits of mind and bring them into so much trouble.
I do not see any understanding of the case that is being made. But I am getting used to that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Repayment of overpaid child support maintenance]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 18, leave out lines 15 to 24.
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 91 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 92, which is consequential upon it. The amendment deals with the
230
situation where the absent parent has made an overpayment of maintenance. It strikes out the existing provisions of the Bill and provides instead that,
"The Secretary of State shall make full reimbursement of any such overpayment to the absent parent as soon as practicable, and in any event within 14 days of the date on which it should have become apparent to the Secretary of State that such an overpayment had been made".
The Minister heard me talking earlier today about redress. On that occasion I was speaking on behalf of the parent with care; this time it is on behalf of an absent parent, but the principle is the same. If you cause damage to someone by unlawful or negligent acts, you owe them compensation. If the Minister asks, "Why the taxpayer?", I would remind him of the law of agency. The CSA is the agent of the state and therefore ultimately of the taxpayer. It is a claim that the Minister has made on its behalf many times; and since he allows so much for the agency, I think he ought to allow it against the agency as well. If you do injustice, you should put it right. It is just like the principle on which I brought up my children. If you make a mess, you clear it up. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: These two amendments make substantial changes to the provisions in Clause 23 for dealing with overpayments of maintenance. The effect would be that the Secretary of State would be required to reimburse all overpayments, and within a specified time limit.
Since the child support scheme came into operation a reduction to current maintenance has been the way in which overpayments have been dealt with. We accept that this does not always deal with overpayments satisfactorily, which is why this new provision has been proposed. But I believe it is right that an adjustment to the current assessment should remain the first consideration.
Payment of child maintenance is essentially a matter for the parents of the children. Overpayments occur for a variety of reasons and it would not be right for the taxpayer to have to step in immediately to sort the matter out. A reduction to the current maintenance assessment, where this is possible and reasonable, remains the most equitable way of initially dealing with overpayments. The right of the absent parent to be repaid can be balanced against the needs of the parent with care and children to receive regular maintenance. The regulations relating to the adjustment of maintenance assessments on account of overpayments were amended in April to give the child support officer greater discretion in setting the amount of the reduction. This will ensure a fairer outcome in most cases. But we accept that there will be a number of cases where a reduction to the current assessment is not possible or practicable, and that is why we are proposing the provisions in Clause 23. There may be no assessment, for example, where the child is no longer in full-time non-advanced education or the assessment is already at the minimum amount, meaning no adjustment is possible; or an adjustment may be inappropriate because, for example, it would take an unreasonable

231
length of time to repay the overpayment. However, it would not be right for all cases to be dealt with under these provisions.
The amendments also introduce a 14-day time limit for making reimbursement, but I believe this is impracticable. It is not clear from the amendment just when the clock will start ticking, but in cases where a revised assessment results in a lower award, the Child Support Agency will be able to calculate the overpayment immediately and will deal with it as soon as practicable.
But, more importantly, the amendments would place operational constraints on the agency and would undermine its ability to organise all aspects of its work. The agency deals with a huge range of different tasks in making assessments; undertaking reviews; dealing with routine queries and correspondence; and collecting payments and passing them on to the parent with care. Imposing such a time constraint in respect of one particular activity—I have already mentioned this today—would have considerable implications for the way in which the agency manages its workload. Other activities do not have such time constraints, and there is no reason why the reimbursement of overpayments should be treated differently or have priority.
Of course it is right that overpayments are calculated as quickly as possible and appropriate action taken to ensure that the absent parent is repaid in the most appropriate way. The agency aims to ensure that all its work, including that of overpayments, is processed as quickly as possible. In considering the wider issues of processing work in the Child Support Agency, time limits prescribed in legislation for certain actions can only hinder rather than assist in providing a satisfactory level of service. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to withdraw the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: That most of my amendments should be mistaken would merely mean that I was subject to the human condition. That they should all be mistaken would offend against the law of averages. I really had hoped that in the whole Bill there might be just one single amendment which would find the Government's favour because some of them were actually meant to be helpful.
I am sorry that the Minister has not seen it. He talks about placing operational constraints on the agency. But does he understand that the agency itself is placing the most severe of operational constraints on practically everyone else? Why should the agency be free of operational constraints while everyone else is more and more tightly restricted? That is the kind of question that was in the mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when he introduced the concept of the rule of law. We have an agency which is more and more being given the discretion to do absolutely whatever it likes, with the Secretary of State to back it up. This is arbitrary government. It is something which we have a long history of resisting and which we were supposed to have a Parliament in order to prevent. I cannot see that it does very much about it.
232
I am sorry that the Minister does not understand the point of the amendment. He keeps on talking about absent parents refusing to accept their liabilities. What I see is a Secretary of State refusing to accept his liabilities. But if we were to attempt to deal with him with even one-hundredth of the vehemence used in the pursuit of absent parents, the squawking would be heard from here to Timbuktu. I hope that at some time the Government will hear something. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 18, line 33, at end insert:
("() Subsection (3) shall not apply where the overpayment has arisen as a result of administrative error on the part of the Secretary of State, his servants or agents.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 94. Both amendments deal with the matter of overpayment but from a rather different direction from that in the last group of amendments.
Amendment No. 93 deals with the situation where the overpayment has arisen as a result of administrative error on the part of the Child Support Agency. The effect of the amendment is obvious from its wording. It is intended to protect parents with care from the requirement to repay a debt to the agency where the agency itself is responsible for an overpayment being made. The Minister will not want me to labour the figures, which have appeared in the press only today, about the mistakes that have been made by the CSA.
Although the Government's intention to recompense an absent parent who is overpaid is to be welcomed, in fact the clause also makes it clear that the Government intend to go after the parent with care to recoup the losses of the offer the Government have generously made. This clause would help absent parents, but parents with care also need to be adequately protected against the considerable number of administrative errors which have been made and are likely still to be made by the agency. If the agency has admitted fault in causing an overpayment, the parent with care should not then be made to repay the debt to the agency.
I shall not be at all surprised if the Minister argues that if the parent with care was overpaid she should ultimately pay it back. However, in most of the cases—we are dealing here with people who are not very well off and will not have large savings or anything like that—the money will already have been spent and therefore the parent with care will need to manage on less money each week in order to repay the debt to the agency. In other cases the parent with care will suffer an actual overall financial loss should she be required to repay the payment.
For example, in the case of parents with care who are claiming family credit, they will lose in three ways. First, they will be claiming a reduced level of family credit to take account of the higher or overpaid maintenance payments. That underpayment, as we would describe it, will not be recompensed. Secondly, the readjustment of maintenance to the lower level will

233
reduce their income, which may not be readjusted immediately due to the current six months rule on family credit, a point to which we shall return on later amendments. Lastly, if this clause remains, they could be asked to repay a debt to the agency. So they are caught with a troika of injustice.
This amendment was not proposed in the other place, but the Government have said that they intend to use their discretion when looking to claw back a debt from the parent with care—I think that the Minister indicated that in his reply to the last group of amendments—but they do not want any amendment to take away their discretion. This amendment would not remove discretion, but would simply limit discretion to cases where the overpayment was not made as a result of an error on the part of the agency.
I turn now to Amendment No. 94, which deals with a situation where the overpayment has arisen as a result of an interim maintenance assessment (IMA) being paid by the absent parent. The effect of the amendment, if accepted, is to ensure that where an overpayment has been made by the absent parent due to his non-co-operation, the agency would not offer compensation to the absent parent. If, due to the non-co-operation of the absent parent, an interim maintenance assessment is imposed by the agency, in the new regulations the absent parent who then co-operates will only be liable for the lower maintenance level. In some cases an overpayment of maintenance will result if the IMA was enforced.
The amendment will ensure that any overpayment would not be recompensed by the agency and therefore, under the terms of Clause 23, the parent with care would never be asked to repay the overpayment.
At the seventh sitting of the Committee in the other place the Minister said that the situation will not often arise. However, he said that the Government should not be constrained from recovering such money from the parent with care when it is right, on behalf of the taxpayer, to do so. As I say, the Minister said that the situation will not often arise.
The Government are right in saying that that will not often happen as in most cases the benefits will have been reduced to account for the higher payments. The Government are worried that the clause will take away their discretion to recoup the overpayment on behalf of the taxpayer. If this amendment is not accepted, it will mean that the agency can recompense the absent parent for what effectively amounts to non-co-operation, and then expect the parent with care to pay it back. It is reasonable to expect the parent with care to pay back an overpayment in certain circumstances. The legislation should allow the CSA the freedom to do that, but not when the debt is due to the non-co-operation of the absent parent. It is entirely wrong that if the absent parent refuses to co-operate the consequences which I have described follow. That is extremely unfair. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: The arguments for this amendment have a very large area of overlap, both with my own arguments for the previous amendment and my arguments against deducting income support from the
234
absent parent, on the principle that an injustice is an injustice no matter to what sex it has been done. I warmly support this amendment. I do not believe that the Minister understands at all quite how burdensome it has been in many cases attempting to get clawbacks from those people who are existing very close to benefit level. That is something which is capable of causing shock and a very severe hole in the budget. Once one gets into debt anywhere near benefit level, one is carrying burdens which it is not easy to get out of. I wish the department would do some research on that problem because it is very badly needed. I do not see any reason at all why the Minister should not accept this amendment, and I hope that he will do so.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: These amendments would remove the ability of the Child Support Agency to recover from the parent with care a reimbursement of overpaid maintenance made by the absent parent where the overpayment is due to official error or an interim maintenance assessment.
I can appreciate the concerns surrounding the recovery from the parent with care of reimbursements made to the absent parent. As was said in another place during the passage of this Bill, it is not intended that recovery of reimbursements is sought in all cases. Consideration will be given to the circumstances of the parent with care and her ability to repay. It is not intended, for example, that recovery will be sought in any case where she receives income support or family credit, however the overpayment arose. There will also be other cases when the particular circumstances are such that recovery will not be appropriate.
In any case where recovery is considered appropriate, we shall not normally expect the parent with care to repay the money immediately. It will be possible to make an instalment arrangement to repay the relevant amount at a reasonable rate over a period of time.
I have listened to the debate and we need to think carefully whether it would be right to ask the taxpayer to bear the cost of repaying overpayment where the parent with care can in fact afford to do so. I am willing to consider very carefully whether there are specific circumstances—I mentioned some which have already been made clear in the other place—in relation to which I can give an undertaking that overpayments would not be recovered from a parent with care. On that basis, and with my explanation of how we would treat income support and family credit, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am not quite clear whether the Minister was indicating an administrative discretion or that he will bring forward an amendment at Report stage which goes far to meet the case so persuasively put by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Perhaps he will clear that up.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In answer to the noble and learned Lord, I was not going as far as to say that I shall come forward with an amendment at Report stage. I made clear that we said in another place that it is not intended that recovery of reimbursements is sought in all cases. I mentioned two of them; namely, receiving income support and family credit, however the

