Sitting of 26 June 1995

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

    Dance and Skating Centres
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, what consideration has been given to the establishment of (a) a national dance centre and (b) a national skating centre; and if he will make a statement. 128742]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): Under the long-standing arm's-length principle for arts funding and development, it is for the Arts Council to formulate strategies for each of the various art forms, including dance. The establishment of a national skating centre is primarily a matter for the sport's governing bodies to consider.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that his mind is on sports other than dance and skating at the moment.
    Mr. Allen: He is on thin ice.
    Mr. Hughes: As has been said from the Opposition Front Bench, there may be some thin ice around. As the work of Government has to go on, will the Minister confirm that, given that the proposal for a national skating centre in Derby has fallen through, the Government would have no objection to the proposal being worked up for a combined dance and skating centre, neither of which we have, in the London docklands? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I think that hon. Members are aware that they should not pass between the hon. Member who is speaking and the Chair. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) knows much better than that.
    Mr. Faulds: May I apologise immediately, Madam Speaker? Old age and the stick create strange circumstances. Do forgive me.
    Mr. Sproat: I have not had a chance to look at the documents to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I will certainly do so and let him know what I think.

    Regional Theatre
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet the chair of the Yorkshire and Humberside arts board to discuss the implications of the Arts Council's consultative paper on regional theatre. [28743]
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I plan to meet the chairmen of the regional arts boards on 28 June.
    Mr. Battle: Can I tell the Minister that Leeds really is the artistic capital of the north now? We have Opera North and the Northern School of Contemporary Dance, and the West Yorkshire Playhouse, which has achieved national standards and pioneered plays that are put on nationally; its education and community policies are an example for the rest of the country. As I am sure the Minister is aware, however, the funding arrangements mean that, although the West Yorkshire Playhouse is a centre of regional excellence, it does not even get the support that national theatres are getting and as a result might well not be able to continue as such in the future. When will the funding arrangements acknowledge the work that it has done and ensure that it gets due rewards?
    Mr. Dorrell: I gladly join the hon. Gentleman in paying credit to the work of the various companies in Leeds that he listed, in particular the West Yorkshire Playhouse. It is indeed a regional centre of excellence that is recognised as producing works of a national standard, which often move on from Leeds to other theatres elsewhere in the country. The only element of the success story that the hon. Gentleman neglected to mention is the fact that the West Yorkshire Playhouse is in receipt of just over £840,000 in support from Arts Council funds—a figure that has been increased by £50,000 in the present year.
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Warley, East will be in order if he wants to go to his usual seat now.
    Mr. Faulds: Thank you. I am obliged for your consideration, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the Secretary of State accept the view of the Green Paper that, with the exception of various successful companies such as the West Yorkshire Playhouse, regional theatre is on the whole
    "on the brink of an irreversible spiral of decline",
    and that good theatres, such as Cheltenham, Salisbury and Farnham, are
    "closing for months on end because they cannot afford to stay open"?
    Has he read the Green Paper and does he intend to respond to what is, on any analysis, a damning criticism of the Government's 16 years of care—or lack of care—for our theatres?
    Mr. Dorrell: Yes, I have read the Green Paper. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that it suggests that there is a uniform picture of decay within regional theatre. It points out that there are some real success stories in regional theatre, of which the West Yorkshire Playhouse is one and the recently revived Birmingham Repertory theatre is another. Of course, some theatres will always do better than others. It would be wrong for the Government to react to the Green Paper at this stage as it was put out by the Arts Council for discussion within the theatre world. Each regional arts board is conducting a discussion within its region and two national discussion meetings have been arranged during the process, which closes on 30 July. Once that process is over, it will be for the Arts Council to draw conclusions from the discussion process that it initiated, and I look forward to reading those conclusions.

    Compulsory Competitive Games
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his Department's policy on compulsory competitive games at schools. [28744]
    Mr. Sproat: I believe that children must take part in competitive sport in schools within and beyond curriculum time. This will be a key element in the Government's sports policy statement, which will be published shortly.
    Mr. Miller: Is the Minister saying that we are to get that long-awaited White Paper? Does he agree that an important element of that statement should be opportunity, not restriction? Will the Government make a genuine commitment to the opportunity to take part in sport in all schools? Does the Minister agree that the facilities available in many schools are less than adequate, especially given what is happening today down the road at Wimbledon and up the road at Lords?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I can certainly say that it is our prime intention to increase the opportunity for more children to take part in sport at school. I agree that some schools are short of facilities and I am glad to say that the national lottery will help to provide more facilities where those are for both the school and the wider community.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend refer to the national lottery. Is he aware that, although games facilities in schools are good, they will be even better if they are used in conjunction with the wider community? Is he aware that Central Lancaster high school in my constituency has applied for funding for a multi-purpose sports facility on its premises in a deprived area of Lancaster, but that it must raise no less than £350,000, which is 35 per cent? Could that figure be more flexible, or could assistance be given to deprived areas?
    Mr. Mackinlay: Yes or no?
    Mr. Sproat: The answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is yes. I did not know of the application that the school in my hon. Friend's constituency is making, but I shall draw her remarks to the chairman of the Sports Council. I assure her that the 35 per cent. is only an indicative percentage and that at this very moment the Sports Council is considering whether it could be smaller in certain cases.
    Mr. Chris Smith: We know from the Prime Minister on Saturday that he is about to launch a new policy initiative on sport in schools. Given this morning's news, he may need every new initiative that he can find. Does the Minister recognise that any such announcement will be worthless unless three guarantees can be given: first, that DES circular 909 will be withdrawn, as it has led directly to the sale of 5,000 school playing fields over the past 15 years; secondly, that there will be two hours of sport each week as part of the national curriculum; and, thirdly, that the whole range of physical recreation will be available, not just a small list of competitive team games? Will he now give those basic guarantees to the House?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman must wait until the sports policy is published. He will then see what he will see.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be pleasant to hear Labour councillors make a commitment to competitive sport in schools, given that their policies have damaged competitive sport over the years? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he remains fully committed to the restoration and improvement of those sports pitches that remain, notwithstanding the loss of some of them over the years, and that the national lottery will enable their improvement so that competitive sport can be played in good conditions?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend the important assurance that he seeks. Like him, I look forward to receiving support from the Opposition as well as, I am sure, Conservative Members when we publish that important statement shortly.

    Greta Hall, Keswick
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received on the future use of Greta hall in Keswick. [28745]
    Mr. Dorrell: None.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Tomorrow, the trustees of the national heritage memorial fund will consider a grant application from the Lake Poets Society for purchase moneys to acquire the site of Greta hall in my constituency, which is a lakeland historic heritage site; it is the former home of Southey and Coleridge, the former haunt of Wordsworth and Shelley. Would the Minister be prepared discreetly to lend his support to that project, because it has major implications as a heritage centre and it would be especially useful to the university of the lakes when finally we get it off the ground?
    Mr. Dorrell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the national heritage memorial fund is independent of Government and, as I am sure that he would expect, support—discreet or otherwise—from the Government might not be helpful to any application that the heritage fund might consider.

    Historic Buildings (Damage)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received in respect of damage caused to historic buildings in the care of the National Trust and the National Trust for Scotland, or otherwise regarding damage caused by the volume of visitors. [28746]
    Mr. Sproat: I have received no such representations about damage caused to National Trust properties, nor about the volume of visitors, and I understand that neither has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland received such representations in respect of historic properties managed by the National Trust for Scotland.
    Mr. Dalyell: The Minister will recollect from his previous incarnation as Member of Parliament for Aberdeen, South the beautiful mediaeval castle of Craigievar, for which the National Trust had to remove signposts and cease to advertise—rightly, in my opinion—because of the structural problems caused by over-visitation. Is there not a general problem—or at least

    553
    the danger—of destroying that which people come to see? In those circumstances, is any thought to be given to the financing of such properties and help to those, such as the National Trust for Scotland, who manage them?
    Mr. Sproat: Help for the Scottish trust is of course a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland. Craigievar is a magnificent castle, and I gather that the number of visitors did cause certain of the floors and ceilings to become unsafe. That has now been put right. The National Trust for Scotland no longer promotes Craigievar and, as a result, the number of visitors in the past four years has decreased from about 33,000 to about 15,000. No doubt that experience will be taken into account by all those who manage such properties.

    National Lottery
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the impact of the national lottery on good causes. [28748]
    Mr. Dorrell: The national lottery is already having a major impact on sport, arts and heritage activity throughout the country. About £673 million has been raised for good causes by the lottery, and £95 million has been awarded to a total of 486 projects. I am today placing in the Libraries of both Houses a report giving details of the projects supported to date.
    Mr. Clwyd: As there is no longer a Secretary of State for Wales, may I ask the Minister to look sympathetically at the problems of the Welsh-based cancer charity, Tenovus, which has had to finish its own lottery because it could no longer sustain it? That lottery provided 50 per cent. of its income. May I ask him to consider the possibility of giving Tenovus, and charities like it, some type of compensation for the effect that the national lottery has obviously had on its activities?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady is wrong to say that there is no Secretary of State for Wales. Downing street made it clear this morning that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) is conducting the duties of the Secretary of State for Wales.
    On the hon. Lady's question about Tenovus, she will know that there is different experience in different parts of the charities world since the introduction of the national lottery. For example, the takings of the UK charities lottery, which operates a scratch-card lottery alongside Instants, have increased by roughly 50 per cent. since the introduction of the Instants game, so the suggestion that the national lottery has had a uniform effect on charities funding is simply not correct.
    However, the Government recognise that the national lottery has an effect on those activities which operate alongside it, and that is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is working with the charities world to ensure that we properly understand the effect of the lottery on charitable funding.
    Mr. Waterson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if he is looking for examples of good causes that have already benefited from the national lottery, he need look no further than Cavendish school in my constituency, which recently received notification of a grant of well over £200,000 for an activity centre and related activities?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend quotes one example from a list of nearly 500 valuable projects where lottery money
    554
    is being used to enhance the level of provision for sports, arts and heritage activities in Britain, not to mention the support that will flow from the Charities Board and the imaginative range of projects that were listed, 10 days ago, for further assessment by the Millennium Commission.
    Mr. Faulds: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are a number still of old-fashioned and moral Scots in the House, who vastly disapprove of public gambling and the appalling social consequences of such practices? Will he accept—not much of a hope with the modern Tory party—that heritage and the arts should be a direct responsibility of Government and not of those who are tempted to buy scratch cards during the week?
    Mr. Dorrell: I have seen lots of unlikely scenes in the House, but that of the hon. Gentleman as an advocate for old-fashioned moral Presbyterianism is a proposition that is entirely new to me. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Government should continue to accept responsibility for funding for the arts and for sport activity in Britain is not controversial, because the Government have made it entirely clear that we intend to continue to observe our obligations in that regard.
    The lottery has, however, unlocked a new source of funds—on a scale which has been offered by no British Government in history—for an activity which I had always thought the hon. Gentleman considered important. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would want to welcome new sources of support for an activity which he thinks, and certainly regularly says, is important.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend consider reapportioning the proceeds of the national lottery so that more goes to charity, which currently gets only 8p out of every pound spent, and slightly less to some of high-falutin' projects associated with culture, theatre and other minority tastes?
    Mr. Dorrell: The allocation of the money available from the national lottery for good causes was, of course, the subject of debate when the legislation establishing it went through the House. It is perfectly true that it can be reassessed, but to reassess it within three months of the beginning of the distribution process is a trifle previous.
    Mr. Dafis: Although I welcome the Secretary of State's undertaking to examine the position of Tenovus, we are looking for a firmer undertaking than that. Is he aware that Tenovus has now made it clear that its research programmes, including a research programme conducted in my constituency at the university of Wales, Aberystwyth, will have to be discontinued unless it is able to obtain additional funding? Is he aware that Tenovus has prepared a checklist of six possibilities for changing the way in which moneys are distributed? Will he now undertake that at least one or more of those possibilities are implemented to ensure that Tenovus can continue to conduct its important research?
    Mr. Dorrell: No. I have made it clear that we shall look at the effect of the national lottery on the charitable sector as a whole. We shall not seek to assess the performance of individual charities, because they are influenced by a wide range of factors, not least the individual choice of people who give money to charities.

    555
    The hon. Gentleman would be wrong to believe—he certainly did not suggest it in his question—that the effect of the national lottery has been uniformly to undermine the effectiveness of charitable lotteries. That has not been the experience. The Government have said that we shall consider the effect of the national lottery on the charitable sector as a whole, but we certainly shall not look at its effect on individual charities, because they are affected by a wide range of factors, of which the national lottery is only one.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his assessment of the national lottery's effect on the sporting culture of the United Kingdom. [28749]
    Mr. Sproat: The national lottery represents a major boost for sport. So far, 35 different sports have benefited.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend agree that the national lottery will give an enormous boost to sport in the United Kingdom because it will mean more new sports centres and sports scholarships and will encourage international athletes?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important series of points. So far, some 292 different projects around the country have benefited. When the lottery is operating to its fullest extent, we expect about an extra £320 million a year to go to sport.
    Ms Eagle: Is the Minister aware of the increasing worries that a gambling culture is taking hold because of the scale of the national lottery, especially its prizes? Does he agree that that seems to have gone all the way to the top and affected the current incumbent of No. 10, who took an appalling gamble, which he looks set to lose, last Thursday?
    Mr. Sproat: I do not agree with the latter part of the hon. Lady's comments. As to the first part, the lottery is benefiting not only sport—to the tune, I hope, of some £320 million pounds a year—but the arts, charities, the built heritage and the millennium fund.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most important that this is new money that would not previously have gone towards sporting ventures? In particular, it gives an opportunity for us to provide new facilities for elite sport. We hope that the beginning of the rebuilding of our sporting excellence will be when England beat the West Indies later this afternoon.
    Mr. Sproat: I hope that my hon. Friend is right in his latter prediction. As to facilities, sport has benefited so far to the tune of, I think, £45.22 million, most of which has gone to capital facilities. I look forward to seeing even that sum increased.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidelines he is planning to introduce for national lottery funds to be used to enhance disabled people's opportunities in sport. [28750]
    Mr. Sproat: My right hon. Friend drew attention to the importance of national lottery funded facilities being widely accessible to people with disabilities in a letter which he sent in June 1994 to the chairman of the
    556
    distributing bodies covering his directions under section 26 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. No further guidance is planned.
    Mr. Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State probably sent that letter to the organiser of the national lottery because I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman asking when action was going to be taken? While the Government are considering funding, will they also consider matching that funding pound for pound to help local authorities assist organisations, because it is going to be an extremely costly and slow process?
    Mr. Sproat: As the hon. Gentleman will know, local authorities are usually, or very often, part of a partnership that puts a substantial part of the money towards any project that is partially funded by the lottery. What the hon. Gentleman wants is already happening most of the time.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Has my hon. Friend heard of the apparent distress caused to some people who have won as much as £17 million or £18 million on the lottery? Does he have any plans to limit the top win to £5 million, even if that means changing the rollover programme? Would that not make more money available for disabled sportsmen and everyone else?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend raises an important point to which, I know, many people have directed their minds. However, the Government have no plans to do as he asks, for one simple reason. Experience has shown that the larger the jackpot, the more people buy tickets; the more tickets that are bought, the more money is available for the distributing bodies. The short answer to my hon. Friend's question is no.

    Angling
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his estimate of the number of people who participate in coarse, game and sea angling. [28751]
    Mr. Sproat: According to a 1994 survey by the National Rivers Authority, some 2.3 million people participate in coarse angling in England and Wales, 1.1 million in sea angling and 850,000 in game angling.
    Mr. Hain: Is the Minister aware that representatives of millions of those anglers have greatly welcomed Labour's charter for anglers? Will he do the same and consider implementing its proposals? Is he aware that, in south Wales and elsewhere, there is concern about minewater pollution poisoning rivers and affecting angling, and that in Wales that concern will be intensified now that the Welsh Office is rudderless and leaderless?
    Mr. Sproat: Problems in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), who is currently taking over the Secretary of State's duties in Wales.
    As for Labour's paper, I read it with great interest. I thought it pretty fudgy and, in places, misleading. Anyone interested in field sports should think carefully about a party which says that it is cruel to hunt foxes but not to

    557
    shoot pheasants and which I think is fishing for votes among anglers. Such a party should be regarded with extreme suspicion.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are committed to allowing people to follow all country sports and will take the necessary action to block any moves to stop people pursuing legal sports?
    Mr. Sproat: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely and completely true. Our party remains a true friend to field sports.
    Mr. Pendry: Although the figures given by the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) are probably an underestimate, they still prove that angling is Britain's most popular participatory sport, yet the Sports Council's current level of grant to the three angling bodies is a mere £45,000. Recognising that the Government's stated aim during the passage of the National Lottery Act etc. 1993 was that they would not determine what the distributing bodies allocated for lottery grants, will the Minister urge the Sports Council to reassess its grants to sports such as angling, which are more in need of revenue money than the current capital money that is available? Angling needs are mainly in the form of education courses, especially for the young, women and the disabled and for the necessary support for our national angling teams.
    Mr. Sproat: The Government remain a strong friend of angling, but it is for the Sports Council to decide how to spend its own money. I should be interested to know whether the Labour party proposes to recede from that long-established position.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which museums and art galleries have benefited from grants from national lottery heritage funds. [28755]
    Mr. Dorrell: I understand that 14 museums and galleries have so far benefited from lottery funds of some £2.34 million from the national heritage memorial fund. I am sure that my hon. Friend will in particular welcome the grant of £254,000 to the Buckinghamshire museum.
    Mr. Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend accept the applause of many people from all party backgrounds in Aylesbury and the surrounding area for the generous grant which will help to provide funds for the Roald Dahl children's gallery in the Buckinghamshire county museum and art gallery? Does he agree that such a local cultural project, designed to provide education and entertainment, is exactly what the lottery funds are for?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Roald Dahl has particular connections with my hon. Friend's constituency, as he lived in Great Missenden. The project, which has been backed by the Buckinghamshire museum, involves the imaginative use of his characters to enhance understanding of the exhibits in the museum. Another point worth mentioning is that the grant ensures the continued use and protection of a grade II* listed building, so, from every possible point of view, it is a good illustration of the power of the national lottery.
    Mr. Gunnell: Now that we have a national coal mining museum for England—as the Secretary of State will know, it is in Yorkshire—will the funds be made available for that museum to acquire collections of art and historical documents associated with the mining industry?
    Mr. Dorrell: The answer is that the national heritage memorial fund will consider bids that are made to it. I cannot consider the hon. Gentleman's proposition in the abstract; it falls to the national heritage memorial fund and not to me to consider applications when they are submitted. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman should encourage the national coal mining museum, and other institutions in his constituency that may benefit from the national lottery, to submit bids to the relevant distributor body.
    Dr. Spink: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, of the £9 billion that will be raised for good causes during the first licence period of the lottery, a significant amount of that money will be available to assist museums in the next seven years? Will he confirm also that, if the House had followed the policies of the Labour party, which was divided about the lottery, and the Liberals, who opposed it, that money would be denied to the museums?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to point out the national lottery's power to unlock funds that no Government could have found from other sources. Historically, neither Labour nor Conservative Governments have provided money on that scale to sport, the arts and heritage activities.
    The national lottery provides us with the opportunity to invest in the museum sector, among others. For example, the national heritage memorial fund has already made grants to the Ironbridge Gorge museum, which is a major museum illustrating the birthplace of the industrial revolution. It has also made a major grant to the Manchester museum of science and industry, which is a leading science and industry museum on the site of the world's first railway station. There are already many examples of the way in which the national heritage memorial fund has used lottery money to develop the museum sector and I am sure that that will continue into the future.

    Windmills
    Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many windmills are listed buildings; and what is their exact location. [28756]
    Mr. Dorrell: Until the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest is computerised next year, it is not practicable to identify separately those windmills that are listed.
    Mr. Cook: I am somewhat disappointed by that answer, especially as the number of windmills in this country may have decreased in the past four days. I ask the Secretary of State to consider the thesis that national heritage is not only a question of the past, but a question of what we leave for the future. With the accelerating rate of development of new materials and new design techniques, the windmills that are being installed now are every bit as cherishable as those that were built in the past. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to convince people that they are not simply a blot on the landscape, as some misguided press representatives out of Downing street try to persuade the electorate.
    Mr. Dorrell: Individual windmills that are proposed for listing can be considered on a spot-listing basis. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there are windmills being erected now—by which he probably means wind power generators—which merit protection, I am sure that he will understand that they should be guided by the same rules that apply to every other structure: namely, we do not list many structures until they are more than 30 years old.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention, in compiling his list, to the working windmill on Meopham green in my constituency? It is not only a working windmill but it is unique in being the location at which the Meopham parish council holds its meetings. Whereas windmills use wind for good works, is that not a case of a windmill using hot air for extremely good works on behalf of the people of the parish of Meopham?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend's question brings Meopham to new prominence in the nation's affairs, and I am sure that that fact will be widely welcomed in Meopham.

    National Lottery
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations he has received about the distribution of national lottery funds to voluntary organisations which are concerned with the encouragement of social, cultural and sporting activities involving the active participation of people with disabilities. [28757]
    Mr. Sproat: I have received a number of representations about the distribution of national lottery proceeds and disability issues.
    Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that far too many theatres, cinemas, galleries, sports halls and swimming pools are utterly inaccessible to disabled people? Should not the question of accessibility loom large whenever grant applications are assessed by those in charge of such funds?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, certainly; the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Sports Council has been specifically instructed by my right hon. Friend to take disability issues, including access, very much into consideration when grants are being made.

    Fine Art Collections
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to enable the national museums to expand their collections of fine art. [28760]
    Mr. Sproat: It is for the trustees of individual museums to decide on acquisitions. The Government have a number of measures that help to develop the national collections. They include the funding of the national heritage memorial fund, Waverley system of export controls and important tax concessions. The national collections may also benefit from the net proceeds of the national lottery.
    Mr. Carrington: Now that national lottery money seems to be used, rightly, to save Waverley-quality items
    560
    being exported, the problem in our national museums is keeping collections balanced. They must obviously include Waverley-quality items but also items of lesser quality, to show the full range of fine arts. Will my hon. Friend review the purchase money available to museums, to ensure that they are able to keep a balanced collection in future?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is entirely right to stress the importance of balanced collections. He may be sure that the Government keep all such matters under constant review.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Scott Inquiry
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General what further approaches he has received from Lord Justice Scott. [28732]
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): It is the intention of the inquiry that any exchanges with individual witnesses should be confidential. That is to be respected.
    Mr. Winnick: Although we are not given fuller information from the Attorney-General, is it not deplorable that that distinguished judge is being rubbished by the Government machinery, by people who accuse him of not understanding the realities of ministerial life? Is not it unfortunate that Lord Justice Scott is being caught up in the Tory civil war?
    The Attorney-General: Neither the hon. Gentleman nor the House is getting any misleading information from me on that topic. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read my statement to the inquiry and tried to understand a little more carefully the subject, for example, of public interest immunity certificates, there would be rather less misleading material going around generally.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Did my right hon. and learned Friend hear the comments of Lord Justice Scott following the leaking of the report by the BBC, when Lord Justice Scott said that the BBC had demeaned its status and reputation? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if such a thing were said about members of the Government, Opposition Members would demand resignations? Should we not be looking for resignations from the BBC?
    The Attorney-General: I well understand why Sir Richard Scott said what he did. The purpose of confidentiality is fairness. Deliberately to break a confidence when it is known to be likely to be unfair is demeaning to any aspect of the media.
    Mr. John Morris: Will the Attorney-General confirm his intention, when he announced the Scott inquiry nearly 20 months ago, that it should be conducted as speedily as possible? The report's publication is a movable feast. What is the latest publication forecast? Will the Attorney-General confirm that no ministerial considerations, including the calling of a snap election, will inhibit the judge's sole discretion as to the date of publication?
    While I deprecate the publication of leaks, will the Attorney-General confirm their accuracy, as apparently indicating the judge's prima facie views, before hearing

    561
    any further submissions by criticised Ministers? Has the Attorney-General himself received part of the report, and has he responded?
    The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, uncharacteristically, obviously did not listen to my first answer. If he did, he, as much as anybody else, should respect the confidence requested by Sir Richard Scott. The date and timing of any publication of Sir Richard Scott's report is a matter for Sir Richard.

    Director of Public Prosecutions
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the time within which the Director of Public Prosecutions is expected to reply substantively to letters from hon. Members. [28733]
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The target which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has agreed with the Crown Prosecution Service for replies to correspondence from hon. Members is 15 working days. In 1994, that target was met in 77 per cent. of cases.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why did it take three months for the Director of Public Prosecutions to tell me that she intended to take no action on the evidence of Miss Eileen McAndrew, secretary to Ms Morgan Thomas—one of the so-called noble Lord Archer's insider dealing friends? Is the reality that this man will never be prosecuted for what we all know was criminal activity?
    The Solicitor-General: I am very surprised at the hon. Gentleman's petulant tone. In letters which he wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions he was at pains to acknowledge her independence. Indeed, he said expressly that that was why he was writing to her rather than to anyone else. The director has considered the matter extremely carefully, independently, having in mind that the primary responsibility for prosecuting and investigating insider dealing cases lies with the DTI. She has decided, as she told the hon. Gentleman—he knows this full well—not to ask the police to carry out investigations at this stage. The decision is a matter for the director acting independently, and neither Law Officer has been involved in her decision.

    War Crimes
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Attorney-General what progress has been made on prosecutions under the War Crimes Act 1991. [28734]
    The Attorney-General: Further to my previous answers to the House, seven cases have been closely examined by leading counsel and junior Treasury counsel, who have recommended certain further urgent inquiries. These are in hand. Decisions will be taken as soon as all relevant matters have been fully considered.
    Mr. Janner: Can the Attorney-General confirm that, as one of the Sunday newspapers alleged, a committee has been set up that will recommend appropriate decisions, and will do so before the summer recess? In any event, will he tell the House how decisions will be announced? Will he confirm that the committee's recommendations will be made before the recess so that
    562
    the House will be able to make such observations as may be proper, bearing in mind that a majority of the House is in favour of the Act but only, of course, if there is sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution?
    The Attorney-General: The matter is one not for committees of any nature but for the Director of Public Prosecutions, who may or may not seek my consent to any prosecution. If she does, it is a matter for me. I have explained that these matters are being examined extremely carefully. Decisions will be taken as soon as all relevant aspects have been fully considered.
    Mr. John Marshall: My right hon. and learned Friend said that these matters would be dealt with urgently. May I underline the need to get on with them? It was wrong that the individuals concerned escaped prosecution in the 1940s, and they should not be allowed to escape in the 1990s.
    The Attorney-General: I am happy to make it clear to my hon. Friend again that these matters are being progressed with all proper speed and care. I emphasise care as well as speed. Fairness and care are essential in such matters, as they are in relation to any prosecution.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Attorney-General what are the latest statistics for the number of cases brought to court by the Crown Prosecution Service. [28735]
    The Solicitor-General: During the year ending March 1995, cases in respect of 1,477,617 defendants were finalised by the Crown Prosecution Service. In the magistrates courts 161,429, or 11.7 per cent. of proceedings instituted, were discontinued compared with 12.5 per cent. and 13.5 per cent. for the two previous years.
    Dr. Spink: I am indebted to my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. It confirms that the number of cases discontinued, when compared with the figures for the previous two years, has fallen. Will he welcome that trend and ensure that there is the closest possible liaison between the police and the CPS to encourage it and to build on it in future?
    The Solicitor-General: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming that trend. He should be aware that the consultation survey that took place on discontinuance showed that in 74 per cent. of all cases discontinued, the police agreed with that decision in 96 per cent. of those cases. In 29 per cent. of discontinued cases,the CPS had no option but to discontinue because witnesses either did not attend or refused to go to court, or, in motoring offences, defendants produced documents at court. The complaint made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that there is anger in the police service about the level of discontinuance is entirely wrong.
    Mr. Hutton: But is the Solicitor-General satisfied with the growing number of cases that have been dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service and subsequently taken on successfully as private prosecutions? Could it be argued that in those cases the CPS has let down many victims of crime?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in speaking of a growing number of cases. I repeat that it

    563
    is not a growing number of cases. Such cases are few and far between. When the House passed the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 it was astute in leaving with citizens the right to initiate a private prosecution if they so wished. Only very occasionally does the private citizen feel obliged to do that.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

    South Africa
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid is provided for sport in black South African townships. [28772]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): We are currently funding, in conjunction with the British Council, an initiative with the United Kingdom Sports Council to develop sports administration and coaching, and we are about to embark with Voluntary Service Overseas, on a two-year sports development pilot programme. Both projects are aimed specifically at disadvantaged communities in the townships and rural areas.
    Mr. Hain: I welcome the Minister's statement. Does he agree that the Springboks' victory on Saturday was a magnificent advertisement for the new multiracial South Africa? Does he also agree that it is vital that there is investment in black township sports so that standards can be raised? In that context, will he welcome the coming tour by the Soweto cricket club, which will play at Ynysygerwyn in my constituency next Wednesday? Will he fund such tours in future so that people will be given opportunities always denied to them historically?
    Mr. Baldry: I do not think that anyone reporting on South Africa 10 years ago would have dreamed that a multiracial South African rugby team would win the world cup. The presence of President Mandela at the Springboks' game on Saturday was a further sign of South Africa coming back into the world. As I said, we are supporting the development of sport in townships. We want to support the development of South Africans who have been disadvantaged as a result of apartheid.
    Our programme also aims to re-establish those sporting links between the UK and South Africa and to develop sport as a means of community development and bringing youth into organised structures. I certainly welcome the visit to the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    We are helping to finance stands for a tour by English cricket teams to townships in South Africa later this year. So a lot is happening. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage has just visited South Africa and has been able to take forward much of this work.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that Archbishop Trevor Huddleston, who is a lifelong friend of mine and with whom I had a meal a week ago, is returning to South Africa to spend such days as are left to him? No one has done more for South Africa than Trevor Huddleston. He hopes to do just the sort of work that my hon. Friend describes to bring better sporting, cultural and educational opportunities to black children. Will my hon. Friend's funding be available to Archbishop Huddleston?
    Mr. Baldry: We have an aid package to South Africa of £100 million over three years, including some £60 million of bilateral aid. It is clear from my earlier answer that we are supporting worthwhile projects to help those who have been disadvantaged by apartheid fully to come back into the world. Of course, if Archbishop Trevor Huddleston comes forward with a project, we will look at it, as we look at any of the other projects, all of which we hope will be of worthwhile benefit to the people of South Africa.

    Aid (Award Criteria)
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the criteria for the award of overseas aid. [28773]
    Mr. Baldry: We give aid where it will be most effective in promoting sustainable economic and social development, focused on the poorest countries, particularly in the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Roche: As this is the 50th anniversary of the granting of the United Nations charter, does the Minister agree that it is about time that Britain switched its aid focus to countries that really are the poorest and which need basic health care and education? Instead of that, the Minister and the Government consistently give aid to rich countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Bermuda.
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Lady's question contains a number of misconceptions. First, nine out of 10 of the biggest recipients of our bilateral aid are among the poorest countries in Africa and Asia. Secondly, we have just had a question on South Africa, but if one followed the definition of "poorest", one would not give South Africa a penny of aid because it does not qualify as one of the poorest countries. We are about to have a question on renewable energy, but if we followed the hon. Lady's definitions of poverty, health care and education, we would not give a penny of aid to that. One must look at these matters sensibly. Our aid budget is focused on the poorest and on ensuring that they have sustainable economic development.
    Mr. Lester: Anyone who had the good fortune to attend the ceremony in Westminster Hall this morning would know that Britain's convincing commitment to the United Nations has been steady from the moment that it started until now. Equally, my hon. Friend knows that those of us who travel the world and who have seen the working of the British aid programme know that the most substantial part of it goes to the poorest countries and the people within them, and that it wholly supports the Government's policy on aid.
    Mr. Baldry: As my hon. Friend will know, a recent Opposition Supply day debate on overseas development was thinly attended by Opposition Members. I think that only about four or five bothered to turn up. I do not think that any hon. Member challenged a single Overseas Development Administration project as not being worth while. As hon. Members travel the world and see the ODA's work, they recognise that the projects bring real value to poor countries, helping them to achieve sustainable economic development.
    Miss Lestor: I should like to follow up the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green

    565
    (Mrs. Roche) and the Minister's answer. Last week the Prime Minister received a letter from representatives of the African, Caribbean and Pacific states, who represent 70 of the world's poorest countries. The letter urged Britain to reconsider plans to slash its contribution to the EDF by 30 per cent. As the Foreign Secretary has praised the EDF as an effective and efficient channel for European Union aid, will the Government at the Cannes summit this week, and even as I speak, reverse their policy and respond positively to the ACP request?
    Mr. Baldry: We have been over this territory before many times. As the hon. Lady knows, we are seeking to strike an appropriate balance between multilateral and bilateral aid. She may have seen press reports today stating that leading UK aid organisations such as Action Aid are already expressing concern leading up to the Cannes summit that far too much of our budget will be spent on multilateral rather than on bilateral aid. As I have said, we must strike an appropriate balance. We have a substantial aid programme of £2.2 billion, and we will strike that balance with the EDF programme.
    Sir David Steel: Does the Minister welcome the decision of the G7 leaders in Halifax last week that future trends in military and other unproductive spending should be taken into account by international institutions in their granting of aid? Will that become part of the Government's policy?
    Mr. Baldry: It always has been. Good government has always been one of the criteria that we look at when determining aid programmes. We also look to see whether countries are engaging in excessive military spending when we are determining bilateral country programmes. That will continue to be the case.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: One of the advantages of bilateral aid is that we can properly target it. Other than for emergencies, is not the advantage of bilateral aid the fact that we can target it on projects that help people in third world countries to develop their own way of making a living? Surely British technology, particularly in agriculture, is invaluable for that purpose.
    Mr. Baldry: Yes, and our bilateral aid programme has been widely praised. The 1994 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development review of the United Kingdom's aid programme recognised its concessionality and the way in which it focused on the poor. Britain has the fifth largest aid budget in the world and, apart from the four leading aid donors, no other country devotes so much of its budget to the poor and the poorest countries. That is why we need to ensure that we retain a substantial bilateral aid programme.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the renewable energy projects, other than the Pergau dam, which have received funding from the Overseas Development aid programme. [28774]
    Mr. Baldry: Since 1987, the ODA has directly funded 46 renewable energy projects. A list of those projects has been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the Minister for that information, but with particular attention to the Pergau dam and the likes of that, will he acknowledge that such projects are costly, first, in terms of capital cost incurred and, secondly, in terms of the voltage drop that is incurred as power is transmitted over a wide network? Does he acknowledge that it is much better to use small-scale, renewable schemes that supply power directly at the point of need in any country, whether it be from wind, water or the sun?
    Mr. Baldry: In other countries, as here, different energy needs will be met in different ways. There has never been any inherent criticism of the Pergau dam project or of its inherent worth. The criticism has involved the way in which it was funded. The hon. Gentleman must be careful about this. It is not for us to seek to impose on other countries solutions to their energy problems or to other problems that they face. That has a smack of latter-day imperialism. It is for such countries to come forward with what they think are their solutions to their problems and, where we can, we will assist and support. Often that will involve mini or micro hydrowater projects such as he suggests.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed today that quite a number of Tory Members of Parliament are missing, and we can only presume that they are out plotting or campaigning, or in the Jubilee Room.
I want to ask you a question regarding the constitution. In the past few days, one Minister, the Foreign Secretary, has announced that he will resign shortly, and another, the Secretary of State for Wales, has announced that he will resign today at 2 o'clock, presumably to take part in the election for the Tory party leadership. The point that I should like to raise from a constitutional angle is this: why is it necessary for the Secretary of State for Wales to resign his position as a Cabinet Minister to participate in a leadership contest, while the Prime Minister has not done the same? That should be a matter for the British people.
Madam Speaker: That is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman in question; it is not a matter for me.
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you have any information on a statement from the Welsh Office? Surely it is an insult that Wales is being covered by a moonlighting Cabinet Minister.
Madam Speaker: No, I have no information about any such statements being made.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-SavoursOn a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether you have received a copy of the letter that was circulated—I understand that it went out nationally—to all hon. Members by the north-eastern region of the National Union of Civil and Public Servants. It says:
"DSS headquarters has set a pilot project for a central correspondence section. The idea of this section is to move away from tailored replies to MPs' inquiries to Ministers on behalf of constituents and to offer standard replies."
Those would be on individual cases. It goes on:
"These standard replies are withdrawn from a stock of paragraphs, then pasted together to give a general reply to the inquiry. This will inevitably lead to bland replies and dissatisfaction amongst constituents who receive them. We would ask you not to accept bland and meaningless replies but to press for complete tailored replies which fully address the concerns of your constituents"—
my constituents, and, Madam Speaker, your constituents.
I have not had a chance to discuss this with my hon. Friends, but I am sure that they are all concerned, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will be—we have no monopoly on concern over these matters. I wondered whether you might consider that letter, which has implications for us all, and, in the great number of forums in which you are able to discuss such matters, raise the letter with the appropriate authorities? Clearly, such a policy would be damaging for our constituents.
Madam Speaker: I know full well that hon. Members on both sides of the House demand the fullest possible
568
information generally, as well as information on an individual basis relating to their constituents—as I do myself. I have not seen the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, I shall make it my business to see the letter and make inquiries about it.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, I have been in this place for more than 16 years, and I have never known anything like what is happening today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, it is significant that three hon. Members—for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field)—are not here. They have something in common.
We have a Prime Minister whose mind is somewhere else, a Foreign Secretary who is about to retire, and a caretaker Secretary of State for Wales. Is it not the truth that they are all caretakers now? As they cannot turn up, and as their minds and hearts are elsewhere, why not adjourn the House until 4 July, and then we could all come back? Even better, instead of discredited Conservative Members choosing a Prime Minister, why not let the 30 million voters in the country decide?
Madam Speaker: A number of people, including myself, would disapprove of any adjournment, and certainly an adjournment until 4 July.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you been approached by any Ministers, other than the one who has resigned today, saying that they wish to make a statement to the House in the coming week?
Madam Speaker: I have had no such requests.
Mr. John Gunnell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Knowing, as we all do, how much we are indebted to Hansard for recording both what we have to say and our votes on key issues, would it be in order for you to extend the role of Hansard to record the forthcoming votes of Conservative Members, which would be for the enlightenment of the whole country?
Madam Speaker: That is an ingenious idea, but I have no authority to do anything of the sort.
Mr. Ann Taylor: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. We have heard that the Secretary of State for Wales is resigning from the Cabinet. There is a convention that Ministers who resign can make a personal statement to the House. Is that something to which the Secretary of State for Wales would be entitled?
Madam Speaker: A resignation statement, not a personal statement, is sometimes made—although not always. If the former Secretary of State for Wales wishes to make a resignation statement, he must apply to me, and I shall certainly consider his request.