235
overpayment arose. We are looking at overpayments which have arisen as a result of the agency itself due to administrative official error or an interim maintenance assessment. As I have said, I am prepared to consider the matters which have been raised and I shall see whether I can give an undertaking at a later stage that overpayments will not be recovered from the parent with care in other circumstances which I shall then specify.
As regards the specific question, subsection (3) of the new Section 41B inserted by Clause 23 enables the Secretary of State to prescribe the circumstances in which recovery will be sought. Those regulations will be the appropriate place in which exemptions from recovery will be specified. As I have already said, we intend that particular consideration will be given to cases involving official error. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Lord.
Lord Carter: That is a helpful answer. Before deciding what to do with the amendment, as the Minister referred to subsection (3) which requires the relevant person to pay to the Secretary of State the whole or a specified proportion of the amount, would the specified proportion be nil in some circumstances?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That will be one way to specify who was not going to pay. I shall have to take advice on that. As I said, the regulations would be the appropriate place to say in which cases there would be exemption from recovery. I do not believe that would meet the suggestion made by the noble Lord. However, in those regulations we shall be able to do what I have already suggested that we intend to do in certain cases. The other cases I shall seriously consider in the light of what has been said.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. That shows that occasionally regulations have their good points and allow a degree of flexibility. We shall not be harrying the Minister on this, but we shall certainly be watching the point very carefully. We may need to put down probing amendments at a later stage to stiffen the Minister's resolve. There is a glimmer of light there. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
9 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 95:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
("Limits on reduced benefit direction
.—(1) Section 46 of the 1991 Act shall be amended as follows—
(2) After subsection (5) insert—
"(5A) Subsection (5) shall not apply in cases where the parent with care or any child that would be affected by a reduced benefit direction is disabled."
(3) After subsection (7) insert—
"(7A) The child support appeal tribunal shall have the power to alter the time and level of the reduced benefit direction according to the circumstances of each case."
(4) In subsection (11) leave out "such amount, and for such a period as may be prescribed" and insert "no more than 10 per cent, of the personal allowance being claimed by that parent, and for a period not exceeding sixteen weeks".
(5) After subsection (11) insert—
"(12) Where a reduced benefit direction is issued, it shall take priority over other loans, and shall not be made in addition to other loans being repaid from that person's weekly benefit." ")
The noble Lord said: This is a new clause to be inserted after Clause 23. We return to the point about reduced benefit directions. The effect of the amendment would be threefold: to ensure that families which are particularly vulnerable due to one member being disabled do not have to pay a penalty by way of benefit reduction; to ensure that younger mothers who receive a lower rate of benefit do not pay a higher percentage of their benefit as a penalty than other, older mothers; and to ensure that a reduced benefit direction does not run concurrently with other reductions in benefits.
There has been some anecdotal evidence of fraud—I stress that it is anecdotal—in terms of absent parents attempting to make up the lost benefit in return for an assurance from the parent with care that she will not co-operate with the agency. Before the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to intervene, I repeat that that evidence is anecdotal. However, there are also many cases where the parent with care has good reason for not wishing to co-operate, but where her reasons do not fall under those considered to be "good cause" by the agency. In those cases, we are concerned that the penalty is harmful to one-parent families which are already struggling on low levels of income.
The amendment seeks to limit the penalty and, in the case of families having to cope with disabilities, to remove from the Secretary of State the power to make a reduced benefit direction. By giving the power to vary a reduced benefit direction to the appeal tribunals, as is mentioned in the amendment, the provisions can take into account the welfare of any children involved by looking at the individual circumstances of each case.
The amendment also seeks to ensure that those living on benefits are not reduced to unacceptably low levels of income by the imposition of a penalty on top of other repayments, such as for arrears of water rates, overpayments, and repayment of crisis loans from the Social Fund. The Government have argued in the past that the penalty is necessary to ensure the co-operation of parents with care. We do not go all the way with the Government on that, but, although there is no reason to repeat all the arguments now, we can see the Government's point where no good cause, has been shown. However, reducing the income of a family to below subsistence levels can only be harmful to the children involved.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister can see that there is a problem. The wording of the amendment might not be perfect, but this is Committee stage, and the amendment is intended to highlight what we feel is a threefold problem. I hope that the Minister will give it his sympathetic consideration. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: This is a good amendment and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on tabling it. It is not quite as good as getting rid of the benefit penalty altogether, but I fancy that the noble Lord would not disagree with that.
If we have to have a fallback, this is as good as we can get. In subsection (2), the case for the disabled is extremely strong. The extra expenses of disability are a great deal more than the OPCS calculated, and make the benefit penalty more punitive than it would be for anyone else.
Subsection (3) imports a very welcome discretion which, to my delight, is administered judicially and not administratively. It allows the penalty, such as it is, to be apportioned to the circumstances of each case.
Subsection (4) reduces the benefit penalty to 10 per cent. It also reduces the period for which it lasts. It is almost identical to an amendment that I pushed to a Division on consideration of Commons reasons in 1991. I support it not one whit less strongly now than I did then. I have always thought that the 20 per cent, rate of reduction was absolutely penal and entirely without any justification in any reason that was put forward for it. If there must be a reduction, 10 per cent, is about as much as is compatible with subsistence—and even that is pushing it a bit, as I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, agrees.
However, probably the very best part of the amendment, like the very best wine, is saved until last. I refer to subsection (5), which provides that the reduced benefit direction takes priority over other loans and that those should not be repaid from a person's weekly benefit during the period of the reduced benefit direction. The Minister keeps talking about priority for child maintenance over other commitments. Why should not that apply where there is actually a hungry child hoping to eat as a result of it? The Government do not do nearly enough to study the effects of "top-slicing"—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, recently described it—as a result of the long series of deductions from benefit. The rate of deductions for court fines, for example, is often penally steep.
The purpose of benefits is to allow people subsistence. That is in our national interest. It is in the interests of common humanity and in the interests of all concerned. The amendment would go a significant way towards getting us back to that, and I am happy to support it. I am glad that the noble Lord moved it. If he does not manage to get it accepted tonight, I hope that he will persist with it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Under the 1991 Act, a parent with care who receives, or whose current partner receives, a relevant benefit must give her authority for maintenance to be pursued from the absent parent unless she has good cause for not doing so. We have already discussed that in some detail earlier today. If she fails to give her authority without good cause, her benefit may be reduced by 20 per cent, of the income support adult allowance for six months—I think that I underlined earlier that the 20 per cent, reduction impinges only on the adult allowance portion—followed by a reduction of 10 per cent, for the next 12 months.
238
Amendment No. 95 seeks to change a number of matters relating to reduced benefit directions. I should like to restate that I believe that it is right that the parent with care should co-operate with the agency unless she has good cause for not doing so. Taxpayers should not have to shoulder the burden. No parent with care will have benefit reduced without careful regard being given to her circumstances and those of her children. The purpose of the benefit reduction is to make a parent with care think carefully about her decision not to co-operate. We believe that the current amount and duration of the reduction achieves that. We have already discussed that when dealing with amendments tabled by the noble Earl.
Amendment No. 95 would make changes to reduced benefit directions. Directions could not be imposed where the parent with care or any child affected by the benefit reduction was disabled. Secondly, child support appeal tribunals would be able to alter the amount and duration of the reduction depending upon the individual circumstances of the case. Thirdly, the maximum amount and the duration of the reduction could be lessened. Fourthly, a deduction could not be made where the parent has a loan which she is repaying from her benefit.
We believe that the amount and duration of the benefit reduction is set at the right level and should neither be reduced nor made subject to the discretion of appeal tribunals. Parents with care should know the consequences of their refusal to co-operate when they make their decision whether to comply. They should not be uncertain about how much the reduction will be or how long it will last.
Under the 1991 Act, the parent with care already has the right to appeal to a child support appeal tribunal, which will consider whether or not the reduced benefit direction was properly imposed. If a parent were successful on appeal she would be repaid any benefit due.
That leaves two issues; waiving the reduction where the child or the parent with care is disabled and waiving it where the parent has other loans. I am willing to look further at the noble Lord's suggestion relating to those two factors. I will look at cases of disabled parents and children and at cases where the parent is already having deductions made from her benefit, for example, to cover rent arrears at the time the reduced benefit deduction is made. Perhaps I may make it clear that I will look at those two issues but that I am rejecting and not promising to look at the other two issues. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: The Minister has shown some small mercies and for that we must all be grateful. He has put forward a great deal of argument for justifying the imposition of a benefit penalty, which was relevant to a previous amendment but not to this one. He has given no justification for making the penalty 20 per cent, and not 10 per cent. Is there any reason for that?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I gave that justification earlier today. It was that the penalty must be such that it is meaningful but at the same time we must balance that with the fact that we do not wish to deprive the parent with care of her benefit. It must be

239
of such a size that it is realistic and that it will act as a deterrent to someone who without good reason is not giving the name of the absent parent.
As I said earlier, in 73,000 cases we have accepted the good reason and have not pursued the matter. In 18,000 cases we have imposed the reduction. It is a matter of balance—20 per cent., 15 per cent., why not 25 per cent.? It is 20 per cent for six months and 10 per cent, for the following 12 months. That appears to us to be a reasonable balance, leaving the parent with care with some of her income while at the same time making it clear to her that we do not believe her actions to have been reasonable. I know that the noble Earl does not agree with me on these issues but it lies in the hands of the parent with care to restore her benefit to 100 per cent.
Lord Carter: I suspect that the real reason why the figure is 20 per cent, is the sophisticated reason that it is twice as much as 10 per cent.
I am almost overwhelmed by the Minister's response. As regards the first two amendments that I moved yesterday, which now seems a long time ago, the Minister was most helpful and promised to look at one of them. He promised to look at the first two amendments that I moved tonight. However, he has cherry picked as regards this amendment. I did not believe that he would buy subsection (4) but it was worth having a debate. However, he has promised to come back on the disability and loan issues. He has been most helpful and I congratulate him. It shows what one can do when one sets out to improve a Bill rather than mortally to wound it. I understand the Minister's comments—they are not assurances—which are most helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Compensation payments]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 19, line 7, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 96 deals with Clause 24, which overall is one of the Bill's more welcome clauses. But, as usual, this Government have shown themselves to be the Old Man of Thermopylae; they never do anything properly. Having introduced a welcome concession they have not done so thoroughly and have not made it properly effective.
Perhaps I may explain the context. The clause deals with the situation which came to light during the debate on the February 1994 regulations. For some people, they meant a reduction in the maintenance that they were paying and for the parent with care a reduction in the maintenance which she was receiving. But if those people were on family credit it was fixed only once every six months so they had lost a large part of their income for whatever period of the six months remained until the next assessment.
On the debate on the regulations the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and I attempted a vigorous right and left—and I did not say which was which. That has been heard. In this clause we now have a provision for making compensation, through the machinery of family credit,
240
to a parent with care who has lost some of the maintenance that she was receiving and whose income has therefore dropped.
The first point that I make about that and other later amendments is that instead of saying the Government "will" do something, we have instead the tedious words:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations".
My first question is whether the Secretary of State will introduce these regulations. Are the Government making a firm commitment to bring in regulations to introduce this concession which, in principle, is extremely welcome, or are they saying only that they may do so?
If the answer to that question is reassuring, which I hope it will be, then I shall ask the Minister why, if he means "shall" he says "may". Why do these Bills perpetually give the Secretary of State weasel let-outs in every direction when the Government will not, for one moment, consider giving them to anyone else? Why should the Secretary of State be free to escape from every obligation when everyone else is bound? That does not seem fair to me. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Government made it clear in the recent White Paper Improving Child Support that they intend to make compensation payments to parents with care who are in receipt of family credit or disability working allowance if their maintenance assessment is reduced as a result of changes in child support legislation.
In April, your Lordships approved a number of changes to the child support regulations; and because those changes led directly to reductions in many maintenance assessments, we have, in advance of this Bill, been compensating parents with care who have lost out as a result.
There will, however, be circumstances in which it will not be appropriate to make such payments. For example, we do not think that it would be right to compensate parents in the same way if a departure order leads to a reduction in their maintenance. Departure orders merely allow some discretion to Child Support Agency officials to take account of certain aspects of parents' circumstances for which the normal formula does not allow. So a reassessment as a result of a departure order is different from a reassessment flowing from changes in the rules governing the maintenance formula.
Similarly, there may be circumstances in the future where a change in the legislation is needed to restore the policy intention; and it may not be appropriate to make compensation payments in those circumstances. So we need to leave ourselves free to look at future changes as they are made and to decide then whether or not it is appropriate to make compensation payments. Further compensation exercises will be triggered when we decide, in relation to subsequent changes in legislation, that compensation is warranted. This will then be achieved through a provision in the legislation which introduces the changes.
I assure the Committee that it is the Government's intention to compensate parents where maintenance assessments are reduced by a specific change in the

241
legislation which introduces a clear change of policy. We intend to lay general regulations under this clause in the autumn setting out the basis of how compensation payments will be calculated and administered.
Although I may not accept the "may" and "shall" exchange, I hope that my assurance will reassure the noble Earl of my intentions in that regard.
Earl Russell: I am afraid that it does not. Together with my Amendment No. 96, the Minister has answered Amendment No. 97. I hope that it may be convenient to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the Minister to deal with those amendments grouped together.
On Amendment No. 97 I intended to refer to what the Government told the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee; namely, that there is no commitment to compensate for all changes which could reduce maintenance payments. The Minister has confirmed that but I do not understand why not. We are dealing with subsistence. There is no reason why some changes should result in a guarantee to maintain the subsistence and some should not.
The Minister said that he would offer compensation for any specific change in policy. He then said that he would not offer compensation for the effects of a departure. He seems to have contradicted himself because on 23rd January he told the House that the introduction of departures was a significant and specific change of policy for which the Government deserved very great credit.
The Minister really cannot have it both ways. Is the introduction of departures a change of policy? If it is not, why did he and his honourable friend Mr. Burt spend so long telling both Houses that a departure was something which could never ever, under any circumstances, be allowed? It really illustrates the principle that "never" is a short time in politics.
It seems to me rather more important, as the Minister has admitted that compensation will not be given in all circumstances, to ask what other circumstances apart from departures will not be covered. It is a yawning pit. As an Englishman, I cannot help wondering whether the Minister is planning a new battle of Bannockburn. Although, as I said, I am an Englishman, I speak as a descendant of Robert Bruce.
It is most unfortunate. It is not at all clear what is being put before the Committee. If they can depart in one circumstance, they can do so in two; if they can do it in three, then they can do it in four. Indeed, they could even decide to do so in all cases individually. Is there any circumscribing principle covering the limits which the Government put on that doctrine? I should like to hear what that is before we leave the matter.
Lord Carter: Amendments Nos. 98 and 100 are tabled in my name. I should prefer to deal with those separately, because we are now dealing with Amendments Nos. 96 and 97. I believe that the noble Earl put his arguments extremely well. The noble Earl referred to a change of policy which is not a change of policy. I believe that something called the Scott Inquiry has been dealing with that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am asked to respond to the points made by the noble Earl and also to bring in Amendment No. 97 in my response. The latter amendment simply removes the words "in prescribed circumstances and". I know that it may sound like splitting hairs, but the point about the changes that we have made to the departure order—which we believe are significant—is that they may or may not necessarily lead to any changes in the reduction of maintenance. They are departures from the formula and, as I said, they allow important discretions to the Child Support Agency official. Of course, if the absent parent does not agree, then he can appeal. Indeed, both parents can appeal but, by and large, I suspect that it would be the absent parent who would wish to appeal to the tribunal in the case of departure orders. They are there in order to ensure that in very special circumstances there can be a deviation, an alteration, from the formula.
That is the point that I am trying to make about departure orders. They are akin to a change in circumstances in the absent parent's position and/or the position of the parent with care. There is no intention to compensate family credit claimants for the normal variations in maintenance. I can see the noble Earl's point if he is saying that that should apply in the first instance due to the change that we have made. But then, when the system is up and running, a departure may be made as the result of changes to the position of the absent parent or the parent with care who makes such a request. In those circumstances, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to make the changes that we propose ought in other circumstances to be made to family credit.
Earl Russell: Is family credit a benefit which is means tested or is it morals tested?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, it is not morals tested. However, as the noble Earl knows, the point is—and we shall come to deal with this in more detail later when we come to the related, although not linked, amendments—that family credit is paid for six months. In fact, quite considerable changes can already take place during that period. No change is made either up or down to the level of family credit; for example, someone could find himself earning more money than he earned on the day of application for family credit but he would continue to receive the benefit at that level until the end of the period, when it would be recalculated. Of course, conversely, he could receive less money and the opposite situation would occur. The key to family credit—it is an important key—is the six-month period over which it operates. We have to be careful about departing from that important principle in family credit.
That is the general position on family credit. It is there for six months. What we are proposing to do in the Bill is to make an exception to that position in the case of changes which come directly from our legislation and impinge directly on the parent with care. We believe that the departure system may or may not impinge on someone—it will, of course, always be there—whereas the changes that are made to the income of the parent with care will run on. A departure system will continue to be there and we do not propose that we