Orders of the Day
  Health Authorities Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
Clause 3

  PREPARATIONS FOR REORGANISATION OF AUTHORITIES
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 30, leave out ("prescribed")
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 2.
  Mr. Sackville: I am delighted to turn the attention of the nation to the vital business of Government and, in particular, these important technical amendments to the Bill.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1

  AMENDMENTS
  Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 30, leave out line 33 and insert—
  ("103.—(1) The Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In section 29")
  Mr. Sackville: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 4.
  Mr. Sackville: There are a number of national health service staff whose contracts of employment are presently held by regional health authorities because they are undertaking training programmes that require them to move regularly between different NHS employers. While the contracts are held by RHAs, the staff can move between employers without losing any of the employment rights that depend upon staff serving a period of continuous employment—for example, protection against unfair dismissal and the right to return to work after maternity leave.
  It is clear that, when RHAs no longer exist, new arrangements must be made for such staff. Junior doctors and dentists in the registrar and senior registrar grades are the largest groups affected; others include clinical psychology trainees, finance and general management trainees, and some pharmacy and scientist training grades. Staff in the training grades must move regularly between employers in order to gain a high standard of professional training, so we need to ensure that there are no obstacles that would discourage them from so moving.
  That is what the amendments are designed to achieve. The provisions in schedule 2 ensure protection of continuity for staff who move from RHAs to other NHS
  570
  bodies next April. Without the amendments, however, continuity of employment of trainees would be broken on any subsequent moves between NHS employers.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Parliamentary Under-Secretary recognise that many employees within the NHS who support the proposals are concerned that most NHS employees at local trust level are being taken on as temporary employees? Why are the Government not seeking to give those people permanent jobs? Should not the Under-Secretary be moving a further amendment?
  Mr. Sackville: The amendment deals with protections which now exist and how those apply to regional health authorities. We want the House to agree with the Lords that those protections should continue to exist. The detailed arrangements for devolving contracts to employers are still a matter for discussion with the various professional bodies representing staff. I believe that the amendments offer NHS staff significant reassurances.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: We all took note of the Under-Secretary's remark that the business of Government must continue, and he has been sent here to ensure that it does. I am not sure what that implies for his future, but I wish him luck; he will no doubt make a further announcement later.
  The matter before us today is slightly at variance with comments which have been made to the House, particularly in Committee. The issue under consideration is the contracts of NHS employees, the largest single group of whom are junior doctors. The question of which body should hold the contracts of junior doctors exercised our minds in Committee.
  I asked the Under-Secretary on 26 January where the contracts would be held, and he replied:
  "Junior doctors' contracts and vocational training are under discussion with the relevant professional organisations. We must reach a conclusion about the role of the regional offices or district health authorities in those matters. However, those issues must be discussed with the profession."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 26 January 1995; c. 58.]
  Implicit in what the Under-Secretary said is that there would be a role for either the regional office of the Department of Health or the newly created district health authority.
  As there was some uncertainty as to what that meant in practice, I intervened on 31 January on the Minister for Health to ask:
  "Is it the Government's intention to hold the contracts for junior doctors at regional level?"
  The Minister replied:
  "I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the case; it makes sense in current circumstances to do so. As he asked me that strategic question, I can state that it would not be necessary for the type of organisations suggested in amendment to perform that function."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 31 January 1995; c. 84.]
  In Committee, Labour tabled a probing amendment dealing with who was to hold the contracts for, among others, junior doctors.
  What the Under-Secretary is telling us is at variance with those assurances in Committee. He correctly says that the employment contracts of certain groups of NHS staff are held by regional health authorities, which, the House will recall, are to be abolished by this Bill, so the contracts must be held elsewhere. The advantage of having contracts held by regional health authorities is that

  571
  the employees could occupy successive posts with different NHS employers as part of a structured training programme, without breaking the continuity of their employment for the purposes of employment protection legislation.
  I have no quarrel with the Minister's stated objective of ensuring that there is no discontinuity in employment. The largest group of employees involved are the medical and dental registrars—the backbone of secondary services in the NHS—and senior registrars, who move around a number of hospitals as part of their specialist training. A number of other groups—most notably the clinical psychology trainees and general management and finance trainees—are also affected.
  The Lords amendments will make provision for those groups of staff to enjoy continuity of employment even if they are employed by trust bodies or by a consortium of trust bodies. Many Labour Members feared that that was the Government's intention, and probed them on the matter in Committee. We were assured that this was not the Government's intention, yet we are now dealing with Lords amendments that suggest that it is.
  3.45 pm
  The British Medical Association, as one would expect, is concerned about the amendments. The association does not think that it is right that the contracts of junior doctors should be held at trust level. It believes, as we believe, that the training of junior doctors requires strategic administration at regional level, and that devolution to individual trusts will make it far more difficult to achieve the right number of trained doctors and to get a broad mix of specialty rotation for each doctor under training.
  We believe—we explored the matter at some length in Committee—that the new arrangements will increase bureaucracy, although it is a stated purpose of the Bill that bureaucracy will be reduced, not increased. Each consortium of trusts or individual trusts will have to draw up their own contracts for their own junior doctors.
  The Government's proposals will bring about distortions in their internal market. Doctors in training are a national, or at least a regional, resource, and their contracts should be at higher than trust level. Having the contracts above trust level would prevent local problems in the purchaser-provider relationship—problems that we believe will distort the requirement for trained doctors.
  In addition, it is not clear to me how the arrangements for training rotation will work in practice. The Government are committed to achieving the Calman report's objective of improving the quality of training. Many junior doctors are appointed to posts that are rotational within the duration of the contract. They progress through a series of posts and through a number of hospitals in the region to maximise their experience of different aspects of their speciality. A typical rotation post lasts for six months.
  I am quarrelling not with the arrangements, but with the fiendishly difficult practice of making the arrangements work when the contract of employment is held by an individual trust whereas the employment is carried out across a range of different trusts. Presumably the juniors will have to apply for different posts at
  572
  six-month intervals. There is no guarantee that they can obtain particular posts in aspects in which they require experience.
  The Government have not thought the matter through properly. If their idea is that there should be a consortium of trusts holding the contracts, there will inevitably be an increase in bureaucracy, because there will be a need for professional personnel managers and professional training staff to monitor the training programme and to hold the contracts of the individual doctors. It is more economically efficient to do that at regional level, as is the case in England at present.
  I am worried that the proposed structure will not protect the educational content of the posts. I have little confidence that the educational part of the junior doctors' training will be retained if they are trust employees. The trusts have to respond to day-to-day commercial pressures, and they are bound to put those commercial pressures above the broader interests of training the doctors.
  There is also a threat to the national pay and conditions of staff who will be covered by the arrangements. If their contracts are held locally, the terms and conditions, although this has not yet been stated by the Government, stand to be negotiated locally and not nationally. It is perfectly obvious that the arrangements could be the thin end of the wedge. At best, they facilitate the break-up of the national pay bargaining structure. That cannot be right.
  I took careful note of what the Minister of State said about a core of national terms of service for juniors. He said that they would serve
  "as a reference point for their employers to establish fair and locally workable contractual arrangements to provide a degree of flexibility".
  The BMA is wholly opposed to local pay for doctors—so is the parliamentary Labour party. Amendments that look innocuous are nothing of the kind, but specifically reverse assurances that hon. Members were given, and which they believed in good faith, in Committee. I therefore urge the House to vote the amendments down.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The occupation of the Government Back Benches reminds one irresistibly of the story of Sleeping Beauty. One wonders which prince will awaken the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) on Thursday, although I must confess that she has competition from Old Father Time behind me.
  The Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), has raised an important issue, because it relates to the training of doctors. I speak as a lay member of the General Medical Council, which has an important responsibility for scrutinising and approving the training of junior doctors, and for their registration after they have been trained.
  I hope that the Minister will agree that he owes the House a little more explanation as to how the Government intend to ensure that doctors in training posts are not treated merely as a spare pair of hands. The Calman report made it clear that the Government's objective is to improve the quality of doctors' training. Simply putting doctors in the employment of trusts, where their work may well be demand-led from crisis to crisis, will not be sufficient training, and is unlikely to gain the approval of the postgraduate deans and others who approve the rotational training of junior doctors.

  573
  In anaesthetics, for example, a doctor may have a three-year contract, moving to a different hospital every six months to secure his or her full training. Without being told more by the Minister, it is difficult to understand how the Government intend to ensure that that training is harmonised under the regulations proposed following the amendments. There is little confidence that the educational element will be protected if trusts are the employers, when immediate needs could plainly dominate the working week.
  The British Medical Association has proposed the establishment of a small special health authority to oversee the training of junior doctors and other doctors undergoing training for one reason or another. The establishment of such health authorities on a regional basis for that purpose would ensure a clear line of accountability, a clearly identifiable purchaser of medical—[Interruption.] The hon. Member should not interrupt when she has not been listening to most of the debate. Would she like me to give way?
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. and learned Gentleman was so boring. I was listening when the intelligent Members were speaking,
  Mr. Carlile: I can assure the hon. Lady that she drifted away during the Minister's speech and consolidated her repose well into the beginning of mine, but I am very glad that she is now listening sufficiently intently to become ever so slightly incandescent.
  The BMA's proposals for small special health authorities based regionally would be a useful innovation. They would assume responsibility for all doctors in training within the region, which would establish a clear line of accountability and introduce market principles, in that such an authority would be clearly identifiable as the purchaser of medical education and training within the current structure of NHS management.
  Whether or not that is the right solution, we have not yet heard from the Minister how that important integrity of rotational training is to be maintained. I hope that he will be able to give the House a better explanation in a moment.
  Mr. Sackville: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I remind the House that the amendments are about continuity of employment and protection of employment rights under new employers, following the proposed end of regional health authorities.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) should not make too much of a slip of the tongue in Committee by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, because my hon. Friend has made it clear since, in a speech to the annual conference of the British Association of Medical Managers, that junior doctors' contracts will be held by NHS trusts, with deans of postgraduate medicine overseeing junior doctors' educational needs.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am the last person in the world to make too much of a slip of the tongue, but I remind the Under-Secretary what was said in Committee. I asked the Minister:
  "Is it the Government's intention to hold the contracts for junior doctors at regional level?"
  574
  The Minister now says that the Government's response is, "No, they will be held at trust level." That is a perfectly straight answer to a straight question. He must accept that the answer that I was given at the time was not a slip of the tongue. It was:
  "I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the case; it makes sense in current circumstances to do so."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 31 January 1995; c. 84.]
  —that is, to hold them at regional level. The Minister cannot characterise that as a slip of the tongue.
  Mr. Sackville: I am sorry that the Committee was momentarily misled. On examination, it is clear that it would be difficult for the regions to hold all those contracts of employment without asking all doctors to become civil servants, which we would both agree would be unwise.
  On the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), I see no reason why postgraduate deans and trusts should not co-operate to ensure a proper rotation of doctors. After all, many of those doctors will end up working for trusts. There is no reason to suppose that trusts would wish to require postgraduate deans to short-change junior doctors on their training. Given that provision in the health service is now taken care of by trusts, it seems eminently natural that trusts should employ junior doctors.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: What the Minister says makes perfect sense, but if a postgraduate dean took the view that the way in which a junior doctor was employed was not consistent with good training, how would such a dispute be resolved under the arrangements that the Government have in mind? So far, we have not heard the answer.
  Mr. Sackville: We must allow that all those involved will, with good will, come to arrangements that are in the best interests of medical training. I have no reason to suppose that those arrangements would be unsatisfactory.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East talked about consortia of trusts. A number of combinations are possible, but the most likely would be lead trusts for particular specialties, which would hold those contracts in each region; so people in those trusts would deal with postgraduate deans on matters concerning postgraduate education.
  People outside this House would be surprised to hear us suggest that junior doctors should be employed by anyone other than hospitals. To set up some alternative procedure—a special health authority—would be a bureaucratic and expensive option, which is exactly what the Bill seeks to put behind us.
  May I return to the nub of the matter? The amendments seek to protect the employment rights of junior doctors after the end of regions. For that reason, I commend them to the House.
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 170.

  Division No. 175]

  [3.58 pm

  Ayes

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Ancram, Michael

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Arbuthnot, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Amess, David

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  575

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hague, William

  Baldry, Tony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hannam, Sir John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Booth, Hartley

  Hawkins, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Hawksley, Warren

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Heald, Oliver

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Bowis, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Hendry, Charles

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Horam, John

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Burt, Alistair

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

  Butler, Peter

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Butterfill, John

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Carrington, Matthew

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cash, William

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Clappison, James

  Key, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Knapman, Roger

  Colvin, Michael

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Congdon, David

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Conway, Derek

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

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Knox, Sir David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Couchman, James

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Cran, James

  Legg, Barry

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Leigh, Edward

  Day, Stephen

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Dicks, Terry

  Lidington, David

  Dover, Den

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan, Alan

  Luff, Peter

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Dykes, Hugh

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Elletson, Harold

  MacKay, Andrew

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Madel, Sir David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Evennett, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Faber, David

  Mans, Keith

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Marland, Paul

  Forman, Nigel

  Marlow, Tony

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Forth, Eric

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Merchant, Piers

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  French, Douglas

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Gale, Roger

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gallie, Phil

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Norris, Steve

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Page, Richard

  576

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Stern, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Stewart, Allan

  Pickles, Eric

  Streeter, Gary

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Sumberg, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Sykes, John

  Richards, Rod

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Sackville, Tom

  Tracey, Richard

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Trend, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Waller, Gary

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Watts John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whitney, Ray

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Whittingdale, John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Willetts, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wood, Timothy

  Spring, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Sproat, Iain

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. Michael Bates and

  Stephen, Michael

  Dr. Liam Fox.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Allen, Graham

  Denham, John

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Barnes, Harry

  Dixon, Don

  Barron, Kevin

  Dobson, Frank

  Battle, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Eastham, Ken

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Etherington, Bill

  Berry, Roger

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bradley, Keith

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Fisher, Mark

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

  Flynn, Paul

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Byers, Stephen

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fraser, John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Fyfe, Maria

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gapes, Mike

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  George, Bruce

  Chidgey, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Church, Judith

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Coffey, Ann

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cohen, Harry

  Gunnell, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hain, Peter

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hanson, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Harvey, Nick

  Corston, Jean

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cousins, Jim

  Henderson, Doug

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Heppell, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Dafis,Cynog

  Hoey, Kate

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  577

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, William (Nomanton)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hoyle, Doug

  Olner, Bill

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton,John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Illsley, Eric

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Ingram, Adam

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Radice, Giles

  Jamieson, David

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rendel, David

  Jowell, Tessa

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry

  Ruddock, Joan

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCartney, Ian

  Short, Clare

  McFall, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

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

  McLeish, Henry

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfernline W)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McMaster, Gordon

  Stevenson, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McWilliam, John

  Straw, Jack

  Madden, Max

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Maddock, Diana

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mahon, Alice

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Timms, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Touhig, Don

  Michael, Alun

  Turner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Vaz, Keith

  Milburn, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Miller, Andrew

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mudie, George

  Mr. Joe Benton and

  Murphy, Paul

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 7 agreed to.

Jobseekers Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Clause 2

  THE CONTRIBUTION-BASED CONDITIONS
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 17, leave out from ("not") to end of line and insert ("entitled to income support.")
  4.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4, 50 and 51.
  Mr. Evans: The amendments are intended to prevent the making of duplicate awards of the jobseeker's allowance and income support to the same claimant or duplicate awards of benefit to members of the same family. The original wording of the Bill does not achieve that, as it makes the criterion the fact that benefit is "payable". That might, on the face of it, sound sufficient, but there are a small number of cases in which the sum awarded is less than 10p—the de minimis figure—and the benefit is not payable.
  To clarify the position, the amendments lay down the criterion of "entitlement", but I should stress that they in no way remove the choice open to the claimant and family to choose between the benefits and claim the one that they prefer. If a claimant wishes to switch between income support and the jobseeker's allowance, he need only terminate one claim before the next is made. The purpose of the amendments is to make that clear and less confusing.
  Mr. Keith Bradley: I am grateful for the Minister's brief explanation of these technical amendments—I accept that they are technical. It is apposite that, today of all days, we are discussing the jobseeker's allowance because so many Conservative Members will shortly be involved in exactly that process, which is probably why there are so few in the Chamber—they are racing around seeking help for their causes.
  This is the first opportunity since the Bill returned from another place for the Government to tell us precisely why they have delayed its introduction by six months from April 1996 to October 1996. As we know, they did not have the courtesy to make a proper statement to the House, despite many attempts by me and my colleagues, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) who raised points of order, to explain why, as a result of deliberations in another place, the introduction of the Bill has been put back six months.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing not with the whole Bill but with specific Lords amendments. He must confine his remarks to them.
  Mr. Bradley: I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point is that, during deliberation on these

  579
  amendments in another place, the Government decided to delay the introduction of the Bill. I think that it is relevant in our debate on the first group of amendments to seek an explanation of why the Bill has been delayed for six months—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not convinced me. If he wishes to pursue that point, he must find another way to do so. He cannot pursue the matter on this group of amendments.
  Mr. Bradley: Again I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, the amendments change many things with which Benefits Agency staff will have to deal. The result is that the Bill's introduction has been delayed by six months. We need to know precisely why. We did not know about the chaos in which the Government now find themselves.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: My understanding is that the Labour party is opposed to the Bill. If that is the case, why are they objecting to a six-month delay in its introduction?
  Mr. Bradley: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, I shall explain the Labour party's exact position. He is right to say that any delay in this nasty piece of legislation is welcome, but we do not want legislation that we have tried to improve to fall into the same chaos as other recent Acts. The Child Support Act 1991 and the introduction of the disabled living allowance are examples of the chaos in benefit delivery that can result from inadequate consideration.
  We obviously welcome any delay that will result in the Bill's smooth introduction, even though we do not approve of its provisions. We want to ensure that Employment Service staff are fully trained and understand the implications of the amendments that are before us today. It is crucial that the computer systems—which I understand are the root cause of the problem—are running effectively.
  The amendments are part of what the Government and the other place recognise as a package of carrot-and-stick measures for the unemployed. The carrots, as the Government describe them, are the national insurance holiday for employers, the run-on of housing benefit and council tax benefit, and the Government's perception of the jobseekers agreement. However, the stick part of the package has not been delayed for six months; only the carrot parts have been delayed.
  I understand that the crucial cut in the contributory benefit from 12 to six months, the introduction of means-tested benefits at six months, and the reduction in benefit for people under 25 will go ahead in April 1996. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify that point. We must know how the delay in introducing the benefit will be dealt with in practice to ensure that people who become unemployed either side of April 1996—[Interruption.] Does the Minister wish to intervene?
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): What does any of that have to do with the amendments under discussion?
  Mr. Bradley: It is extraordinary that the Minister does not recognise that the key amendments made in another
  580
  place, which affect the whole Bill, will also have consequences when the cuts in benefit are introduced in April 1996 and when the Bill's other provisions come into effect in October 1996. Opposition Members are trying to ensure that there is full public understanding of the way in which the Bill is to be introduced, including the amendments that are before us today. I think that that is very relevant business of the House.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, whether we are talking about benefit or the jobseeker's allowance, many people will apply for jobs as groundsmen at Lords now that we have beaten the West Indies for the first time since 1957?
  Mr. Bradley: I do not wish to try your patience again, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I add the congratulations of Labour Members to the England cricket team on that victory. Perhaps Conservative Members can replicate the leadership lessons to be learned from the victory. As a Member of Parliament from the north-west, I am pleased that the England captain comes from the north-west of England.
  It is clear that the Lords amendments would add to the insecurity being experienced by people who are unemployed or who will become unemployed as a result of Government policy. We recently debated the fact that mortgage tax relief in the income support context is to be cut. That will have a dramatic effect on people's feelings of security about their homes. The unemployed will now have their contributory benefit cut to only six months and they will be forced to use their savings—whether they be redundancy pay-outs or life savings—when means-tested benefits are introduced after only six months.
  This is another example of Government policy adding to insecurity and uncertainty. It is part of a Government package that includes Lords amendments that will do nothing to create real jobs, real training and real opportunities. I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, want to know—as do we—why the Government have not had the courtesy to offer the House a proper explanation of why the Bill in its real form is being delayed until October 1996.
  Mr. Roger Evans: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate.
  Lords amendment No. 1 and those grouped with it deal with a limited, narrow, technical point and improve the drafting to streamline the Bill's operation. The wider issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned might just about have some remote connection with them.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) is right when he says that the Government are concerned to keep this major project under close scrutiny. In line with our announced intentions, we commissioned an external review to report on the project's progress. Significant progress has been made, but the review led us to conclude that an April 1996 implementation date would entail unacceptable risks to the streamlined and smooth delivery of an efficient service to the jobseeker. That is the legislation's purpose, and we did not want it put at risk.
  The announcement of the deferral was made while the Bill was being debated in the other place. That was a perfectly proper time to explain our actions.
  Ms Angela Eagle: Does the Minister agree that, if the Government did not take their legislation so

  581
  for granted, were humble enough to admit that, during the passage of legislation through both Houses, constructive and improving amendments from any part of the House might be made and did not tell civil servants to begin to implement legislation before it became law, we would not find ourselves in such a situation? Will the Minister admit that many Government amendments are made to Bills these days? Does not that indicate great change between the first and final shape of the Bill?
  Mr. Evans: Clearly the hon. Lady does not understand how the Government operate. They are humble in that sense. We proceed in three stages, which are highly relevant to this issue. First, Parliament must pass the legislation. It amends the legislation. We are doing that here and now. When Parliament has passed legislation, and not before, the delegated legislation—in the form of statutory instruments—that is to be made under a Bill must be drafted, laid and approved by Parliament.
  It might have struck the hon. Lady that, if one is designing complicated computer software to implement a project of this importance and complexity—given that software is more unforgiving than the law—that work cannot be completed until the legislation and delegated legislation have been prepared, laid and approved. We have followed that procedure. One plans and anticipates as far as one can, but it is clear that the parliamentary programme has meant an impossible burden on the software writing. The external review confirmed that was the appropriate course to take.
  Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of parliamentary procedure. He said that the regulations will be laid and approved before implementation. Will he confirm that there will be votes in the House on the regulations before the legislation takes effect?
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman took my shorthand explanation of the procedure too literally. He is well aware, after our debates in Committee, that the Bill involves a complex series of procedures for dealing with the regulations made under it. I was referring to that in short form. Of course we will go through the necessary procedures in due time. I was making the substantive point that one cannot write computer software until Parliament has determined the law. That is how government ought to operate and does operate—and how the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) wants it to operate if I understood her earlier sedentary intervention.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 3

  THE INCOME-BASED CONDITIONS
  Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 3, line 26, leave out subsection (4).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Miss Widdecombe.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 19, 21, 22, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40 and 41.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Bradley: I merely seek some guidance and clarification from the Minister. The amendments cover, among other things, prescription in regulation of the definition of training and other assistance. Following the Bill's passage through Committee and consideration in another place, there has been much discussion and debate on definition. Some organisations, especially colleges of further education, have some anxiety. They are worried about how training will be defined and how the reduction in supervised study from 21 to 16 hours will work in practice. That stems from anxiety about the amount of course skills that will be developed during the 16 hours of supervised study.
  I seek assurances that there will be further debate and further consultation with all relevant parties as the regulations are framed to ensure that all the problems that have been identified with understanding and interpreting the forthcoming regulations are taken on board. It is important that the regulations reflect the anxieties that have been expressed. We all intend that those who seek further qualification and training, and education generally, are not limited by the benefit rules. We all want successful courses that lead to real qualifications and skills, which will lead to proper jobs.
  When will the regulations on definition be laid? What consultation will the Minister undertake with the various bodies that have already been in discussions with her and her Department? Is the hon. Lady able to give us an outline of how she sees these processes unwinding over the coming months?
  Miss Widdecombe: We have decided that the move from 21 to 16 hours of part-time study will be introduced in October 1996. There will be an elongation of six months. That should assist further education colleges, about which some concern was expressed, to prepare for the changes that will be introduced. The elongation should also assist students who are considering courses.
  It is on the advice of further education colleges that we have decided to take the course that I have described and to seek a firm definition, which is best done on the basis of guided learning hours. The extension of time will make it possible for the colleges to consider the full implications. If, during that time, they wish to raise issues with us, we shall be delighted to take into account anything that they have to say.
  The substantive amendments are purely about how we define training. They are designed to tidy up the drafting of the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there were three separate powers to define training in the original Bill. Those powers have now been reduced to one composite power. That was done in response to concerns expressed by the Opposition and in another place. The amendments are purely drafting amendments.
  As I think we have explained, the intention is that we should have some definition of training along the lines of "Training for young people"—so we are talking about our 16 and 17-year-olds in this context—"provided directly or indirectly by a TEC under its operating agreement with the Secretary of State". We have specified that definition during proceedings on the Bill both in this House and in another place.
  The objective is to be able to take on board such things as modern apprenticeships and to carry forward existing arrangements and define them as training for the purposes

  583
  of the definition. As we are trying to carry forward existing arrangements and as we have already explained and debated extensively in both places how we intend to define training, I do not believe that further consultation will benefit us. That is not to rule out any organisation putting its views to us if it wishes to do so, but there will certainly be no further formal processes of consultation.
  Ms Eagle: I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister some questions about training definitions, especially as we had a fairly long debate in Committee about quality and some of the reasons for poor attendance.I wish to pick up those themes and seek some reassurance.
  Will the Minister give me some idea of how the Department would react to a course I came across the other day? I am grateful to Mr. Gerry Williams of Birkenhead for pointing it out to me. It is called the jacuzzi course and is for people who are unemployed. It is run by Merseyside TEC. The leaflet says that, on Friday afternoon,
  "you will accept a personally engraved key to your future
  complete a personal Action Plan
  receive a specifically designed certificate of attendance
  find the whole experience a piece of cake."
  It goes on to say that participants will go to the four-star Liverpool Moat House hotel, where they will start every morning at a quarter to nine. It says:
  "You must meet at 8.45 am on each day in the Jacuzzi. This is an essential part of the course so please bring your 'cossie' each day.
  Each day you will be served a top quality lunch in the hotel restaurant and you may well meet celebrities staying in the hotel."
  As enjoyable as that sounds, is it reasonable to count that as training for the purposes of the Jobseekers Bill? Should we not try to do something that is slightly more relevant?
  I would not define the jacuzzi course as training. I might define it as a nice, enjoyable thing. Perhaps the unemployed should be allowed access to the Moat House hotel, but it seems an odd use of public money. If one of my constituents was offered the jacuzzi course and said, "I would rather try to find a job or do some computer training and establish new skills," he might be told that he would lose his benefit unless he agreed to do the jacuzzi course. Perhaps the Minister could say something about the issue and tell us whether the definition of training will make the jacuzzi course compulsory.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am worried that, now that the hon. Lady has read out the details of that course, there might be more applications for it than Merseyside TEC can possibly manage. I have no details of the course. That is regrettable, because it sounds fascinating. The hon. Lady read out selected quotations. I do not know the entire picture. Therefore, I am most unwilling to comment on a particular type of course. However, I am sufficiently fascinated to look into it further. I shall write a letter about jacuzzi courses to the hon. Lady when I have established the facts.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

  AVAILABILITY FOR, AND ACTIVELY SEEKING, EMPLOYMENT
  Lords amendment: No. 6, to leave out clause 6 and insert the following new clauses—Availability for employment—
  584

  (".—(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person is available for employment if he is willing and able to take up immediately any employed earner's employment.

  (2) Subsection (1) is subject to such provisions as may be made by regulations; and those regulations may, in particular, provide that a person—

  (a) may restrict his availability for employment in any week in such ways as may be prescribed; or

  (b) may restrict his availability for employment in any week in such circumstances as may be prescribed (for example, on grounds of conscience, religious conviction or physical or mental condition or because he is caring for another person) and in such ways as may be prescribed.

  (3) The following are examples of restrictions for which provision may be made by the regulations—

  (a) restrictions on the nature of the employment for which a person is available;

  (b) restrictions on the periods for which he is available;

  (c) restrictions on the terms or conditions of employment for which he is available;

  (d) restrictions on the locality or localities within which he is available.

  (4) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which, for the purposes of this Act, a person is or is not to be treated as available for employment.

  (5) Regulations under subsection (4) may, in particular, provide for a person who is available for employment—

  (a) only in his usual occupation,

  (b) only at a level of remuneration not lower than that which he is accustomed to receive, or

  (c) only in his usual occupation and at a level of remuneration not lower than that which he is accustomed to receive, to be treated, for a permitted period, as available for employment.

  (6) Where it has been determined ("the first determination") that a person is to be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as available for employment in any week, the question whether he is available for employment in that week may be subsequently determined on a review of the first determination.

  (7) In this section "permitted period", in relation to any person, means such period as may be determined in accordance with the regulations made under subsection (4).

  (8) Regulations under subsection (4) may prescribe, in relation to permitted periods—

  (a) the day on which any such period is to be regarded as having begun in any case;

  (b) the shortest and longest periods which may be determined in any case;

  (c) factors which an adjudication officer may take into account in determining the period in any case.

  (9) For the purposes of this section "employed earner's employment" has the same meaning as in the Benefits Act.

  ACTIVELY SEEKING EMPLOYMENT
  .—(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person is actively seeking employment in any week if he takes in that week such steps as he can reasonably be expected to have to take in order to have the best prospects of securing employment.
  (2) Regulations may make provision—

  (a) with respect to steps which it is reasonable, for the purposes of subsection (1), for a person to be expected to have to take in any week;

  (b) as to circumstances (for example, his skills, qualifications, abilities and physical or mental limitations) which, in particular, are to be taken into account in determining whether, in relation to any steps taken by a person, the requirements of subsection (1) are satisfied in any week.

  (3) Regulations may make provision for acts of a person which would otherwise be relevant for purposes of this section to be disregarded in such circumstances (including circumstances constituted by, or connected with, his behaviour or appearance) as may be prescribed.
  (4) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which, for the purposes of this Act, a person is to be treated as actively seeking employment.
  (5) Regulations under subsection (4) may, in particular, provide for a person who is actively seeking employment—

  (a) only in his usual occupation,

  (b) only at a level of remuneration not lower than that which he is accustomed to receive, or

  (c) only in his usual occupation and at a level of remuneration not lower than that which he is accustomed to receive,

  to be treated, for the permitted period determined in his case for the purposes of section 6(5), as actively seeking employment during that period.
  (6) Regulations may provide for this section, and any regulations made under it, to have effect in relation to a person who has reached the age of 16 but not the age of 18 as if "employment" included "training".
  (7) Where it has been determined ("the first determination") that a person is to be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as actively seeking employment in any week, the question whether he is actively seeking employment in that week may be subsequently determined on a review of the first determination.
  (8) For the purposes of this section—
  "employment" means employed earner's employment or, in prescribed circumstances—

  (a) self-employed earner's employment; or

  (b) employed earner's employment and self-employed earner's employment; and

  "employed earner's employment" and "self-employed earner's employment" have the same meaning as in the Benefits Act.

  ATTENDANCE, INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE
  .—(1) Regulations may make provision for requiring a claimant—

  (a) to attend at such place and at such time as the Secretary of State may specify; and

  (b) to provide information and such evidence as may be prescribed as to his circumstances, his availability for employment and the extent to which he is actively seeking employment.

  (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular—

  (a) prescribe circumstances in which entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance is to cease in the case of a claimant who fails to comply with any regulations made under that subsection;

  (b) provide for entitlement to cease at such time (after he last attended in compliance with requirements of the kind mentioned in subsection (1)(a)) as may be determined in accordance with any such regulations;

  (c) provide for entitlement not to cease if the claimant shows, within a prescribed period of his failure to comply, that he - had good cause for that failure; and

  (d) prescribe—

  (i) matters which are, or are not, to be taken into account in determining whether a person has, or does not have, good cause for failing to comply with any such regulations; and

  (ii) circumstances in which a person is, or is not, to be regarded as having, or not having good cause for failing to comply with any such regulations.")