243
should make changes to family credit in the future just because an application for a departure is upheld and the amount of money coming to the parent with care is reduced. I rather hoped that there might be some small welcome for what we are doing in this regard. I appreciate that people would like us to go further, but I am afraid, for the reasons I have explained; I do not believe that we can.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord has not answered what was perhaps my most important question. Is there any circumscribing principle at all limiting the Minister's right to decide circumstances in which compensation will not be paid, or is this right arbitrary and unlimited? I would like an answer to that question as it will be important to a great many people.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I sometimes have quite considerable difficulty in getting my mind round the questions that the noble Earl asks me because I live in a reasonably simple world and he seems to live in an extraordinarily complex world. The position is as I have outlined. We have taken this power. I wish I could find my copy of the Bill. However, everyone else has a copy and they can read the provision. I thank the Deputy Chairman for handing me the document. Unfortunately, it is not much of an advance.
As I said, we have taken this power in order to be reasonable and helpful in the changes we are making by legislation. We will prescribe the situations where we consider there ought to be changes made to family credit. I do not wish to try to see into the future and decide what other circumstances may or may not arise. That takes us over the issues which the noble Earl has gone over time and again. I and my honourable friends in the other place have made it clear what we intend to do with the power we are taking in this Bill at the present time. As I have said on a number of occasions, I do not have a crystal ball to see in what way it may or may not be used by Secretaries of State in the future.
Earl Russell: Is the Minister really telling me that Secretaries of State can use this to do absolutely anything they like; that they could withdraw the whole effect of the clause if they chose? If that is so, I find that a deeply improper method of legislation. If it really is the case that the Secretary of State can do whatever he likes, he is absolutely without control. Here we have the merging of a constitutional principle about the drafting of legislation with a practical principle of social security about the welfare of individuals who are short of food. This is an amendment about people who need to eat. They do not need to eat one bit the less because the Minister wants discretion. I ask the opinion of the Committee.
9.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 96) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 48.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Carter, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Palmer, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Ezra, L.

Russell, E.[Teller.]

Seear, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Howe, E.

Annaly, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller]

Astor, V.

Total: 26

Balfour, E.

Kimball, L.

Barber, L.

Long, V.

Blaker, L.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McConnell, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Middleton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dudley, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Ferrers, E.

Rawlings, B.

Flather, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Goschen, V.

Strange, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Torrington, V.

Hacking, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Wakeham, L.

Henley, L.

Wynford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.36 p.m.
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): If Amendment No. 98 is agreed to, I have to inform the Committee that I cannot call Amendment No. 99.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 19, line 9, leave out ("compensation or partial") and insert ("full").
The noble Lord said: As Amendment No. 97 has not been moved—it was grouped with Amendments Nos. 98 to 100—I shall move Amendment No. 98 and speak to Amendment No. 100. I shall leave the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to deal with Amendment No. 99.
Amendment No. 98 is intended to ensure that family credit or disability working allowance claimants are fully compensated for the reduction in the maintenance assessments which are brought about by amendments to the legislation.
The White Paper suggests compensation for half of the reduction in the assessment for the remainder of the benefit award. But we feel that that is inadequate. Even with 50 per cent, compensation, because the level of family credit or disability working allowance is set for a period of six months and cannot be reviewed during that time, claimants with awards over £15 a week will be worse off than if they had never expected any maintenance.
The Minister dealt with the six months' point on the last amendment. However, it is important in the context in which I move the amendment.
The point was not debated in another place. We wish to press the Government for full compensation for all low income persons with care. If full compensation was defined as being equal to the reduction in the maintenance assessment, I am advised that the estimated cost would be an extra £1 million in 1995–96.
The effect of Amendment No. 100 is similar: that no family credit or disability working allowance claimant ends up worse off than they would have been without any CSA assessment. It is calculated that 70 per cent, is the rate at which the benefits are withdrawn as income rises. This is the group of people which the Government aim to encourage—the parents in low waged work. Those people are already losers as a result of their maintenance assessment being reduced. That will not be reinstated by recalculation of the benefit at the end of the six month award.
Compensation of 70 per cent., if agreed, would never mean that parents with care end up by gaining overall as a result of the reduction in their maintenance assessment. However, it would ensure that no claimant for family credit or disability working allowance would end up worse off than if he had been assessed at the reduced rate of maintenance at the time either of the benefits were calculated.
It is a complicated point. I think the Minister will understand the point we make. The issue relates to the previous amendments. However, the amendment deals with the issue from a slightly different direction. I shall be interested to hear the Government's response. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: Amendment No. 98 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my Amendment No. 99 are identical, for all practical purposes. If there is any reason for distinguishing between them, it would be purely drafting. I cannot imagine what it would be, but if the Minister has a preference I am sure that neither the noble Lord, Lord Carter, nor I would argue against it.
Amendment No. 100 is obviously a fallback position. It would be better than nothing, assuming that we had lost both the other two in the Lobby. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will agree that it is only if we cannot possibly win either of the others that we will settle on Amendment No. 100.
We are dealing here with people having enough to eat. We are also dealing with the fact that people's outgoings are normally proportional to their income. If they are on a very low income, the proportion may be tight, so suddenly withdrawing a large proportion or even a significant proportion of their income will cause
246
a considerable shock to the family's economic system. For example, it may interfere with their ability to pay their fares to go to work.
It also rather defeats the purpose of the concession embodied in Clause 24. I said that the Government were playing the Old Man of Thermopylae. On 23rd January I was pleased when I heard that they were making the concession but it was not until I saw the way that they had done it that I realised that my pleasure had been premature and I am now sorry.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: To a certain extent we must retrace our steps, but for completeness, especially in the record, it is probably worth doing that and I hope that the Committee will bear with me.
Clause 24 provides for the payment of compensation to persons with care in receipt of family credit or disability working allowance who suffer a reduction in their maintenance assessment as a result of changes in the child support legislation. If a person with care is in receipt of income support, that benefit can be increased immediately to balance any reduction in the amount of maintenance that they receive. Similarly, housing benefit and council tax benefit can be increased by 65 per cent, and 20 per cent, respectively of the amount of the reduction.
Family credit and disability working allowance, however, cannot be increased in this way. One of the most important features of the benefits is that they are payable at a fixed rate for 26 weeks at a time, based on the person's income at the time that they claim. I do not believe that anyone disputes that the great advantage is that it gives the claimant a secure source of income for the six months, even if his or her other income should increase.
However, it also means that the benefit cannot be increased to take account of a drop in other income such as maintenance. So in the desire to have a fixed six-month period, there is the inevitable consequence that there could be variations in both directions which the family credit does not take into account.
Normal fluctuations in maintenance are, I contend, similar to fluctuations in earnings or other income and therefore do not warrant special arrangements. However, we decided that there is a special case where a reduction in the amount of maintenance that a person receives is the direct result of a change in the child support legislation. The clause therefore provides for persons with care who are in receipt of either family credit or disability working allowance to receive compensation payments.
It is necessary because of the technicalities involved to have a power to prescribe the detailed circumstances in which compensation will be payable. The Committee will have the opportunity to debate the regulations in due course. We have already been making compensation payments extra-statutorily to those parents with care whose maintenance assessment was reduced as a result of last April's regulations. They have been paid on the same basis as we have set out in this clause and we propose to set out in regulations.
We intend to provide for the compensation to be at the rate of 50 per cent, of the reduction in the maintenance assessment. For many parents with care on