  Read a Second time.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in first proposed new clause, in subsection (2)(a), after 'prescribed;', insert—
  586
  '(aa) may restrict his availability for employment in any week by refusing employment which may reasonably be expected to impair his future career prospects;'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 6, in first proposed new clause, after subsection (2)(c) insert—
  '(cc) restrictions on the rate of remuneration of employment for which he is available;'.
  Lords amendments Nos. 8, 24, 29, 33, No. 36 and amendment (a) thereto, No. 39 and amendment (b) thereto, and No. 53.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Amendment (a) is one of a range of amendments to clause 6 to which I shall allude. Hopefully, some of my hon. Friends will also be allowed to speak to amendment (a).
  Within three hours of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition tabling amendment (a), the Prime Minister had resigned. Within 24 hours, the Foreign Secretary had announced his intention to retire, and the Secretary of State for Wales resigned today. There is no truth in the rumour that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury provided a smoking gun free of charge.
  In what will become the Redwood amendment, we should like to know where the Minister stands. Planet Vulcan is in the ascendancy, eclipsing planet Portillo, and both are on collision course for planet—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having some difficulty in relating what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the matters which are under consideration, or which ought to be under consideration.
  Mr. McCartney: I am trying to get the Minister in a relaxed mood.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is not interested in relaxing anybody. Please get to the main point.
  Mr. McCartney: After the jokes that we heard about the jacuzzi, I thought that I was speaking in the spirit of the House. However, I do not wish to incur your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I do occasionally.
  The amendment is about insecurity at work. Are the new clauses a Government apology? On Second Reading and in Committee, my hon. Friends and I made it clear that clause 6 was not only badly worded and draconian in its dealings with the unemployed, but was so wide ranging that its implementation could mean anything. Our amendments, many of which we moved in Committee, tried to elicit what was in the Government's mind, and also sought to improve the clause. We tried to ensure that, when it arrived in the other place, the principle of the Government's intention to attack the unemployed instead of unemloyment was understood.
  The clause was unamended when it went to the other place. Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members of the other place, and Cross Benchers, decided that the Government were wrong about clause 6. Therefore, the Minister owes the House and the other place an apology for the Government's arrogance in failing to recognise the weight of evidence about the way that they proceeded on the issue.
  At the heart of the matter is the Government's drive to open up the labour market and create even further work insecurity for many people. The amendment is designed to

  587
  protect people who, through no fault of their own, become unemployed for short or long periods. As a result of the legislation and the interpretation placed on clause 6 by officers of the Government, those people will have no income early in their unemployment.
  The Government have used temporary employment and other measures as arms of economic activity. Over the two years between autumn 1992 and autumn 1994, the net rise in jobs was entirely in non-permanent employment. Temporary employment grew by nearly 260,000 jobs, but total employment grew by fewer than 160,000. That means that permanent employment continued to fall.
  In December 1994, the Department of Employment admitted to me that 587,000 people were in temporary jobs because they could not find permanent work. Some 43 per cent. of all temporary workers wish to have permanent employment. Temporary work, which is increasingly dominated by fixed-term contracts that allow employers to avoid employment rights—notably on dismissal and redundancy pay—is rife. Temporary workers are excluded from long-term benefits such as occupational pension schemes and training.
  The number of people working part-time because they cannot find full-time work has increased by more than 60 per cent. in the past 10 years. There are now 850,000 involuntary part-timers in the British economy, representing about 14 per cent. of the total work force.
  Miss Widdecombe: That is a very misleading figure. The percentage of those who are in part-time work but who would prefer to have full-time jobs has been steady over the past 10 years, at between 13 and 14 per cent. There has been no change in the proportion, and the increase of which the hon. Gentleman speaks is due purely to the increase in part-time workers and the growth of the work force as a whole. The hon. Gentleman is not being entirely fair.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady has got it wrong again. During this recession, 1.7 million full-time jobs were lost. People no longer have a choice in the labour market. All they are offered is part-time or temporary work or nothing, and the Bill will deliver even more people into that scenario. Their simple choice will be a loss of benefit or a loss of career, status or income if they do not accept part-time temporary employment.
  That is a key factor in the Government's economic policy. The Minister does not like us saying that, because the Government have been rumbled by the public. That is why there is no feel-good factor in the economy. How could one feel good trying to pay rent or a mortgage or trying to develop a career in part-time employment? It cannot be done, and the Minister knows it.
  Instead of trying to reduce inequality and insecurity in the labour force, the Minister has introduced a Bill to cut benefits by £400 million a year. She will take about 90,000 off the register altogether, and another 150,000 people will have their benefits reduced by between 20 and 70 per cent. The measures are supposed to develop and improve people's employment opportunities, but that is nonsense. That has been recognised, and it is why many of the Government's social and economic policies are a shambles. The Minister cannot glibly get away from that.
  588
  According to a labour force survey, in the winter of 1994–95, there were, believe it or not, 26,000 unemployed teachers and lecturers, and 14,000 unemployed nurses and midwives. There is a crisis in education and in the health service, but tens of thousands of doctors, nurses, midwives and teachers are on the dole. What does the Bill propose to do about those people? The Minister suggests that they should be denied benefit if, for example, they refuse to take jobs in burger bars. They may be offered other low-paid jobs, which would mean that they would have to work long hours to make ends meet.
  In her perorations in Committee, the Minister did not outline her intentions. However, she said that the clause would be widely interpreted. People want to maintain the level of skills they had in their former employment, but the clause will undermine that possibility. After 13 weeks of unemployment benefit, such people will be forced into low-paid work or removed from the register, thereby being denied the right to income.
  Miss Widdecombe: What new provisions against which the hon. Gentleman rants so wildly are being introduced? At the moment, it is not permissible for somebody to turn down a job merely on the basis of its nature or the level of pay. What is new? What is in the Bill that is not already in the system and has been working well for a long time?
  Mr. McCartney: When the hon. Lady does not like what someone is saying, she describes it as a rant. She is getting boring. When someone shows a bit of passion because of an interest in people who are in difficult circumstances, the hon. Lady describes it as a rant.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman should answer the question.
  Mr. McCartney: I will answer the question, but I am surprised that I have to answer it, after all the months that we have spent on this legislation. The Government propose to reduce the period during which unemployment benefit is paid, from 12 months to six months. Instead of having 12 months to get back into their career structure, people will have only six months.
  In addition, however, the hon. Lady knows that, after 13 weeks, individuals will be asked whether they will accept another form of employment, and they will be offered part-time, temporary employment. If they do not accept it, after 13 weeks—not after 26 weeks—they will lose their right to benefit. That is the truth of the matter, and that is what the Bill is about.
  The hon. Lady should be honest about it. That is what she is proposing, both in relation to its principle, and in terms of what she said in Committee. Clause 6 is about implementing that principle of undermining people's rights to benefit where they seek appropriate work in a labour market.
  Miss Widdecombe: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, under the present rules, even if a person is on contributory benefit—and has been on it for 12 months—and if, in the course of that time, he is offered a job, he is not allowed to turn it down merely on the basis of pay levels and nature of work? What will change?
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady is wriggling and wriggling and wriggling, but she cannot get away from the concept and principle of the Bill, by which she has

  589
  reduced people's entitlement to unemployment benefit from 12 to six months, while at the same time increasing national insurance contributions. It is a matter, therefore, not only of paying more, but of getting less and being blamed for unemployment caused by the Government's crass economic policies.
  I shall give hon. Lady another figure that she might not like and that I should like her to explain. Why is it that, leading up to the introduction of the Bill, benefit disqualifications have increased by a devastating 81 per cent? In 1991–92, referrals for benefit disqualification totalled 142,300, and disqualifications totalled 68,800—a disqualification rate of 48 per cent. However, in the run-up to this legislation, with the Government already putting in place, with the Benefits Agency and others, as part of their massaging of the unemployment figures, targets for the reduction of people who could have the right to benefit, the referral rate has increased dramatically, to 200,400.
  Disqualifications, however, are up to 162,400–81 per cent. of people now referred are disqualified because of the draconian interpretation of the legislation. I shall give examples of what the Minister does in terms of her Department's political direction and the consequences for everyone in the labour market, particularly people who find great difficulty in gaining employment.
  I think that it was the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) who said on Second Reading that, if the Government provided employment measures, jobseekers would look after themselves. That is a general paraphrase, but his analysis was correct. If the Government did not stand back, but became involved with both the public and private sectors in stimulating the economy and the development of a job strategy, people who seek employment would quickly and readily seek and gain employment in the labour market.
  Even the Government's strategic surveys show that more than 80 per cent. of people seeking employment are absolutely desperate for employment, and will take almost any job at any price. The Bill is about driving them down even further, in cutting their rights to adequate training, employment levels and standards at work, including employment in terms of labour markets and the right to a minimum wage.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are considering not the whole Bill, but a group of amendments, including his own, which he is supposedly moving.
  Mr. McCartney: I am moving my amendments. Clause 6 is at the heart of the Bill. As Conservative Members will know, it contains availability for work provisions and is wide-ranging because of the amendments in another place. Our amendments are on the Order Paper. They cover a range of issues relating to the clause, they have all been accepted by the Speaker as in order, and they are contained within the family of amendments relating to the clause. I said at the beginning that I intended to refer to the other amendments that were rightly on the Order Paper. That is what I am doing, and intend to continue to do, in making my points about the Bill.
  Other fears have been expressed on the labour market system that will replace current computer systems in Employment Service job centres. It is feared that it will be
  590
  used to refer more claimants for adjudication in relation to refusing vacancies, rather than to improve the matching of claimants to suitable jobs.
  Currently, refusal of vacancies offered by the Employment Service carries a benefit sanction of up to six months, but with automatic hardship payments for those eligible for income support. Under the jobseeker's regime, those automatic hardship payments will cease, and all claimants will have to demonstrate hardship, with childless claimants banned from making an application in the first two weeks of sanction—for two weeks, they will be without any form of income.
  The figures on the strategy, even before the Bill is passed, outline the savagery of the present arrangements. After the Minister intervened, I said that the levels of referrals and disqualifications were at record levels. Those record levels will increase dramatically with the passing of the Bill, and in particular clause 6.
  It is true that, along with clause 6, the Government will utilise other connected measures to undermine and further restrict the capability of unemployed people to meet the requirements of the availability for work tests. It is astonishing that, when we should be freeing up the restrictions to make it easier for people to seek employment, the Government, through clause 6, will restrict people if they are unable to explain fully that efforts have been made to seek employment.
  Under clause 6, they will not be encouraged to seek employment; they will be undermined and will run the risk of losing benefit. That will involve people studying part-time, those looking for employment, those doing both, people with disability, and carers. On a range of issues, the clause will undermine people, and for what? Simply to cut the training budget and the benefits already paid to those in employment.
  I want to give an absolute example of what I am talking about, and why the Minister and her hon. Friends are increasingly treated with utter contempt outside this place. A constituent of mine visited me. some four weeks ago. He has living difficulties and special needs. He resides with his brother, who provides him with the support required to cope with day-to-day routine. Up to 1990, he was in regular employment, either in sheltered or semi-sheltered accommodation, or in the private sector doing unskilled work. Since then, he has been unable to find employment.
  My constituent was invited to an interview. Despite his disabilities, there was no referral to a disability officer—he was given no right to be represented, but was brought in on his own for the interview. He was asked what his wishes were in respect of employment, and he answered honestly: he wished to work in a factory or a warehouse or to find some other form of manual occupation.
  He was then asked what he meant by that, and how many hours he would like to work. He stated that he was prepared to work from 8 am until 4 pm on Monday to Friday, and from 8 am to 12 noon on Saturday—a total of 44 hours, six days a week. He said that there was no restriction on how much he should earn, but the hours were in relation to his own personal circumstances and the need for his brother to assist him to and from work. The Minister's Department has a record of sheltered accommodation.
  After supplying the information, my constituent received a letter from the Employment Service threatening his entitlement to benefit. Naturally, that caused him

  591
  concern. When he and his brother came to my advice centre, they were in a state of distress. I thought that there must have been an error—no more than that—and that it could not be true. My constituent had offered to work 44 hours a week, six days a week. He did not give a level of income—he would take whatever was provided to him.
  The acting senior adjudication manager wrote to me. The letter states:
  "Any person who claims unemployment benefit must be capable of and available for work."
  Fine.
  "However, if they … impose restrictions on the nature of the work they will accept, or the hours they will work, or the rate they will accept, or the locality of the employment, or any other conditions they are prepared to accept, they would not be entitled to unemployment benefit … unless they can show that they have reasonable prospects of finding work within the restrictions".
  The restrictions are: being willing to work 44 hours, six days a week, for any amount of money. My constituent did not ask for travelling time, or even for time off or lunch breaks—nothing. All he asked for was a reasonable time so that he could be assisted back home because of his disabilities.
  The letter continued:
  "The person who interviewed"
  my constituent
  "explained that employers who employ people for the types of work that he was looking for…mainly require greater flexibility in day time hours than those stated on the form and often require shift work."
  So six days, 44 hours, a week, are not enough any more.
  The letter continued:
  "In"
  my constituent's
  "case there is no evidence in the papers we have to show that the only reason he can work from 8 am to 4 pm Monday to Friday and 8 am to 12 noon on Saturday is because of his physical or mental condition."
  My constituent was refused benefit, he has lost all right to an income, and his elderly brother now has to look after him on his meagre income. Is that.really the way the employment market must operate? It is a consequence of the Minister's policies. That is the reality.
  5 pm
  Miss Widdecombe: Given the rather unsatisfactory state of affairs resulting from the facts as the hon. Gentleman has stated them, why did not he make me aware of the case? Will he now do so, and allow me to examine it?
  Mr. McCartney: I shall certainly send the case to the hon. Lady. Is she now giving the commitment that, when hon. Members submit cases and questions to her, she will not refer them to the chief executive of the agency? Will she no longer say, "The chief executive will answer, because this is not my responsibility"?
  She cannot have it both ways. She knows that, as a matter of course, she and her colleagues refer Members' complaints and cases back to the person to whom we originally complained. The hon. Lady cannot wriggle out of the embarrassment of her policies with the weak, limp excuse that I should have written to her. The case is a consequence of her policies.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his continuing generosity in giving way, if not for the generosity of his comments. As a courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, I offered to look carefully at the case. In the first instance, anything that refers to the way in which a particular case has been handled in a particular employment office would go to the Employment Service. However, that is not to say that a Minister would never become involved.
  On the broader point, will the hon. Gentleman admit that he is making the case for the Bill? It specifies 40 hours general availability, and the jobseeker's agreement will set out the exact times that people can work. Agreements can be made about restrictions. I have already particularly quoted disability as a reason for a restriction. If the restriction is not acceptable, the case can go through a process of adjudication. Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman now admit that he is making the case for the Bill?
  Mr. McCartney: To be perfectly frank, that is an absolutely silly comment. The current regulations are replicated in the Bill. The hon. Lady knows that the gentleman in my case already has current rights because of his disability. The problem is the Government's constant drive to undermine people's rights to benefit. Instead, they should be doing something about the high unemployment level. The Department is taking draconian action, even against the most vulnerable in the community who are seeking employment. It beggars belief that the hon. Lady should suggest that the case I have cited makes the case for the Bill.
  The clause is all about continuing draconian measures and leaving people vulnerable to the possibility of losing their rights to benefit over a whole range of circumstances, including disability. The reason we raised the issue in Committee and again today is that the Minister has not even convinced the disability groups that the Bill's proposals will protect people with disabilities—especially the changes in incapacity benefit. Those changes, together with this clause, are a major attack on people with disabilities in the labour market.
  I want to deal now with the question of restrictions and the rate of remuneration for employment. Our amendment in this respect goes to the heart of the Government's policies in the labour market. We know that the Government want the longest working hours in Europe—and they have achieved that, after 16 years. We know that the Government want the least holiday entitlement in Europe—they have achieved that after 16 years. We know that the Government want the poorest pensions in Europe—they have achieved that after 16 years. We know that they want the highest levels of insecurity in Europe—they have achieved that after 16 years. Finally, they want to impose the lowest pay in Europe. Britain's wage rates are still just above those of the new entrants to the European Union, but the Government plod on regardless.
  The final piece of the Government's jigsaw to deregulate the labour market and introduce insecurity in the marketplace is their wish to drive down pay rates. As part of their strategy, they have removed the legal right of young people under 21 not to be paid paltry wages and salaries. They have abolished the wages councils and inspectorates that helped to protect millions of workers. As a result, in real terms the Government have driven down the wages of many people, among them the most vulnerable workers, in many sectors of the economy.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I hope that my hon. Friend intends to comment on the latest developments in Government policy—to force people to take out insurance policies against unemployment.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right—the Government believe that the market can resolve anything and everything. Of course, the vast majority of unemployed people cannot afford insurance. The Government are also trying to force people to take out mortgage insurance policies. They want to opt out—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the matter that is being considered. I suggest that he continues with the main thrust of his argument.
  Mr. McCartney: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am too soft with hon. Members, and allow them to take me down highways and byways. I shall try to be a little tougher with interventions.
  After 16 years of Tory government, the bottom tenth of the population is 17 per cent. worse off in absolute terms than when the Conservative party took office. The proportion of households living in poverty has tripled, from 7 to 24 per cent. since the late 1970s. Some 300,000 people earn less than £1.50 an hour. At least 1.3 million people earn less than £2.50 an hour. Women are badly hit by low pay, with almost 700,000 of them earning less than £2.50 an hour.
  In every region of Britain where unemployment is high, there is low pay—whether it be Yorkshire, Humberside, the north, London, the east or the west midlands, the eastern region or the south-west of England. High unemployment goes hand in hand and side by side with low pay.
  We now know that, between 1984 and 1994, there has been an increase of more than 1 million people holding down two—sometimes even three—part-time or temporary jobs just to make ends meet. A further 4.5 million people earn so little that they live on or below the poverty line. That is the reality, after 16 years of the Tory Government's economic miracle.
  Young people are also badly hit. One in three earn less than the national insurance threshold of £57 a week. Eight out of 10 jobs for 16-year-olds, and seven out of 10 for 17-year-olds, now pay less than £2 an hour. Since 1990, hourly pay rates have fallen in real terms by 15 per cent. for 16-year-olds and by 11 per cent. for 17-year-olds. Low pay is not an accident; it is a central feature of Tory economic policy. It is a central feature of the Bill. The Government, through the Bill, will drive down wages even -further.
  I want to refer to the hypocrisy of the Government and their absolute audacity in saying on the one hand that they want to introduce a minimum wage, while on the other giving support to people like Iain Valiance, the chairman of British Telecom, who earns £383 an hour—more than the 1.3 million to whom I referred earn in four weeks; and to Cedric Brown—good old Cedric—the chief executive of British Gas, who earns £9,838.50 per week, what those 1.3 million people earn in two years.
  Lord Young, the former Tory Cabinet Minister who is chairman of Cable and Wireless, attacked teachers for their greed earlier this year. Lord Young earns more in one month than those 1. 3 million people earn in a decade. Lord Younger, another former Tory Cabinet Minister—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I must remind him that, although this group of amendments is reasonably wide, it is certainly not wide enough to include extended references such as the hon. Gentleman is making.
  Mr. McCartney: The heart of the Bill and the jobseeker's agreement is that people will be required to indicate before they get benefit what level of pay they will work for. The Government will take measures in respect of those at the lowest level of income to ensure that those people work for £1 an hour or less. Those at the upper level—those who earn more in a month than millions of people earn in a decade—suffer no restrictions on their incomes, and are in fact encouraged.
  That is why it is important to highlight not just the hypocrisy of the measure, but the social injustice and unfairness of it. The British people will be outraged if the Bill goes through tonight without an appropriate debate about how the Government defend the rights of fat cats while undermining the rights of the low paid.
  The Secretary of State for Employment, whom I have renamed the Secretary of State for greed and privilege, is a vociferous opponent of the amendment, which is a precursor to a minimum wage. The right hon. Gentleman earns £1,304.21 a week; more than 15 million Britons earn in a month. The Government have no shame at all when it comes to this issue.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: My hon. Friend may not be aware that a lemonade factory in my constituency is paying folk who have worked in the place for 20 years £1.90 an hour. There is a sweetie factory not far from my home which nearly pays its workers in sweeties—they are paid £2 an hour. One woman—a top confectioner with about 30 years' experience—went to work at the factory and was told that she was to be given a short-term contract. After that contract was finished, she was to be given £2.50 an hour. It is mind-boggling that, the Government are allowing our folk to be paid in sweeties.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill will provide unscrupulous employers with a large number of unemployed people from local labour markets who can be paid on or below benefit levels. There is no minimum level in respect of the right to refuse employment measure under the legislation, which means that the Secretary of State is telling unscrupulous employers that they can offer through his Department a range of jobs—full-time, part-time or temporary, it does not matter—with pay on or below the level of benefit. The Department will secure a number of people from the ranks of the unemployed to take those jobs. That is deeply anti-competitive, as well as unfair.
  What about the local employers in the labour market who pay decent wages, train people and have proper standards? They will be undermined by the proposal, which is about not just social unfairness and injustice but economic strategy. The Bill shows us why we need to invest in people and in the research and development of goods and services. People should not compete for skivvy pay in skivvy jobs and insecurity at work. That is the difference between the Opposition and the Minister.
  Ms Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that paying people such low wages undermines the national insurance system, as so many people earn under the threshold and

  595
  will not pay into the system? Not only does the Bill undermine the national insurance system by means-testing benefit for the first time: it completely destabilises the system, because so many people will simply not earn enough to make contributions.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is a part of the long-term strategy of the Government. The Bill is essentially an enabling piece of legislation—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman—not for the first time—that we are considering not the whole Bill, but a group of amendments.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) was making a point about the £57 national insurance contribution threshold. Under the clause with which the amendment deals, individuals who refuse to take up employment at or below—sometimes significantly below—the benefit level will lose their right to benefit. That is the point that my hon. Friend was making.
  The scheme will result in a net loss to the Exchequer from national insurance, which the Government want to make up by private insurance schemes. That is why I said that the Bill forms part of a wider agenda to rid ourselves of the whole principle of contributory benefits and replace them with private sector insurance.
  Is it not astonishing that someone who gets over the first hurdle and says that he will work for wages on or below the benefit level is not given the key to opportunity or success, or a guarantee of employment or a training scheme? Not at all. If they are 18 to 24 years old, they are guaranteed that they will immediately lose 20 per cent. of their current benefit. For co-operating with the Government and agreeing to accept wages below £2 or £1 an hour, that person is fined £499.
  An 18 to 24-year-old who has a partner working full-time and who agrees to accept all the restrictions placed on him by the Government is not congratulated or thanked—not a bit of it. He loses £1,457, or 60 per cent. of his income. For simply agreeing to participate in the jobseeker's measures, those who already have the lowest incomes and who are living in absolute poverty have a 60 per cent. cut in their income.
  How do the Government expect these families to live? How-can they possibly live on the same level of income for a year that Sir Iain Valiance receives in just over an hour? It is astonishing that the Government believe that people in Britain will accept such purgatory as we come to the millennium.
  Those who are aged 25 and over and who are working full-time will lose 50 per cent. of their benefit. Those of a similar age who have £8,000 savings—those who have done what the Government asked them to do, and who have tried to save when they worked, and to get redundancy if they lost their jobs—lose 70 per cent. of their income. That is scandalous.
  For all those reasons, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment. If Conservative Members are serious about ridding this country of
  596
  inequality and insecurity, and about investing to create employment and success while not taxing for failure, they should also support the amendment.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: New clause 6—which Lords amendment No.6 incorporates—is the core of the Bill. A range of highly contentious propositions in the Bill are found there.
  I am concerned that the requirement that a jobseeker should be available for any employment may have some miserable consequences, and I take it that the amendment to which the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has just spoken has been tabled with that thought very much in mind.
  I fear that the requirement to be available for any employment will lead to more poverty in work. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would clarify to the House—perhaps other hon. Members know the answer—whether it is the Government's policy that the jobseeker should be required to accept jobs that pay below the income support or jobseeker's allowance rate. If that is the case, there will be some very worrying implications, and it will certainly lead to much destitution and suffering. My hon. Friend may wish to respond to that point when she winds up.
  If that were to be the Government's policy, it would also lead to a deterioration in the quality of our economy. We would be moving towards a low-pay, low-skill and low-productivity economy. Such a strategy would carry with it mounting costs in terms of social security, health expenditure and expenditure on law and order—the very escalation in public expenditure which my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to avert.
  Some of our most modern and, indeed, best-known employers will be all too ready to exploit the absence of any floor to pay. We hear, for example, of the phenomenon which is, I believe, known as reservism, whereby a person is taken on—employed—by, for example, a retailer, but has to wait by the telephone for the moment at which he or, more commonly, she may be required. Such people have to be available for 40 hours, but they are expected to work for only 15 hours. The particular difficulty is that it becomes impossible for those employees to put together a portfolio of earnings that is sufficient to keep.them in decency and dignity.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am becoming increasingly puzzled by references by the Opposition and now by my hon. Friend to changes in the law. There is currently no floor underneath somebody's right to refuse a job. If we do not have adverse effects at the moment, why, if there is no change, does my hon. Friend believe that there will be substantial adverse effects in the future?
  Mr. Howarth: I would have hoped that my right hon. and hon. Friends would have taken advantage of this legislative opportunity to ensure positively that the eventualities that I apprehend do not occur.
  Consideration of availability for employment necessitates consideration of the policies and regulations on study and training. We need to upgrade our labour force—in the words of Disraeli, to
  "elevate the condition of the people."
  I fear that the Bill fails to take the opportunity that it might to do that. The Labour party's amendment (a) is also germane to education and training.

  597
  The proposed new clause, the subject of the Lords amendment, requires a jobseeker to be immediately available for work. My right hon. and hon. Friends have given some considerable attention to the relationship between study and benefits under the jobseeker's allowance. I fear, however, that they may have missed the opportunity for a thorough-going reform of this area of policy. That is what is needed, because we must make up our minds that we are going to invest in our nation's skills and in the intellectual quality of our labour force. Today's labour market requires literacy, numeracy, ever-greater degrees of intellectual sophistication and, of course, a capacity to handle with ease information technology, as well as personal confidence and adaptability. All that argues for higher and higher levels of education and training.
  Long-term unemployment is certainly concentrated among those who have few or no qualifications. I, like Opposition Members, fear that our society may be polarising, essentially between those who have fared well in the education system and those who have not. A Tory Government cannot wish to promote such polarisation.
  I put it to my right hon. and hon. Friends that it will cost the taxpayer more in the long term if we fail to invest in education and training. Even from the point of view of the Treasury, that must make sense. I recognise, of course, that there are difficulties in using the jobseeker's allowance as a means of subsistence for students in a range of circumstances. The job of Ministers, however, is to overcome the difficulties to achieve the purposes that, we are all agreed, are desirable. We need much more flexibility built into the system. We need bridges at least between the system of grants for education, the system of funding for training that comes from the Department of Employment and the benefits system. I cannot see that we are using the opportunity of policy-making in the Bill to achieve that kind of constructive integration.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends may fear that, if we invested, through whatever system, more extensively in education and training, there would be a terrible visitation by the financial markets because the Government would be found guilty by the markets of letting public expenditure rip. I strongly suspect that international investors would prefer to invest in an economy that was upgrading its skills and intellectual capacity than in an economy that was devaluing them. I have been puzzled, therefore, by the decision to cut the training budget and by the rumour which is now circulating that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has offered the Chief Secretary to the Treasury a further cut in his Department's budget in this year's public expenditure negotiations.
  Come what may, we must extend to all improved education and training opportunities. We must extend them to the low-paid, to people working in small businesses, to people doing part-time work and to people who have hitherto been poorly educated. Nowadays, we are not bad at providing better opportunities for those who are already relatively successful and advantaged, but we must ensure that these opportunities are extended throughout our society and our labour force.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not be too preoccupied with the few who may "study" as a device to avoid work. The huge majority of the unemployed want to be able to work and they want to be able to work in better jobs.
  598
  I know that my hon. Friend the Minister envisages that, as a result of the changes that she has introduced, including the change from a 21-hour to a 16-hour rule, no fewer people will have the opportunity for study while they are unemployed than at present. We should, however, be trying to bring to many more people that kind of opportunity. It is getting easier for us to do so, if we want to, because of the development of modular courses and because of the new technologies, such as cable, that people are able to access to learn. We can now break out of some of the old rigidities in our approach and find new ways in which to make education and training a positive outcome, in the jargon, in terms of the Department's policies.
  It is now quite safe to ignore the whole question of hours of study and to ignore the distinction, which is becoming increasingly blurred, between full-time and part-time study. We need the jobseeker's agreement to take sensible account of the studies and the upgrading of skills on which unemployed people embark and we need, of course, the colleges, the further and higher education institutions, to be flexible in helping people to continue to study once they are back in work.
  The hon. Member for Makerfield spoke about the "permitted period" when considering career prospects and skills. It seems to me that the existing 13-week permitted period, which the Government intend to carry forward in the new system, in which a jobseeker is allowed, without forfeit, to look for a job that matches his skills and experience, is too short. It seems to me prodigal and destructive that, after only 13 weeks, we should set aside the accumulated skills and experience that someone has built up over, perhaps, quite a long working life.
  I now turn to some of the exemptions that occur under the proposed new clause and, in particular, under proposed subsection (2)(b). I welcome the Government's recognition that in certain circumstances, the physical or mental condition of a jobseeker ought to entitle that person to some exemption from the full rigours of the requirement to be available for work.
  We need clarification and one of our problems is that we do not have the regulations under the Bill before us, so it is difficult to judge what the policy may mean in precise terms. We understand that the Government expect 190,000 people to appeal against a decision to refuse them incapacity benefit. It might take about 26 weeks for appeals to be heard, during which time they have an option to sign on, but being to some extent disabled they might find it difficult to fulfil the requirements to be available for and actively seeking work, or to claim income support, but only at 80 per cent.
  5.30 pm
  The Minister in another place, Lord Mackay, said that, rather than changing the rules, one must act with sensitivity in each case, which is an attractive idea but would be a break with precedent, judging by the history of what has occurred with invalidity benefit and people appealing against refusal. They have not always found officials in jobcentres as sensitive as my noble Friend would wish. If I can catch the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for a moment, I would be grateful if she could tell us clearly in her reply whether an appeal against refusal of incapacity benefit would prejudice a claim for jobseeker's allowance.
  New clause 6 also touches on the delicate question of behaviour and appearance. While I recognise the Government's valid concern that some people who claim

  599
  the benefit and pretend to be looking for work will present themselves so offensively that no right-minded employer would take them on, we may be exaggerating the danger and giving Employment Service officials a licence for officiousness. So I have a third request of my hon. Friend the Minister.
  Will she undertake that officials will not deprive any jobseeker of benefit because they find their behaviour objectionable on the grounds of religious practice or sexuality, or on grounds of appearance—for example, the length of their hair? May I have an assurance from my hon. Friend that in no circumstances will it be tolerable for officials to deprive people of benefit on such subjective and prejudiced grounds? I am sure that that is the Government's intention, but it would be helpful to have it on the record.
  The Bill's provisions allow much scope for officiousness and for a martinetish or even bullying approach on the part of officials. The huge majority would not conduct themselves in such a way, but the requirements on attendance, for example, lend themselves to that danger.
  The new clause also provides for penalties. The legislation already involves penalties on a much broader scale. People who are unemployed for a year will find that they lose between 20 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the benefit that they would have had under the old system. As has been said, people will lose contributory benefit after six months instead of 12 and will find themselves in the poverty trap that much earlier. There is some anxiety about the adult dependant's allowance disappearing from contributory benefit and about the lower rate of benefit for the under-25s being transferred from income support to contributory benefit.
  Penalties already exist in a certain sense, but there will be penalties in another. They may be draconian and could be administered somewhat arbitrarily. If, for example, a single person under 25 is penalised and finds herself on only 60 per cent. of the jobseeker's allowance, it will amount to only £22.10 a week, which is awfully little to live on. If an official thinks that a single person—or a childless couple—is insufficiently energetic in the search for work, he may even refuse a hardship payment. Even someone who has contributed to national insurance might be without income on the mere doubt of an employment officer. That does not seem to be the highest state of the welfare state.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will think carefully about the application of penalties to people in the 50-plus and certainly the 55-plus age group. At the moment, that age group is expected to be active in the search for work, but for all too many people in the group the jobs are not there and it would be cruel to require such people to go on that dismal merry-go-round.
  I am less optimistic than I might be about how the system will work in practice because of the annual performance agreement with the Employment Service and the target set for officials to challenge a certain proportion of claims to benefit.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister knows well, I dislike the substance of the Bill. The little that it will do to promote employment or to save money does not redeem it. It sets aside the national insurance contract—[Interruption.] It is nice of the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for
  600
  Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), to sit beside me and keep me company, but I have a little more to say and must detain the House for a few more minutes. I hope that he will not mind too much. I appreciate the fact that other hon. Members want to speak and I know that that is his concern.
  It is even more astonishing that contributory benefits should be reduced in a year when contributions have risen. The Government have altered the terms of that contract and have introduced an agreement of a different kind in the Bill—the jobseeker's agreement. I have never heard, however, of an agreement or a contract that falls to be arbitrated by one of the parties to it and under which one party may impose penalties. In such circumstances, to talk of a jobseeker's agreement is an abuse of language in an abuse of power.
  If the substance of the Bill is objectionable, so too is the manner of the enactment. We are indebted to the admirable House of Lords Select Committee—the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee—and to members of that unreformed and unelected House for amendments Nos. 36 and 39, which deal with the regulation-making powers. Members of the House of Lords have proved more vigilant in the defence of the liberties of the people than the people's elected House of Commons, and it is by no means the first time.
  The power of the Select Committee's arguments in its reports was such that the Government bowed to their Lordships' insistence that clause 6 be re-committed. I appreciate and welcome the fact that the Government agreed to rewrite it, to fill out the definitions and to make regulations under it subject to the affirmative procedure. That is as well, because clause 6 still provides large powers to make regulations to control the practical implications of the requirements to be available for work and actively to seek it.
  As the Minister in another place, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, acknowledged, the Bill is a skeleton Bill. Paragraph 16 of the memorandum from the Departments of Employment and Social Security to the House of Lords Select Committee stated:
  "The Bill has 87 subsections and 17 paragraphs of Schedule 1 which contain powers to create delegated legislation."
  The Bill would effectively give the Government carte blanche to determine policy as they will.
  Is it right for Parliament to delegate law-making powers so extensively? Under most sections of the Bill, regulations will still be approved under the negative resolution procedure, even after these amendments. In effect, that means on the nod. Whatever the Government want will be approved by Parliament automatically, unless it is one of the few pieces of secondary legislation that is prayed against.
  This is not trivial legislation, nor should our responsibility in the House be taken lightly. Clause 6, which deals with the requirement to be available for work and seek work actively, is but one important section of the Bill. Clause 4 creates the power to set the amount of the jobseeker's allowance. The Select Committee suggested that the decision on that should be by affirmative resolution, but the amendment was not made. The Government's memorandum argues that that is in accordance with precedent under social security legislation, but that does not seem to be a convincing case for the negative resolution procedure. The affirmative resolution procedure takes more of our time and it runs against the spirit of the times to allow that. The Jopling reforms—more timetabling of debates

  601
  and fewer late sittings—are seductive and are supposed to present us as a more modern and businesslike assembly, but our job is to scrutinise the Executive's policies and hold them to account.
  The regulation-making powers under clause 16 might also have been amended here so that they would be under the affirmative procedure. This clause creates the most draconian powers for adjudication officers to impose benefit sanctions on those whom they regard as recalcitrant, who may have broken benefit rules or left employment voluntarily. The penalties can be extremely severe: officials have the power to impose disqualification from the jobseeker's allowance for up to 26 weeks. The very language of the memorandum, describing such action as "misdeeds", should alert us to the need to keep control of the use of such powers. The memorandum acknowledges that the use of regulations to prescribe periods of sanction is an innovation, which is all the more reason for Parliament to act cautiously in conferring such powers.
  What we have, however, is a proposal not only that the Government should have an untrammelled power to promulgate regulations, but that those regulations should give huge discretion to employment and adjudication officers. If such powers are to be granted by Parliament at all, they should be granted only by affirmative resolution and be renewable rather than indefinite.
  Ms Eagle: I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's speech and agree with almost all of it. Does he agree that local members of the Employment Service want nothing to do with those arbitrary powers? I have the impression that they, too, feel uncomfortable with them and realise that the Bill places them in a difficult position. They want to help people in a positive way to get back to work rather than to police them, which is what those clauses suggest they should do.
  Mr. Howarth: I am sure that the hon. Lady is right. Decent officials will approach those powers with diffidence and wish to use their powers as constructively and benignly as they can. But I fear that, if officials are invested with ill-defined and arbitrary powers, including powers to impose severe sanctions, some may slide, almost subconsciously, into using those powers to excess. As a law-making body, it is our responsibility adequately to define the powers which servants of the state are entitled to use.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment recently spoke forcefully of
  "the need for the British people to take the decisions which affect their daily lives in the Parliament which they elect".
  He was referring, of course, to our claims of parliamentary sovereignty against the predatory institutions of the European Union. In the same speech he suggested that the Conservative party had a unique capacity to respond to that need. If a Conservative Government introduce legislation on this model and we, as Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, are so effete as to hand over law-making powers wholesale to the Executive, we abuse the institution that we profess to cherish.
  There has been a vast increase in secondary legislation, particularly in the past 10 years. In the 15 years from 1970–85, an average of 2,000 statutory instruments were made each year. Since 1985, the number has risen steadily from 2,080 in that year to 3,334 in 1994.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman must be hard
  602
  of hearing this afternoon. We are not here to review the number of statutory instruments that have been made. I assure him that I know better than anybody how many there have been. We are dealing with amendment No. 6 and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would return to it.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Howarth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that you speak with feeling.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) is speaking to one of our amendments, which deals precisely with regulation and how the House should deal with it. Amendments Nos. 36(a) and 39(a) are grouped on the Order Paper with new clause 6. I hope that that is helpful.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling me what the amendments are about. I hope that he will do me the courtesy of recognising that I read the amendments before coming to the Chamber. I repeat my complaint: we are not here to review the total number of statutory instruments in this Parliament. I hope that that line of argument will be desisted from.
  Mr. Howarth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am about to move on. My hon. Friend the Whip will be pleased to know that I am about to draw my observations to a close. Amendments Nos. 36 and 39 are in this group and deal specifically with secondary legislation and the use of the affirmative or negative resolution procedure.
  All secondary legislation is unamendable, and the vast majority is not even considered by the House. No wonder my right hon. Friends are against constitutional change, when our present constitution and the directions in which political energies run enable them to legislate whatever they will. We have seen a rolling back not of the frontiers of the state but of parliamentary accountability. Against that background, I tabled the Human Rights Bill, which was passed in another place. It would provide some protection for those who may be threatened by this Bill, particularly through article 4(2). However, that debate is for another day.
  The Bill creates large and potentially dangerous new powers for the state, bearing particularly on those who are most defenceless: the unemployed. It behoves us as Members of Parliament to champion those who most need champions. We do it in our surgeries and we should do it here.
  I find both the substance and the manner of this legislation profoundly unacceptable. Today's proceedings do not provide another opportunity to vote against the principles of the Bill but, while we secure limited improvements in the Lords amendments—we should thank the other place for them—we should reflect deeply on the progressive abdication by the House of Commons of our constitutional role of holding the Executive to account.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: Last time I followed the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), I had to admit that it was a pleasure and a privilege. It is getting a bit boring because this is the second time I have followed him and again I have to say that I agree with much of what he

  603
  said. He is a lone voice—I wish that he were a chorus—on the Conservative Back Benches in trying to persuade Ministers to reconsider their legislation.
  Interestingly, in the Minister's interventions, both in the hon. Gentleman's speech and in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), her defence was that the Bill did nothing new but was simply enforcing existing practices and regulations. That defence was made by the noble Lord Mackay in another place and subsequently led to this new clause. Of the original clause 6, he said:
  "Our intention was merely to provide for a more direct route through regulations rather than through the indirect route of treating or deeming people available or not available which legislation has until now employed."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 May 1995; Vol. 564, c. 200.]
  The concern of my constituents and of many Opposition Members is that that direct route will lead to a loss of benefit, and that the purpose of the Bill is to deprive more people of their benefits. The direct route means a more rigorous application of the principles enshrined in previous legislation and regulations, the application of which has bedevilled the House, not only in this day and age, but in previous ages.
  The Minister was right in one fundamental respect: there is nothing new in what is proposed. The concept of the terms "available for employment" and "actively seeking employment" is not new to our legislation. It has a long and rather inglorious legislative pedigree. It started in 1921. I read with fascination, in preparing for the debate, the arguments of the 1920s—from 1921 to 1930. Arguments were made during that time which were identical to those that have worried and created queasiness in the other place.
  That is why the Lords made the Government change new clause 6. They were worried about the way in which those words would be interpreted, applied and, more importantly, enforced by officials on the ground. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon argued that point very effectively.
  I come from and represent a group of communities with long-standing, vivid and bitter memories of the early application of the active availability for employment and seeking work qualification for benefit. A generation of people in my constituency can remember being called before courts of referees, insurance officers and local employment committees to prove in detail the efforts that they had made to obtain work at a time when 65 per cent. of the people in those communities were out of work.
  I say to the Minister, the reason why we treat the Bill with suspicion—I am not convinced by what she and other Ministers have said that the Bill and the clause are not designed to enforce much more rigorously the application of the actively seeking work regulations and so on—is that we already have a long history and memory of the experiences of a whole generation, and we are witnessing in 1995 an eery re-application of those arguments and principles to the extent that they were applied in 1925.
  I have read through the earlier legislation, the debates and arguments and the application. The chairman of the court of referees for Rhymney in 1929 said, of the application of legislation very similar to that which is before us, that its task was to go into the
  604
  "state of the applicant's mind".
  I believe that much of the jobseeker's agreement and the questionnaires are designed to try to do exactly the same thing: they seek to discover the state of the applicant's mind and his attitude towards employment and work.
  Curiously, in the 1920s and 1930s the legislation led first to mass-scale coaching by the trade union movement to help people get through those questionnaires. I wonder whether in the 1990s we shall have a curious repetition of behaviour and administrative practices that we believed had long gone.
  Shall we have citizens advice bureaux and individual members of trade unions advising people how to fill in those questionnaires, how to cope with the new jobseeker's agreement and how to ensure that they are not caught out in the interrogations by the new officials in applying the new regulations, or applying the old regulations in a specific way? I have a horrible feeling that in some ways we are being dragged back to the 1920s and 1930s rather than carried into the next century in terms of legislation and regulations and their application.
  I have a sneaking feeling that in part the aim of the Bill and of the provisions in the clause is similar to the aim of the legislation of the 1920s. The legislation of the 1920s was not—and I do not believe that the Bill is—designed to help people into employment, to take a positive view. I believe that behind it is a cost-cutting exercise, aimed at reducing the number of those able to claim benefit. It has been accompanied by a savage cut in unemployment benefit, anyway. They have gone hand in hand.
  The House may be interested to know that, curiously, the original words devised in the legislation—making it necessary to prove that one was seeking employment—were really designed to make fewer women eligible for unemployment insurance benefit. After the first world war, as a result of working in munitions factories during that war, a large number of women were entitled to unemployment insurance benefit. Because the numbers were increasing, much of the legislation in the 1920s and 1930s was designed to take away from women the right to claim unemployment insurance benefit. Moreover, it succeeded and 250,000 women lost their rights as a result of that legislation.
  I wonder whether there will be an eery repetition in the 1990s, at the tail end of the century, in the application of the new regulations, in the new attitude and in the new conditions of availability for work or the active seeking of employment. I wonder how the legislation will be applied to women and their rights to unemployment benefit. I wonder whether, 70 years later, we shall witness, in a new style, the attitudes and approaches that the communities that I represent still vividly remember being experienced by the generation of most of the old-age pensioners in my constituency. We therefore have every right to suspect the weasly words and the pretence that the Bill and the new clause do nothing new.
  I will tell you another thing that the Bill does, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We should not bring in that type of Bill at this moment, in a labour market which, in the communities that I represent, I have never known to be so disoriented and to have so many difficulties and problems.
  The concept of "actively seeking employment" and the ruling out of the idea that one should seek employment suitable to one's skills or one's experience is meaningless