247
family credit, that formula will provide full compensation for their actual financial loss. Indeed, some will be over-compensated.
In proposing compensation by this route we are seeking to strike a balance. There is no direct connection between the level of the maintenance assessment and the level of maintenance taken into account in the family credit award, except that the amount taken into account cannot exceed the amount of the maintenance assessment at the time that family credit is claimed. The amount taken into account for family credit is based on the actual maintenance in payment in the period before the award. That is the first important point. The other important point that is worth making is that there is a £15 disregard which Members of the Committee should bear in mind when they do the arithmetic regarding the consequences of our proposal.
If compensation were based on the actual loss of benefit, over 40 per cent, of parents would not be assisted, even though they would have lost maintenance. For the majority—some 33 per cent.—that is because the maintenance received is less than the £15 disregard. The remainder, some 8 per cent., would not be assisted because they already receive the maximum family credit for their type of family. A compensation system based on the maintenance assessment is the only way to address their loss of income.
In the majority of cases the maintenance assessment is higher than the amount taken into account in the family credit assessment or than the parent with care's actual income from maintenance. There is also the question of timing: because family credit is paid at a fixed rate for six months, some parents will begin to receive maintenance in that time, which will lift them off family credit altogether when the next benefit is reassessed. When payment is first made, those parents on family credit will be what I might describe as gainers for the remainder of the six months until the six-month period for reviewing family credit comes up.
I appreciate that the rate of 70 per cent, is intended to reflect the fact that the effect of the taper in family credit is that reductions in income are generally compensated at the end of the award period by an increase in family credit to the extent of 70 per cent, of the reduction. But as I have pointed out, the majority of family credit awards take into account much less maintenance than the maintenance assessment itself. So even compensating at 70 per cent, of the reduction is giving much more than could be received in increased benefit.
Taking all those factors together, we took the view that there was no simple way to compensate exactly for losses suffered. But it was clear to us that compensation at the rate of the full difference between the old and new maintenance assessments would be over-generous. In some cases, the proposed 50 per cent, rate will provide full compensation for the financial loss. In others it will be less than the loss, and in some it will be more. The issue is complicated.
I have some interesting arithmetic here which I think I will resist the temptation to share with the Committee at this time of night and perhaps without an overhead projector or a blackboard (if anybody uses anything as
248
old-fashioned as a blackboard). In the circumstances we believe that our proposal strikes a fair balance. I hope, with that rather complicated explanation, the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: While the noble Lord, Lord Carter, decides what to do with his amendment, perhaps I may intervene. The Minister's arithmetic has in some ways assisted us. I am grateful to him for the amount of time that he took to explain it, which was helpful. However, it also illustrates how reliance on a formula tends to conflict with any genuine concern with individual cases. The Minister said that some would benefit and some would lose. There is no attempt to judge a case on its merits.
Another matter puzzles me. The Minister announced a 50 per cent, formula according to which the payments operate. If that is the Government's intention, it is at least clear. But why did they not say that in the Bill? Then we should have known where we were, and, had we so wished, we should have been able to put down an amendment to change 50 per cent, to 60 per cent, or 70 per cent., or even perhaps 40 per cent. This is another example of the way in which the reliance on delegated legislation must diminish parliamentary control. This Government keep on talking about parliamentary sovereignty. In fact, their practice is coming near the point where it puts the very survival of Parliament in danger. I really do wish that they would think about their drafting before it is too late. They believe that they make the law and we rubber-stamp it. If that is a correct understanding, what are we all doing here at this time of night?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will not object if I respond. I had a small chortle at the rubber stamp. If it is such, it is not an easy rubber stamp to operate, I can assure the noble Earl. On occasions this Session it has proved a quite impossible one.
Let me reply to the noble Earl in this manner. My observations should not be read in any way other than as a general comment. I am not in any way suggesting any thoughts on the matter. Starting at 50 per cent.—let us say for the sake of argument that the Government decided in the future that it was not working in the way in which they had intended or hoped that it would work. There is the availability in regulation to make a change: 60 per cent, or 40 per cent., whichever way the change might go. Parliament in general, both Houses, would be able to give their views, although I fully accept all the arguments put forward by the noble Earl about the way in which this Chamber has to give its view.
I am not entirely sure about this matter. Indeed, I may have second thoughts about it. The noble Earl mentioned the inflexibility of the formula. In fact, the problem that we have here is not the formula as we are using the word this evening—namely, the Child Support Agency formula. The problem is the way in which we have correctly (I think I am right in saying that for everybody) devised family credit to make it a payment

249
which lasts for six months and it gives some security and constancy. That is the difficulty when it comes to working out compensation.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister, not for the content but for the fullness of the answer that he gave to me and also to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He said that many parents would receive full compensation. Obviously, by inference, that means that not all parents will receive it. He said that others would be over-compensated.
There is one thing on which I should like to congratulate the Minister. As I sat here making notes, I thought back over the years in which I have been involved in social security. At least the Minister has not used the phrase used by so many of his predecessors in this Chamber; namely, swings and roundabouts. When that phrase was used, I always had to point out that it has not statistically been proved that swings do equal roundabouts. But we shall have to read this debate very carefully. Perhaps I may say to the Minister as kindly as I can that it was one of those answers that I am sure read much better in the original Sanskrit. It was very complicated. We must look at it and take advice.
We do not agree with the arithmetic. I have many figures with me but I shall refrain from giving them to the Committee at this time of the evening and at this stage of the Bill—more particularly in the absence of my noble friend Lady Hollis, who has a previous engagement this evening. She is a great expert in these matters and I know that she wants to come back to the Minister on decoupling and the period of six months. She has some interesting ideas on that and we might have to come back to the matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 99 to 101 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 19, leave out line 33.
The noble Earl said: This amendment proposes to delete from the Bill the line in Clause 24:
'"relevant time' has such meaning as may be prescribed".
Some members of the committee remember the case in the Jobseekers Bill, in which there were terms which had "such meaning as may be prescribed". The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked to be told of any cases in which those words had been used in previous legislation. I understand that he is still waiting for his answer.
But, thanks to the efficiency of the Minister here, I am not still waiting for my answer. I am grateful to him for his trouble. I do not know that I am entirely reassured, though. The Minister has come up with two previous examples. The first is from paragraph 4 of Schedule 4A to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which provides that a lease for the elderly is excluded from the operation of the relevant part of the Act in certain circumstances. The term "lease for the elderly" has such meaning as may be prescribed.
The other example comes from Section 117(2) of the Reserve Forces Act 1980, which prescribes that the term "active list" shall have such meaning as may be
250
prescribed. In fact, so far as the Minister and his staff discovered—I am sure that they have done their best—there are only two previous examples in all legislation. That seems to me to be two too many.
But even having said that, one could understand where the meaning of the terms "lease for the elderly" and "active list" may change. But putting into a Bill the phrase that such words will have,
"such meaning as may be prescribed",
is simply using a control over language to acquire a control over legislation which did not appear in the original draft. That is most improper. It is a form of words which should not appear in any Act of Parliament. I should like to know whether the Minister can convince me to the contrary. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I support the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on this point. Subsection (2) contains definitions of "child support legislation", "compensation payment", "qualifiying person" and "reduction"; but there is no definition of "relevant time".
The Government have gone to the trouble, on the face of the Bill, to define carefully those other terms but they then introduce this catch-all,
"relevant time' has such meaning as may be prescribed".
If the Government have gone to the trouble of defining those other terms, why is it so hard to define the two words "relevant time"?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I support Amendment No. 102. The two measures which are to be construed together are both in substance and in form the very quintessence of bureaucracy, and this is the quintessence in legislative form: "X shall have such meaning as may be prescribed".
What are we here for except to express in the law the words by which the citizen is to be bound? Yet we are now asked to agree that a word shall have such meaning, "as may be prescribed". I care not how many precedents have been infiltrated by this department or any other into our legislation. It is high time that we brought that practice to an end.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The words "relevant time", which the amendment would prevent us from prescribing, appear in the definition of "qualifying person". They enable us to provide that a person will qualify for compensation only if he or she had a maintenance assessment at some earlier date. The earlier date is the "relevant time", and that is eminently sensible.
Having the power to prescribe the "relevant time" enables us to pinpoint the date on which we require the person to have had a maintenance assessment to be a "qualifying person". Without that power, the provision is left blowing in the wind.
As the Committee knows, our intention is to base the compensation payments on the reduction in the maintenance assessment brought about by the change in the child support legislation. We therefore need to provide for the starting point to be the maintenance assessment in force when the child support legislation

251
changes take effect. We therefore intend to define the "relevant time" as the day before the revised maintenance assessment takes effect.
That is our clear intention. I hope the noble Earl does not think that there is anything suspicious or underhand about that. Perhaps I may go on to say that, if a future government decided to pay compensation on the actual loss of family credit or disability working allowance, then it would be necessary—as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, invited me to do earlier—to define "relevant time" in relation to the date of the family credit or DWA claim. There are options as to how to define "relevant date" according to what one wishes to achieve. I have explained what we wish to achieve and what that relevant date will be in our case. I hope that I have also explained, rather unusually perhaps, to the noble Earl—the noble Earl may think it unusual for me to look into the crystal ball to envisage what future governments may or may not do—that in this case it is rather easy to consider another possible scenario dealing with the same problem, especially as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has raised it this evening. With that explanation I hope that the noble Earl will be able to withdraw the amendment and noble Lords will not feel that I am asking for some unnecessary and draconian power for the Secretary of State.
Lord Carter: As I understand the Minister's answer, he seems to be making it easier for a future Labour Government to make changes, which I think is an extremely good idea.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for that point, which brings to our attention one of the fundamental issues about this kind of provision. I have no argument with the Minister's definition of what he actually intends to do. If he had put that into the Bill we would not have argued with it. I entirely accept what he said in his letter:
"But I can assure you that such powers in the Child Support Bill have been drafted with no such purpose".
He means no sinister purpose. But the Minister and all who advise him must get used to the fact that when we look at what is in effect a delegated power like this we are not only concerned with the immediate policy intention. The immediate policy intention may be entirely acceptable. What we look at are the vires. We look at what may be done with this power at some time in the future by some government in the future.
We never assume that any government are trustworthy, even if we were in charge. No one is trustworthy in office. Power needs control. What I look to see is whether there is any circumscription in the vires. Whenever I find, "This word has such meaning as may be prescribed", there I see something where there is no limitations in the vires. It is an absolutely unacceptable method of legislation at all times. The only way I can explain to the Minister that it will be so is to ask for the opinion of the Committee.
10.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 102) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 29.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kilbracken, L

Carter, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Palmer, L.

Dubs, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Seear, B.

Ezra, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Howe, E.

Astor, V.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Balfour, E.

Long, V.

Barber, L.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

McConnell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lore Chancellor.]

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rawlings, B.

Dudley, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Goschen, V.

Trumpington, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Wakeham, L.

Henley, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.10 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 19, line 47, at end insert:
("() The Secretary of State shall make provision for payment by him to qualifying persons of sums by way of compensation where financial loss, worry or distress has been caused to that person or a member of his family by the actions or inaction of the Secretary of State, a child support officer or any other person carrying out duties in connection with child support legislation.").
The noble Lord said: I shall try to be brief in moving this amendment. However, it raises an important point. In the report on the Child Support Agency by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, paragraph 34—I shall not read out the whole of it—dealt with what it described as,
"many other cases of serious distress arising from the maladminstration of the CSA. It is quite within the power of the DSS to apply greater discretion in its consideration of 'worry and distress' payments and to remove the current requirement of medical certification before any such payment is made".
Its recommendation which, as your Lordships will know, appears in heavy type at the end of each paragraph stated:
"We recommend that the DSS consider discretionary payments for worry and distress caused by the maladministration of the CSA, removing the insistence that there be medical certification of harm or proven malice from officials".
That recommendation is repeated in paragraph 28 of the Government's response to that document, but it is completely ignored in their answer. I am sure that the

253
Minister has a good reason for that, but so far as I can see, the Government make no attempt to answer the recommendation that was made in the previous report. They have reprinted it—they have had to because it appears in heavy type and recommendations are always reproduced with the Government's response—but, so far as I can see, they have completely ignored it.
Given the acknowledged poor performance of the CSA in its first two years, the amount of compensation that has been paid out as a result of that poor performance has been derisory. The Parliamentary Ombudsman's report documented the problems being caused for families by the poor service being provided by the CSA. The Select Committee's report, from which I have just quoted, severely criticised the DSS for the limitations placed on its compensation scheme. Those limitations were the requirement for medical certification or proven malice from officials. As I have said, the committee used the phrase "worry and distress", which we have repeated in the amendment.
We should all prefer the problem to be solved by a dramatic improvement in the performance of the CSA but, if we go by the figures which appeared in the press today to which I referred earlier, that will be a long time acoming. If that were to happen—if the performance were to improve—the amounts to be paid out under the compensation scheme would not be great. However, while the problems remain at their current level, we feel that CSA clients must be guaranteed some form of compensation, otherwise pressure will remain to keep the ex gratia scheme very limited. The severity of the administrative problems and errors are illustrated by the fact that the ombudsman had insufficient staff to investigate all complaints against the CSA and therefore will be restricting investigations to issues which he has not yet covered.
As I have said, I should like an answer from the Minister if the amendment is not to be accepted. Perhaps he could also say why the recommendation which was made by the Select Committee was completely ignored in the Government's response. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, seeks in this amendment to provide statutory provision for compensation payments in circumstances where a person has been caused financial loss, worry or distress as a direct result of the activities of the agency.
The amendment is framed by way of an addition to Clause 24. It would, in fact, have been more appropriately placed as a new clause since Clause 24 does not deal with compensation related to the administration of child support. That is a technical point and I will not rest my case on it.
Members of the Committee will no doubt be aware that, notwithstanding that child support legislation makes no provision for compensation payments of the type referred to in the amendment, there are nevertheless administrative mechanisms for compensation to be considered in appropriate cases. If someone considers that they have suffered a financial loss or undue delay
254
as a result of an action or omission on the part of the agency, they can contact the agency, which will deal with cases on an individual basis. This is in line with practice which operates elsewhere in the Department of Social Security.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised the issue of the ombudsman's criticism. The Permanent Secretary at the department made it clear in his evidence to the PCA Select Committee that the agency now operates general DSS arrangements for compensating actual financial loss. He made it clear that special payments were considered where it was clear that agency error had resulted in an actual financial loss to a customer.
The Department of Social Security special payments arrangements, which now also apply to the Child Support Agency, have been in place for almost 20 years and provide for payments to be made on an ex gratia basis. Compensation may be considered where an individual has experienced undue delay or suffered an actual financial loss as a result of official error. Compensation arrangements specifically designed to cover the work of the agency are being developed and it is hoped to introduce them in the near future. There are no plans to introduce these arrangements on anything other than a discretionary ex gratia basis. We do not consider that specific provision needs to be made in primary legislation.
Were a compensation scheme to be placed on a statutory basis, it would be necessary to regulate, I believe at some length, for the detail of the scheme. That would inevitably limit the extent to which it was possible to deal flexibly with the individual circumstances of each case. We believe this flexibility to be a great advantage of the current arrangements and therefore consider the introduction of a statutory scheme to be unnecessary as it would not in itself guarantee a better standard of redress to customers of the agency.
I turn to the issue of compensation for worry and distress. I should make it clear, as did the Permanent Secretary yesterday in his evidence to the PCA Select Committee, that the Government do not accept that compensation should be paid in all cases to those falsely identified as absent parents. I imagine that that is the circumstance in which the worry and distress arises. Maintenance inquiry forms clearly state that they are issued on the basis of information provided to the agency by the parent with care. Absent parents are invited to contact the agency for information if they believe that they have been incorrectly identified as an absent parent.
We do not accept the need for a statutory right inside the child support legislation to receive compensation on those grounds because the right to compensation already exists under common law. I hope that with those explanations of what we are doing in the agency to address at least some of the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter—although I accept not others—he will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Seear: Once again, the Minister does not appear to understand why we are so dissatisfied with a great deal of this legislation. He is making the department judge and jury in its own case. That has

255
happened again and again and for a long time. It is part of what years ago Lord Hewitt called the new despotism. It is by now becoming a long-established, long-toothed despotism. We wish to have embedded in the legislation a right to compensation and not compensation graciously given by the department which is inflicting the injury. That is totally unacceptable.
Lord Carter: The Minister's answer was not very satisfactory. He read out almost word for word the answer which the Government gave at paragraph 29 of their response to the Select Committee which dealt with the recommendation that financial compensation should be paid to those identified falsely as absent parents through the maladministration of the CSA. The point that I made was that the report then went on to deal with the other recommendation about discretionary payments for worry and distress. That was ignored completely in the Government's response. It has not been ignored by the Minister but he certainly skirted round it to some extent by concentrating on a point which I did not make about absent parents.
I do not wish to labour the point now. It would perhaps have been better to draft this as a new clause. We are not happy about this. There is still anxiety about worry and distress. While the Minister spoke, I was trying to look at the evidence which Sir Michael Partridge gave to the Select Committee, and in part he was fairly po-faced. I shall read it again, but we shall wish to return to this matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Payment- of benefit where maintenance payments collected by Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Regulations and orders]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 21, leave out lines 20 and 21.
The noble Earl said: I hope that the Minister will succeed in assisting me a little on this amendment. I hope that the two previous Divisions may have done a little to concentrate his mind. But in order to give a satisfactory reply he will need to understand what it is that he is being asked about.
Clause 26, to which the amendment relates, deals with the power to make regulations and control of statutory instruments. It deals with what is affirmative and what is negative. The lines which I propose to delete state:
"Any such power includes power…to provide for a person to exercise a discretion in dealing with any matter".
If those words mean what they appear to mean, the whole Bill is redundant and we have been wasting our time for two days. Therefore, I wish to ask the Minister about the vires conferred by those words.
I do not wish to hear about the policy intention because, especially in the context of the CSA, I am certain that it will not be the last policy intention and that we shall have more changes. I want to know what is the vires. What can be done under this clause and,
256
even more important, what cannot be done? Is there any way in which this power is circumscribed? Is there anything which a future government cannot do under this clause and, if so, what can they not do? What limiting principle is it governed by? If it is not governed by any limiting principle, I do not see any point at all in passing parliamentary legislation.
There must be some sort of control. We certainly cannot accept that executive power should be capable of doing absolutely whatever it likes; that it should have discretion to change the rules in the middle of the game and to give things to one person and to take them away from another entirely as it thinks fit. That is arbitrary power. That is what the rule of law and parliamentary government are supposed to prevent. Therefore, will the Minister tell me, please, how that power is circumscribed and by what principles? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may deal first with the actual provision. The provision to which the amendment relates is a normal one and is parallel to a provision already in the 1991 Act. I know that that does not carry any weight with the noble Earl. Indeed, I believe that I have understood that much, although according to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I have not understood much else. It will enable regulations made under what will become Section 10 of the 1995 Act, which deals with the child maintenance bonus, and Clause 24, which deals with compensation payments, to allow for a person to exercise discretion in a variety of circumstances. Therefore, it is not an unlimited power over the whole field. It is circumscribed as regards the two issues that I mentioned—that is, the clause dealing with the child maintenance bonus and with Clause 24 which deals with compensation payments.
As I mentioned, the power to exercise discretion is contained in the 1991 Act and in the Social Security Contribution and Benefits Act 1992. The power is not used extensively. However, it can prove useful in cases where it might not be possible to set out all considerations in advance. One of the great arguments that we had only yesterday—but it seems like over a week ago—was about whether legislation should just enunciate a few principles and then leave everything to the discretion of the people who run the system. Now I am being caught with the vice coming the other way when I want a little discretion. I see that the noble Earl wishes to intervene. Well I did say that the vice was coming the other way, so I give way.
Earl Russell: The Minister is significantly misrepresenting what we said yesterday. That misrepresentation illustrates the heart of the problem. We propose that general principles should be left to the discretion of the courts and not to the discretion of those who run the system. The difference is fundamental. If the Minister does not understand that, he cannot answer anything.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No one will be able to run any social security system if there is no discretion at all and if one is not allowed to have the matter outlined in regulations. All sorts of social security systems, including this one, would have to be run by the courts. I do not believe that that is a sensible