  605
  in the context of the community in my constituency, which has lost all its mining jobs, which has experienced a severe shrinking of the number of jobs in manufacturing, and where training opportunities have been thrown into disarray. Not only has there been destruction of apprenticeship schemes of the kind and character that made post-war Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney a skilled community, but people do not know what skills they need now.
  There is a genuine question as to what kind of skills and training required to meet the needs of a local or a national economy at the end of the century. Yet apparently those are the tests that will be applied to decide whether a person will continue to be entitled to a jobseeker's allowance and whether he is meeting his requirements under his jobseeker's agreement. We do not want to be dragged back and we certainly do not want the enforced application of rules and regulations of that kind in a fluid and difficult labour market of the kind and character represented by Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
  As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon argued very effectively, to those people may well be added hundreds, if not thousands, even in my local community, of people in their mid-fifties losing their invalidity benefit, not qualifying for the new incapacity benefit and being driven back into the labour market. I would like the Minister to say when she replies whether, as I assume will be the case, a person in that category, having found that he or she does not qualify under the new incapacity benefit and loses their existing invalidity benefit, in order to gain any form of benefit at all from the age of 54 up to the age of 58 will have to write out a new jobseeker's agreement. Will he or she be expected to sign on some dotted line as to what efforts he or she—often having been out of the labour market for two to three years—has made to find work so as to be able to collect some form of benefit?
  We have a right to question Ministers whether it is right to introduce that specific measure, at this moment, against the background of the labour market and against the background of the demotivated younger generation that, I am sorry to say, exists in my region. The parents of those young people were made redundant when they believed that they had secure jobs, and they feel angry and disaffected about work, jobs, employment and training. Sadly, youngsters entering the labour market in Merthyr and Rhymney feel the same.
  Great changes have occurred in our community. I took the trouble to check the local vacancies at the Merthyr jobcentre. There are about 457 vacancies. The mixture of jobs available is interesting. It is certainly very different from what once would have been available in a community such as mine. I suppose that those vacancies reveal the new diverse economy that Ministers are so happy to describe.
  Just over a quarter of the vacancies are for jobs in factories, engineering or fitting—the sort of well-known occupations in which the middle-aged generation in my community have experience and skills. The rest of the vacancies are for interesting jobs such as chefs, or in office work, service work and, of course, as security guards—a growing employment sector. I have already told hon. Members about the vacancy for a security job which paid £1.80 an hour and where applicants were told they had to "bring your own dog". If one did not have a suitable dog, would that be a justifiable reason for not accepting such employment?
  606
  6 pm
  Such are the stupidities and the bizarre situations that the Bill and new clause throw up. We therefore have every reason to question whether the mechanistic approach taken by the Bill, and prescribed in some detail in the new clause—it will be prescribed in much more detail in the jobseeker's questionnaire—is the right way to provide jobs and opportunities for our people, who have, in many cases, been out of work for so long. I doubt that. I doubt the motives behind the Bill and I do not think that it offers a positive view about employment. I believe that it is born out of the nasty, mean-minded spirit which has characterised so much of the Government's legislation. For that reason, I shall certainly vote against the Lords amendment.
  Ms Liz Lynne: It is frustrating to have to confine myself to one group of amendments, but I will do my best.
  The Bill is not very different from the one which left this House: even though people in the other place tried to change it, the results are minor and I do not believe that they are enough. The Bill should be scrapped, but we cannot debate that proposition now.
  The Bill attacks the unemployed and its implementation is likely to be extremely costly. The Government have not provided a proper breakdown of the figures, but have merely offered a blanket figure of the costs involved. I should like to know how much it will cost to implement the jobseeker's agreement and I should be grateful if the Minister would give that answer when she replies to the debate.
  The group of amendments relate to how the expressions "availability for employment" and "actively seeking employment", are defined. In the original Bill those expressions were to be given
  "such meaning as may be prescribed."
  I know that there should be a balance between flexibility and parliamentary control, but some issues concern the disentitlement of groups of people to social security benefit. Those issues are far too important to be consigned merely by regulation.
  I know that it was pressure from the Lords Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that persuaded the Government to change their mind on some issues and to alter clause 6 in particular. Everyone is aware of the need for flexibility in legislation. We know that it should be possible for it to adapt and that its implementation should not be subject to rigid stipulation. It is clear that the Government have departed from that precedent with clause 6. As a result, the Government's intentions have been exposed. We now know what they mean by "actively seeking employment" and "availability for employment". I do not like what they mean, but at least that meaning is now out in the open.
  I should like to know how the Bill will work in practice. Many hon. Members have already said that people will be forced to take jobs for which they are not suitably qualified. Will someone who has been a labourer for a long time be forced to take a job in an office and vice versa? I am afraid that that will happen, because nothing is said about someone having the right qualifications and expertise for a job.
  The changes contain some positive aspects. I am glad that the regulations governing a person's availability for employment and their active seeking of it will only be

  607
  introduced subject to affirmative resolution. I am glad that the Government have finally relented on that matter. At least that gives the House the opportunity to challenge any changes to the regulations that the Government of the day might want to introduce.
  I welcome that opportunity for proper scrutiny. That is one of the few things that I can welcome, however, because the jobseeker's agreement will cause a lot of pain and frustration to a lot of people. A number of people now in receipt of unemployment benefit will not be entitled to receive the jobseeker's allowance. I greatly fear for those people.
  I hope that the Government will change their mind about the Bill, but I do not believe that is likely. At least they have moved slightly on the terms of clause 6, but they have not gone far enough.
  Mr. Graham: The Bill represents one of the most pathetic plans that the Government have ever come up with. When one considers how the level of unemployment has gone up in the 16 years that they have been in power, their proposals are mind-boggling. Given that length of time, one would think that the Government would have come up with something to get folk back to work.
  In my constituency I have seen an enormous growth in part-time work and short-term contracts—in some cases jobs with no contracts. The Government's proposals are therefore absolutely mind-boggling.
  I have no hesitation in supporting the Labour amendments to the clause, because they are sensible. If the Government had any common sense, they would follow their Prime Minister and resign from leadership of the country. I hope that a real change comes with the general election.
  I have listened to many, many debates in the House; some I have enjoyed, some I did not like. I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). I was delighted to hear something from the Conservative Benches that showed a bit of compassion and feeling for the unemployed and for their rights to get back into the job market.
  I genuinely agree with his sentiments about training. It is nonsense to make training compulsory. I remember a story I heard when I was an apprentice about service men who were captured during the war in Italy and Germany. They made sure that their work was gerry-built so that it would collapse. That story shows that people could not force other folk to build stuff which was meant to defeat them.
  The Minister should think about what I am saying: one cannot force folk to take training. Those people will do what I did when I was schoolboy, when I sat in class and went asleep. I used to leave at 4 o'clock, glad to go home to get my tea. Is that what we asking the unemployed to face? Those folk should get the training they need, which will benefit the country. That training should not mean a lecturer speaking to a crowd of folk who do not want to be there.
  There is no doubt that the unemployed want training and education in order to enter the job market. They will do anything to get into it. A young man came to see me recently. He had been ill and was on invalidity benefit. He told me how people from social security were now trying to drive him into work. He said that, if he was fit,
  608
  he would be working, but he said that he had been told he should be working first as a checker, or as an express driver on a motor cycle.
  That is unbelievable. The folk working in social security do not know about the world they live in. Such are the folk who will try to implement the Government's policies in our constituencies—they live in cloud cuckoo land. They do not realise that certain jobs are not on offer in my constituency.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, under the jobseeker's agreement, skilled engineers made redundant from some major factories might be forced into taking jobs as shelf stackers or taxi drivers?
  Mr. Graham: I agree with my hon. Friend. I could go on and on, but there is no doubt that in my constituency there are thousands of folk working in jobs they are not happy with. However, they are working desperately for the funds they need to give them a life.
  The Government have had 16 years, and those 16 years have been abysmal for millions of people. Young folk have seen other nations such as Germany, France and Italy all doing better. They see that our kids are at the bottom of the pit in respect of education, training and opportunities. However, the Government still want the jobseeker's allowance and the jobseeker's agreement.
  Listen to what they are telling folk who have been unemployed for years and, indeed, some folk who have not been unemployed for that long. It is rubbish. They say that people must write to, telephone, and visit employers every week, contact the jobcentre so many times a week, ask family, friends and people for whom they have worked before, look at the newspapers and trade papers. Claimants are expected to name the papers and specify how often they will look at them. They must register with employment agencies and contact them every week.
  The Minister and the people who compiled that list must live on the moon; they certainly do not live in this world. Friends of mine who are looking for work do nearly every one of those things, but it takes money—money that the Government are not prepared to put into the hands of the unemployed—to telephone, contact folk, buy newspapers, or write letters. Have the Government made that plain to folk? Have they made such money available? Never in a million years. It is all a Treasury-driven exercise to save money. It is not to help the unemployed.
  I have a challenge for the Minister. Tomorrow morning, she and I can sit down in my office with a telephone and the yellow telephone book and telephone employers. She can be a wee lassie of 18 or 19 and I will be a guy of 51. I challenge her to see how many firms will talk to us. Come on Minister—try it. We will sit down and write letters to all these folk. For fun, we will telephone my friends. The Minister may not realise that half my friends are unemployed anyway because of her Government's failure. People are expected to contact the jobcentre every week, but the jobcentres are sick and tired of telling folk that they cannot get them jobs.
  Let us be honest: the Government will never do anything for the unemployed. They have been driving wages down and at the end of the day it is the taxpayers who will have to pay to keep folk living. I know a woman who works for £2 an hour in a sweet factory. Is that right? The Minister can smile all she likes—she probably enjoys

  609
  the sweeties—but that woman does not need sweets: she needs money to buy groceries, pay the rent and provide some of the comforts that we in the House have no problem in getting.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) spoke earlier about a man with a dog. They tell me that all the security guards are trying to borrow the dog to keep themselves in their jobs. However, I know that people work for £2, £1.50 or £1.69 per hour. They are also forced to work hours that God never gave man the energy for. They work 12, 14, and 16 hours a day, every day. If they do not do it, they are fired. If they go back to the dole, they are told, "Ah, no. You had a job but you chucked it because you couldn't do it. On your bike." They will get no money from the dole. I say in all sincerity that I pray for a general election.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In all sincerity, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could come back to the amendment.
  Mr. Graham: I am most grateful for your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In all sincerity, I believe that I have been speaking about the amendment all along. I have spoken about the unnecessary compulsory training. We need training that folk want to do and that will give them the energy and enthusiasm to get back into the job market. I agree with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. We also want folk to have decent pay that will allow them to go the shops. We all enjoy walking down to the shops buying things and ensuring that we have a good quality of life. That is what life is about. Unfortunately, the Government have denied that to millions of people by their crazy economic policy.
  I have kept very well to the amendment but I will finish on this note. The other day when we heard in my constituency about the changes taking place to the leadership of the Tory party, I thought that it was interesting. The question of who will be the leader of the Tory party and Prime Minister concerns our folk in the constituencies. Folk will wonder who is going to lead the Tory party. At the end of the day, that person will lead the country as Prime Minister until the next general election.
  A woman on the plane today asked me why the Government cannot have a general election to settle the issue and ensure that the unemployed have their rights—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  6.15 pm
  Ms Rachel Squire: As always, it is a real pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). There have been many first-class speeches on both sides of the House. I realise that the time available to speak on these amendments is limited.
  I, too, want to touch on how clause 6 is about giving the unemployed a blunt ultimatum to accept any job, however low paid, or come off benefit and become destitute. The amendments, clause 6 and the Bill as a whole will mean that people will not only have to prove, according to whatever conditions the Government decide on, that they are actively seeking employment but that they have to sign an agreement. If they do not comply with whatever the Minister and the Government determine, they will be removed from benefit.
  610
  The occasional comments of Ministers during the debate have been to the effect that people have no need to worry if they are genuinely seeking work. The reality is that the jobs are not there for people to find; people cannot find a decent income and life style for themselves and their families. The Government have been constantly determined to fiddle the way the unemployment figures are calculated so as to be able to claim there has been a reduction in unemployment because of their policies. The method of calculation has changed 27 times since 1979.
  Another point, Mr. Deputy Chairman, is that money is being used not to create genuine jobs for people to find but to subsidise the ever lower wages being paid by many employers out there in the marketplace. It is reckoned by the Inland Revenue that in 1994, taxpayers topped up low wages with £2.4 billion of benefits. I am sure that Opposition Members would rather see that money being used to provide decently paid jobs. The Government are taking us back to the days of the workhouse and workfare. We now have the biggest gap between the highest and lowest paid than at any time since 1886. I only wish that we could confine the Government and the Bill to a museum or, perhaps even more appropriately, a chamber of horrors.
  I was going to cite some examples of low pay in my constituency where people are already being offered £1.50 an hour and are expected to support a family on that. I clearly do not have the time for that, Mr. Deputy Chairman—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This afternoon, I am Mr. Deputy Speaker. On other occasions I am the Chairman, but never Mr. Deputy Chairman.
  Ms Squire: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I have run out of time, so I conclude by quoting J. K. Galbraith's comment that the conspicuously wealthy turn up urging the character-building value of privation for the poor but they never urge that character-building value on themselves. We have no doubt that that reflects the Government's attitude towards the unemployed. The only people on whom I wish privation are the Conservatives, with the exception of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who made an excellent speech.
  Miss Widdecombe: The way in which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) concluded her speech by wishing Conservative Members ill characterises Labour's debate, if one can dignify the Opposition's contributions as "debate".
  During our debate on this group of amendments, we heard no welcome from the Opposition for how we responded to their concerns by redrawing clause 6 or defining in broad terms the phrases "availability" and "actively seeking". Instead, they raised old canard after old canard about the Bill in general. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not wish me to be led down their tempting path of debating the Bill as a whole, but I hope that you will allow me to respond to some of the specific points that they raised.
  The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) told us that he went to sleep in class—I think that he has been asleep ever since, and certainly through all our debates on the Bill. Almost every issue he raised had already been covered. He said that the Government had done nothing to help the unemployed,

  611
  but omitted to mention workstart, worktrial, job clubs and the 1.5 million opportunities, and even omitted the measures included in the Bill.
  Mr. Graham: The Minister has not mentioned remotivation. How can the Government remotivate folk when they cannot even motivate themselves?
  Miss Widdecombe: All that I can say to an Opposition who have been jobseeking for 21 years without success, who have endured the sanctions of the electorate time after time, who are well past their permitted period and who have already rolled higgledy-piggledy down the slope that we allow after the permitted period, is that we need no lessons on motivation from them.
  The Opposition have consistently suggested that the Bill introduces new measures. They suggested that we have introduced a measure under which there will be no floor in the rates of pay that people must accept, but they consistently overlooked the fact that that is already the case. As ever, they have tried to deceive the electorate—although they have not succeeded in deceiving the House—into believing that the Bill introduces new draconian measures which will be applied unreasonably. We have heard myth after myth and consistent claims that new measures are being introduced in the Bill whereas they have, in fact, been a feature of employment law for years and have not resulted in the horrors suggested by the Opposition.
  Mr. Richard Burden: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I have no time, and that is entirely due to the verbosity of members of the Opposition Front Bench and the excessive eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). Had I more time, I should be delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman and to demolish whatever nonsense he was about to put before me.
  The Bill is the epitome of tailoring for unemployed people. It will meet each individual's needs and will allow restrictions and special circumstances to be taken into account in a way that the Opposition should welcome. The Opposition's amendments can be summed up in one simple phrase: spend, spend, spend. They want to let people spend as long as they like on benefit while specifying unrealistic rates of pay and unrealistic job requirements. That is a summary of the Opposition's suggestions. Almost every amendment that they tabled in Committee came with a huge bill. We shall make certain that the electorate understand that.
  I recommend to the House that it firmly reject the amendments. In doing so, it will reaffirm its confidence in the Bill and, at the same time, its complete contempt for the Opposition's ineffectiveness.
  Mr. McCartney: The Minister spoke about the quality of debate, but I have never heard such a rant. Is there a doctor in the House? I know that she is in a difficult position deciding which John to support, but the Bill is not about keeping the Prime Minister in his job or replacing him. It should have been about measures to increase employment opportunities, to take millions of people off the dole and to do something about fairness at work for the 1.3 million who are earning £2.50 an hour
  612
  or less. It should have been about putting money back into training instead of cutting the training budget. Because the Bill does none of those things, we shall vote against the Government. Let us hope that this will see the beginning of the end for this corrupt, sleazy and out-of-date Government.
  Question put, That amendment (a) to the Lords amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 254.

  Division No. 176]

  [6.27 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Dixon, Don

  Ainger, Nick

  Dobson, Frank

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Allen, Graham

  Dowd, Jim

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Austin-Walker, John

  Eastham, Ken

  Barnes, Harry

  Etherington, Bill

  Barron, Kevin

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Battle, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Faulds, Andrew

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Fisher, Mark

  Benton, Joe

  Flynn, Paul

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Berry, Roger

  Foulkes, George

  Betts, Clive

  Fraser, John

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Fyfe, Maria

  Boateng, Paul

  Gapes, Mike

  Bradley, Keith

  Garrett, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  George, Bruce

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gerrard, Neil

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

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Burden, Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Byers, Stephen

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Caborn, Richard

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cann, Jamie

  Gunnell, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hain, Peter

  Chidgey, David

  Hanson, David

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Church, Judith

  Harvey, Nick

  Clapham, Michael

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Coffey, Ann

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cohen, Harry

  Home Robertson, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

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

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hutton, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Illsley, Eric

  Dafis, Cynog

  Ingram, Adam

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Janner, Greville

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dewar, Donald

  Jowell, Tessa

  613

  Keen, Alan

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

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

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prescott Rt Hon John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Purchase, Ken

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lewis, Terry

  Radice, Giles

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Randall, Stuart

  Livingstone, Ken

  Reid, Dr John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rendel, David

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McAllion, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  McCartney, Ian

  Rooker, Jeff

  McFall, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McKelvey, William

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  McLeish, Henry

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  McMaster, Gordon

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  MacShane, Denis

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McWilliam, John

  Short, Clare

  Madden, Max

  Simpson, Alan

  Maddock, Diana

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahon, Alice

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marek, Dr John

  Spellar, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Martlew, Eric

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meacher, Michael

  Stevenson, George

  Meale, Alan

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Michael, Alun

  Straw, Jack

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Milburn, Alan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Miller, Andrew

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Timms, Stephen

  Morley, Elliot

  Tipping, Paddy

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Touhig, Don

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Turner, Dennis

  Mudie, George

  Vaz, Keith

  Mullin, Chris

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Murphy, Paul

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watson, Mike

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Olner, Bill

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pearson, Ian

  Pendry, Tom

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pike, Peter L

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mrs. Barbara Roche.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Booth, Hartley

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Boswell, Tim

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Ancram, Michael

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brazier, Julian

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Ashby, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Baldry, Tony

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Bates, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butler, Peter

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butterfill, John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carrington, Matthew

  614

  Cash, William

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Clappison, James

  Jack, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Coe, Sebastian

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Colvin, Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Congdon, David

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Conway, Derek

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Key, Robert

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Couchman, James

  Knapman, Roger

  Cran, James

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

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

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

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

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Day, Stephen

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Devlin, Tim

  Legg, Barry

  Dicks, Terry

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Dover, Den

  Lidington, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Lightbown, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Dunn, Bob

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lord, Michael

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Elletson, Harold

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Evennett, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Faber, David

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Malone, Gerald

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Mans, Keith

  Forman, Nigel

  Marland, Paul

  Forth, Eric

  Marlow, Tony

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  French, Douglas

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gale, Roger

  Merchant, Piers

  Gallie, Phil

  Mills, Iain

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Gill, Christopher

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hague, William

  Norris, Steve

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hannam, Sir John

  Page, Richard

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Harris, David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hawkins, Nick

  Pawsey, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Heald, Oliver

  Pickles, Eric

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hendry, Charles

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Richards, Rod

  615

  Riddick, Graham

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thomason, Roy

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thumham, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'fy'th)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Tracey, Richard

  Sackville, Tom

  Tredinnick, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Trend, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Walden, George

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Sims, Roger

  Ward, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Watts, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wells, Bowen

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Whitney, Ray

  Spring, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Willetts, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Stem, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Stewart, Allan

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Streeter, Gary

  Sumberg, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sykes, John

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Simon Burns.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 41 agreed to.

Clause 36

  TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
  Lords amendment: No. 42, in page 30, line 9, leave out ("by virtue of regulations under") and insert
  ("under regulations made by virtue of").
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Roger Evans: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 43 to 47.
  Mr. Evans: Amendment No. 42 and the amendments grouped with it make changes to clause 36 concerning transitional arrangements for the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. It is normal for the Government to make transitional arrangements when changes are made to the benefits system and we intend to apply that principle to people who move from unemployment benefit or income support to the new jobseeker's allowance.
  This group of amendments clarifies the legislative basis for the transitional arrangements. In particular, they correct a drafting error in clause 36(2)(b), improve the clause's clarity by specifying where payments of jobseeker's allowance are made under the transitional arrangements and enable the arrangements to be tailored to reflect more closely current legislation for unemployment benefit and income support.
  Amendment No. 42 is simply a drafting amendment to correct the Bill's phraseology. Amendments Nos. 43, 45 and 46 deal with the term "transitional allowance" and
  616
  explain that it is used to cover payments of jobseeker's allowance made under the transitional arrangements. That clearly identifies where the payment of jobseeker's allowance is to be made.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Presumably, the Government are deferring introduction of the jobseeker's allowance under the transitional arrangements established in part by the amendments. Will my hon. Friend explain why the Government none the less plan to introduce from next April the provision that contributory benefits should cease after six months instead of 12 months?
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the transitional arrangements are partly to do with the Government's deferment of the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. Under those arrangements, the Government have provided a mixture of provisions to be introduced at different times.
  My hon. Friend's point is correct; but, taking the Jobseekers Bill and the Budget measures as a total package for dealing with unemployment—one must consider the positive side as well—the one-year national insurance contribution holiday for employers for every person whom they take on who has been unemployed the previous two years will be introduced in April 1996.
  Those who take a job after six months of unemployment will be able to keep their housing benefit at their existing full rate for an extra four weeks. We propose that that should begin in April 1996. It is expected that almost all new claims for family credit from April 1996 will be arranged within five working days. The Opposition's suggestion that the carrot will be deferred and that the stick will be introduced at the beginning is not a fair picture of the overall balance of the transitional arrangements.
  Mr. Bradley: We know that the Government intend to reduce the payment of contributory benefit from 12 to six months. Why will they not defer that decision until the real carrot, in the Government's terms, of the back-to-work bonus is introduced in October 1996? If there is to be a reduction in benefit, surely the compensating back-to-work bonus should start at the same time.
  Mr. Evans: Again, the hon. Gentleman is looking at only part of the picture. We take the view that it is important to introduce these measures as best we can in the way shown.
  I intended, before I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), to explain the individual amendments. Amendment No. 47 provides that, where a person meets the conditions for contribution-based jobseeker's allowance, any payment under the transitional arrangements shall be a contribution-based transitional allowance. The House will note that amendment No. 43 includes a new provision that would state that the "transitional allowance" shall be of such kind as
  "may be determined in accordance with the regulations".
  That is important, because, together with amendment No. 44, there is a provision for the transitional process to be tailored to take account of the variation in the operational arrangements for JSA and for the transitional regulations to reflect more closely the current structure of unemployment benefit and income support.

  617
  The importance of the proposals is to introduce a large-scale change to social security provision requiring the development and installation of large computer systems in such a way as to ensure that the system works effectively. We have concluded that it would be prudent to examine the change carefully to ensure that JSA can be brought in where it can be effective, and delivered properly, and that the transitional arrangements can be properly tailored to cover the intervening period.
  Mr. McCartney: I have a genuine technical question. I wish to apologise in advance if I get things wrong. One area of transitional change is the move from 21 hours to 16 for those who are studying under JSA. What is the position? When will the 16-hour rule come into operation? Will it take effect on 7 October 1996 or will implementation be further delayed?
  Mr. Evans: I understand that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is October 1996.
  Miss Widdecombe: I did say so.
  Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, she made that clear earlier.
  The purpose—
  Mr. McCartney: October 1996 is rather a wide definition. Will the 16-hour rule come into effect on 7 October, the vesting day for the other changes? That is all that I am asking. Will it be 7 October or later?
  Mr. Evans: Perhaps I did not appreciate the precise nature of the hon. Gentleman's question. I apologise. The answer is yes: the 16-hour rule will come into operation on 7 October.
  I shall continue to develop my explanation of the powers relating to transitional regulations that we intend to operate. To ease the burden of implementation, we have decided that only new and repeat claims for benefit will be paid by the new JSA payments computer system from October 1996. Unemployed people receiving unemployed benefit and income support at the point of change will continue to be paid under the national unemployment benefit system, known as NUBS2, and the income support computer system.
  There will later be phased transference to the JSA system. That will mean that those who remain on the current payments system will receive benefit under many of the current rules relating to unemployment benefit and income support, which will advantage many claimants; for example, part-time workers in receipt of contributory benefit for the transitional period will be subject to more generous earnings rules than those that are applicable to the majority of JSA claimants.
  The Government have kept the major project that I have outlined under close scrutiny. In line with our announced intentions—
  Mr. Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend has said that new and repeat claims will go on to the computer immediately. He has said also that other
  618
  claimants will be phased into the system. Does that mean that claimants who had been within the income support system for some years would suddenly be moved into a less advantageous position? For a period, would some claimants be within a better regime than others, in a rather piecemeal way? If that is the position, why is there to be phasing? Will it be done for practical reasons? Is it a matter of convenience? What are the details of the practical considerations?
  Mr. Evans: The simple answer is no. It is a matter of how we propose to organise the delivery of the new system when it is introduced. It is important to ensure that the administration works smoothly.
  Mr. Heald: What are the practical considerations? Is it too difficult to introduce the date into the computer system within a limited time frame, or is there a more complicated reason? Are we dealing with computers and administration or with something else?
  Mr. Evans: Perhaps my hon. Friend did not hear my interchange with the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). There is a perfectly respectable constitutional problem. First, Parliament must pass legislation. That is what we are doing now while arguing about specific amendments. Until Parliament has enacted primary legislation, delegated legislation consequent upon it cannot be laid. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, it must be understood that, when it comes to writing computer software, computers are even more literal than lawyers. It is necessary that the legal system, in all its magnificence and complex detail, be spelt out so that the rules of law can be translated into simple statements that can be introduced into computer software.
  When the external review took place, the Government were advised by consultants that the design of the computer software and all that goes with it should ensure that at the end of the legislative process the system would work effectively and reliably. On the basis of that expert advice, we decided to defer.
  Mr. McCartney: The complexity of the computer system is said to be the reason for deferral. The Government have spent £110 million so far. Has that expenditure been coupled to penalty clauses? Delay will lead to further public expenditure.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman takes me by surprise in asking about precise contractual arrangements. He should understand that it is not merely a difficulty of drawing software in the correct fashion. The process cannot begin definitively until Parliament has done its duty and completed its work.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 43 to 53 agreed to [one with Special Entry].
  6.59 pm
  Sitting suspended until Seven o'clock, there being private business set down by THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business).

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  City of Westminster Bill [Lords]
  As amended, considered.

  Preamble
  7 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 10 [Preamble], at end insert
  'but not of their duty to use the land for educational purposes'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 27, in page 2, line 32 [Clause 2], at end insert—
  " 'the Order' means the Education (London Residuary Body) (Property Transfer) (No. 3) Order 1991;".
  No. 28, in page 6, line 47 [Clause 9], leave out Clause 9.
  No. 26, in page 6, line 49, [Clause 9], at end add—

  '(2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.

  (3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2)above unless he is satisfied that—

  (a) the Moxton Street land is not required for any educational purpose; or

  (b) the Moxton Street land is not required for the establishment of a new county primary school but is required by the council or any other publicly funded body for another educational purpose and arrangements have been made, whether by disposal of the land or otherwise, for that educational purpose to be fulfilled.

  (4) In this section—

  "the Moxon Street land" means the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order; and
  "the Order" means the Education (London Residuary Body) (Property Transfer) (No. 3) Order 1991.'.
  No. 29, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add—
  '(2) Within three years from the passing of this Act the council shall, on terms to be approved by the Secretary of State, dispose of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Education (London Residuary Body) (Property Transfer) (No. 3) Order 1991.'.
  No. 30, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add—
  '(2) This section shall not relieve the council of any condition imposed upon it by or under the Order in respect of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order.'.
  No. 31, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add—
  '(2) Within one year of the passing of this Act the council shall transfer without charge to an educational body nominated by the Secretary of State the land at Moxon Street which was transferred to the Council by the Order.'.
  No. 32, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add—
  '(2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) above unless he is satisfied that the council has established that there is insufficient demand to justify the provision of a new country primary school at Moxon Street.'.
  No. 33, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add—

  '(2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.

  (3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) above unless the council has:

  (a) published the reasons for not establishing a new county primary school at Moxon Street; and

  (b) consulted in relation to those reasons such persons as appear to the council to be appropriate

  620
  in the same manner as the council would be obliged to publish and consult upon the establishment, discontinuance or alternation of a school under section 12 of the Education Act 1980.'.

  No. 34, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add—

  '(2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.

  (3) Before making an order under subsection (2) above the Secretary of State shall require the council to submit a scheme for the future ownership and use of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order and, where that scheme is for the sale or use of the land other than for educational purposes, the Secretary of State shall direct the council to consult interested persons for the purpose of establishing that the land is not required for any educational purpose.'.

  No. 35, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add—
  '(2) This section shall not relieve the council of any condition imposed upon it by or under the Order in respect of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order and the use of that land by the council for any purpose other than educational purposes shall be treated as a disposal of that land for the purposes of the Order.'.
  No. 36, in page 6, line 49 [Clause 9], at end add—
  'It shall remain the duty of the Council to use the land designated for such a school primarily for educational purposes, or for social housing or for a mixture of the two.'.
  Mr. Cohen: I note that you have taken these amendments in a cluster, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They all deal with the removal of the educational aspect of the Bill. It will, perhaps, be a little tedious but, for the record and the sake of clarity, I shall explain a little of the amendments and comment on them.
  Amendment No. 26 is supported by the university of Westminster. It would like the House to carry the amendment. I am happy to support the university of Westminster in that respect. Subsection 3(a) provides that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the Moxon street land is not required for any educational purpose. I shall explain and give documentary proof that there is an educational need for the land. I have correspondence from St. Marylebone school and a great deal of correspondence from the university of Westminster to the effect that there is an educational purpose for the land. It is wrong to extinguish the requirement to take that purpose into account. I recommend amendment No. 26 to the House.
  The Secretary of State should have a role in safeguarding the educational use of the land. It is not right fcr the Government to say that they are neutral on the matter. I am not sure whether they are neutral in any case. I suspect that, when the House divides later, we will see the payroll vote of Conservative Members of Parliament come out to vote against the amendment. That does not imply neutrality; rather it implies that the Government and Conservative Members are on the side of Westminster council and against the university of Westminster.
  The Secretary of State for Education has an important role to play in protecting education and giving the university of Westminster a better and a fair deal. Neutrality is not the appropriate word, when Conservative Members will come out and vote the amendment down. That will not take us anywhere. It will be seen through. The Minister should live up to his responsibility and support the university of Westminster and the educational purposes which were clearly laid down in respect of the Moxon street land.

  621
  Subsection 3(b) of amendment No. 26 provides that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that
  "the Moxon Street land is not required for the establishment of a new county primary school but is required by the council or any other publicly funded body for another educational purpose and arrangements have been made, whether by disposal of the land or otherwise, for that educational purpose to be fulfilled."
  There is clearly another educational purpose for the land. The university of Westminster is crying out for land for an educational purpose. That should be properly taken into account. Amendment No. 26 is important.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sorry that I missed the very beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He implies that the university of Westminster does a good job and is a popular institution. An article in the press at the weekend suggested that the university awarded Mickey Mouse degrees and did not do a good job. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to join me in putting it on record the fact that some of its courses, particularly its media studies degrees, for example, have been pioneering and extremely far-sighted, that much of its work is at the forefront of new areas of learning and that it is an extremely important institution.
  Mr. Cohen: I am extremely grateful for that good intervention. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has put that observation on the record. I echo his comments about the excellent work done by the university of Westminster in several respects and with a large number of people. This central London university has many students from ethnic minority backgrounds. It helps them to obtain degrees and educational qualifications that are vital to them. It plays an important role for people who work in London and want to study after work. I echo the hon. Gentleman's expression of support for the university of Westminster and the excellent work that it does.
  I hope that the Minister will express his support for the university. I am sure that he will, but it is not enough for him just to say that and to claim to be neutral on the matter while other Conservative Members come to vote and kick it in the teeth. I hope that the Minister will pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), give credit to the university of Westminster and do something about it by supporting the amendment.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: May I help my hon. Friend on this point? The amendment would effectively give the university of Westminster some rights over the possible purchase, leasehold or use of the site at some future date. One good reason for accepting the amendment is that the university has a large proportion of ethnic minority students. Some 40 per cent. of its students come from ethnic minority backgrounds. That is one of the highest proportions in Britain. Given all the problems of inner London, and the fact that ethnic minority students are disadvantaged in getting to university, that is one very special reason for accepting the amendment.
  Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose intervention reminds me of a recent letter that I received from the GMB trade union. It stated that almost 60 per cent. of London's black youths are unemployed. The United States Secretary of State for Employment, Robert Reid, said at a meeting that for young people there were upward and downward escalators and that the upward one was for those with qualifications.
  622
  I reject the allegation that the qualifications gained at the university of Westminster are Mickey Mouse qualifications, because they have to be worked for and earned. By granting qualifications, the university puts ethnic minority youth on the upward escalator and gives them a chance to make something of their lives. That is good for Britain, because disaffection among ethnic minority youth can lead to alienation and riots such as occurred in Bradford. Education is a way out of that, and that adds to the importance of the work that is carried out by the university of Westminster and other universities. That university is at the forefront of educating ethnic minorities.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: My hon. Friend is setting out some of the advantages and disadvantages of allowing Westminster university to consolidate and to expand in central London. Some 60 per cent. of its students are part-time, and many of them work in central London during the day. Does my hon. Friend agree that those people could not engage in part-time education at the university if they lived in the suburbs? It is vital to maintain city centre education, not just for city centre dwellers but for those who work in inner London. That unique feature must be taken into account.
  Mr. Cohen: That is an excellent intervention. It is crucial that people be able to study part time in central London. I studied part-time and recently obtained a master's degree. I studied in the first two years of this Parliament, not at the university of Westminster but at Birkbeck college, which also does excellent work. Such opportunities are vital for people who, like me, work during the day and, as in my case, sometimes have to return to work at night. Excellent courses are available in London and people should be able to use them. The Government are making people work longer and harder and they need opportunities to reach the upward escalator. The university of Westminster gives all sorts of people, including ethnic minorities, a chance to improve themselves.
  I neglected to mention the location of Moxon street. It is between Marylebone and Baker street and it is currently used as a car park. It is a perfect site for the university of London to build facilities. Later, I shall go into the detail of its background for educational purposes. It is quite wrong of Westminster council to try to renege on its commitment by way of a clause at the end of a Bill about sex shops. That is an attempt to sneak a measure through the House.
  Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) spoke about part-time students, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) says that it would be a good idea to let Westminster university have access to the site to help such students. I do not wish to appear to be a statistician, but I can tell the House that there are 10,300 part-time students and 9,000 full-time students at the university. We are debating the purchase of the land and the expansion of the university, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not forget that 16,000 people at that university are pursuing mid-career courses and that the university is anxious to increase their number.
  Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting those figures on the record. They show the work that the university is doing and how it can make the best use of the site. Its proposal for the site is certainly better than that of the council, which wants to enter deals with property speculators and land dealers and, perhaps, put a

  623
  supermarket on the land. It would be far better to use the land to teach part-time and full-time students. On the criterion of the best use of the land, the university wins hands down over Waitrose or Tesco or whoever else the council is trying to put on the site and make a profit from in the process.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Rooker: Every hon. Member will have received a statement on behalf of the Bill's promoters. It should have been received today or on Friday, after the debate had been announced. The final paragraph, paragraph 11, is about clause 9 and it does not mention what Westminster city council plans to do with the site. My hon. Friend spoke about commercial or supermarket use, but that is not mentioned in the statement. Perhaps an hon. Member who speaks for the promoters could say whether they have already fixed things so that, when the Bill is passed, they will know what to do. If that is the case, they are being less than frank in their brief to hon. Members.
  Mr. Cohen: I think that the council has sought to enter a deal with Howard de Walden Estates, a big property owner and developer in the area. I shall deal with its role and how it is holding the council and the House to ransom. It has some access to the land and is trying to get a deal. It has distributed a newsletter to local residents, in which it states, "It's Waitrose" and that the deal for a supermarket has already been struck. That says something about how Westminster council operates. I have not yet come to the homes-for-votes scandal and all that history—I shall keep away from that for the time being. The newsletter shows how Westminster can enter such a cosy deal because, in it, the developers say that Waitrose has been chosen.
  Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend introduces matters that I did not know about—Howard de Walden Estates and Waitrose—and says that a deal has possibly been struck. He also mentioned Tesco. Would there not be a conflict of interest over Tesco, in that Lady Porter is heavily related to Tesco and would have an interest which would cause some sort of public eruption? Even in the case of Westminster council, there would be a real problem.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It would not be surprising if Westminster council or Howard de Walden Estates shifted from Waitrose to Tesco in due course if it was thought that that would result in a better profit. My hon. Friend is right. Lady Shirley Porter, the former .inster council, is currently up under an adverse report from the district auditor for abuse of her role in the homes-for-votes scandal. My memory goes back further than that, to when she sold—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Cohen:—council homes to hon. Members for 15p.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the occupant of the Chair says, "Order," he expects the hon. Member to resume his seat and not to continue his speech. I do not think that detailed references to any member of Westminster city council are appropriate to the amendments before us.
  Mr. Cohen: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be appropriate for me just to point out that I met
  624
  representatives of Tesco because it has opened a store in my constituency, which I welcome, that they played down the Lady Shirley Porter role and that they said that she was a minority shareholder in Tesco? They were keen to distance themselves. I do not want to upset Tesco.
  In a way, that is a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), but I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall try not to refer again to members of Westminster council.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) talked about the promoters' statement. I have not really made progress with my speech in relation to referring to the amendments, but it would he appropriate at this point just to refer to the statement issued on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. I want to refer only to a couple of points.
  In paragraph 9, they state:
  "The Moxon Street site was originally acquired by the Greater London Council in 1966 under slum clearance powers. At that time it is understood that the site was to be appropriated to education use".
  That is the admission from the promoters that, ever since it was bought and came into the control of a public authority, the land was designated for educational use. That is a crucial statement. They use the words "education use." I make that point because Westminster council is saying that the land was actually designated and given to it for a primary school and that there is no need for a primary school, so it can get out of that commitment, but we have it on the record, in the promoters' own statement, that the land was bought and appropriated for education use.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Cohen: The Minister is shaking his head, but it is in the promoters' own statement and he should take that seriously. The statement talks about not just a primary school, but education use. That is why Westminster council has the land. It got it free of charge for education use. It now wants to get out of that commitment by using a clause at the back of a sex shops Bill and to sell the land at open market development rates, make a big profit out of it, and put in a supermarket and some luxury homes. That smacks of the homes-for-votes scandal, in which the council was accused of gerrymandering.
  The land was given for education use. It is in the promoters' own statement. That is a vital point. Out of the promoters' own mouth comes the admission that the land was for educational use, and the House should keep it for educational use, especially as the need for such a use by the university of Westminster clearly exists.
  Mr. Sedgemore: I want to try to act as a mediator between the Minister and my hon. Friend, who said that in, I think, 1966, the land was designated for education use, which is correct. The Minister appeared to be shaking his head in relation to the point that it was designated for education use. I understand that, in 1991, there was a property transfer order and the Secretary of State for Education satisfied himself, or herself, that the site was needed for a primary school. Of course, if it had not been needed for a primary school, the Secretary of State might have deemed that it should be used for general education purposes. That is where the problem between the two sides arises.
  Mr. Cohen: I take that point. Westminster council is clutching at straws, pretending that the land was

  625
  designated only for a primary school and that it does not need one now. It wants to sell the land off on the open market and make a big profit out of it. The reality is, however, that, since it came into public ownership, the land has always been designated for educational use. While the need for it to be used for educational use exists, that commitment should not be snuffed out.
  I was extremely disturbed to see the Minister shake his head. It made me think that some cosy deal had been done between the Department for Education and Westminster council. When he makes his speech, the Minister might say that he is neutral, yet it is proposed that the education use mentioned in the promoters' statement should be snuffed out.
  In paragraph 11 of their statement, the promoters state:
  "Amendments have been tabled to clause 9."
  Those are the amendments in my name and those of other hon. Members. The statement continues:
  "The City Council is glad of the opportunity for open discussion about the future of the Moxon Street site".
  The university of Westminster has told me that, basically, it was listened to politely and ignored. The council has not been that keen to have open discussion about the future of the Moxon street site. The council's planning brief plays down the educational aspects of the argument. I therefore dispute that part of the promoters' statement.
  The statement continues:
  "The City Council is glad of the opportunity for open discussion about the future of the Moxon Street site, for which there may in due course be competing proposals. It respectfully submits that it would be premature to prejudge these proposals at the present stage."
  Those are weasel words because the council is prejudging the issue. That is what clause 9 is all about: prejudging the issue, getting the House to make the change, and getting rid of the educational purpose so that the council can sell the land off to developers. If the council was not prejudging the issue, it would have had full consultation and full discussions with the university of Westminster and all others who are interested before sticking that clause at the bottom of a sex shops Bill and trying to get out of its commitment.
  I know that I am not allowed to use the word "lie" about hon. Members, but that statement comes as close as it is possible to come to a lie. Westminster council is prejudging the issue and forcing a Bill with this clause through because it wants to get out of its commitment to use the land for educational use.
  Once the council has done that, it will tell anyone who protests and the university of Westminster, which says that we should have a better deal, "Sorry, the proposal has been through Parliament, so don't come and talk to us now. You had your chance. It has been through Parliament and that's it. We got a majority because this neutral Government got their payroll vote out and marched them all through to support Westminster council." That would be prejudging the issue with a vengeance
  Mr. Sedgemore: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the fundamental and important point that he is making is that whereas the Bill's promoters argue that we can discuss later the use of this land and that we should not try to constrict the clause by accepting any amendments, if the Bill and clause 9 go through as they stand, Westminster council would be obliged by law to get the full market
  626
  value for the land? It would not even have the option of selling the land, because the district auditor and district valuers would be interested.
  Unless the clause is constricted now, there is no chance that any educational establishment, whether Westminster university or any other, could conceivably buy the land because the market value for educational use is considerably below that for commercial use by, for example, Waitrose or for residential development.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes an extremely telling point. It shows that the whole issue is being prejudged by pushing the Bill through the House in this way. Once the clause is accepted, Westminster council will say that it is obliged under the law of the land to sell the site to the highest bidder. It is no wonder that the property developer put out a leaflet saying that that would be Waitrose. The council thinks that this House can be easily rolled over, and that what happens after that is inevitable.
  The promoters' statement says:
  "What is desirable is that the way forward should be worked out in discussion with the interested parties, for the benefit of the area and the community. There is no dispute, so far as the Council is aware, that the obligation to establish a primary school should be removed, and the Promoters therefore submit that clause 9 should be allowed to proceed without amendment. "
  There certainly is a dispute about educational use, as Westminster university has made clear.
  On the point about discussion with interested parties, all that the council has done in respect of Westminster university is deal with the matter through a few junior officers. The council has not taken the argument seriously; it has not held discussions in a serious manner. The promoters' statement verges on the scurrilous. I am worried that the House might make a decision on the basis of a statement that is as near as it can be to a lie.
  I have strayed a little, but I wanted to explain the background to the amendments. I have already explained amendment No. 26, which is supported by Westminster university.
  Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend has rightly found cause for criticism of the promoters' statement. Being a modest person, I might use less strong words than my hon. Friend. I would describe the statement as disingenuous rather than scurrilous.
  Does not paragraph 10 raise a question about integrity? It claims that pupil numbers in the Moxon street area have fallen, and that there are already 31 schools providing primary education. It states:
  "In the event that clause 9 of the Bill were not enacted the City Council would remain under its statutory duty to build and establish a new primary school".
  That is essentially a primary school that the council does not want, and which the promoters claim would cost about £3 million.
  Of course it would be silly to build a primary school that is not needed at a cost of £3 million. However, the promoters must be aware of the amendments, which have been on the Order Paper for some time, under which the council would not have a duty to build a primary school. If it proved that the £3 million would be wasted

  627
  expenditure, it would be under a duty to use the site for educational purposes, such as for the Westminster university or even for a nursery school.
  Mr. Cohen: Again, my hon. Friend makes a good point. He was right to use the word "disingenuous" about the promoters' statement. He is better with language than I am. He was also right to point out that the amendments have been tabled for some time. They encompass what was understood to be the position when the transfer—free of charge—originally took place: that the land would he used for educational purposes.
  If the Minister is properly looking after his brief to promote education, he should accept that the land should be used for educational purposes. He should accept the amendment, which is backed by Westminster university. It would enable the university to use the land, and it would not cost £3 million. The promoters' statement is ridiculous. The university has ideas for putting nursery provision on the site to help students with children. That is an important element, and it should be welcomed.
  Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend has mentioned the very point that I wanted to raise. The promoters' statement refers to a cost of £3 million. Will the Minister give examples of one-form-entry primary schools—seven classrooms, hall, toilet block and head teacher's office—that have cost £3 million to build? That sum does not include the cost of the land. It is double the rate of building costs for primary schools in Birmingham, and I do not believe that the costs in London would be that great, either. I hope that the Minister will give us examples.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend highlights the dubious nature of the promoters' statement. It is an untrustworthy document, and it should not form the basis of a decision to extinguish educational use on such an important site.
  As I said, the amendment is supported by Westminster university, and I hope that the Minister and the House will agree to it. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will comment on it fully, and not use weasel words about the difference between a primary school and educational use. He should not say, "I can't do anything about it, so I wash my hands of it." The land should be used for educational purposes. If the Minister wants to fulfil his duties, he should accept the amendment. I hope that he will not say, "I am neutral, and it is nothing to do with me."
  Another important amendment is No. 36, which states:
  "It shall remain the duty of the Council to use the land designated for such a school primarily for educational purposes, or for social housing or for a mixture of the two."
  I am the leading signatory to the amendment, which is also supported by every member of the London Labour group of Members of Parliament. After the next election, that group will have many more members, while the Conservative group will have fewer.
  The amendment reflects the position of the Labour opposition on Westminster council. It is a sensible opposition, which is more than can be said about the councillors who have ruled the council—as the evidence clearly shows. The Labour opposition believe that the site should be used for educational purposes, for social housing or for a mixture of the two. The social housing element would be affordable housing, unlike the yuppie homes-for-votes housing that the council envisages producing a huge profit.
  628
  I do not think that this amendment is incompatible with the amendment that relates to the university of Westminster, and I will be happy if either of the options are taken. I would prefer the site to be used for educational purposes by the university, hut there may he some scope for affordable social housing connected with the university on this land.
  Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend knows that I am the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. The university of Westminster has supplied hundreds of students with brand new housing association homes at the bottom of Pitfield street and Coronet street. Would the term "social housing" in the amendment include student accommodation such as the university provides on that site? If such housing were of the same quality as that which the university has opened in Hackney within the past few months, it would be superb for the students. Their accommodation would also be nearer to where they are taught.
  Mr. Cohen: I am again grateful to my hon. Friend, whose intervention shows that the university deserves more from this House and from the Minister than mere words of praise—it deserves practical support. The social mix envisaged by the amendment would include such accommodation, and would be of great benefit to students.
  I stress that the social housing would be affordable, and that is the difference between the amendment supported by all the London Labour Members of Parliament and by the honourable opposition on Westminster council, and the amendment proposed by the ruling group on Westminster council. I will not say that that group is corrupt, as you would pull me up, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall pull back from saying that, and we must see what the district auditor says in the report on the homes-for-votes scandal.
  The ruling group on Westminster council wants to deal with Waitrose, Tesco and other supermarkets, and with Howard de Walden Estates, so that those involved can make a bloody great profit—[Interruption.] I am sorry; a huge profit. My cockney origins are the getting better of me. I am upset that education is to get a kick in the teeth from Westminster council and from a Conservative Government who pretend to be neutral.
  The council's ruling group wants some housing involved in the supermarket and property development deal, but it would be highly expensive luxury housing to fit in with its plans. The district auditor has said that the ruling group's housing policy is aimed not at the people of the borough but at winning votes for the Conservative party in Westminster.
  I should have thought that, following that criticism, the group might have stepped back from the policy. But here we see the homes-for-votes policy continuing, because the group thinks that it can get away with tagging this measure on to the end of a sex shops Bill. That is a scandal, especially when the measure is compared with what would be a proper use of the site for educational purposes.
  7.45 pm
  There are a number of other amendments, but, to save the House some time, I shall summarise them. The best way I can do that is to read the notes on the amendments sent to Members of this House by Dyson Bell Martin, the parliamentary agents for the university of Westminster.

  629
  The amendments are described as Nos. 1 to 8 in the notes, which does not reflect the numbering on the amendment paper. That does not matter, and I shall read what the agents say about the amendments.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should make his own speech.
  Mr. Cohen: I take the point, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are various amendments, one of which—
  Mr. Sedgemore: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I used to be a civil servant and a private secretary to a Minister. We used to write notes in considerably more detail than those to which my hon. Friend was about to refer, and the Minister used to stand up at the Dispatch Box and read them out every time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I was not in the Chair. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Cohen: Well done, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I shall summarise the amendments in my own way, although I was trying to save the House some time. Amendment No. 28 seeks to delete the clause whereby the council gets out of its commitment to use the land for educational purposes, and would stop the council using that escape route. The amendment would also mean that the land would then have to be used for educational purposes, and Westminster council would have to think again and come forward with new plans.
  Dr. Kim Howells: Is not tacking a completely anomalous clause on to private business one of the worst features of such legislation?
  Mr. Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend. He raises another point which I intended to deal with later, but which I shall gladly deal with now.
  We are debating a Bill which deals with sex shops, and which consists of several detailed pages—eight clauses, none of which is short—concerning sex shops. However, tucked away at the end of the Bill is part III, consisting of three lines which seek to remove the duty to establish a new school. The clause states:
  "Notwithstanding the matters recited in paragraph (5) to (7) of the Preamble to this Act, it shall not be the duty of the council to establish a new county primary school at Moxon street in the city."
  Tribute has been paid on the Floor to the higher education role of the university, and the Government and the council should be helping the university. It is not right that this matter should be dealt with in a Bill concerning sex shops. That is scandalous, and shows scant regard for this House and for education in Westminster or anywhere else. I understand that that can be done under the procedures of this House, but it is not right. It makes a mockery of the House. Although the issue of sex shops is important, it should be dealt with by legislation that relates only to sex shops.
  The educational aspects—the role of the university of Westminster and what, in planning terms, the land should be used for—should not be tagged on to the Bill. The fact that they are makes a mockery of the procedures of the House, even though it is probably okay—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with a series of amendments which have been grouped
  630
  together. The hon. Gentleman is now rehearsing matters that would have been more suitable for the Second Reading debate. We have got beyond that.
  Mr. Cohen: I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, the House is extremely busy; there are always an enormous number of issues before the House. It is often not possible to look at private Bills as they proceed through the House, especially as this private Bill was about sex shops and then suddenly had a clause about education tagged on to it—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman now has the opportunity to talk about the educational features. I suggest that, if he wishes to do so, he does so now.
  Mr. Cohen: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been doing so for 50 minutes, and I am happy to continue to do so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) asked whether it was right procedurally to discuss education under this Bill. The procedure is right, as you have confirmed, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I do not think that it is proper to deal with the matter in this way. The House has been treated extremely badly—almost contemptuously.
  I come now to the important point that you made, Madam Deputy Speaker, about Second Reading. It was—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to make the point. He must return to the amendments.
  Mr. Cohen: All I wanted to say was that there was no opportunity to raise the education aspects on Second Reading, because hon. Members had not spotted clause 9 at that time. Indeed, the university of Westminster thought that it would get a fair hearing from Westminster city council, so it did not object or bring hon. Members' attention to the matter at that stage. That was not unreasonable. The university thought that Westminster city council was acting in good faith.
  However, it has now found that Westminster council was not acting in good faith. It was not possible, because of the circumstances, for these issues to be raised on Second Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish that it had been. I would have raised the issues myself if I had known that the matter would be dealt with in this way. I would have raised the issues on Second Reading, and I would have done my best to block the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, but—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now engaging in repetition. He is apparently anxious to talk about educational features. I suggest that he does so.
  Mr. Cohen: I have made my point, and I will not repeat it.
  The other amendments need a little explanation. Amendment No. 29 would insert at the end the words:
  "Within three years from the passing of this Act the council shall, on terms to be approved by the Secretary of State, dispose of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Education (London Residuary Body) (Property Transfer) (No. 3) Order 1991."
  That would ensure that the Secretary of State for Education had a role. In addition, as far as I can tell from the information from the parliamentary agent, Dyson Bell Martin and Co., within three years of the Bill being

  631
  enacted, and with the sale being approved by the Secretary of State, the council would be prevented from carrying out a site swap under which it could transfer an existing council function to Moxon street, and then sell the site that was thus released.
  Amendment No. 29 is important because we never know what Westminster council will get up to next. It has forfeited the right to have its measures go through unopposed, and it has forfeited the right to be treated as an honest dealer. The district auditor has, in his provisional findings, cast doubt on the council's probity.
  The council might well carry out a site swap. It might put an existing council function on to the Moxon street land, and then sell off the land released in a deal with Howard de Walden Estates Ltd. or with some other property dealer. It might then make a profit on land that was given to it free of charge for educational purposes. Amendment No. 29 is important, because it would prevent the council from doing such a deal.
  Amendment. No. 30 would insert at the end the words:
  "This section shall not relieve the council of any condition imposed upon it by or under the Order in respect of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order."
  Again, that emphasises that the land should be used for educational purposes.
  Amendment No. 30 also draws attention to how the land came into the ownership of Westminster city council. It was Greater London council land; the Government wound up the GLC. The land was then transferred to the Inner London education authority; the Government wound up ILEA. The land then went to the London residuary body, which transferred it to Westminster council, free of charge, for educational purposes.
  Westminster council now wants to get out of that deal. The important point here is that, when the LRB, which had all the proceeds of the GLC and ILEA, was wound up, the money was distributed to all the London boroughs, each of which got a fair share.
  Mr. Robin Squire: Of course.
  Mr. Cohen: The Minister says, "Of course." It was right that each borough got a fair share. However, the land had been given free to Westminster council by the LRB on the condition that it had to have an educational use. Londoners would not quibble with that, and they would not say that they wanted their handouts. The use of the land for educational purposes was a fair, local use.
  Two years after the free gift of land for educational use, Westminster council comes along and says, "We are going to get out of the educational provision, sell the land to a property speculator and make a bloody"—sorry about my language, Madam Deputy Speaker—"a bloomin' great killing." The land came from the LRB, which distributed earlier proceeds across London. The money from property speculation, therefore, is not the money of Westminster council. It is the money of Londoners. It is the money of the people of Hackney—the poorest borough in the country. Hackney residents deserve their share of the money, and Westminster should not use the money of Londoners.
  Mr. Peter Brooke: I can abbreviate this passage of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Were the property to be disposed of by Westminster city council and funds to be realised from
  632
  it, the money would be distributed to the other boroughs. That is the procedure that would apply to any other similar asset.
  Mr. Cohen: I am interested in that important comment; I do not doubt the veracity of the words of the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). However, I should like to know the mechanism for such a procedure. The LRB has been wound up; the distribution of the GLC and ILEA proceeds has taken place.
  Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that Westminster council will make a gift of the money to the other 32 London boroughs, and that the amount received will be publicly accountable? That is an interesting statement by the right hon. Gentleman. However, I want to know the mechanism for that distribution. As I said, the LRB has been wound up.
  Mr. Sedgemore: No doubt the Minister will describe the legal mechanism by which the money from the land can be transferred, if there is a large profit. No doubt the Minister will tell us the legal position later.
  My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the equitable distribution of the money, and the fact that Hackney is the poorest borough in the United Kingdom—a tag that we do not like but which, judging by the indices of poverty published by the Department of the Environment, appears to be correct. People in Hackney are desperately keen on education.
  Rather than a small, or even a large, sum of money being shared around, the London borough of Hackney, like all the other inner London boroughs, can only benefit from the land being kept in educational use. It would benefit particularly if the university of Westminster used it.
  8 pm
  Mr. Cohen: I appreciate that statement. We have mentioned the wide range of needy students who benefit from the work of the university of Westminster. I agree that the best use for the land—far better than a Waitrose, a Tesco or luxury housing—would be for educational purposes and for the university of Westminster; then people in my hon. Friend's constituency and in other London constituencies, as well as people who work in London and can pursue only part-time education, would have the chance to get on the upward escalator and improve their lives. That is the best way forward and the best use for the land, rather than distributing the money.
  I am grateful to the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) for pointing that out and I hope that the Minister will say more about how the money will be distributed. I hope that the Government will recognise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said, it is best to use the land for the education of Londoners. That is what they want. They do not want a few quid to be distributed to the 32 councils; they want the land to be used for education and to improve facilities for our people. That amendment is important and it certainly generated some interest in the House.
  Amendment No. 27 would insert at the end of clause 2
  "'the Order' means the Education (London Residuary Body) (Property Transfer) (No. 3) Order 1991."
  It will enable a definition to he included in the interpretation section, which should contain some definitions of the educational aspect, as all the other

  633
  definitions in the clause concern sex shops. By referring to the London residuary body transfer, the amendment shows that it took place for educational purposes. That should be included in the interpretation.
  Amendment No. 31 adds the following:
  "Within one year of the passing of this Act the council shall transfer without charge to an educational body nominated by the Secretary of State the land at Moxon Street which was transferred to the Council by the Order"—
  the order to which I just referred. The key words are that the land should go
  "without charge to an educational body nominated by the Secretary of State".
  I do not see why the Secretary of State cannot accept that amendment. Why does she persist in this so-called neutrality? The amendment makes it crystal clear. One is either for the land being used for educational purposes—the amendment gives the Secretary of State that power and role—or one does not accept this or any of the other amendments and goes with the clause that snuffs out the educational requirement. It is as simple as that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said, the panoply of the law would then come into play and Westminster would have to sell the land off to the highest bidder—the property speculator.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Schools cannot get away with that neutrality. The amendment beards him in his den. He is either for the land being used for educational purposes or for it going to speculators and to the highest bidder—to Waitrose or whatever. This professed neutrality will not do. If the hon. Gentleman talks about neutrality, perhaps he will mention that amendment, which offers a straight choice. If he says that he will not do anything to protect the educational use of the land but that he is neutral, he will have to explain his position.
  When the LRB transferred the land to Westminster, it intended it to be given to an educational body. That was also the intention of the Inner London education authority—the original owners—and of the Greater London council after 1966. The House should fulfil that intention.
  Amendment No. 26 states:
  "(2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) above unless he is satisfied that"
  the council has established that there is insufficient demand to justify the provision of
  "a new county primary school"
  at Moxon street. The amendment would prevent the council from being relieved of the obligation to build a school until the Secretary of State was satisfied that it was not required.
  In their disingenuous statement, the promoters said that there was no case for a primary school, but we have not seen any proper figures or information resulting from detailed consultation. We should not just take Westminster council's word in that respect.
  Amendment No. 33 adds the words:
  "(2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) above unless the council has:
  634

  (a) published the reasons for not establishing a new country primary school at Moxon Street; and

  (b) consulted in relation to those reasons such persons as appear to the council to be appropriate".

  It would require the council to consult the university of Westminster realistically and not, as it has done until now, a few junior officers who are polite but merely say, "Wait until the legislation is enacted and then we'll talk to you." Once the legislation is enacted, they will say, "We have nothing to say to you."
  The amendment continues:
  "in the same manner as the council would be obliged to publish and consult upon the establishment, discontinuance or alternation of a school under section 12 of the Education Act 1980."
  Because the land was transferred free of charge and was clearly always intended to be used for educational purposes, the change should not be brought about through a clause in a sex shop Bill but should be treated in exactly the same way as the discontinuance of a school—under section 12 of the Education Act 1980.
  What objection can the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, or any other hon. Member, have to that amendment? It is a serious proposal. It was always intended that there should be a school there—the land was handed over free of charge for that purpose—and, if the council wants to get out of that commitment, the land should be treated as though there were a school there already. That is a reasonable proposal and the Under-Secretary of State could take it on board.
  Amendment No. 34, in page 6, line 49, inserts at the end:
  "(2) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
  (3) Before making an order under subsection (2) above the Secretary of State shall require the council to submit a scheme for the future ownership and use of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order and, where that scheme is for the sale or use of the land other than for educational purposes, the Secretary of State shall direct the council to consult interested persons for the purpose of establishing that the land is not required for any educational purpose."
  There should be proper consultation on whether the land is required for educational purposes. Westminster council is simply scared. In Baroness Thatcher's words, it is "frit" of a proper consultation because it knows that, other than the big moneyed people—Howard de Walden Estates and property developers—most people in the community, including the university of Westminster, would say that the best use of the land is for education or, as I suggested in an amendment, a bit of social housing as well. Proper consultation should take place before the House allows Westminster council to get away with what it is trying to do.
  The final amendment in this cluster, No. 35, is in page 6, line 49, and adds at the end:
  "(2) This section shall not relieve the council of any condition imposed upon it by or under the Order in respect of the land at Moxon Street transferred to the council by the Order and the use of that land by the council for any purpose other than educational purposes shall be treated as a disposal of that land for the purposes of the Order."
  The amendment would thus treat the Moxon street site's use for non-educational purposes as a disposal by the council and require the council to account for its value to the Secretary of State, who may require the council to make payments to other ILEA boroughs. That was the point raised by the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South.

  635
  It is interesting that Dyson Bell Martin, the agents of the opponents to the Bill, the university of Westminster, have had to table an amendment saying that arrangements should be made for payment to other ILEA boroughs. Given that the agents have looked closely at the Bill and said that, if the land is to be used for non-educational purposes, an amendment is needed to say how the money will be distributed to other London boroughs, that seriously implies that no such provision exists at the moment. It is an important amendment and I should have thought that the Minister would accept it.
  In the interests of clarity, I have summarised the meaning of all the amendments. I should have thought that a Minister responsible for education who was doing his job properly by protecting and enhancing education could accept at least one of those amendments. I now come to the substantive part of my speech.
  In 1966, the GLC designated the land at Moxon street for educational purposes, as did the ILEA and the London residuary body. The land was given free of charge to Westminster for educational purposes but, within two years, Westminster council said that it did not need another primary school and set out to relieve itself of that commitment under current law and enter into a cosy deal with land speculators and profiteers.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Sedgemore: I have seen that Westminster changed its mind within two years of the 1991 transfer of property order. The promoter says that it changed its mind because all the figures for primary schools were hopelessly out. Has anyone explained at an earlier stage of the Bill—I have seen none—how such a mistake could be made? The figures for birth rates are fairly standardised and Westminster council must have known about its other school places. What, in such a short space of time, could have brought about such a fundamental change by Westminster council? Might the original transfer of land have been phoney? Perhaps it was not completely open and something was going on behind the scenes.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes his own point, which casts doubt over the transfer of land. There was some concern that the LRB was a quango which, like so many other quangos set up by the Government, had a Conservative in charge, and that a deal might have been done between the two Conservative leaders on the transfer of land. The LRB was not particularly friendly to Labour councils that wanted to transfer land, yet that transfer went through relatively easily and free of charge. So my hon. Friend might have a point. I do not know. I must assume that the LRB acted in good faith. ILEA certainly acted in good faith and believed that the land would be used for educational purposes and that the first in the queue was a primary school. As my hon. Friend says, the figures must have been worked out at that time, just three years ago.
  The land was given free of charge because it was believed that a primary school was needed. For Westminster council now to say that those arguments and figures were spurious is extremely disturbing. As my hon. Friend says, it casts doubt on the original transfer of land, although I still prefer to believe that the LRB acted in good faith and thought that the land was needed for an important educational purpose. It was probably in ILEA's mind when
  636
  it made that transfer that, if the land was not used for a primary school, it could go to the university of Westminster. It is interesting that the promoter and Westminster council talk in their document of "educational purposes". I suspect that that is what they had in mind.
  Mr. Sedgemore: I hope that my hon. Friend does not find me tedious if I ask him to help me on the same point. Paragraph 10 of the promoter's statement says:
  "Pupil numbers in the area of Moxon street have not risen as anticipated".
  If one has studied logic, as I did at university, one would realise that that statement could have many meanings. It could mean that the birth rate was lower than anticipated, although I find that difficult to believe. It could mean that pupils in that area are being sent other schools. We hear that there are 31 schools within the area and that a school called St. Vincent's is next to that site—which makes it bizarre that such a transfer took place. It could mean that the whole of the educational planning by the local educational authority went hopelessly awry. What does that statement mean?
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If Westminster council wanted to get out of its commitment, it should have justified that statement. My hon. Friend's question takes me back to the point that some sort of deal may have been done between the LRB and Westminster council. If it was not a deal, Westminster council may have been disingenuous in its original representation to the LRB for the land. Perhaps it went to the LRB and said, "Give us that land free of charge because we need it for a primary school and can produce figures to show that." The LRB, in good faith, gave the council the land on that reasoning, and now the same council has stepped down from that argument without providing those figures.
  That is a serious allegation that my hon. Friend is, not making, but hinting at. It is such a serious allegation that, before the House makes any progress on that matter, we should see all the documents relating to the original transfer by the LRB of that land to Westminster. We should know what the documents said then. I am not sure whether quangos keep proper records, but I hope they do. If they do not, that would tell us a lot about quangos and that one in particular and the way in which it was run.
  Let us assume that the LRB kept proper records. We should have the right to see them. We should be able to read what Westminster council said the pupil numbers would be, and to read the arguments. I hope that they would all be minuted. That should all be out in public for us to read, because the allegation that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch makes has serious implications.
  Mr. Sedgemore: For the avoidance of doubt, because it is a serious matter, I make it clear that I am not making any allegations. I am asking what I call pertinent and perhaps difficult questions, but surely it is the function of the House, when a Bill such as this comes before it, to question issues that appear to be incomprehensible.
  I do not suggest that anyone has done anything improper; I merely ask questions. I think that my hon. Friend is moving towards the conclusion that something improper may have happened, but nothing is further from my mind. I am simply acting as an investigative Back-Bench Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Cohen: I appreciate my hon. Friend's statement of his position; it was honourable for him to make it. It is

  637
  right for Members of Parliament to ask such questions, and they deserve answers. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend said, I am taking the implication of what he says and turning it into an allegation, but when one deals with a council such as Westminster council it is not surprising that any person of logic—my hon. Friend referred to logic—would start to make such implications. It makes the case for full and open disclosure of what took place at the time of that transfer and of what Westminster said at that time even more relevant and worthy of answers from the Secretary of State and from Westminster council.
  In considering that matter, I spoke to a couple of opposition councillors on Westminster council. I shall put before the House a couple of their comments, because I believe that they are relevant. First, I spoke to Councillor Ben Summerskill about the subject, and he told me that he thought that there possibly was a need for the school to be there; he was not sure. It is interesting in itself that he was not sure whether there was a need. That shows that Westminster council has not come clean with the figures regarding the need—but I shall not hark back to the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch made a short time ago.
  Mr. Summerskill said:
  "What the Council is doing … the site is targeted … by Lady Porter for yuppie housing in a marginal ward, Cavendish."
  That is the comment that he made to me over the telephone. He said:
  "they are now trying to do a deal with a supermarket."
  Mr. Summerskill told me during the discussion—or perhaps I told him: I am not sure; I have only a note of our telephone conversation—that the land should be used for a school, or the university of Westminster should have the land because it is desperate for accommodation. There is a note of that conversation.
  Because the university of Westminster cannot get its hands on that sort of site in Westminster, it is being forced to build on a site in Harrow. That is disgraceful treatment from the council and the Government. An argument was made earlier about part-time workers in the City of London needing that educational facility. If they work in the district around Marylebone and Baker street and want to improve themselves, why should they not go to a site in Westminster? What will it do for their educational opportunities if they have to go off to Harrow? People in Harrow may be able to take advantage of a site there, but what about those people in central London? That site should have been available for them in Westminster.
  That was a good part of my conversation with Councillor Summerskill, which I have related to the House. I return to the argument that the site has been targeted, in a marginal ward, for yuppie housing. Those were Councillor Summerskill's words, and that is a serious allegation, bearing in mind the district auditor's report, which said that the council misused about £21 million in a housing policy designed for gerrymandering—homes for votes. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has produced a paper that shows that the spending was much more than £21 million—it was £100 million.
  I see that you are becoming a bit edgy, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall leave that subject. However, this does cast light on the argument. There is a choice between the land being used for educational purposes—for a school or for the university of Westminster, which I believe would
  638
  be the best use—and it being used for yuppie housing. We either have social housing for students—perhaps some housing association homes which are affordable—or yuppie housing in a marginal ward. The latter smacks of things that are untoward, bearing in mind the district auditor's provisional findings about Westminster council.
  Mr. Sedgemore: I do not believe there is any reason why my hon. Friend should become edgy about this matter. If there were the slightest suggestion that that was in any way related to obtaining votes—that it was some homes-for-votes scandal—it would provide the House with the strongest possible reason for rejecting clause 9. If there were the slightest suggestion that what my hon. Friend has just said will happen, it would be immoral of the House to allow the clause to pass. I am sure that even the present Government, if they thought that that was partially true or even might be true, would want to desist from allowing the clause to pass and would ask further questions about it.
  Is it only a suspicion based on a feeling of a lack of trust or a feeling that Westminster council lacks integrity, or have there been any conversations about that? Are there any documents? Do we need some kind of—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has intervened on a number of occasions. I have no quarrel with that, but each intervention seems to be getting slightly longer than the previous one. I think that he will know my views that interventions should be short and sharp.
  Mr. Cohen: I accept my hon. Friend's argument, and Mr. Ben Summerskill's argument about the land being targeted for that yuppie housing speaks for itself.
  My hon. Friend asks whether there are any documents to show Westminster's intentions. Its planning brief refers to using the land for a supermarket and some luxury housing in a deal with speculators. There is that doubt. The shadow over that land is cast by the district auditor's report on what Westminster council was doing. There is that shadow of doubt, and it is quite a dark shadow—a dark stain, actually. It is a dark stain on Westminster council.
  One would have thought that Westminster council would keep its hands clean in those circumstances, yet here we have its proposal which smacks of the supposition that the policy of homes for votes has not been abandoned by the Westminster Tories. That is a serious matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch has said, if there is a hint of that homes-for-votes policy—clearly there is—the House should not agree to clause 9. It should accept one of my amendments—I do not care which one—so that the land is kept for educational purposes for the benefit of the university of Westminster. The Minister and the promoters should respond to that serious charge and come clean on how the proposal is tied up in with the homes-for-votes scandal.
  I also had a word with Councillor Peter Bradley of the Westminster Labour group. He told me that the site should be designated for housing to meet the needs of local people or for the education of local people. In his view, those objectives should remain the primary uses of the land.

  639
  8.30 pm
  Councillor Bradley said that the GLC site had been given to Westminster council free of charge, and that when the council took over the land from the LRB, it said that it would be used for educational purposes. Within a couple of months, however, it changed its mind. It is therefore clear that there was some action behind the scenes about that land.
  Councillor Bradley also told me that Howard de Walden Estates has plans for a food store and a car park on the site. That is confirmed in the planning brief. Howard de Walden Estates does not own the site, but it controls access to it. In effect, it is holding Westminster council, the university of Westminster and the House to ransom. It is using its interest in a little bit of access land to pull the council into booting the university of Westminster in the teeth. It can then strike a deal for a food store, a car park and perhaps luxury housing.
  I do not know whether the council officers got involved in the deal through naivety, or whether they decided that they had to deal with Howard de Walden Estates given its little bit of access land and power. I suspect that might be the case. They have failed to use their common sense and ask about the best use of the land. They have failed to take into account the site's history, when it was handed over free of charge for educational purposes. If those officers had considered that and asked the relevant questions, they would have realised that the land should be used for educational purposes by the university of Westminster.
  I suspect that planning officers thought, "Oh dear. Howard de Walden Estates has got some access and a bit of control over the site. We'd better fall into line with everything that it wants." That may be one scenario, in which case those planning officers are not doing their job properly. The House therefore has a duty to take an overview on the best use of the land and should not allow one private property developer to hold the council to ransom.
  Mr. Sedgemore rose—
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend had better be brief, because Madame Deputy Speaker pulled him up for speaking for too long in his previous intervention.
  Mr. Sedgemore: I am having some difficulty in following my hon. Friend's argument. If a school was to built on the site, access would be needed for people and vehicles. If someone is now arguing about access held by Howard de Walden Estates, either there must have been some mistake in the original planning or that is a spurious argument.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend may be right that that is a spurious argument. All I am doing is relating my telephone conversation with Councillor Peter Bradley.
  Howard de Walden Estates has obviously got significant leverage in some way or other either over planning officers or the Conservative councillors because it has been given, or is in the process of being everything that it has asked for by Westminster council.
  According to Councillor Bradley, the council's development brief "represents a blank cheque" to Howard de Walden Estates. I am not sure that that is a spurious argument. It is beneficial for the issue to be considered in the House because it means that it is made public. We
  640
  should know all the facts before the Bill, and specifically clause 9, is passed and extinguishes the educational use of the land.
  Mr. Sedgemore: Before my hon. Friend and I get at a loggerheads over a confusion, it is clear that I am losing the power of coherent speech, because I did not suggest that my hon. Friend's argument might be spurious. I suggested that the argument of the planners might be spurious.
  Mr. Cohen: That is a good point. It certainly appears that the planners have caved in and, as Councillor Bradley said, given Howard de Walden Estates a blank cheque. Westminster council owes us an explanation about that.
  I sought to raise this matter during Education Question Time on 24 January. I got close to getting some information because my oral question was the next one to be asked and the Minister was briefed with the answer. Just at that moment Madam Speaker said that time was up and we moved on to Prime Minister's Questions. I had tabled a question
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received relating to the City of Westminster Bill[Lords]; and what was her response."
  In a written answer, the Under-Secretary of State for Schools said:
  "There has been correspondence with Westminster city council about the need for clause 9 of the Bill which would relieve the local education authority of its duty under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 to build a new school at Moxon Street. No other correspondence about this aspect of the Bill has been received."— [Official Report, 24 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 163.]
  It would be interesting to know exactly what correspondence the Minister received from Westminster city council; whether it lobbied him for support and how that influenced his attitude.
  The Under-Secretary should have spoken to the university of Westminster once he had had notification of the proposal from the council. I understand that he is busy and has a big job trying to clear up the mess in education that the Government have created over the years. The Minister may laugh but class sizes are shooting up and—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going very wide of the amendments under consideration. I remind him also that he is beginning to rehearse his arguments. I shall watch that carefully.
  Mr. Cohen: I will try not to rehearse my arguments. I was referring to a parliamentary answer on the specific subject that was given on 24 January. The Minister claims to be neutral and that it is nothing to do with him. That amounts to a brush-off of the university of Westminster, but it does not stop Ministers, Conservative councillors and officials at the Department for Education from criticising universities such as the university of Westminster for what they claim to be their high costs. They have sometimes been referred to in inspection reports.
  Those high costs are incurred because the university of Westminster has to operate from a number of diverse, small campuses. That is why it has developed plans to replace a number of those smaller sites with five large sites by the year 2000. As I have told the House already, one of those sites is going to be not in Westminster but in Harrow. The Moxon street land would be ideal for such a site.