257
proposition, although, probably, I have misunderstood again. It seems to me that if the accusation applies to the Child Support Agency, it must apply to all the other benefit systems operated by the department, many of which are operated through regulations and also with an element of discretion.
I was trying to illustrate why we believe that the provision is necessary. I wanted to do so by considering the child maintenance bonus as introduced by Clause 10 of the Bill. As a general principle, people accrue a bonus through maintenance paid while they are receiving income support. When they move into work the bonus is paid in respect of all the maintenance received up to that point. We discussed some of the difficulties which might arise. It is possible that we shall need an element of discretion in its application. For example, a person with care was not receiving maintenance due while on income support perhaps because the absent parent was refusing to pay or perhaps he had appealed against the maintenance assessment. The person with care then moves off income support into work. At that point, the arrears are paid after the time limit for claiming the bonus had passed.
It would be reasonable to have a provision to allow an adjudication officer the discretion to treat those late payments in such analogous circumstances as if they had been paid on time and to accrue a bonus accordingly. Those were some of the issues which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, raised with me yesterday. If the proposed amendment were accepted, there would be no scope for regulations made under Clauses 10 and 24 to provide for a person to exercise discretion. The loss of flexibility appears to offer no advantage to any party.
I should like now to answer one of the noble Earl's questions in the latter respect. The power to exercise discretion is confined within the bounds of the regulation-making power in the Bill. It is not, therefore, an unfettered discretion. As we discussed on a number of occasions, any regulations have to come before Parliament—affirmative ones in one way and negative ones in another—and, therefore, the Executive is, at least to a certain extent, called to account and asked to explain any changes that it makes in regulations. Indeed, I presume that I will be asked to explain any regulations that are made in the first instance under those pieces of legislation—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does the Minister not recognise that there is a difference in parliamentary control whether the legislation is primary or subordinate?
10.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, of course; indeed I do. I clearly recognise the difference between primary and secondary legislation. I am not sure where that leads us. I believe that we could not enact all the legislation which we enact as regards the ways we attempt to run—dare I say it?—a fair system in this country of, say, social security. I am not sure that the noble Earl agrees with me that it is a fair system, but (hat is how we attempt to run it, and that is how I believe any government would attempt to run it; that is, primary
258
legislation followed by a great many regulations to operate a system. If I remember rightly, there are over 1,200 benefit offices dealing with many people with quite different circumstances. It is not easy to legislate for that in primary legislation.
We have had this debate a number of times in this Bill and on a number of occasions on the previous two Bills that I have piloted through this Chamber. I hope I have tried to explain to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, what we intend to do here and that it is not as unfettered a provision as he seems to think it is, just like all the other prescriptions we discuss which he seems to think give the Executive unfettered power. I have to tell the noble Earl that speaking as a member of the Executive I do not feel I have unfettered power.
Earl Russell: The Minister is not the first representative of an Executive to say that he does not feel he has unfettered power. King Charles I said in 1641, "I do not feel in myself any such excess of power". Those words are familiar. I accept it feels that way to the Minister; it does not necessarily feel that way to the rest of us. He is of course right; it is not a reassurance to us to say that it has happened before. He heard my noble friend Lady Seear refer just now to a long-in-the-tooth despotism. We hope it might at some time receive a departure direction. However, I appreciate the attempts the Minister has made to describe the circumscription of the vires. I hope to hear him say that it is confined to the regulation-making powers in this Bill. It is confined, I presume, in spite of the general wording, by its presence in this clause. That is one mercy. He said—if I heard him right—it was further confined to the child maintenance bonus and compensation. That restricts it a great deal further. What I cannot actually see, in words which are governed, as far as I can see, by the provision,
"Any power under this Act to make regulations or orders",
are any words there imposing this specific restriction. If the Minister could direct my attention to such words I would be grateful and I would find it extremely helpful.
The Minister says that we want a system with no discretion at all. Of course we do not. Like Lady Bracknell we say, "Discretion to do what, may I ask"? We want to see discretion governed by general principles and by vires which are circumscribed enough for us to understand what they mean. The Minister referred to discretion for an adjudication officer. That in many circumstances—we had a good few of them on the Jobseekers Bill—can be entirely acceptable, but he ought to remember that there is, in our eyes, a fundamental distinction between judicial and administrative discretion.
My noble friend Lady Seear just now used the phrase, "judge and jury in its own case". It is not the court's own case save only in the sense that it is hearing it. It does not have an interest in the decision. The Secretary of State regularly has an interest in the decision. That is the principal reason why we do not think that he should be trusted with the amount of discretion that he is claiming.
If our positions should at some future time be reversed, and should we be tempted by the arguments that the Minister is deploying now, I hope he will

259
remind us of these things that we are saying at the moment. People in office need to be reminded of what they said in Opposition, as we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, earlier this afternoon. Is the Minister in any position to assist me yet about the circumscription of the vires to the child maintenance bonus and to compensation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think I am. As regards Clause 26, the two regulations that we are discussing, and which I have mentioned, are the only two regulation-making powers brought in by this Bill. The other regulation-making powers we have discussed are insertions in the 1991 Act and are therefore controlled by the equivalent clause at the end of that Act.
Earl Russell: I am very relieved to hear it. Like Tom Lehrer, I find that there was a reason. That does just enough for me to save me from completing my hat trick, which I had not wanted to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Short title, commencement, extent etc.]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 22, line 40, leave out ("paragraph 1") and insert ("paragraphs 1 and 15 A").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 110 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 113.
These are minor, technical amendments which rectify omissions from the Child Support Act 1991. The Child Support Act currently refers only to Part I and Part III of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and does not indicate to which schedule the parts belong. The amendments make clear that it is Parts I and III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 which are amended.
The amendments also rectify a similar omission from the parallel amendment to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, where again the relevant schedule is not indicated.
I hope that the Committee will accept the amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. Ill:
Page 29, line 33, at end insert:
(". In section 33 (liability orders), at the end add—
"(5) If the Secretary of State designates a liability order for the purposes of this subsection it shall be treated as a judgment entered in a county court for the purposes of section 73 of the County Courts Act 1984 (register of judgments and orders).").
The noble Lord said: I seem to be coming into my own in what I hope is the home stretch regarding amendments.
This amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to apply for a liability order to be entered in the register of county court judgments. I believe that it will encourage absent parents to pay their child support maintenance liability, particularly in cases where they are self-employed. Experience in other areas has shown that the threat of an entry in the register acts as an incentive for debtors to pay their liabilities because it can result in difficulties in obtaining credit for personal and business purposes.
Unfortunately, there are some absent parents who are reluctant to pay maintenance, and where the absent parent is self-employed there is a particular difficulty because it is not possible to issue a deduction from earnings order. If the absent parent does not co-operate in making payment, it is necessary for the Child Support Agency to apply to a magistrates' court for a liability order. That is then followed by distress action, or if this is ineffective by garnishee proceedings or charging orders in appropriate cases.
But that process can be protracted and some absent parents are deliberately unco-operative, using every means to avoid or delay for as long as possible payment of maintenance for their children. It is therefore right that we do everything we can to ensure that parents with care receive payment of maintenance promptly.
Liability orders will not be entered automatically in the register. When a liability order is granted, the absent parent will be warned that consideration will be given to making an application if the absent parent has not made arrangements to meet his liability within a reasonable period. This measure is not intended to be punitive, and absent parents can easily avoid the consequences by co-operating with the agency and making an agreement to pay maintenance and to contribute to clearing the arrears. But I believe that it is right that we do all we can to frustrate the deliberate attempts of a few absent parents to avoid meeting their responsibilities for their children. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I seek a little clarification. The Minister proposes to give judicial force to an administrative decision. He proposes to do something, as he said, which will affect people's credit rating. That is a matter on which damage done through an error may be with one for the remainder of one's life. So mistakes need to be carefully supervised, and any real injury done to someone ought to be a matter for compensation. Can the Minister tell me, first, whether that will be so?
Secondly, when the Secretary of State designates a liability order for entry as a judgment, will the court be bound automatically to register that judgment or will the courts have power to conduct a hearing to see whether the facts are as stated? It is the second question which is crucial. I need to hear the Minister's response. With such a power, the provision is acceptable. Without it, at this time of night it would put us in considerable difficulties.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hesitate to intervene at this hour. Indeed, I regard it as quite disgraceful that we are still sitting here after half past ten—again a very late