  641
  There is a chance to solve, at least partially, the university of Westminster's problems. It is not right that the Department of Education should ignore the university while criticising it for high costs that are brought about by having diverse sites.
  Mr. Bryan Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent survey of staff at Westminster which showed that one of the problems that they identified in their work at the university was the dispersal of sites? As my hon. Friend rightly said, the dispersal includes a site in Harrow. Therefore, for the very best of educational reasons, an attempt to bring an element of concentration to the university's operations would greatly assist staff morale and improve the quality of education generally.
  Mr. Cohen: That is an excellent point. That point from the Labour Front Bench, which is currently the Opposition, was very ministerial. Increasingly, right across the board, statements from the Opposition sound more and more like the statements of a Government. The Government are a shambles.
  My hon. Friend's remark showed that he is aware of the problems of the university of Westminster. If he were in the Department of Education, he would help the university. Its aim of improving education opportunities for Londoners is my hon. Friend's aim, too. If my hon. Friend were a Minister, even though he would be busy cleaning up the mess on education left behind by the Conservative Government, he would send an official to have a word with the university of Westminster and ask it what its problems were. He would have told the university that the Bill was before the House and that the council wanted to get out of its commitment to using the land for educational purposes and asked what it thought of the matter. That is what would have happened. It did not happen under the Government. The university of Westminster has been given the brush-off.
  The Minister should have intervened. He is responsible for education and for improving education. That is his job and he should have taken that on board in this case. If he had, he would have been backing the university of Westminster.
  I say that there is a proven educational need but Westminster council is trying to extinguish that commitment. It is justifiable to extinguish such a commitment to educational purposes—for which it got the land free of charge—only if there is no need for those education purposes. I submit that there is a need.
  I have a letter from Dr. S. M. K. Wilmington, the chairman of the governors of the St. Marylebone school, of 64 Marylebone High street, W1M 4BA. He says:
  "Dear Mr. Cohen
  City of Westminster
  I understand that you were one of the three Members of Parliament who opposed the private Bill the city of Westminster is promoting, Clause 9 of which deals with the former county primary school in Moxon Street.
  I thought accordingly that you might find it helpful to have a copy of the attached letter to Councillor Robert Davies of 22 March from one of my fellow Governors. This is the culmination of a long correspondence between ourselves and Westminster members and officers."
  He encloses a copy of the letter to Councillor Robert Davies, the chairman of the planning committee at Westminster, from Robin Majdalany. He says:
  642
  "Moxon Street Site
  I write in advance of the meeting planned for the 10th of April to express my concern with regard to the planning brief for the Moxon Street site. This appears to imply an intention on the part of the council to dispose of the site. I wish to enquire how the education needs of the area will be satisfied, and whether an option might be retained for a development to incorporate a school.
  I write on behalf of the St. Marylebone school which, as you may know, is restricted on its present site. The site is held in trust for the benefit of the School. The School can neither move out of London, nor develop the present site further. There is considerable demand for places at the School and the Governors believe that growth in the capacity of the School can only be accommodated on a site fairly close to the present school premises in St. Marylebone. Moxon Street would provide an ideal and close site for this purpose.
  I trust that you will be able to take our interest into consideration in your deliberations of the planning brief. May I also ask for a response with regards to the points raised".
  8.45 pm
  That is a letter from a nearby school, the St. Marylebone school in Marylebone High street, saying that there is a need for a school on the site. It is crystal clear from the governors of that school that there is a need for a school on the site. Yet all we have had is assertions from Westminster council and the promoters that there is now no longer a need for a school. Those assertions are shown to be false by the letter from the governors of St. Marylebone school. The fox has been shot by that letter. There is clearly a need for a school and assertions that there is not are downright untrue. We should not pass clause 9 on the basis of untrue assertions.
  Mr. Sedgemore: Could my hon. Friend tell me how what he has just said, which I have not heard before, fits in with the statement of the promoters? They say:
  "The City Council would therefore be in the position of having to build a school in a part of the City where there is little demand, to the detriment of educational provisions in other parts of the borough."
  I do not know whether my hon. Friend's letter came from a teacher or head teacher but it says that there is a demand. How do those two statements square with each other?
  Mr. Cohen: That is exactly my point. The first letter that I have read into the record was from Dr. Wilmington, the chairman of the governors. The letter to Councillor Davies was from Robin Magdalene, MA, FCA, FRSA. He has plenty of qualifications. I want plenty of qualifications for Londoners through the use of the site. He is a governor and chairman of the finance and premises committee. I will not repeat it, but he clearly says that St. Marylebone school is restricted on its present site and that there is much demand for places at the school that is not being fulfilled.
  The Prime Minister—I do not know how long he will be Prime Minister—said only last week that the Conservatives were for giving parents choice about schools. It is not choice. It is the right to express a preference. There are not really places available. The Minister may laugh but when I wrote to him or his predecessor last year giving cases of people who cannot have their choice and asking him to intervene, his Department refused and said that it was a matter for the local authority. It is about a preference, not a choice.
  The surface language and the presentation from the Government is that there is a choice. Here we have a school to which many parents want to send their children. It is restricted on its present site, children cannot get in

  643
  and parents cannot have their choice met. If the site, or part of it, was made available to them, the Government's language of choice could become more of a reality. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) was absolutely right. The nonsense and disingenuousness of the statement issued by the promoters has been exposed.
  Representations have been received from the university of Westminster. Professor Burlin sent a briefing to hon. Members which said:
  "Within two years, the City of Westminster had reached a radically different view of projected numbers of children, and was seeking through the current Bill … to be released from the requirement to build a primary school on the Moxom Street site. Planning guidelines have been produced … indicating a predominantly residential development,("a substantial number of new, high quality, residential units") and other uses, including retail development."
  There we have it: Westminster council wants to build luxury houses and a supermarket.
  Professor Burlin went on:
  "Much local publicity has been given in preparing for the expectation that, if the Bill is successful, Westminster will sell the site to the Howard de Walden Estate, providing a Waitrose supermarket and residential development. Other property developers are believed to be interested."
  Incidentally, he included with his briefing an article from the Hampstead and Highgate Express of 12 May 1995. The article is headed "Rivals line up for prime site battle". It is reported that, as the university developer and supermarket chain prepare to fight it out, there is an "unseemly scramble" for a car park. It is only unseemly because of the action of Westminster council which is trying to make a profit out of the site. The article also states:
  "The Howard de Walden estates, the largest landowner in the area, has so far been the most vocal of the parties interested in the site.
  The estate sees itself as a natural choice to buy the site, as it owns many of the properties that surround it and would therefore avoid running into the access problems that would discourage others.
  The estate has teamed up with Waitrose and set out its stall in a new publication, The Marylebone Newsletter, which was recently distributed to local residents trumpeting the happy headline 'It's Waitrose!"'
  It also states:
  "For the University of Westminster, acquisition of the site would be a godsend, enabling it to expand its Marylebone Road site and ditch some of the smaller, cripplingly expensive venues that it is currently forced to lease all around the borough.
  Perhaps the most legitimate claim to the land is the most neglected. The University of Westminster has an undeniable claim to a property that, after all, was intended for educational use."
  It then praises the university.
  The article concludes by quoting Professor Burlin,who said:
  "We might not be able to compete financially with a developer like the Howard de Walden estate or a supermarket chain like Waitrose … They may be able to bid more money—but what it really comes down to is the value the council actually puts on education in Westminster."
  It is not only a question of the value that the council places on education but of the value that the Government and the House place on it.
  644
  There are two options. If we allow the clause to be passed, Westminster will be duty bound, as has been said, to sell the site to property developers and the supermarket chain. Otherwise, the commitment is retained and the site is allowed to be used for educational purposes, in which case we place the proper value on education, as Professor Burlin said.
  In his briefing to hon. Members, Professor Burlin said:
  "Since this site was acquired by the GLC in 1966, it has been promised for educational use … If it were put on the open market, there is no way that educational organisations, such as colleges or universities, could compete with the financial resources of developers. Therefore, to retain the site for educational purposes, it is vital that it remains designated for such purposes
  Although the site may not now be required as a primary school, there are other important uses which, when they are examined, justify retaining the educational designation. These are nursery provision and post-compulsory education … The University of Westminster runs an over-subscribed day nursery on the Marylebone campus close to Moxon street, and with more space would be happy to cooperate in increasing various forms of nursery provision in the area."
  I do not want to read all the briefing into the record—I would if I had more time—but it is clearly relevant. It states that the proven need for an expansion of full-time and part-time higher education is being ignored.
  The briefing goes on to say that the university has been trying to overcome its problems caused by being dispersed uneconomically over 20 sites and has a programme to consolidate on five major sites by the year 2000. It continues:
  "Purchasing a further major building, against commercial competition, would overstrain our resources, given that many of the properties we have for disposal are leased rather than owned."
  If the university had the site in question, it would not have to replicate such facilities as
  "refectories and libraries and services such as heating, caretaking and cleaning."
  The university of Westminster has shown how it could cut its costs while pointing out the diversity of its needs.
  Another briefing was sent to hon. Members earlier this year. I do not want to spend too much time on it, but it states:
  "The mission of the University of Westminster is to be the leading provider in the capital city of a high quality accessible portfolio of higher education and associated strategic research."
  Mr. Bryan Davies: Does my hon. Friend think that the university of Westminster might have approached the local authority with rather greater optimism some time ago when the authority might have had a greater awareness of the university's history—its first constituent college was founded by the first Lord Hailsham, or Quintin Hogg—and of its long association with that aspect of the Conservative party which always showed itself to be concerned with education and the good of the people of London? Now, the university seems to be dealing with the modern and rather different Conservative Administration, who have different values.
  Mr. Cohen: Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The university has certainly been treated poorly by the current Conservative council and by the Minister who, despite his so-called neutral stance, has not done what an Education Minister should have done. The present Conservatives have not listened properly, and I think my hon. Friend is probably right to say that the Conservatives of the past were concerned about education and would

  645
  probably have given the university a fairer hearing than the current lot, who are interested only in land speculation, property development and such commercial activities.
  My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. However, I thought that he was going to make a different point: I thought that he was going to suggest that the university of Westminster would get a better hearing if clause 9 were not passed.
  That is certainly true. If the clause is passed, the Conservatives on Westminster council who are not interested in education—who turn a deaf ear to it—will say that, because the legislation has been passed by Parliament, they have a duty under the law to sell the site to the highest bidder. The university of Westminster will not get any sort of hearing once the legislation is passed.
  If we are to strengthen the hand of the university of Westminster in its discussions with the council, it is absolutely crucial that we do not pass the clause and that we pass the amendments to which I have referred. In view of the nature of the Conservatives with whom the university is dealing, it is correct that the House should try to strengthen the university's hand—the hand of education—in the negotiations. My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.
  9 pm
  In the January briefing, the university of Westminster said that it is building on a major site in Harrow which it owns. However, that removes educational facilities from central London and the communities which they serve. That is a very good point. The briefing states:
  "The Moxon Street site … would be ideally located for a major building of the University of Westminster".
  It continues:
  "Architects have undertaken preliminary drawings and estimate the site would accommodate a building with 17,000 sq m floor space. This would provide a large building in an ideal location for the University".
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now repeating arguments that he has already put to the House.
  Mr. Cohen: I do not wish to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was trying to put the argument in the words of the lobbyist, Professor Burlin. Some hon. Members cast doubt upon the statements that I made earlier in the debate and suggested that I was not stating the facts. I have tried to show that that information has not come from me; it has come from Professor Burlin, the university of Westminster and the St. Marylebone school. Professor Burlin's briefings and the letter from St. Marylebone's school show that there is a clearly established need for the site to be used for educational purposes.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Leyton has made his view quite clear on several previous occasions. He is repeating the arguments.
  Mr. Cohen: I do not want to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Bryan Davies: My hon. Friend is seeking to stress that the authority he is now quoting—the vicechancellor—was acting in an entirely dispassionate way. He has no conceivable political axe to grind; he is simply concerned about the educational opportunities of his
  646
  institution in relation to the decision about that crucial piece of land. Therefore, it is rather important that my hon. Friend develops clearly the arguments that Professor Burlin has put to several hon. Members but which have not been clarified on the Floor of the House as yet.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Leyton that he should be giving his own speech. He may wish to adduce the arguments of others, but it is not a sufficient excuse for him to repeat a series of other people's arguments as a means of getting around the strictures that I have just offered him.
  Mr. Cohen: I understand your concern, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Sedgemore: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can help the House? You always guide us beautifully and we accept your guidance every time, but I am slight puzzled about this. What if my hon. Friend quotes 500 high-powered sources who are saying roughly the same thing? It has never stopped Ministers quoting 500 high-powered sources, so why should it stop Back Benchers doing the same?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Leyton has already received the answer: it is incumbent upon hon. Members to make their own speeches and not simply to quote from other sources, however eminent, as a substitute for their own views.
  Mr. Cohen: I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker. You were correct in describing the sources as "eminent"; Professor Burlin, who is speaking on behalf of the university of Westminster, is certainly eminent. Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand what you have said about not repeating my argument and I do not want to do that. I was seeking to add emphasis and to give weight to my point.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has already done that; he does not need to do it again.
  Mr. Cohen: That is fair enough, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to make it clear that those points were not mine but those of the eminent people whom I quoted. My hon. Friend, in his intervention, made a good point about Professor Burlin—a new point, not made before. From Professor Burlin's point of view, this is not a party political matter. I am sorry in some ways that a Labour Member must raise the matter on behalf of the university. I am trying not to make my speech party political.
  In some areas, doubt has been cast on Westminster city council. I am afraid that the district auditor's report will become a party political issue, but the arguments concerning the university must be judged on their merits. I just wish that the Minister would do so and that, when there is a vote at the end of this debate, hon. Members who have not been present in the Chamber will consider the arguments on their merits and not treat the matter as party political. If they did that and considered the points made by Professor Burlin in a non-party political fashion, they would not agree to clause 9.
  Dyson Bell Martin drew attention to the meetings between the university of Westminster and the council. I have made this point before but I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will allow me to quote Dyson Bell Martin, which is important in this context:
  "The University of Westminster has been interested in acquiring part or all of the site for educational purposes since it became clear that the Council did not intend to build a school on it. University

  647
  representative have met members and officials of the Council at various times to discuss the matter. All such meetings have been polite, but rarely helpful and it is apparent that the Council has never had any intention of entering into serious discussions with the University about the land remaining in educational use."
  That is all that I shall quote; otherwise, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will accuse me of repetition.
  That quotation makes a weighty point about the council's treatment of the university, which the council has not taken seriously. Once the council gets the Bill in the form that it wants, it would not have to take the university seriously and will not do so. I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make that point.
  I will address next the planning brief, which is new information. I should like to take the House through some aspects of that brief, which is a long document.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is speaking to a group of amendments. If he wants to use the planning brief to support his amendments, that will be all right—but he is not here simply to go through a series of documents.
  Mr. Cohen: I will not do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will notice that I have just a few sheets of paper. Otherwise I might have read out the whole planning brief. In fact, of course, I would not have done so because you would have stopped me. I have selected key areas of the brief which relate to the use of the land for educational purposes and I will quote relevant parts in support of my amendments. I am sure that you will stop me if any of them are not relevant.
  The planning brief is entitled "Main issues arising from the public consultation exercise" but, amazingly, it gives no specific consideration to educational use issues, particularly in respect of the university of Westminster. The extinction of the land for education purposes has been virtually taken for granted by Westminster council in its planning brief. That is shocking. One of the central arguments is that the site should be used for education purposes and that the university of Westminster should have first crack at the land—in other words, the option to use it. Yet the planning brief virtually ignores that argument. I accept that the argument is taken up in little bits but it is not dealt with coherently. It is not considered as an option.
  The council has virtually taken it for granted that it will get its Bill through the House and thereby extinguish education use. That enhances the argument advanced by Dyson Bell Martin that the university has been treated extremely badly. Indeed, it has been virtually ignored by the council.
  The planning brief refers to Howard de Walden Estates and a food supermarket. That is something that gets plenty of space in the brief. Indeed, it seems to have coloured the council's views. I shall not repeat that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I merely say that the largest landowner in the area, Howard de Walden Estates, had a bearing on the council officers' views when they came to prepare the brief. There was little discussion about education use and plenty of discussion about a food supermarket and what Howard de Walden Estates wants. It is not an especially sensible planning brief.
  The planning brief includes a planning history of the site. It states:
  "It was intended to be a short term measure"—
  648
  that is, the use of the site as a car park—
  "pending redevelopment on a properly planned basis for educational purposes."
  That does not mean a primary school but use for "educational purposes". That was stated in February 1995. That is what appears in the brief. The council officers make it clear that the land would be used for a car park
  "pending redevelopment on a properly planned basis for educational purposes."
  The officers have given the game away. The history of the land turned on "education purposes", and that is why it was given to Westminster. The Minister is again looking exasperated. Let him understand that I am referring to the words in the brief. There we have it, "education purposes". Whatever the result of the Division, the argument is won. The site should be used for "education purposes".
  We are told in the brief that the policies set out in the development plan
  "are guided by a number of long-standing planning objectives, of which maximising residential accommodation and ensuring a high quality environment are the most important to the development of the Moxon Street site."
  It adds that new residential building
  "is usually by way of demolition and replacement rather than providing substantial net increases of housing on previously non-residential land.
  On the whole, however,opportunities for such gains in the future will be few."
  It was referring to opportunities to obtain sites for social housing. The same goes for sites for educational purposes and opportunities to improve the environment. Such opportunities will be few. We are talking about a busy, built-up, urban area. The opportunities for social housing and educational land will be few. That was in the officers' brief.
  9.15 pm
  So why should a supermarket be put on the site? If it is a matter of scarcity, what should be the priority? The future opportunities of land for the university of Westminster, are not in Harrow, in Timbuctoo or on the moon, but in Westminster in central London. Aneurin Bevan said that socialism was the language of priorities. In many ways, politics is the language of priorities. The House has to decide on priorities. If the opportunities are few, I say that the land would be best used for educational purposes and some social housing rather than a supermarket. It is there in the planning brief. It says:
  "opportunities for such gains in the future will be few."
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made that point several times. I do not think that any of us can have failed to take it in.
  Mr. Cohen: I hope that the Minister and other hon. Members have indeed taken it in. I was about to move on, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was just my way of emphasising the point.
  The planning brief goes on to say:
  "Creche and nursery facilities would also be appropriate. Having regard to the long history of school proposals on the site, educational use—including higher education—is also considered appropriate."
  Then the planning brief goes off at a strange tangent which shows how the officers were thinking. It refers to
  "a creche for staff, shoppers and community use."

  649
  It said that there was a need for nursery and creche facilities and for higher education premises on the site. I have read out Professor Burlin's letter, in which he said that the university would love to have the site to improve its nursery provision and creche facilities on its main site.
  While the officers recognise that there is a need for such facilities, they do not attribute the need to the university of Westminster but go off at a tangent talking about shoppers. That shows how their minds were working and how they their attitudes were coloured by Howard de Walden Estates. They had it fixed in their minds that they would go for the supermarket. But the truth has come out: nursery facilities can be provided without a supermarket being built—they can be provided by the university. That is an important point.
  The planners go on to say:
  "With regard to the Moxon Street site, traditional plot width articulation would be an advantage—particularly if residential elements are to be incorporated—and the design may benefit from additional emphasis on the corners. If the site includes educational use the relevant part of the development should have an appropriately designed civic character. Any development should incorporate traditional, high quality materials."
  That was the officers' thinking about educational use. That was almost their sole reference to the argument that the site could be used for educational purposes. Then along comes the deal with the developers for a supermarket and the educational use gets flung out of the window.
  The section of the planning brief that I have just read out gives a clue to the thinking of the council. It did not intend to give a fair and proper hearing to the University of Westminster.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made that point several times. It does not need rehearsing again.
  Mr. Cohen: I am not rehearsing it, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am just pointing it out.
  I come finally to the planning brief appendix. The House will appreciate that the brief is an inadequate document. The consultation on it was inadequate and that alone puts the preamble in doubt. Westminster council is taking a momentous step in extinguishing educational use for that land and putting the boot into the university, and it is doing that on the basis of an inadequate planning brief. The House should not tolerate that. We should send the whole thing back and say, "Think again and consult properly with the university."
  There was amazing consultation towards the end of the exercise with people who responded to the council. Right in the forefront is Howard de Walden Estates and the answer to everything that it wants is, "Yes, yes, yes." The appendix shows that the answer to whatever it asked for was yes.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has also made that point several times.
  Mr. Cohen: Appendix 2 in the table of consultation—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. In the House we do not proceed in debate simply by extensive quotations from documents. Hon. Members are expected to make their
  650
  own speeches, adducing particular points if they wish, but they are not expected simply to go through a whole series of documents.
  Mr. Cohen: These are crucial documents and it was through them that the Bill came to the House. I am dealing with the consultation by virtue of which the council says that it is justified in extinguishing educational use for the site and putting a food supermarket on the land.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have explained that references to documents are in order. However, the hon. Gentleman is now engaging in considerable repetition of arguments that he has already put forward.
  Mr. Cohen: I do not think that I am doing that.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I say that the hon. Gentleman is doing that. Is he challenging my ruling?
  Mr. Cohen: No, I am certainly not challenging your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am trying not to be repetitious. An analysis of my speech will show that it is my own. I have referred to documents, but only to relevant ones and I have quoted the appropriate parts and commented on them. If I had referred only to the documents, my speech would have been over in half an hour; as I have said, I have sought to comment on the relevance of the documents and I shall continue to do that.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would be wise not to confuse quality with quantity.
  Mr. Cohen: I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the House will not confuse quality with quantity—the quantity of the quids in a deal with property developers and the quality of educational use. Education should be provided on this site. That is the quality and quantity argument that the debate is all about.
  Mr. Sedgemore: Is my hon. Friend aware that his stance of argumentum ad verecundiam is one of the most powerful ways of debating that is known to mankind? If my hon. Friend wants that translated, it means arguing by reference to wise authority.
  Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, I do not propose to take that line of argument as I might upset you even more, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not want to do that—I want to make my own speech.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. One can also argue ad nauseam.
  Mr. Brooke: Following the substantial conspiracy theory that the hon. Gentleman has adopted for the past half hour or so, would he like to tell the House how many planning applications are before Westminster city council for the Moxon street site, including those from the university of Westminster?
  Mr. Cohen: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will answer that question himself when he makes his short speech, as I propose to sit down and allow him to do so. What value, however, is a planning application from the university of Westminster if the law has changed, as would be the case under the Bill? If the law has changed, the council is under no obligation to use the land for educational purposes.

  651
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said in an intervention a long time ago, and as was made clear by Dyson Bell Martin in its correspondence, Westminster council would be under an obligation to sell the land to the highest bidder. A planning application from the university of Westminster would be worthless in those circumstances. If the planning application is to be meaningful, it would therefore be best for the House not to pass the clause and for one of my amendments to be passed instead. If the right hon. Gentleman is putting weight on the university of Westminster's planning application, he should support one of my amendments so that it can become a meaningful application.
  I am coming to a close because I want to give other hon. Members a chance to speak, although I could continue for longer. I want to continue without, I hope, referring to the planning brief too much. I am trying not to do that—I have dealt briefly with that brief. In the consultation, the recommendations of the university of Westminster were greeted repeatedly with the answer "no". Other people were consulted. The Marylebone Association said:
  "For a supermarket to be viable it would have to attract thousands of people from outside the area. This would increase traffic in the area, which the surrounding streets are unsuited for. Additional traffic could cause gridlock in the area, noise and air pollution in this largely residential area."
  It adds that, as well as traffic problems, there would be night-time delivery problems. Again, you will not let me quote directly, Madam Deputy Speaker, but clearly there would be traffic problems. In its reply, the council says:
  "The City Council is concerned that a supermarket use, if granted planning permission, provides for local needs and does not attract traffic into the area. The traffic, highway and environmental implications of a proposed supermarket use will be assessed, in detail, when an application is submitted."
  The St. Marylebone Society talks about a supermarket not being necessary in the area because there are large stores in Oxford street and other aspects.
  The Marylebone Association and St. Marylebone Society make a genuine point. If a supermarket were to be located in this region, there would be additional traffic, noise and nuisance in an area which already has heavy traffic. The council admits that that is a distinct possibility. That is why it is saying that any application for a supermarket would have to be considered closely. It is not saying that there would not be additional traffic, noise, fumes and everything. By the nature of its reply, it is virtually saying that that is a distinct possibility and that that would be a nuisance to residents.
  The case is overwhelming that this land should be retained for educational purposes. That was the intention of the Greater London council, the Inner London education authority and the London residuary body when that council transferred the land free of charge to Westminster council. There is an educational need—I spelled that out—from St. Marylebone school and, on a non-party political basis, I have spoken a great deal about the university of Westminster's position, saying that its need is massive.
  The council has acted in a dubious way on a number of things. The district auditor's report says that the council—this is public knowledge—likes to make
  652
  property deals with property developers and speculators. Who knows what some of the options on those deals might have been?
  The House should examine the matter openly and in detail. At the end of the day, we should reach a decision based purely on the merits of the case—that is, the best use of the land for the community. If that question is considered, the answer can be only educational use, perhaps with some social housing as well. That is way ahead of anything proposed by the property speculators, such as a supermarket.
  The House should not accept the clause. Instead, it should support one of my amendments. We should do the right thing by Westminster university and for education in London.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Robin Squire: It may help the House if I intervene in the debate at this stage. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)—indeed, the whole House—is now well aware that the purpose of clause 9 is to relieve Westminster city council of the duty to establish a primary school on the council-owned site in Moxon street, Westminster. Approval for the project was given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, under section 12 of the Education Act 1980, on 22 February 1991.
  I understand that, subsequent to that approval, the authority concluded that there was no longer a need for new primary school places in the relevant catchment area. The judgment of such need is a matter for the local education authority, which is responsible for providing education for children in the area. To relieve the council of the duty to implement my right hon. Friend's decision under section 12, it is necessary to introduce a private Bill clause broadly in the terms of clause 9. Until such a clause is enacted, Westminster city council remains liable to implement my right hon. Friend's 1991 decision.
  It may be helpful to Opposition Members if I offer some clarification of the conditions attached to the transfer of the site to Westminster city council in 1991. The transfer was subject to the Education (London Residuary Body) (Property Transfer) (No. 3) Order 1991. Part I of the schedule to that order listed the recipients of land transferring from the London residuary body, with a short description of each property concerned.
  I must emphasise that, although the Moxon street site was identified in the following terms:
  "site for proposed new primary school, Moxon Street/Cramer Street W1",
  those words were a description, not a condition, of the transfer. The condition attached to the transfer was set out in article 4 of the order, which stated that land transferred in the way that the Moxon street site was transferred was subject to the condition that it, or any interest in it, should not be disposed of within 20 years of the transfer date without the consent in writing of the Secretary of State. It would be open to my right hon. Friend to withhold that consent. Further, when giving that consent, my right hon. Friend may impose conditions regarding the distribution of the disposal proceeds between the inner-London authorities.
  The House will note that, contrary to the repeated claims of the hon. Member for Leyton, the conditions governing Moxon street do not restrict the site to

  653
  educational use. It is true that, in some other property transfer orders, education use was a condition of the property transfer. For example, some land was requested to be brought into educational use by a specific date or else disposed of.
  It is not possible to say specifically, after some years, why different conditions were imposed, but I can confirm—this is most important in the light of the hon. Gentleman's repeated accusations directed at Westminster council—that the conditions which I outlined for Moxon street apply not just to Westminster city council, but to other councils that received property under part I of schedule 6 of the order. They include Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Hertfordshire. It is clear that Westminster was not singled out for any special treatment.
  It has not been the practice of the Department for Education to verify with authorities the use that they are making of the sites in question. That is a matter for the authorities that own the sites. In this case, Westminster council concluded that the census projections no longer warranted the establishment of a new school and brought the matter to the attention of the Department. Acting on the basis of advice from my Department's officials that a private Bill would be the appropriate means of relieving the council of the duty to implement the Secretary of State's section 12 approval, the council introduced clause 9.
  I have a high regard for the university of Westminster and I wish it well in its various plans. Unlike schools, universities are private sector, autonomous institutions. They receive much of their income from private sources, determine their own admissions policy and curricula and are free to organise academic business affairs as they wish. Most important, under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the Government may not intervene in such affairs or direct funds towards individual institutions. The House will understand why I cannot say more about the amendment that related to the university, to which the hon. Gentleman made considerable reference in his speech.
  Amendments Nos. 26, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34 could impose new responsibilities on the Secretary of State for Education. They would include making an order; establishing whether the site was needed for an educational purpose, whether for the council or another body; approving the disposal of land within three years; within one year, ordering the transfer of the site to an educational body; satisfying herself that there is insufficient demand for a new county primary school; investigating whether Westminster has published and consulted about reasons for not wanting the school; and requiring the submission of a scheme for future ownership and use of the site.
  Those requirements exceed by some considerable way what is required in the case of other property transferred by the order that covered Moxon street. The House would not be surprised if the Secretary of State were to regard those proposed duties as onerous and excessive.
  Mr. Brooke: There were no petitions in relation to the Bill in either House, and the sponsors were not approached by any of those who are now taking an interest in the Bill until after the Committee in this House—the second House to consider the matter, as the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords. I congratulate
  654
  the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on the interest that he has developed at a late stage in the subjects with which the Bill deals, even though I am not sure that I would congratulate him on much else.
  I realise that the hon. Gentleman's primary interest is in the sex shop issue to which we will come at a later stage. The hon. Gentleman seemed anxious to defer that later stage this evening.
  Mr. Cohen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brooke: I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman was on his feet for two and a half hours.
  Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has just said something that is quite untrue. I wanted the other stage of the Bill to come first, and this stage to come second. The choice was purely in the hands of the Clerks.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, but a point of substance. If the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way, that is the end of the matter.
  Mr. Brooke: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has also embraced the interests of my constituents at the university of Westminster, who enjoy my admiration every bit as much as they enjoy his. However, his scatter of amendments would throw the Moxon street site open not just to the university of Westminster, but to every publicly funded body with an educational purpose. Incidentally, the city council does not favour or oppose the aspirations of the university of Westminster. It recognises that, as a planning authority, it has a duty towards the site and it appreciates that the university may well have a close interest in it.
  In his long speech, the hon. Member for Leyton said that clause 9 was all about prejudging the issue. At present, there is an obligation to start building a primary school by 1 September 1995; that is a couple of months away. The only way in which the council could escape the obligation was by introducing a clause in private legislation—hence clause 9, which has been in the Bill since November 1993.
  In amendment No. 28, the hon. Member for Leyton seeks to remove clause 9 from the Bill. He would thus oblige Westminster city council to build a county primary school on the Moxon street site, although there is reasonable agreement that there is no need for a county primary school there, and that to build such a school there would do nothing for the interests of the university of Westminster, which the hon. Gentleman says he espouses.
  The history of the planning of the primary school site came up at length in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Westminster city council inherited planning which had been initiated by the Inner London education authority before the site was transferred. The shadow education committee of Westminster city council looked at the matter in January 1990, before the transfer, endorsed ILEA's plan and got permission from the then Secretary of State to put up a primary school by 1 September 1992. The council has, however, revisited the planning statistics.
  The expectation, held first by ILEA and then by Westminster city council, was that there would be a considerable influx of Hong Kong Chinese children into that part of Westminster because of what would happen

  655
  in Hong Kong in 1997 and because the Chinese community had its centre in Soho, in my constituency. Those expectations have not been fulfilled.
  The hon. Member for Leyton produced a random scatter of amendments. I shall briefly pay him the compliment of referring to them, even though some are in conflict with each other.
  Amendment No. I was the first for the House to consider. The fact that we are discussing the educational aspect first is a function, therefore, of an amendment that the hon. Gentleman tabled and not of a decision by anybody else. Amendment No. 1 is legally incorrect because it implies that the city council has a statutory duty to use the land for educational purposes wider than a primary school. In fact, the only statutory educational duty on Westminster city council in relation to the site is, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, to establish a county primary school.
  Amendment No. 27 is a paving amendment for amendments Nos. 30, 31, 34 and 35. I have already alluded to amendment No. 28 in which the hon. Gentleman seeks to strike clause 9 out of the Bill and thus to oblige Westminster to embark on a county primary school by 1 September this year.
  My hon. Friend the Minister has commented on amendment No. 26 and the series of subsequent amendments. As he says, they would impose a range of duties on the Secretary of State which there is no evidence that she would seek. In amendment No. 26, the hon. Member for Leyton asks the Secretary of State to have done all the things described in it by 1 September this year, which is unreasonable. Amendment No. 29 is in conflict with amendment No. 31. I ask the hon. Gentleman what would happen if no applicant met the requirements or if the Secretary of State would not accept the terms.
  Amendment No. 30 is superfluous, as the conditions under the order are not removed by clause 9.
  Amendment No. 31 states:
  "the council shall transfer without charge to an educational body nominated by the Secretary of State the land at Moxon Street".
  There would be a potential conflict of users, as the hon. Member for Leyton has thrown the transfer open to all educational bodies that are publicly funded. I am not sure how that would be resolved. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) said that Hackney would forgo its share, but I must correct the hon. Member for Leyton, as the 13 local authorities that are the successors to ILEA would enjoy that windfall, and not the 32 London boroughs.
  9.45 pm
  I shall not comment elaborately on amendments Nos. 33 and 34, which are unnecessary to the central purpose. Amendment No. 35 is also otiose.
  Amendment No. 36 enjoys the signatures of all the Labour Members who represent Greater London. There may be a potential conflict between those who represent outer-London boroughs and those who represent inner-London boroughs. I am a little surprised that a series of Labour Front-Bench spokesman have attached their names to an amendment that states:
  "It shall remain the duty of the Council to use the land designated for such a school primarily for educational purposes, or for social housing or for a mixture of the two",
  656
  when there is no duty to use the land for social housing or a mixture.
  The right of National Car Parks, which occupies the site, to a new lease would inevitably restrict the scope for the owner, whoever that may be—including all the potential owners to whom the hon. Member for Leyton referred. Height restrictions are also imposed on the site, which would limit the potential development of the site.
  At this juncture, it might be helpful—not least given the reference of the hon. Member for Leyton to the council's planning department—if I said a general word about Westminster city council's position.
  As the site was transferred from the LRB specifically for the purposes of the new school, it may not be used for other purposes involving a disposal of any legal interest without the consent of the Secretary of State for Education being obtained, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools said. Unless the Secretary of State were satisfied in respect of any alternative proposals, he might direct that the site be sold and the proceeds distributed among the inner-London boroughs. As a local education authority, the city council has no alternative proposals for the site.
  As a local education authority, the city council is conscious of the legal restraints affecting the future use of the Moxon street site. The council's role as a local planning authority, however, imposes additional and not altogether compatible duties on the council. For some time, there has been considerable interest from third parties concerning the use of the site, to which the hon. Member for Leyton referred. In view of that, as a planning authority it has been incumbent on the council, as the hon. Gentleman said, to draw up policy guidelines as to what might be acceptable uses for the site. To that end, draft planning guidelines were considered by the city council's planning and transportation committee in November 1994. The guidelines were reconsidered by the planning and transportation on 28 March and approved. They show that acceptable uses would be mixed residential/ commercial, educational/social and/or community use. The hon. Gentleman gave us a protracted account of that, but that is what the guidelines contain.
  Although officers of the city council's planning department have met representatives of various interested parties, including Howard de Walden Estates, which figured in the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton, and the university of Westminster, the city council has received no valid planning application for the development of the site. It has made no policy decision on the future use or disposal of the Moxon street site, as any such decisions would be subject to the following: clause 9 of the Bill being successfully enacted; the city council deciding whether it required the land for its own purposes and, if not, the consent of the Secretary of State for Education to disposal being obtained; and, finally, resolving the issue of National Car Parks occupation of the site, to which the hon. Member for Leyton made only a passing reference.
  The clause will absolve Westminster city council from an obligation inherited from ILEA to put a county primary school on a site where, according to the local education authority, there is no demand for such a school and enable the city council to proceed to subsequent decisions on what should be done with the site. The conspiracy theory of the hon. Member for Leyton does not have much substance.