261
sitting on the second day of this Committee. Indeed, to conduct our business like this is virtually a frustration of your Lordships' legislative role in the constitution.
However, I have a question that I should like to ask the Minister because I confess that at the end of our discussion on the remedy of distress I was left in a state of considerable confusion. I realise that that was partly because I had not had time to master a letter which the noble Lord had written to me which I received only yesterday morning, although the matter had been raised on both the 1991 Act and at Second Reading of the Bill. The other reason was that the noble Lord was not at the time in a position to answer in relation to the specific matters to which I referred in Section 35 which seem to give the Secretary of State exceptional power as a distrainer—powers well over and above those that the ordinary creditor has.
I understood the noble Lord to tell me that there were, in fact, no exceptional terms: that what was in question was merely the procedure under the County Courts Act which is, I believe, that which is now referred to. If that is so, I ask again why Section 35 is necessary. Is there any other purpose than to give the Secretary of State exceptional powers of distress, well over and above what is enjoyed by the ordinary citizen? Why cannot the powers under the County Courts Act which are now to be invoked not sufficient?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The two debates are linked to a certain extent. I did my best to explain the answers to the points raised by the noble and learned Lord from the point of view of a layman in the law. I am sorry that he is still in doubt as to whether I gave him a proper answer. I shall certainly read again what happened earlier and if I feel it necessary I shall write to him in order to—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I did not complain when the noble Lord declined to answer in regard to the specific matters to which I drew attention. The question now is a perfectly simple general one: why is Section 35 necessary at all if the powers exist under the County Courts Act 1984?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for clarifying in my mind what I have no doubt was absolutely clear in everyone else's as to the question he asked. I shall go back a little in order to deal with the questions in order. We are discussing someone who has declined to pay over a considerable period and there is no other possible way of ensuring that he pays. Those are the circumstances.
As I said in my introductory remarks, in the first instance it will require a liability order from a magistrates' court. That order will have to exist and we have discussed it. The absent parent will know about the order and, if I recollect what I said earlier, he will have the right to make any points he wishes to the magistrate. If the magistrate grants that liability order, once again the absent parent will be given time to deal with the problem and prevent the next step being taken. In a way I am trying to help the noble Earl, to show that there are plenty of opportunities for the person to reach an agreement with the agency to prevent each step in the process from happening.
Earl Russell: The Minister is being helpful, but perhaps I may ask for crucial clarification. Has the court the right to refuse to enter?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We discussed what the court could or could not do earlier, but my understanding is that the court does not have the right to refuse to enter and that is the position. We have reached the stage where a liability order has been granted by the magistrates' court.
Baroness Seear: Is the noble Lord telling us that all the court can do is to rubber stamp a decision which has already been made? If not, what can it do that is different?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My problem is that, as the noble Baroness knows, I am not a practitioner in the courts. I have given my understanding of the position and, if in practice the position is different, I shall tell her.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Will the noble Lord forgive me again? He has not answered my question at all. He has merely repeated the argument that there is no need for distraint or distress if the debtor goes quietly. We have heard that argument and are not impressed by it.
However, that was not what I asked. If a liability order is issued in the magistrates' court and it is registered under the County Courts Act, why is there any necessity for Section 35, unless it gives remedies to the Secretary of State over and above the ordinary remedies under the County Courts Act? That is the question and I hope that the noble Lord has now received the answer.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for helping me. I was coming to the answer but I was trying to address two issues at the same time—the issue that he raised and the one raised by the noble Earl—and to look at the procedural point.
We have a liability order from the magistrates' court. The question is then: why do we need Section 35? The liability order from the magistrates' court will have the status of a county court judgment. Therefore there will be no role as such for the county court. The order would go directly on for registration. As I say, the liability order is not a county court judgment. If it were, this provision would not be necessary. Perhaps that answers the noble and learned Lord's question.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am afraid that it does not. Would not the county court order follow if it were applied for?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe I pointed out earlier that we are looking for a simpler proceeding, not one that takes time but one that will deal with the proceedings expeditiously. I explained that the order will have to go to the magistrates' court, so there will be a judicial stage, and the person involved will certainly know all about it at that stage. He will then have the opportunity to do something about it before it is moved to the next stage; namely, to be registered.

263
Because the order will have the status of a county court judgment, there will be no role for the county court. It would go directly for registration.
I can appreciate that the noble and learned Lord and the noble Earl do not particularly agree with what I am trying to do here; but I hope that I have explained the position. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: This gets worse and worse as it goes on. The Government are moving into the courts and using them to rubber-stamp an administrative decision. The point about a judgment is that it follows a hearing; and it follows consideration of evidence by an impartial authority. That is what the Secretary of State cannot pretend to be.
I have sympathy with the Minister not being a lawyer; after all, I am not either. Clearly a lot of questions have been raised tonight that were not foreseen and on which expert legal advice is needed. Would it be for the convenience of the House if the Minister were to defer moving this amendment until Report when he has been better advised about it? I hope that he will do that. It will be very difficult if he does not.
Lord Carter: I have listened to this debate with great interest. This is a point which I am sure could be answered in correspondence. I am satisfied with the Minister's answer. If the noble Earl decides to divide the Committee, I shall persuade my colleagues to vote with the Government.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is late, and we shall be in the same position at Report stage. I have tried to answer all the questions. In particular, perhaps I may clarify this point—I might have made a mistake earlier on. The magistrates' courts would always have a hearing before making a liability order. I hope, given that additional explanation, the noble Earl will accept that I am not withdrawing the amendment and that he must do what he feels he must do.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 30, line 8, after ("or") insert ("under").
The noble Lord said: This amendment clarifies an earlier amendment introduced during the Bill's passage in another place. The Bill, as it was originally introduced, made provision for regulations made under paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 4B to be subject to affirmative procedures. However, prompted by an Opposition amendment to reconsider the schedule, we judged that it would be right for all regulations made under it to be approved by both Houses before coming into effect.
But it is possible that the current wording of the Bill could be interpreted to mean that affirmative procedures apply only to those regulations made under Part 1 of Schedule 4B, which was neither the Opposition's
264
intention nor ours. The proposed amendment will put the matter beyond doubt. I therefore ask the Committee to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. This point was raised by my colleagues in the other place. It was a sensible one. The Minister has now put the matter right.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 30, line 23, at end insert:
(" .—(1) In paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 5 (amendment of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975), after "Part I" insert "of Schedule 1".
(2) In paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 5, after "Part III" insert "of Schedule 1".
(3) In paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 5 (amendment of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975), after "Part I of insert "Schedule 1 to".").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 30, line 23, at end insert:
("Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c. 5)
. In section 170(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (the Social Security Advisory Committee)—

(a) in the definition of "the relevant enactments", after paragraph (aa) insert—

"(ab) section 10 of the Child Support Act 1995;"; and

(b) in the definition of "the relevant Northern Ireland enactments", after paragraph (aa) insert—

"(ab) any enactment corresponding to section 10 of the Child Support Act 1995 having effect with respect to Northern Ireland;".").

The noble Lord said: As the Child Support Bill currently stands, issues arising from a payment of the child maintenance bonus could not be considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee. It was never our intention to exclude payments of the child maintenance bonus from the scrutiny of the committee. This amendment makes sure that issues arising from a child maintenance bonus payment made under Section 10 of the Child Support Act 1995 can be dealt with by the Social Security Advisory Committee. That is achieved by amending the definition of enactments given in Section 170(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, in relation to which the Social Security Advisory Committee can give advice and assistance, to include Section 10 of the Child Support Act 1995.
A similar change is made to the definition of the Northern Ireland enactments which are relevant to the Social Security Advisory Committee to add any Northern Ireland enactment corresponding to Section 10 of the Child Support Act 1995. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at four minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Parliamentary Publications: On-Line Availability
  Parliamentary Publications: On-Line Availability
  Student Loan: Rate
  Student Loan: Rate
  Toxicity Trials: 1953 MAFF Report
  Toxicity Trials: 1953 MAFF Report
  Fisheries Council, 15 June
  Fisheries Council, 15 June
  Persian Gulf: Regional Surveillance Proposal
  Persian Gulf: Regional Surveillance Proposal
  UK/Israeli Military Links
  UK/Israeli Military Links
  Counter-Proliferation Initiative
  Counter-Proliferation Initiative
  Mental Health Act 1983 s.12(2): Training Package
  Mental Health Act 1983 s.12(2): Training Package
  Patient's Charter
  Patient's Charter