  657
  I commend to the House the proposal that we pass a clause that will give the local authority the ability to free itself of an obligation which it inherited and perpetuated.
  Mr. Bryan Davies: I congratulate the sponsor of the Bill, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), on the way in which he replied to the debate and clarified some of the issues. He was, however, somewhat unfair to two parties. First, he was unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who did not seek to say that the educational aspects of the Bill should be put first. As the right hon. Gentleman said, my hon. Friend's arguments were simply a straight reflection of where the amendments appeared on the amendment paper. My hon. Friend sought to emphasise that his major anxiety was about the later clauses dealing with sex shops.
  The second party to which the right hon. Gentleman was unfair was the university of Westminster, which he suggested was a late entrant in the race. That may be so, but that does not detract from the strength of the argument that land that had been the subject of such a transfer should be used for educational purposes. The right hon. Gentleman and the Minister should recognise the sensitivities in many parts of London and further afield about such land transfers.
  The London residuary body was an undemocratic body set up by the previous Conservative Administration to take over the role of former elected administrations in London. As a consequence of that role, it began to dispose of substantial land assets, placing restrictions on certain transfers but few restrictions on others. Labour Members are bound to be anxious about decisions taken about land that was formerly subject to direct democratic control but then fell into the hands of the LRB and subsequently individual councils, which may or may not have put the land to the use originally intended. I do not say whether Westminster is right to seek to reach decisions on that matter, but the land has a chequered history.
  The issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and others have sought to draw attention is that, only a short while ago, the land was clearly expected to be used for educational purposes. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South said that it was expected that Hong Kong refugees would flood into this country and that their children would be educated in that school.
  That may be so, and we accept his argument that the authority does not need that site for a primary school. But given that we are dealing with land designated for educational use, the right hon. Gentleman cannot expect hon. Members simply to take the view that a university that applies to enter the frame and be considered for the land's use should be regarded as just another private body. He is right to say that universities are private institutions, but undue favour towards the university would be outwith the Minister's power.
  Equally clearly, the university of Westminster has a good case to put to public authorities, the local authority concerned and hon. Members, as it could put that land to good use. That is the case with a number of inner-city higher education institutions but, with the exception of the City university, Guildhall and certain colleges of London university, the university of Westminster is competing for the most expensive real estate in the United Kingdom. Those institutions are doing that with limited resources—
  658
  resources that the Government do little to increase, in circumstances where demands on higher education institutions increase apace.
  It is therefore not surprising that the university of Westminster, seeking to respond to the needs of our community for more higher education places, and to expand the facilities at its disposal—and in doing so at present being forced into the constraint of having to develop an institutional facility as far away as Harrow—looks on the Moxon street site.
  The site is close to the three major sites that the university already uses. It would be especially advantageous for the university to consolidate its premises, giving it the chance to serve the very students whom it exists to serve, especially, as was mentioned earlier, the many part-time students and students who come from relatively deprived backgrounds. For those students, travel is bound to be a problem in terms of distance and of cost. Therefore, there is a great advantage in the university being local and able to provide courses and opportunities where those people have their homes and where they work.
  The understandable and excellent case that has been made by the university of Westminster in the context of the Bill will undoubtedly have exercised the minds of hon. Members. It calls on them to reflect on whether the proposals underpinning that part of the measure are entirely advisable. On that basis, I believe that the sponsor of the measure, although he has ably responded to the debate, has not cleared up all our anxieties about those proposals.
  Mr. Sedgemore: I am delighted to take part in the debate, if only for a few minutes. I congratulate the sponsor of the Bill, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) on his usual lucid, sharp speech. He presented an enormous amount of information in a short time, and he cleared up a matter that had worried me—how it came about that there was a transfer in 1991 and why the council changed its mind so quickly in 1993. He said that it was about a misreading of the number of children from Hong Kong who would come to London.
  I do not believe that that negates anything that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said. He spoke for two and a half hours. He spoke with great force and clarity, and he convinced me that that land should be kept for educational purposes and/or for social housing.
  I think the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South was a bit unfair when he said that some of the amendments contradict themselves. It is not unusual, in my experience, or in his—he is much more experienced than I am—for Governments or Back Benchers from either side of the House to table amendments that contradict one another. In effect, my hon. Friend is giving the House a chance to consider several amendments and to say, "That is one I want," and he is allowing us to have a vote on that one. I am not sure which one he wants to vote on.
  I first interested myself in the Bill when the university of Westminster opened several homes in the London borough of Hackney as student accommodation. The vice-chancellor then mentioned to me the Bill that is now before us, and said that he would consult me subsequently to discover whether I could help.

  659
  I do not suppose that I can help. I dare say that the might of the Government Whips on this private Bill will carry the day. Nevertheless, I can think of no reason why I should not try to make a few intelligent comments on behalf of the university before the vote tonight.
  As I understand the legal position, obviously Westminster council is the local education authority in the city of Westminster. Clause 9 would relieve the city council of its statutory duty to build a primary school on the Moxon street site in the City, pursuant to section 12(9) of the Education Act 1980. That is interesting in itself, because the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South said that the university of Westminster had come late to the debate; but, to my certain knowledge, the university first expressed an interest in the site in 1980 and it has expressed an interest in it ever since.
  We know that the site was originally acquired by the GLC in 1966 under slum clearance powers. As I was working at the Ministry of Housing, as it then was, and signing most of those documents, it may well be—
  Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hear what my hon. Friend is saying—
  Mr. Brooke rose—
  Mr. Don Dixon: It is a point of order.
  Mr. Cohen: I am mindful of your earlier comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, about repetition. I think that there is an element of repetition in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). If that is the case, and given that you chastised me over repetition, why should my hon. Friend repeat the same points that were made earlier in the debate?
  Mr. Brooke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it the case that if someone moves a point of
  660
  order just before 10 o'clock that precludes any other hon. Member from moving that the debate be brought to a close?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not possible for the occupant of the Chair not to hear a point of order.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I observed my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) rise before 10 o'clock and I thought that I heard him say that he wanted to move the closure. If another hon. Member has raised a point of order some time before 10 o'clock, with the clear intention of continuing his point of order until 10 o'clock is reached, how is it possible for an hon. Member or a right hon. Member to move the closure?
  Mr. Cohen: That scurrilous comment is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to hear a point of order even if it is raised just before 10 o'clock. I am afraid that there is no other way out of it.
  It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  To be resumed upon Thursday next.

  PROCEDURE
  Ordered,
  That Lady Olga Maitland be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Wood.]

  CATERING
  Ordered,
  That Mrs. Irene Adams be discharged from the Catering Committee and Mr. Bill Etherington be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Kirkwood, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Disruptive Tenants (Scotland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  10.2 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to have a short debate on an important subject, which I am sure the Minister would agree is a matter of concern.
  It is important that hon. Members should recognise the level of concern that is now abroad, not just in Scotland but elsewhere—witness the reaction of the official Opposition, who have recently produced a paper on the subject. There is increasing concern that criminal, anti-social behaviour by a minority of tenants and some others on council estates in Scotland is now beginning to get out of hand.
  I do not want to exaggerate the extent of the problem. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the absolute number of which we are talking may be relatively small. It is, however, now impossible to ignore the effect on law-abiding citizens and their families when they are confronted by wilful, continuing, deliberate harassment by neighbours.
  Family life can be almost totally destroyed in some cases. Reputations of streets and entire housing schemes can be prejudiced by the criminal fraternity, who persistently thumb their noses at the police, the courts and housing authorities. I believe that tenants who are so afflicted have the right to expect better protection than they currently enjoy. Urgent steps need to be taken. The law, in my submission, is currently inadequate to deal with the problem. Therefore, additional powers and resources need to be brought to bear to provide some satisfactory remedy.
  From time to time, I suppose that it is understandable that households, wherever they are situated, will come across a degree of vandalism, noise, verbal or physical abuse, threats of violence, racial harassment, damage to property, trespass, nuisance from dogs and the like. As isolated incidents, they are part and parcel of normal, modern life. Individually, they are all, when perpetrated with criminal intent, criminal offences. As isolated incidents, they can be much more easily dealt by our citizens.
  They are much more difficult to deal with when they are happening through the wall or across the street every night. The intensity and location of such activities compound their effect. The irresponsible minority of tenants who perpetrate such activities terrorise their neighbours and local communities, and something has to be done about it.
  I want to make it clear at the outset that I draw a distinction—because a distinction has to be very clearly drawn—between the criminal minority and those households that are in genuine difficulty because of mental illness or some other bona fide reason. There have been cases in which, for example, demented elderly people have created nuisances for their neighbours. There have been incidents involving schizophrenics—schizophrenia is a terrible illness when it affects families—or over-active children.
  662
  Those mental and physical illnesses can create difficulties for the families in which they are evident but they can also have an impact on neighbours. Such cases can be difficult, and must be handled in the light of the clinical conditions.
  It is extremely important, in my view, that the development of care regimes in the community—there are many modern and interesting examples of care in the community for people who have clinical conditions of the sort that I have just mentioned—should not be restricted by or confused with the activities of people who are caught continuously intoxicated by drink or drugs, or who are simply motivated by unprovoked evil and malice.
  I have said that existing local powers are completely inadequate. Local authorities are effectively unable to make eviction actions under section 74 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 stick. In my experience, that is mainly due to lack of corroborating evidence. For that reason, the powers are very rarely used. It would be useful for the current debate if the Minister could tell the House how many successful eviction actions have been brought in the recent past. If that is too short notice, I understand, and I will seek to table a written question to solicit the necessary information.
  A number of remedies have already been canvassed by the Government and other people. We need a strong signal from the Government that more political energy and some financial resources are going to be devoted to the resolution of the problem. For example, more resources are needed to develop further a culture where antisocial neighbours are actively discouraged. In that regard, tenants associations, with the vital role they play in many communities, come to mind. I also think that conditions in tenancy agreements need to be examined and to be made tougher in terms of sanctions against anti-social tenants.
  More could be done to encourage multi-agency approaches, including social work, the police and school authorities. All those services could be developed and given more powers. In addition, mediation services are under-utilised, but, of course, more resources are required if they are to be set up and conducted in a proper and meaningful way. Finally, and some would say most important, court proceedings need to be toughened and streamlined. Better witness protection is now essential in prosecutions under section 47 of the 1987 Act.
  I am aware that the Government have commissioned several pieces of research, and I am pleased to hear that. I know that the Institute of Housing is examining various aspects of the problem. I am, of course, also aware that the Government have produced a document on probationary tenancies, and that the consultation process has been put in hand. That is welcome as far as it goes, but the consultation document outlining the Government's plans for a probationary period for new tenants is extremely disappointing and weak.
  As it stands, the consultation document will be irrelevant, and of absolutely no value to local housing authorities, because it applies only for an initial period and is restricted to new tenants. There is a crying need to deal with anti-social tenants who are already secure tenants under Scottish housing legislation.
  The Government must bear in mind the fact that an important opportunity is approaching, and must be used to make significant progress. Next April, as the Minister knows, Scottish local authorities will become unitary authorities, which means that they will amalgamate the

  663
  processes and duties of housing and social work functions in one authority under one roof. That provides an opportunity for much greater co-ordination of the two functions and departments, and I hope that that opportunity will not be missed.
  We are told in the press—indeed, there may be a statement later this week—that a housing Bill is under consideration for inclusion in the Queen's Speech for the next Session. I appreciate that no one can anticipate exactly what will be in the Queen's Speech, but, if such a piece of legislation is in gestation and if it is not restricted to England and Wales, it will give Scottish Office Ministers the opportunity to look afresh at the framework of laws surrounding anti-social tenants.
  After the consultation period ends on 31 July, they should be well placed to introduce new measures. I hope that the Minister may say that, if there is to be a parliamentary opportunity to change the law next year, he will seize it with both hands and propose meaningful changes to stiffen the powers currently available to local authorities.
  My message to the Minister this evening is that he must take the opportunity to give local authorities real powers to deal with criminal anti-social tenants and provide resources to set up specialist teams to examine the problem, to set up pilot projects to study individual cases in depth and to produce more research. If he did so, he would be sending an important signal to those who are currently deliberately flouting authority and causing misery to those who live near them.
  Subject to the exception of those who are clinically ill, local authorities should be given a statutory power to impose probationary status on any tenants at any time during which they can be shown to the local authority's satisfaction to be acting anti-socially. If they do not improve during the 12-month probation period, an accelerated eviction process through the courts should be considered. If that happened and was successful, any family so evicted would of course be classified as intentionally homeless, and thereby unable to take advantage of the provisions of the homeless persons legislation.
  Housing departments, social workers and the police must work together much more closely in order to prevent those terrible situations arising. If and when they do arise, greater powers and resources are needed to provide an adequate response and to restore the Queen's peace on Scotland's housing estates.
  I have deliberately avoided arguing the case for change on the basis of emotional case histories. I certainly hope that I have not given any succour to those who deal with nonconformity in any heavy-handed way. I simply want to represent to the Minister my belief that the current situation is profoundly unsatisfactory. Tonight it is within his power to provide statutory relief—or the possibility of such relief in the future—for many households who are blighted by anti-social tenants. All he need do is agree to give urgent consideration to strengthening the law when he replies to the debate.
  10.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and
  664
  Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on introducing a very timely and important subject for debate tonight. He asked about the number of actions on eviction that have taken place. The best way for him to proceed is to put down a barrage of parliamentary questions, and I shall undertake to make available whatever information we have.
  He will appreciate that we are now consulting about probationary tenancies, and I shall return to that subject in a moment. What he has said tonight will be borne in mind during that process before we arrive at any final decisions. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is too late in this parliamentary Session to take immediate action on that matter, but we are looking at it very seriously with regard to the consultation process.
  How we deal with disruptive tenants is vital to the hundreds of thousands of tenants who are in their homes in Scotland tonight. I hope that I shall touch upon most, if not all, of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. We welcome the recent announcement by the Scottish Affairs Select Committee that its next inquiry will examine housing and anti-social behaviour. We await the Committee's deliberations with great interest.
  One of the most basic human needs is to be able to have the quiet enjoyment of our homes. For all people, whether old or young, home should bring a sense of well-being and of belonging. The expression "home and hearth" symbolises all that a home should be in terms of contentment, well-being and belonging. Yet that depends crucially on the actions of our neighbours. We long for them to be good neighbours, behaving responsibly towards others, being considerate, and perhaps being able to help out in a moment of need.
  If one were to look for a single word to describe that, I suppose that one would light on the word "community". As we consider disruptive tenants in the debate tonight, I think that it is worth while remembering that there are many places in Scotland where there is a real sense of community, and where people genuinely contribute to the common enjoyment of their housing.
  Therefore, it is particularly tragic when people who should be able to enjoy their homes and neighbourhoods are unable to do so because of the activities of their neighbours. I come across that regularly in my visits to housing estates, in my discussions with tenants, officials and councillors, and in the letters I receive.
  Tenants expect to be able to enjoy their home and their surroundings. They should not be terrified to go out of their front door; they should not be subject to abuse, whether intermittent or regular; they should not be subject to intimidation; and they certainly should not be subject to harassment. That kind of behaviour is unacceptable, and I have every sympathy with those who face it. Their lives are made intolerable by the actions of a few.
  The first point I shall make tonight is that there are a range of powers and sanctions available to landlords to deal with disruptive behaviour. The Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 deals with vandalism. The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee that examined the Bill, and he played a major part in the process. I pay tribute to him, as he worked extremely hard on that occasion. Under the Act, anyone who wilfully, or by culpable negligence, damages a house or any part of a house shall be guilty of an offence, liable on summary conviction to a fine, without prejudice to any remedy for the recovery of the amount of the damage.

  665
  The Public Health (Scotland) Act 1987, the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 all contain provisions which deal with noise nuisance. They are relevant where people suffer noise nuisance from their neighbours and the 1982 Act is particularly useful where people have failed to desist from noise.
  Section 49 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 deals with annoying creatures—for example, excessively noisy dogs. In addition, many tenancy conditions include a section on the keeping of pets, which is important, since the presence of pets in houses or flats can lead to disputes between neighbours and to anti-social behaviour.
  Mediation is one way of defusing disputes and of resolving disruptive behaviour, which is often very successful. It brings the parties together and helps to bring about mutual understanding and respect. Much information is available about mediation, including material issued by the Scottish Office.
  Interdicts are a particularly appropriate means of restraining anti-social behaviour by disruptive tenants. They have a number of advantages, but perhaps the most important are that they can be obtained quickly and they have immediate effect. That is important, because tenants who are suffering abusive or other disruptive behaviour want immediate remedy. Interdicts need not apply only to a tenant of a house but can apply to a lodger or co-habitee who may be causing the disruptive behaviour complained of. They can also be applied to owner-occupiers who may be the source of disruptive behaviour.
  Action taken under the provisions that I have just described will often be sufficient to stop disruptive behaviour, but where those do not work, as the ultimate sanction tenants can be removed from their houses when landlords, private or public, seek recovery of possession. The provisions governing that are contained in the housing legislation, and are designed to ensure that tenants cannot be removed on landlords' whim.
  I am aware that the requirements set out in the legislation can make recovery of possession a lengthy procedure, with a difficult and contested case perhaps taking as much as 18 months from the beginning of proceedings to recovery of possession. As I understand it, however, that represents the more extreme, case in which the tenant or tenants contest the action, and it is important that it is not presented as the norm.
  People who seek a change in the law should beware changing the law to suit the exceptional case. Clearly there is a balance to be achieved between being able to evict tenants at whim and giving tenants security of tenure, and between dealing firmly and effectively with disruptive behaviour and evicting tenants whose face simply has not fitted. Getting that balance right is what much of the current debate on disruptive behaviour by tenants is about.
  My second main point concerns probationary tenancies, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and on which we issued a consultation paper one month ago. A number of authorities north and south of the border have suggested that new tenants should be on probation initially, until the landlord can judge that they are able to behave responsibly and are not disruptive.
  The proposal for probationary tenancies recognises that a secure tenancy is a valuable asset, giving an individual a home for life. The great majority of tenants behave
  666
  responsibly, and that is shown in their behaviour towards their landlords and neighbours. They want quiet enjoyment of their homes. Unfortunately, however, there exists a minority whose life style and behaviour is incompatible with that. In the case of new tenants, such behaviour is likely to become apparent quite quickly.
  The purpose of the proposals for a probationary tenancy is to give a clear signal to new tenants that anti-social behaviour is unacceptable—so serious that it will result in the loss of their home. That proposal will reassure existing tenants that landlords are able to take rapid action to remove new tenants whose behaviour is disruptive.
  Under our proposals, public sector landlords will be able to opt in to a system of probationary tenancies. I emphasise the point about opting in to probationary tenancies, because many public sector landlords in Scotland will not feel the need for a probationary tenancy system.
  For those authorities which see a probationary tenancy system as helping to deal with disruptive behaviour, all new tenants will be on probation for one year. Those tenants who complete the probationary tenancy satisfactorily will automatically become secure tenants. Where tenants do not behave responsibly, however, the landlord will be able to terminate the tenancy at any time during the probationary period.
  When I first announced that we would be consulting on the matter, I made it clear that I would do so with an open mind. That remains the position, and I welcome comments from any organisation or hon. Member. Thinking has changed somewhat over the years, and what was not a major issue has become one.
  Thirdly, there is no simple answer to dealing with disruptive tenants. There is no panacea that will cure the problem once and for all. As I have already said, there is a range of actions that can be taken by landlords and by other bodies. Many in the housing profession would argue that what is needed is not the provision of new powers, or more draconian measures to deal with disruptive tenants, but a wider use of existing remedies.
  It might be helpful if I remind the hon. Gentleman that, before 1980, public sector tenants did not have the security of tenure that private sector tenants had. So, before 1980, public sector landlords were able to apply to a court for an eviction order, which was granted more or less as a formality, with no evidence being required, and with no right of defence for the tenant.
  The Tenants' Rights (Scotland) Act 1980 changed that by giving public sector tenants security of tenure. Henceforth, tenants could be evicted from their home only when there was good reason, and after certain procedures had been followed. It must be remembered that the calls from some quarters for tougher action on disruptive tenants may require a diminution of those rights. In considering any proposal for dealing with disruptive tenants, we need to strike the right balance and examine the consequences before we take a certain course of action.
  In many instances, housing departments are where the problems are first reported. It is therefore important that landlords have clear procedures established, so that front-line staff know how to deal with a complaint about disruptive behaviour. Such behaviour will often raise complex issues, and some local authorities have established a specialist team to which complaints can be referred.

  667
  Every public sector landlord has a tenancy agreement which new tenants must sign, and many of these contain conditions about acceptable behaviour. Tenancy conditions need to be enforced consistently and firmly, or they will be discredited. When that happens, respect for housing authorities diminishes, too.
  Neighbour disputes may begin over a relatively trivial matter, and escalate rapidly into something much more serious. Early action is essential to ensure that that does not happen. We have recently made available a considerable amount of material on neighbour disputes. These are dealt with in good practice note No. 5, published in February by the Scottish Office.
  It makes it clear that disputes between tenants may not be clear cut, and that considerable skill is required on the part of housing managers to judge appropriate action. At my constituency surgery recently, one neighbour complained about another. The following week, the second neighbour complained about the first. The hon. Gentleman may have had similar experiences.
  The good practice note suggests how landlords can take a proactive approach to neighbour disputes. That could include the provision of a helpline service for tenants, offering advice on action that can be taken in different situations, the use of mediation and arbitration, the use of management transfers to take a tenant out of the situation, and the use of legal action, including restraint—notably interdicts—and repossession.
  I believe that the good practice note on tenancy management contains much useful information for landlords, which will enable them to develop a strategy to deal with disruptive behaviour—for example, when there is extensive drug taking and threats of violence.
  One of the constant themes recurring in recent work on dealing with anti-social behaviour is the need to adopt a partnership approach, with all authorities concerned working together. Housing departments cannot plough a lone furrow. Apart from the landlord, others who may be involved include the environmental, health and social work departments of local authorities, health boards and the police.
  In many instances, anti-social behaviour will involve several of these bodies or agencies, and close working relations will make a great difference in ensuring that the problem is dealt with satisfactorily and quickly. Where a local authority landlord is involved, the housing department staff need to have close contacts with their legal colleagues. I understand that many of the interesting approaches being adopted by the City of Dundee district council are the result of close co-operation between the housing and legal services departments, and I hope that other authorities are able to take note of that.
  In the last year or so, the Scottish Office has taken forward policy on disruptive tenants on a number of fronts. Advice was issued on 23 May about the powers available to deal with disruptive behaviour. It is also funding the Chartered Institute of Housing to do work on housing and anti-social behaviour. This will result in a
  668
  publication which will be generally available to the housing profession and will cover many aspects of anti-social behaviour. It will deal with precisely the issues highlighted tonight by the hon. Gentleman. At the more severe end of disruptive behaviour, we issued advice in 1994 on crime prevention and how it relates to housing and planning issues.
  As I close, I should like to say how glad I am that the hon. Member chose this significant subject tonight. Everyone wants to enjoy his or her home, and most people act as responsible citizens, sensitive to the needs of others. There is a minority, however, who are disruptive and cause misery to their neighbours. Everyone has the right to the quiet enjoyment of their home, and the evidence from authorities around the country is that much can he done to deal with disruptive behaviour. Early action will nip problems in the bud, and prevent minor problems and misunderstandings from becoming something more serious.
  Disruptive behaviour often spans a number of areas of interest, and consequently those involved—housing departments, their legal advisers, environmental health and social work departments of local authorities, health boards, and the police, as appropriate—need to work closely together. There are various powers available to landlords, as I have described.
  I hope that I have demonstrated tonight that the remedies available are diverse, and that much can be achieved when they are used properly. I await with interest responses to the consultation paper on probationary tenancies. I am sure that the Scottish Affairs Select Committee will find its inquiry into housing and anti-social behaviour extremely interesting. I hope that it is able to take our knowledge forward, to help all those who have to deal with disruptive behaviour on a day-to-day basis.
  In the last minute and a half, may I say that we have done a substantial amount to tackle the problem, by issuing advice in 1994 on crime prevention, and by taking initiatives in housing and planning matters, on the powers available to deal with anti-social behaviour and the use of mediation as a means of resolving disputes. We are consulting on the effectiveness of neighbourhood noise controls and on probationary tenancies.
  We have issued a good practice note. We have funded the Chartered Institute of Housing to prepare a report on housing and crime, and we are providing further funding this year for work on housing and anti-social behaviour. We have welcomed the announcement by the Select Committee that its next inquiry will be on this subject. All this represents a wealth of activity, covering a wide range of activity on disruptive behaviour.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and I have been active in dealing with housing legislation in the past. It looks as though, when these issues are considered on further occasions, we will both be involved yet again.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Immigration Applications
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when a decision is going to be taken on the application made to the United Kingdom post in Islamabad by Mrs. Rehana Fiaz—Ref: IMM/C4236—to join her husband in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement; [30067]

  (2) when the United Kingdom post in Islamabad requested the Home Office to make inquiries in the United Kingdom into the application for Mrs. Ifat Shaheen Hussain—Ref: IMM/C6283 to join her husband in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [30068]

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

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many refusal decisions and what percentage of visitors' cases he has reversed arising from representations by hon. Members since the right of appeal in such cases was discontinued. [30480]

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is not available except at disproportionate cost; but very infrequently my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs asks for cases to be reviewed or decisions reversed as a result of representations from hon. Members.

  UK Legislation
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will introduce legislation to remove the United Kingdom from the jurisdiction of the European Courts. [30639]

  Mr. David Davis
  No.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 115, if he will list all those occasions on which he did not give prior warning of visits to hon. Members. [30746]

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is not aware of any occasions since the start of the present parliamentary Session in which he has failed to give prior warning to an hon. Member whose constituency he has visited in an official capacity.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has evaluated to support Spanish Government assertions that illegal drugs are being transported via Gibraltar into the European Union. [30485]

  Mr. David Davis
  The authorities in Gibraltar have evidence that boats based in Gibraltar are being used to transport illegal drugs directly from Morocco to Spain.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to ensure that Spain honours its obligations under European law and permits European Union visitors to cross from Spain into Gibraltar, and return, without unreasonable delay at customs and immigration checkpoints. [30486]

  Mr. Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 204. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised this matter in talks with the Spanish Foreign Minister, Senor Solana, in Madrid on 19 June.

  Marine Environment Protection Treaty
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to re-ratify the Oslo-Paris—OSPAR—treaty; if he will make a statement indicating when the United Kingdom first signed this treaty; what time has elapsed between signature and implementation; and what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment concerning the future implementation of OSPAR in connection with Shell and the Brent Spar platform. [30694]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom signed the convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic—the OSPAR convention—on 3 November 1992.

  The Department of the Environment has been checking since then whether all relevant UK legislation is consistent with the convention before ratification can take place. This also needs to be done for the Isle of Man and the bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey. Our decisions in connection with the Brent Spar installation have been entirely consistent with the new convention.

  Charter Week
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [30688]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The FCO's public service functions are mainly performed overseas. No events for Charter Week are being planned.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all areas within(a) his Department, (b) agencies under his Department's control and (c) organisations for which he has ministerial

  435
  responsibility to which Crown immunity applies; what consideration he has given to removing this; and if he will make a statement. [28654]

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: The reference to "Crown immunity" is taken to refer to legislation which does not bind the Crown. Certain legislation is expressly applied to the Crown. In most legislation, however, particularly older legislation, there is no such express provision. In those circumstances, whether legislation applies to the Crown will depend on the implications to be drawn from the drafting and context of the legislation.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Visitors' Appeals
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the number and percentage of visitors' appeals upheld by adjudication in the last three years prior to the appeal system in such cases being discontinued. [30481]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is as follows:

  Period

  Visitor Visa Appeals Determined

  Number of Appeals Allowed

  Percentage of Appeals Allowed

  1991

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1992

  16,524

  2,500

  15

  January-June 19931

  7,164

  1,361

  19

  n/a=Not available

  1 The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, which removed the right of appeal in visitor visa cases, came into force in July 1993.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total cost of publishing and printing form LBF August 1994 for the Legal Aid Board's advice at police stations standby claim; and when it was made available to all solicitors involved in legal aid work. [29651]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The cost of the new form "Advice at Police Stations Standby Claim" is £32.88 per 1,000 copies; the same as for the old form. A small supply of the new forms was sent out in July 1994 to all legal aid account holders, together with a letter informing them of the change and the implementation date of 1 August 1994.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total cost of publishing and printing the legal aid forms, advice at police stations standby claim in use up to August 1994; how many copies were scrapped as a result of adding a question to the form; what consideration was given to continuing the use of the old form for solicitors offices without a crime franchise; and if he will make a statement. [29550]

  Mr. Taylor
  The cost of printing the form in use prior to August 1994 was £32.88 per 1,000. When the new form was introduced, there were approximately 58,200 copies 436
  of the old form held in stock. The Legal Aid Board considered all aspects of the change, including whether the old forms could continue to be used. The board always aims to minimise the cost of such changes by amending forms at the same time that routine reprints are required. Forms are changed only when necessary to provide information required to control and manage the legal aid system effectively.

  Privatisation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [29414]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As well as the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Lord Chancellor has responsibility for four agencies: HM Land Registry, the Public Trust Office, the Court Service and the Public Record Office. The Lord Chancellor's Department, HM Land Registry, the Public Trust Office and the Court Service have not privatised or contracted out any activities without an in-house bid and neither the Lord Chancellor's Department nor any of these agencies has any plans so to do. The chief executive of the Public Record Office will be sending a separate reply.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 26 June 1995:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply to your question about privatisation without in-house bids.
  The Public Record Office's van and office cleaning services were contracted out without in-house bids. A strategic decision was made to contract out these services as they were peripheral to the main functions of the Public Record Office, the van service was a small service and the private sector was better-equipped to provide a cleaning service.
  The Public Record Office's general office copying service is due to be contracted out. This is a small service peripheral to the main functions of the Public Record Office.

EMPLOYMENT

  Upper Limb Disorders
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what studies his Department has funded into work-related upper limb disorders since the publication of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council report into work-related upper limb disorders in May 1992. [29906]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive has funded a range of studies into work-related upper limb disorders since May 1992.

  Intramural studies include work on musculoskeletal disorders in supermarket check-out workers, and techniques for assessing the risk of musculoskeletal disorders, both of which encompass ULDs.
  437
  Extramural research includes work on a user performance test method to support international visual display unit ergonomic standards; an ongoing epidemiological and ergonomic study of occupational factors associated with upper limb soft tissue disorders in keyboard operators; an ongoing project to assess the health and safety implications of virtual reality systems; and two projects to collect ergonomic case studies giving employers practical advice on ways of preventing ULDs which were published last October in the booklet "A pain in your workplace?"

  School Leavers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of pupils who have left school with no formal qualifications and who have been able to carry out an apprenticeship which has led to full-time employment; and what is the breakdown of these figures for each of the last 15 years. [30744]

  Mr. Paice
  The information available on the education and employment of young people does not provide sufficient detail to answer this question.

  Training
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much was spent by employers on in-work training(a) in total and (b) per employee in each of the last five years. [30674]

  Mr. Paice
  It is estimated that employers in Great Britain spend over £20,000 million a year in total on training and developing their employees. Data for individual years and data on expenditure per employee are not available.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many, and what percentage, of the total number of employees in employment are employed by companies who are members of industry training organisations; [30690]

  (2) how many and what percentage of British companies are members of industry training organisations. [30673]

  Mr. Paice
  The information is not available in the form requested. The latest available figures show that some 18 million—85 per cent.—of employees in employment worked in industries which were covered by industry training organisations.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on in-work training; [30676]

  (2) what consultations his Department has had with employer's representatives concerning the development of Government policy on in-work training; [30691]

  (3) what consultation his Department has had with the Trades Union Congress and individual trade unions on the development of Government policy on in-work training. [30695]

  Mr. Paice
  The Government's policy is to encourage employers and those in work to invest effectively in the skills needed for business and individual success now and in the future. We consult regularly with employers'438
  representatives, and with TUC and trade unions where appropriate, about the best ways of achieving this.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the work of the industry training organisations. [30689]

  Mr. Paice
  Industry training organisations represent the interests of employers in their industries on a wide range of training matters. They represent the sectoral dimension of the national training framework, complementing locally focused training and enterprise councils. There are 120 ITOs and they have four major roles:

  (a) monitoring the future skill requirements and training needs in their sector;

  (b) developing and promoting occupational standards;

  (c) encouraging employers in their sectors to increase their training;

  (d) taking the lead for industries to promote national initiatives for example, modern apprenticeship frameworks.

  Investors in People
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many, and what percentage of, employers in Britain(a) have achieved, (b) are in the process of achieving, (c) have failed to achieve and (d) do not operate the Investors in People standard; [30692]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future of the Investors in People standard. [30675]

  Mr. Paice
  The Investors in People standard is run by industry based organisation, Investors in People UK, to promote excellence in employers' staff development practices. Over 1,800 organisations have achieved the standard and 18,000 more are committed to achieving it. Organisations who are recognised must be reassessed every three years.

  Investors in People UK is now reviewing the standard to ensure its continued relevance and professional credibility as one of the national targets for education and training.

  Construction Industry Training Board
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the Construction Industry Training Board. [30693]

  Mr. Paice
  The Construction Industry Training Board was reconstituted, following comprehensive review, from 1 May 1993 for five years. As is the practice with all non-departmental public bodies, it will be subject to further review before a decision is made on whether it should be reconstituted in 1998.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the number of vehicles currently in use without valid vehicle excise duty being paid. [28722]
  439
  Mr. Norris
  The estimated number of unlicensed vehicles in use at any one time in Great Britain in 1994–95 was 1.5 million.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the total number of vehicles in use on United Kingdom roads are without current vehicle excise duty road discs. [28723]

  Mr. Norris
  The estimated percentage of unlicensed vehicles in use on public roads in Great Britain in 1994–95 was 6.2 per cent.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what amount of vehicle excise duty is forgone as a result of vehicle excise duty evasion. [28724]

  Mr. Norris
  The estimated VED loss through evasion in Great Britain in 1994–95 was £163 million. This represents4.1 per cent. of the revenue due.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what resources are applied to combating vehicle excise duty evasion. [28725]

  Mr. Norris
  Vehicle excise duty evaders are detected by the police and traffic wardens as part of their normal duties. Follow-up enforcement action, including prosecution work, is the responsibility of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The cost of agency staff directly involved in enforcement activities currently stands at some £26 million per year.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many prosecutions for vehicle excise duty evasion were brought over the past five years for which figures are available. [28726]

  Mr. Norris
  The numbers of prosecutions for vehicle excise evasion are shown in the table.

  Numbers of vehicle excise duty prosecutions in the five year period 1990–91 to 1994–95

  Year

  Successful prosecutions

  Unsuccessful prosecutions

  Total prosecutions

  1990–91

  141,635

  5,635

  147,270

  1991–92

  177,336

  5,633

  182,969

  1992–93

  193,291

  7,984

  201,275

  1993–94

  207,521

  8,441

  215,962

  1994–95

  214,360

  8,751

  223,111

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he proposes to reduce the incidence of vehicle excise duty evasion; and if he will make a statement. [28727]

  Mr. Norris
  We are currently considering a wide range of proposals. These include measures to improve the quality of the vehicle register and to make it more difficult for motorists to drop out of the licensing system, as well as use of camera technology to automate the detection process.

  Ferries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 June,Official Report, column 618, what were the problems associated with the evacuation during the ferry exercise FEREX 86. [30300]
  440
  Mr. Norris
  This is a operational matter for the Coastguard agency.

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

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 26 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question.

  Problems may arise during any ferry evacuation, however in this exercise no significant SAR coordination problems arose. The exercise was not a simulated rescue but was set up to assess a variety of methods of evacuation in slow time.

  Departmental Property Purchases
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the new guidelines for discretionary powers for purchase of off-line property which are contained in section 246(2A) of the Highways Act 1980 will be published following the review of the guidelines in the light of the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of a property near the proposed Cirencester bypass. [30229]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to my right hon. Friend for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on Thursday 23 March,Official Report, column 317.

  Unimog Machines
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if drivers of Unimog machines, being used for the construction of the Paddington-Heathrow rail link, comply with the safety standards set by the Railtrack railway group standard. [30230]

  Mr. Watts
  Yes.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safeguards are in place to ensure that staff driving Unimog machines, not appearing on the BR tops forms, do not book on for work under the influence of alcohol or drugs. [30231]

  Mr. Watts
  It is a criminal offence to work on the railways in a safety related capacity when unfit through drink or drugs, or to exceed the prescribed alcohol limit. Railway operators and employers other than the operator may also be liable if they have not exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence. Enforcement is a matter for the British Transport police. In addition, railway operators have their own strict policy on alcohol and drug abuse, including disciplinary action.

  Unimog drivers are supervised by a member of British Rail's staff and are required to work to BR's instructions for all movements on track.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 147, if he will list all those occasions on which he or any of his junior Ministers did not give prior warning of visits to hon. Members. [30750]
  441
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Records of such rare occurrences are not kept; my junior Minister and I take special care to observe the important courtesy of informing Members when their constituencies are included on an itinerary.

  Manchester Airport Rail Link
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the construction of the Manchester airport rail link, southern spur to be completed and available for train operation. [30618]

  Mr. Watts
  The expected completion date is 15 November 1995 and the spur will be available for traffic from 20 November 1995.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the deadline for bids to operate on the Manchester airport link, southern spur in order to meet the requirements for inclusion in the May 1996 public timetable. [30550]

  Mr. Watts
  It is 11 August 1995.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if a specification bid for the operation of services on the Manchester airport link, southern spur has been accepted by Railtrack plc; and what track access charges have been agreed. [30549]

  Mr. Watts
  I understand that no bid has yet been accepted by Railtrack and no access charges have been agreed.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what level of service he expects to be operated over the Manchester airport rail link, southern spur from May 1996; which destinations will be covered; and which train operators will be involved. [30551]

  Mr. Watts
  Commercial negotiations are still under way on these issues.

  Eurostar
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects Eurostar east coast main line services to northern England and Scotland to be operational. [30495]

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for European Passenger Services. I understand that they intend to introduce Eurostar services along the east coast main line early next year.

  "Transport: The Way Ahead"
  Ms Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those new policies he has implemented as a direct result of his "Transport: The Way Ahead" consultation. [30969]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It would be premature to announce results from the discussions of "Transport: The Way Ahead.

  Ms Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has so far received in support of rail privatisation during his "Transport: The Way Ahead" consultation. [30968]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  "Transport: The Way Ahead" invited views on a wide range of transport issues by the end of 442
  September. In the two weeks since publication, no formal responses have been received.

  Ms Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish the findings of his "Transport: The Way Ahead" consultation. [30967]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Decisions on publication will he taken after comments on "Transport: The Way Ahead" have been received and considered.

  Ms Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost to his Department of the production and distribution of the document "Transport: The Way Ahead", speeches by the Secretary of State for Transport. [30982]

  Dr Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 22 June.

  Efficiency Report
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has drawn from the report of the efficiency scrutiny of the traffic area network published by his Department on Friday 16 June; what steps he is taking to remedy the weaknesses in vehicle monitoring and inspection which it identifies; and if he will make a statement. [31021]

  Mr. Norris
  The report is still being considered and no conclusions have yet been drawn from it.

  Road Rage
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what proposals he has to investigate the effect on road safety of the phenomenon known as road rage; [31013]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the effect of the phenomenon known as road rage. [31012]

  Mr. Norris
  I have received proposals from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and from Mr. Edmund King, Royal Automobile Club, which I am still considering.

  Noise Abatement
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the hon. Member for Coventry, South -East will receive an answer to his question of 18 May about European grants for noise abatement in respect of airports outside London. [30781]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 22 June.

  Cycling
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he has issued to highway authorities concerning the provision of advance startling lines for bicycles at suitable signal-controlled intersections; and what action in this regard is being taken by London boroughs. [30804]
  443
  Mr. Norris
  Guidance has been given in the form of traffic advisory leaflets, which are distributed free to local authorities and other interested bodies. Four leaflets have been issued. The most recent one, TAL 8/93, summarises the findings of the research studies on all our trial installation of advance stop lines, and provides basic design details. We expect this advice to be reflected within the 1,200 mile London cycle network which is now under construction.

  South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Auhority
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority to discuss the impact of rail privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [30267]

  Mr. Watts
  I met the chairman of the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority in April this year along with representatives from other PTAs to discuss the future funding of PTE-supported railway passenger services from 1996–97.

  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State met the chairman of the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority in May, and the director general of that passenger transport executive earlier this month to discuss a range of transport issues.

  Road Congestion
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to bring forward his new initiatives aimed at reducing urban road congestion. [30490]

  Mr. Norris
  Local authority circular 2/95, giving guidance on transport policies and programme submissions for 1996–97, makes—clear that in providing funds for local authorities through the TPP system, the Department will give particular priority to measures which reduce road congestion.

  The Government will be responding shortly to the Transport Select Committee's report on urban road pricing.

  Newbury Bypass
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations(a) for and (b) against the Newbury bypass he has received since his announcement of delay to the latest commencement date. [29562]

  Mr. Watts
  Between 19 December 1994 and 21 June 1995 we received some 492 letters and 4,655 pre-printed postcards in favour of proceeding with the Newbury bypass. Most of these came from the Newbury area. We have also received four petitions in favour of the bypass containing a total of 12,700 signatures. During the same period, we have received some 398 letters and 59 pre-printed postcards opposing the bypass. The majority of these came from outside the area.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what he expects to be(a) the gains and (b) the losses to the United Kingdom tourist industry from the construction of the high-speed link to the channel tunnel; and what is the expected net rate of return. [29445]

  Mr. Watts
  The Government have not made any assessment specifically in respect of tourism.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the present estimated capital cost of building the high-speed link to the channel tunnel; how much will be contributed from public funds directly by way of loan or grants and indirectly by way of operating subsidies; what is his estimate of the external cost benefits; and what is the projected annual rate of return to public funds. [29443]

  Mr. Watts
  The Government are currently holding a competition to select a private sector consortium to design, build, finance and operate the channel tunnel rail link. The size and composition of the public sector support, the size of the external cost benefits and the capital construction cost will be determined by the outcome of the competition.

  Traffic and Vehicle Examiners
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) traffic examiners and (b) vehicle examiners were in post in each of the last 10 years broken down by whether they were stationed at (i) vehicle testing stations or (ii) other offices. [27867]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Vehicle Inspectorate agency.

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

  Letter from R. Oliver to Ms Joan Walley, dated 26 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions on how many traffic vehicle examiners were in post for the last 10 years and their location.
  I provided details of numbers in a previous reply (ref PQ 523/94/95 and my letter of 25 January 1995). Information for the last 10 years and where staff were located can only be provided at disproportionate cost. I can provide you with an up to date figure on numbers employed at the end of May 1995. There were a total of 365 vehicle examiners and 160 traffic examiners. We are currently recruiting around 25 additional traffic examiners and around 35 vehicle examiners to increase complement, cover anticipated retirements and substantially fill current temporary posts.

  Motorways
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 18 May,Official Report, column 348, relating to motorway noise in how many cases the actual growth in traffic has exceeded the anticipated traffic growth as projected by his Department in estimating future noise levels; and what steps his Department takes to correct inaccurate predictions about predicted traffic levels and noise levels. [28168]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 20 June 19951: This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency.
  445
  I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 26 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 asking in how many cases the actual growth in traffic has exceeded the anticipated traffic growth as projected by the Department in estimating future noise levels and what steps are taken to correct inaccurate predicted traffic levels and noise levels.
  Comparisons are not made between the anticipated and actual growth in traffic used for noise level prediction. This is because entitlements to noise insulation are assessed in the light of actual conditions pertaining at the time the scheme is first open to traffic, on the basis of the best estimate of traffic available. A map showing eligible properties is published within six months of opening and offers of noise insulation must be accepted within a year of opening. The Noise Insulation Regulations require the noise calculations to be reviewed in individual cases on appeal, again within the first year.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of producing and distributing the brochure "Transport: The Way Ahead", speeches by the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 22 June.

PRIME MINISTER

  Downing Street Gates
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what consideration has been given to strengthening the ornamental gates to Downing street; [30609]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of retaining the gates in Downing street. [30608]

  The Prime Minister
  Security at Downing street is kept under constant review.

  Island Games, Gibraltar
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 20 June, if the Government raised any objection to the Princess Royal attending the Island games in Gibraltar in July. [30656]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 20 June, what is the Government's policy on other members of the royal family attending the Island games in Gibraltar in July 1995. [30655]

  The Prime Minister
  No member of the royal family other than the Princess Royal has received an official invitation to attend the Island games in Gibraltar.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister on what recent occasions Ministers' speeches have been published by their Departments at public expense; and if he will make a statement. [29754]
  446
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: It is usual practice for ministerial speeches made on official occasions to be published and distributed to the press by their departmental press office. This does not apply to speeches made in a party political context which are distributed through the party machinery.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all areas within(a) his Department, (b) agencies under his Department's control and (c) organisations for which he has ministerial responsibility to which Crown immunity applies; what consideration he has given to removing this, and if he will make a statement. [28644]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: The reference to the Crown immunity in the question is taken to refer to legislation which does not bind the Crown. Certain legislation is expressly applied to the Crown. In most legislation, however, particularly older legislation, there is no such express provision. In those circumstances whether legislation applies to the Crown will depend upon the implications to be drawn from the drafting and context of the legislation.

  French Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what backing Her Majesty's Government are giving to the Government of Australia, New Zealand and others in the Asia/Pacific region in their protests against the French Government's intention to resume nuclear testing in the Mururoa atoll; and if he will make a statement. [30385]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: In our view the international community's main priority is the early conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty. While we recognise the concern of some countries, particularly those in the south Pacific, over the French decision to suspend their moratorium on nuclear testing, we do not believe that a strictly limited programme of tests should affect the prospects for this.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date his French counterpart informed him that the French Government would recommence the testing of nuclear weapons. [30047]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: We have very close contacts with the French Government on a wide range of defence questions, including defence procurement, issues of mutual interest and nuclear matters, including testing. I discussed both subjects when I saw President Chirac on 10 June. The details of these discussions remain confidential.

  Home Truths Campaign
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received on the home truths campaign by young people; and how he is replying. [30048]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: My office has no record of this campaign. However, any representations will receive replies as appropriate.

  Attack Helicopters
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with his French counterpart concerning the purchase of attack helicopters by the Ministry of Defence. [30046]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: We have very close contacts with the French Government on a wide range of defence questions, including defence procurement, issues of mutual interest and nuclear matters, including testing. I discussed both subjects when I saw President Chirac on 10 June. The details of these discussions remain confidential.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Military Equipment (Export Licences)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 4 May,Official Report, columns 290–91, if he will list by country the military list classification of all goods refused relevant export licences in 1994. [15753]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The information requested is set out.

  Military List ('ML') Export Licence applications refused in 1994

  Refusals

  ML classification

  Algeria

  2

  1, 4

  Argentina

  9

  9, 10, 11, 15

  Burma

  1

  10

  Croatia

  1

  8

  Cyprus

  5

  1, 7, 18

  Dijibouti

  1

  1

  India

  1

  7, 11

  Indonesia

  2

  3, 5, 7, 15

  Iran

  21

  4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11

  Israel

  4

  1, 5, 7, 16

  Macedonia

  1

  13

  Nigeria

  1

  1

  Norway

  1

  15

  Sierra Leone

  1

  18

  Singapore

  1

  11

  Slovenia

  1

  15

  Sri Lanka

  2

  3

  South Africa

  1

  5

  Sudan

  8

  1

  Sweden

  1

  11

  Syria

  3

  3

  Taiwan

  1

  15

  Turkey

  1

  3

  Yemen

  4

  6, 10, 11

  Amway UK Ltd.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many meetings Ministers in his Department have had with persons representing the interests of Amway in the last three years either formally or informally to discuss matters relating to the interests of Amway. [29848]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  We have been consulting widely over proposals to improve the effectiveness of the legislation controlling pyramid selling and similar trading schemes. As part of this process, Ministers have had two meetings, one in 1992 and one last month, with a448
  delegation from the Direct Selling Association. On the earlier occasion, the delegation included a representative of Amway UK Ltd. Also I understand that almost all Members of Parliament, including most DTI Ministers, have been approached at least once during the last three years by constituents representing Amway.

  BMARC
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many export licences were applied for by BMARC under the military list between 1984 and 1990: and how many were turned down; [29167]

  (2) how many military export licences were applied for by BMARC between 1984 and 1990; and how many of those applications were refused; [29479]

  (3) how many military export licences were applied for by BMARC between 1 September 1988 and 31 March 1990; how many of those licences did not supply end user statements or certificates; and how many of the applications in that period were rejected. [29480]

  Mr. Byers
  To aske the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral statement of 13 June Official Report, columns 595–606, how many export licences were granted to BMARC for the export of naval guns and ammunition to Singapore; and how many of these applications did not have the full supporting documentation. [29258]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Hon. Members have asked a number of questions about BMARC, which require detailed work on over 400 export licences. I shall write to the hon. Members as soon as I have a substantive answer to their questions.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral statement of 13 June,Official Report, column 595, on BMARC, if any of the BMARC export licences which were the subject of his recent statement to the House had been drawn to the attention of Ministers prior to March 1995. [30065]

  Mr. Taylor
  No, to the best of our knowledge.

  Brent Spar
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade at what time and date, and by what method, Ministers or officials in his Department were first made aware of the decision by Shell UK to abandon plans to dispose of the Brent Spar installation by deepwater disposal. [31004]

  Mr. Eggar
  I received the information from Shell UK at a meeting which took place at approximately 4.30 pm on 20 June 1995.

  Utility Regulators
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the salaries of the telecommunications, gas, electricity and water regulators for each year since their inception; and what has been the percentage change in their earnings since their inception in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms. [29335]
  449
  Mr. Eggar
  The Director General of Water Services is appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales and information about his salary is a matter for them.

  The information requested in respect of the telecommunications, gas and electricity regulators is as follows:

  Mr. Bryan Carsberg—now Sir Bryan—was appointed from July 1984 at an initial salary of £50,000 per annum.

  Director general of telecommunications

  Percentage change

  Year

  Salary £

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  June 1985

  50,000

  0.0

  -6.5

  June 1986

  55,022

  10.0

  7.4

  June 1987

  60,224

  9.5

  5.0

  June 1988

  62,903

  4.4

  -0.2

  June 1989

  66,341

  5.5

  -2.6

  June 1990

  71,780

  8.2

  -1.5

  June 1991

  81,915

  14.1

  7.8

  June 1992

  87,808

  7.2

  3.2

  There was a period of several months in 1992–93 when the deputy director general was promoted temporarily at a salary of £60,000 per annum until a new director general was appointed. Mr. Don Cruickshank was appointed in April 1993 at an initial salary of £120,000 per annum.

  Percentage change

  Year

  Salary £

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  April 1994

  123,300

  2.7

  0.2

  April 1995

  126,400

  2.5

  -0.8

  Mr. James McKinnon—now Sir James—was appointed for a period of three years from August 1986 at an initial salary of £47,000 per annum.

  Director general of gas supply

  Percentage change

  Year

  Salary £

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  April 1987

  47,000

  0.0

  -4.1

  April 1988

  47,000

  0.0

  -3.8

  April 1989

  56,150

  19.5

  10.6

  The director general was reappointed for a period of five years from August 1989 at an initial salary of £59,800.

  Percentage change

  Year

  Salary £

  Cash terms

  Reall terms

  April 1990

  63,390

  16.0

  1-1.9

  April 1991

  69,120

  9.0

  2.5

  April 1992

  73,216

  5.9

  1.6

  April 1993

  73,216

  0.0

  -1.3

  1 Percentage change since reappointment August 1989.

  450
  Ms Clare Spottiswoode was appointed for a period of five years from November 1993 at an initial salary of £70,000. By April 1995 this had risen to £73,725 through annual increases of 2.7 per cent. in 1994 and 2.5 per cent in 1995.

  Percentage change

  Year

  Salary £

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  April 1994

  71,925

  2.7

  10.9

  April 1995

  290,000

  325.1

  321.1

  1 Percentage change since appointment November 1993.

  2 Salary determined in June 1995 but backdated to November 1994.

  3 Percentage change from April 1994 to April 1995.

  Professor Stephen Littlechild was appointed for a period of five years from September 1989 at an initial salary of £71,000 per annum.

  Director general of electricity supply

  Percentage change

  Year

  Salary £

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  April 1990

  75,260

  6.0

  -1.2

  April 1991

  82,030

  9.0

  2.4

  April 1992

  86,900

  5.9

  1.6

  April 1993

  89,410

  2.9

  1.6

  April 1994

  94,280

  5.4

  2.8

  The director general was reappointed for a period of five years from September 1994 at an initial salary of £100,000.

  Percentage change

  Year

  Salary £

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  April 1995

  £102,500

  12.5

  1-0.3

  1 Percentage change since reappointment September 1994.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the external directorships held and remuneration received by each of the telecommunications, gas, electricity and water regulators. [29336]

  Mr. Eggar
  No external directorships are held at present by the telecommunications, gas or electricity regulators.

  The Director General of Water Services is appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales and questions relating to his terms of appointment are matters for them.

  Information on the current remuneration of all the main utility regulators has been placed in the Library of the House by the respective sponsoring Departments.

  Konver Initiative
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money Britain has received to date from the European Konver fund for arms conversion; and if he will give details of the projects the money has gone to. [30203]
  451
  Mr. Eggar
  The purpose of the Konver initiative is to accelerate, with grants from the European Community structural funds, the diversification of economic activities in areas heavily dependent on the defence sector, so as to render them less dependent on this sector and encourage the adjustment of commercially viable businesses in other sectors. For Konver II, up to 1997, the Government have secured some £79 million, of which a first instalment should be received later this year. The UK was allocated some £18 million for Konver 1993.

  For further details, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on 3 April 1995, Official Report, column 901–2.

  Charter Week
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [30679]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Patent Office is contributing to a bilingual leaflet being put together to publicise the customer service activities of member organisations of the charter mark winners in Wales group.

  There will be on additional costs or staff resources required as a result of this event being held in July. The officials concerned will be working on the event as part of their normal duties.

  X200 Jaguar
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support his Department will offer to ensure that the X200 Jaguar is built in the United Kingdom. [30697]

  Mr. Eggar
  Discussions continue with Ford about the project. We are, of course, keen to ensure that the car is built here in Britain.

  Photovoltaics
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current United Kingdom installed capacity of solar photovoltaics, in megawatts; and what targets his Department has set for an increase in installed capacity by 2000. [30077]

  Mr. Page
  The installed capacity of photovoltaics in the UK at the end of 1994 has been estimated at about 320 (kW). This estimate covers all applications including remote power, consumer goods and grid connected systems. The Government are working towards 1,500 (MW) of new electricity generating capacity from renewable sources by 2000; photovoltaics is expected to contribute marginally to this capacity on this time scale.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current level of expenditure on the development and deployment of solar photovoltaic technology in the United Kingdom; and what are the projected levels of funding for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997. [30075)]

  Mr. Page
  The spend by the Department of Trade and Industry's new and renewable energy programme on 452
  photovoltaics in the financial year 1994–95 was £564,000. In addition to this, there was expenditure in the UK on photovoltaics development and deployment by the Office of Science and Technology, the European Commission and the photovoltaics industry itself. Projected levels of DTI funding for new and renewable energy, including photovoltaics, were published in "Trade and Industry 1995: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995–96 to 1997–98", and are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1995–96

  18.0

  1996–97

  15.5

  1997–98

  15.5

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many solar photovoltaic projects in the United Kingdom his Department has supported financially. [30079]

  Mr. Page
  To date, the Department of Trade and Industry has provided financial support to 20 photovoltaics projects.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to encourage the regional electricity companies to generate electricity using(a) solar photovoltaic technology and (b) solar water heating. [30083]

  Mr. Page
  Measures are in hand to save electricity generation and encourage energy conservation by bringing the potential of photovoltaics and solar water and heating technology to the attention of the regional electricity companies. These measures include supporting, under the DTI programme:an initiative of the International Energy Agency to provide information on photovoltaics to utilities involving for example a series of seminars held at REC offices;
  (in association with some RECs) regional renewable energy studies to assist the RECs with their business planning for renewables. These studies have included consideration of the local resource for photovoltaics and solar water heating.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support his Department is providing to the United Kingdom solar photovoltaic industry in order to assist an increase in its global market share; and what targets have been set for an increase in its market share. [30078]

  Mr. Page
  The Department of Trade and Industry's new and renewable energy programme in 1994 funded a business development study with the UK Photovoltaic Association to examine the world photovoltaics market and future market developments, and the opportunities for UK companies to succeed in these markets. The association has proposed its own target of a 15 per cent. market share of the world market by 2005. The DTI has initiated an export strategy for new and renewables within the overall new and renewable energy programme.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to offer practical or financial assistance to householders who wish to obtain energy supplies from(a) solar photovoltaic technology and (b) solar water heating. [30082]

  Mr Page
  The Department of Trade and Industry programme is providing practical assistance to anyone interested in investing in solar technologies by providing
  453
  case studies, results from monitored projects and technical guidance information.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what effect he expects continued non-fossil fuel obligation support of mass burn energy from waste schemes to have on the Government's policy objectives for integrated waste management as set out in the national waste strategy; [30085]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the potential contribution which will be made towards achieving the Government's renewables target by mass burn energy from waste technologies; [30235]

  (3) what market intelligence he has regarding either the (a) size or (b) number of future mass burn energy from waste schemes in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement; [30086]

  (4) if he plans to continue support for mass burn energy from waste technology in the fourth order of the non-fossil fuel obligation; [30084]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the reasons for failure of those mass burn energy from waste schemes which were supported under the first three non-fossil orders; and what changes he is considering to the structure of future orders to ensure better success rates. [30087]

  Mr. Page
  Energy Paper No.62, "New and Renewable Energy: Future Prospects in the UK", set out the Government's renewable energy policy and summarised its strategy and programme to implement that policy over the next 10 years. Energy paper No. 62 estimated that energy from municipal and industrial wastes might contribute around 400 MW to the Government's aim of working towards 1,500 MW of new electricity generating capacity from renewable sources for the UK by the year 2000. The non-fossil fuel obligation in England and Wales, and similar arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland, are the Government's main instrument for creating an initial market for renewables so that in the not-too-distant future the most promising renewables can compete without financial support.

  The Government have recently consulted on the structure of the fourth NFFO order and the Energy from Waste Association has provided market intelligence on potential future mass burn energy from waste schemes in the United Kingdom. I will take this information into account when the decisions on the structure of the NFFO4 are made shortly.

  Energy from waste developments require planning permission and each application is determined on its own merits. The award of a NFFO contract is totally without prejudice to the planning process. Advice on planning
  454
  issues is set out in planning policy guidance on planning and pollution control published in July 1994 and the annexe on waste combustion to planning policy guidance on renewable energy published in October 1994. The Department of Trade and Industry's renewable energy programme published a best practice guide for local authorities and private sector developers of municipal solid waste combustion projects in April 1995.

  The Government are committed to issuing updated guidance to local authorities on tendering waste disposal contracts and this will reinforce the desirability of recovering energy from waste as part of a sustainable approach to waste management. The Department of the Environment and Welsh Office have recently consulted on a draft waste strategy for England and Wales and expect to publish a final version towards the end of the year. The targets and objectives set out in the waste strategy are to be achieved by a combination of mechanisms, including the proposed landfill tax and initiatives on producer responsibility for waste. These will contribute towards an integrated approach to more sustainable waste management practices which employ energy recovery alongside material recycling, in pursuit of the best practicable environmental option.

  Energy Research and Development
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the current level of funding for research and development for the energy sector by type, including advanced fossil fuel combustion technology. [30076]

  Mr. Page
  The funding allocated by my Department for energy research and development programmes in 1995–96 is as follows:

  £ Million

  Nuclear R and D:

  Decommissioning and Radioactive Waste Management

  5.9

  Support

  Fast reactor

  0.1

  Safety and health

  2.7

  Fusion—including DTI's

  15.8

  contribution towards JET Safeguards

  1.0

  Non-Nuclear R and D:

  Oil and gas production technology

  3.4

  Offshore environmental R and D

  0.1

  Clean coal technologies

  7.0

  Environment

  0.6

  Renewable and novel sources of energy

  18.0

  The final outturns may vary from the figures shown. There is no energy R and D expenditure on advanced fossil fuel technologies other than for coal.

TREASURY

  BMARC
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many previous occasions customs inquiries and investigations have been made into contracts placed with, for or on behalf of BMARC. [29720]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs' only known previous inquiry concerned information provided by BMARC about a contract for BMARC to supply goods to another United Kingdom company which was under investigation.

  Year

  New registrations at Blackburn office

  New registrations in the north west region

  New registrations in the UK

  Total number of registrations at Blackburn office

  Total number of registrations in the north west

  Total number of registrations in the UK

  1985

  1,997

  16,317

  184,392

  17,177

  128,538

  1,471,375

  1986

  2,115

  16,602

  190,259

  16,967

  128,846

  1,494,368

  1987

  2,065

  16,964

  202,132

  17,071

  130,170

  1,539,914

  1988

  2,595

  20,110

  239,351

  17,527

  133,868

  1,605,817

  1989

  2,807

  22,384

  261,783

  18,141

  139,526

  1,690,191

  1990

  2,680

  21,574

  234,264

  18,762

  145,053

  1,742,966

  1991

  2,298

  18,644

  199,604

  18,122

  140,668

  1,692,190

  1992

  2,114

  17,326

  186,816

  17,849

  136,439

  1,640,409

  1993

  2,099

  16,412

  191,965

  17,402

  131,877

  1,607,843

  1994

  1,904

  15,174

  176,771

  16,986

  134,619

  1,582,911

  19951

  395

  3,776

  44,710

  16,799

  134,921

  1,579,869

  1 To end March.

  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 1990.

  Customs Investigation and Intelligence Review
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the further, separate and full review of the investigation and intelligence operations to be undertaken after the previous fundamental expenditure review into customs was completed is yet under way; and when and to whom customs will report. [30070]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The investigation and intelligence review was begun in January and is continuing. The report will go to Treasury Ministers in September 1995.

  VAT Bad Debts
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the operation of the VAT bad debt relief scheme. [30510]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  All aspects of the VAT system are kept under regular review. If the hon. Member has any specific concerns about the operation of the VAT bad debt relief scheme, I would be happy to consider them.

  North Sea Oil Revenue
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the different sources of

  VAT-registered Businesses
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the last 10 years(a) the number of VAT registered businesses per 1,000 population and (b) the number of new businesses per 1,000 population created in (i) Bolton, (ii) the north-west region and (iii) the United Kingdom. [30210]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs does not hold information on the ratio of businesses to population or on the number of businesses registered in Bolton alone. Figures are available for VAT—registered businesses by local office. The local VAT office at Blackburn covers, in addition to Blackburn, the towns of Bolton, Accrington and Clitheroe. Figures for the north-west cover Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside. These are given in the table:

  Government revenue received in relation to the production of North sea oil; and if he will also calculate the total amount of revenue the Government have received from these sources for each year since 1979. [30176]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 7 June 1995, Official Report, columns 203–4.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the annual change in revenue to the Exchequer which would result from raising the level of excise duty paid by lorries by £20 per vehicle per annum. [30096]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: The estimated additional revenue to the Exchequer which would result from raising the level of vehicle excise duty paid by lorries by £20 would be £8 million.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many outstanding Child Support Agency cases are currently awaiting processing in the Dudley office; how many staff are employed in this office, and what training they have received. [29320]
  457
  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Joan Walley, dated 22 June 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Dudley Child Support Agency Centre (CSAC).
  As at the end of April 1995, Dudley CSAC was dealing with 38,200 cases, all of which were at various stages of the assessment process following the return of a maintenance application form (MAF) to the Centre, and some that have been referred to the local field office. There were a further 18,600 cases where a MAF had been issued but not yet returned.
  The CSAC has 758 staff. In line with the Agency's determination to improve quality, all staff at the CSAC undergo formal induction training structured to cover the area of work they will be undertaking; maintenance assessment staff have a training programme which lasts for ten weeks; call handling staff receive a five week course covering the whole of the Agnecy's business and Operation Accounting staff receive four weeks training which includes instruction on debt management. All relevant staff received training on the recent policy changes and enhancements to the Child Support Computer System. All courses include one weeks customer service training and a period of consolidation with an experienced colleague.
  After initial training, individual and collective training needs are continuously reviewed and both technical and personal skills based training courses are available and delivered regularly.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Benefits
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each change the impact on the numbers claiming benefit now and in 2000–01 as a consequence of(a) the new incapacity benefit, (b) the £40 per week child care effect on family credit for single parents, (c) the back-to-work bonus for single parents, (d) the Child Support Agency, (e) limiting housing benefit to the average for each category of property in each area and (f) the changed rules for claiming income support for mortgage interest payments; and if he will also list for each change the saving to public expenditure. [27222]

  Mr. Hague
  The medium-term projections of benefit expenditure did not involve explicit calculations of benefit case loads. Reliable estimates of the case load effects of the policy measures listed in 2000–01 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The effects of the policy measures on benefit expenditure in 2000–01 are estimated as follows:

  (a) Incapacity benefit: Saving £2.3 billion

  (b) Child care effect on family credit: adding £60 million

  (c) Back to work bonus for lone parents: adding £10 million

  (d) Child Support Agency: saving £0.6 billion

  (e) Housing benefit limits: saving £190 million

  (f) Changed rules for income support mortgage interest: saving £150 million

  All these figures are the estimated costs and savings in the year 2000–01 in 1994–95 prices—rounded to the nearest £10 million. They represent the best estimate available of the effect of the policy measures, but detailed forecasts over that time span are subject to a wide margin of error. In particular, there may be behavioral effects from the policy measures not allowed for in the forecasts.
  458
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the benefit entitlement of 16 to 18-year-olds. [30971]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We will be issuing expanded guidance to Benefits Agency offices in respect of claims under the severe hardship provision. Our concern is to ensure that decisions taken with the authority of the Secretary of State are made taking account of all the available evidence.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of reducing(a) housing benefit taper by 15 per cent. to 50 per cent., (b) family credit taper by 20 per cent. to 50 per cent., (c) council tax taper by 15 per cent. to 50 per cent. and (d) all benefit tapers to 50 per cent. [30380]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is set out in the table. The council tax benefit taper is currently set at 20 per cent. Separate estimates have therefore been provided assuming a reduction of council tax benefit taper of 15 per cent. to 5 per cent. and an increase to 50 per cent.

  Estimated cost (+)/saving(-) £ million per annum

  Housing Benefit taper at 50 per cent.

  +585

  Family Credit taper at 50 per cent.

  +555

  Council Tax Benefit taper at 50 per cent.

  -330

  Council Tax Benefit taper at 5 per cent.

  +965

  All Tapers at 50 per cent.

  +805

  1. Estimates are based on 1990–91 to 1992 family expenditure surveys uprated to 1995–96 prices and benefit levels.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Income Support
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the income support liveload payments made for(a) E cases, (b) P cases, (c) A cases and (d) total cases for each quarter since January 1991 by (i) district and (ii) area directorate. [29331]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of raising earnings disregards for(a) single income support claimants from £5 to £10 per week, (b) couples to £10 each and (c) for the couple. [30382]

  Mr. Evans
  The cost of raising the disregards in the manner suggested would be:

  (a) £10 million

  (b) £10 million

  (c) £35 million

  Notes:

  1. Based on data taken from the 1993 income support annual statistical inquiry and from the 1990–91–92 family expenditure surveys uprated to 1995–96 prices, benefits and earnings levels.

  2. Costs are per annum, rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  3. All costings exclude groups who already have a higher disregard in income support, particularly lone parents, the disabled and long-term unemployed couples.

  459
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of income support were recorded as persons without accommodation in the last year for which figures are available. [30611]

  Mr. Evans
  In May 1994, 41,000 income support claimants were recorded as using the local benefit office as a mailing address. It is unlikely that this number relates only to roofless people.

  Notes:

  The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source:

  Income support quarterly statistical inquiry May 1994 and income support annual statistical inquiry May 1993.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many young people in Wales who left school at 16 years in 1994 are currently receiving(a) severe hardship payments under income support provisions and (b) other Benefits Agency payments. [31018]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available.

  Charter Week
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [30680]

  Mr. Hague
  A number of events are planned by district offices of the Benefits Agency which will coincide with the fourth anniversary of the citizens charter, including:Participation by several districts in local radio phone-ins;
  a charter mark winners roadshow organised jointly by South Tees district and the child benefit centre;
  charter mark winners open days organised by several districts, including Lothian West district, Springburn district and the benefit inquiry line in Preston;
  Newcastle district, which has been informally twinned with South Tyneside hospital trust is organising a day trip for underprivileged children.

  In addition, the South Lancs and Cheshire division of the Contributions Agency is running an information desk at public libraries in the area, to promote aspects of its service.

  There will be negligible cost to public funds as a result of these events taking place. The officials involved will be working on them as part of their normal duties.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures available on the growth of pensioners' incomes since 1993. [30972]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The latest available information is for 1992. These figures showed that, on average, pensioners' net incomes have increased by 50 per cent. since 1979, before taking housing costs into consideration.

  Source:

  Estimated from the family expenditure survey, 1992.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications there were for grants and loans from the social fund in the last month for which figures are available; what was the monthly average for the last financial year; and if there are any plans to increase the size of the fund. [30974]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There were 318,231 applications for grants and loans in May this year. The monthly average for 1994–95 was 312,019.

  The gross social fund budget for 1995–96 was increased by £38 million to £406 million, an increase of £53 million since April 1994–95.

  War Disablement Pensions
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many former members of Her Majesty's armed forces have applied for a war disablement pension on the grounds of noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss since 7 January 1993; and how many of these applications have been refused on the grounds that the hearing loss was less than 20 per cent. [30944]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Information is not available in the exact form requested.

  We estimate that since January 1993 a total of around 139,500 first claims have been made for hearing loss only. Separate claim figures for noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss are not available, because the exact diagnosis is not known when the claim is made, but the vast majority of the above claims were probably for that condition. In the same period, no payment was made in some 57,500 cases, because the assessed level of disablement due to service related NISHL was less than 20 per cent.

  The figures include claims made under all the war pensions scheme,s including those covering service personnel, world war two civilians and mercantile mariners. Separate figures are not available for the individual schemes.

  Low-income Families
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional support the Department will be providing next year to low-income families with children. [30973]

  Mr. Burt
  Over the next 12 months, a number of measures are to be introduced that will provide extra support for low-income families with children.

  From July this year, low-income families with children working more than 30 hours per week will receive an extra £10 per week in family credit. Around 345,000 families are expected to benefit from this measure worth over £200 million. We also aim to speed up the payment of family credit. From April 1996, we expect almost all new claims for family credit to be arranged within five working days.

  Also from next April, those who take a job after six month's unemployment will be able to keep their housing benefit at their existing full rate for an extra four weeks. From October 1996 the tax-free back-to-work bonus of up

  461
  to £1,000 will help to smooth a family's income flow on taking up work.

  Families will also benefit from the introduction of a national insurance holiday for employers taking on those who have been unemployed for two years or more, in April 1996.

  Pensioners' Organisations
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met representatives of pensioners' organisations; and what matters were discussed. [30975]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave the hon. member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 19 June,Official Report, columns 12–13.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Privatisation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Lord President of the Council 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.

  Mr. Newton
  No functions of the Privy Council Office have been contracted out, nor are any planned to be. I am not responsible for any agencies.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Sitting Hours
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council on how many occasions in the current Session until 16 June the House has adjourned before 10 o'clock; and what has been the total approximate time between the time of adjournment and half-past 10 o'clock.

  Mr. Newton
  In the current Session up to the 16 June, the House has adjourned before 10 o'clock on 21 occasions, not including Fridays. This figure does not include the last day before the Christmas recess on 20 December, but does include 24 May 1995 when the House rose at 4.36 pm as a mark of respect to Lord Wilson on his death. Nineteen of the 21 occasions have been since January.

  The total time between the hour of adjournment and half- past 10 o'clock on these 21 occasions is 42 hours 51 minutes. If the 24 May 1995 is not included in the figure, the total time is 36 hours 57 minutes.

  Party Leadership Candidates
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his oral answer of 15 June,Official Report, column 896, if he will consult other parties on
  462
  making arrangements for parliamentary time for statements by candidates for party leadership.

  Mr. Newton
  No.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Staff
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the number of staff-in-post in central Government Departments at 1 April 1995. [30195]

  Mr. David Hunt
  On 1 April 1995, there were 516,080 permanent staff-in-post in central Government, which is less than half the level of 50 years ago. This represents a decrease of 4.5 per cent. in the year since 1 April 1994. The number of casual staff fell by 2,984 over the year to 18,130.

  The figures are measured as "full-time equivalent" staff, where part-time staff are recorded as a proportion of a full-time employee according to the proportion of a full week for which they are contracted to work. This method of calculating full-time equivalent staff is a new one introduced from 1 April 1995, replacing the former method in which part-time staff working 10 hours or more per week were recorded as half an employee, those working fewer than 10 hours being ignored. The new methodology has been introduced to provide more accurate estimates of the number of staff employed, enabling better financial planning and control. This change in the method of calculating the number is estimated to have resulted in an increase of 7,000–1.3 per cent.—in the total number of staff. In order that the change should not artificially distort comparisons over time or plans with outturn, estimates have been made on the new basis, broken down by Department, for 1 April 1994, and have been placed with the 1 April 1995 figures in the Library.

  British Geological Survey
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what areas of the work of the British Geological Survey have been contracted out; who has bid for them; and who has been awarded them. [30222]

  Mr. Horam
  The British Geological Survey contracts out those areas which require scientific skills not available in-house and those functions which can be carried out more effectively by outside contractors. Specialist scientific support, such as research vessel hire and some drilling, is contracted out as the need arises. Some support, as in the case of computing services, is provided through service level agreements with the Natural Environment Research Council. The identity of many of the bidders for scientific and specialist support is considered by the survey to be commercial—in-confidence; others could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The following service functions have been contracted out to national and local suppliers through open competitive tendering:
  463

  Service

  Cleaning

  Initial Cleaning Services

  Northern Maintenance plc

  Security

  Centuryan Security Ltd.

  Catering

  Sutcliffe Catering

  Printing (part)

  Colour Images Ltd.

  Saxon and Graphics Ltd.

  Linneys Colour Print Ltd.

  Hawthornes Ltd.

  Meridian

  Colourstream Ltd.

  Travel services and Vehicle hire

  Carlsson Wagon Lit

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether his Department has put out to tender the oil information services of the British Geological Survey. [30223]

  Mr. Horam
  Until 1993, the British Geological Survey provided scientific services to the oil and gas division of the Department of Trade and Industry under letters of agreement, on a repayment basis. In the course of that year, the DTI invited competitive tenders for the supply of those services over a five-year period under five separate contracts, one of which was awarded to the BGS.

  Research Council Redundancies
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his latest estimate of redundancies that must be achieved by the end of the financial year in each of the six research councils; and if he will make a statement. [30240]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no specific target for redundancies that must be achieved by the end of the financial year. However, staffing levels are kept under continuous review by the research councils' senior management and the Director General of the Research Councils, with the aim of ensuring that councils' missions are pursued as efficiently and effectively as possible. Councils endeavour to achieve any reductions in posts through natural wastage and voluntary departures.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much is in this financial year's budget for estimated redundancy payments to the research councils. [30241]

  Mr. Horam
  In the financial year 1995–96 the research councils currently expect to incur expenditure of around £17 million on redundancies—including early retirements and restructuring. This includes payments in respect of departures in 1995–96 and ongoing payments in respect of earlier departures.

  Executive Agencies (Relocation)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which executive agencies are currently seeking to relocate from London to provincial towns. [30650]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not held centrally: it is a matter for individual departmental Ministers and their agency chief executives.

  Charter Week
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of 464
  Lancaster what are the main events his Department is proposing for Charter Week; what is the total cost to public funds; and how many (a) civil servants and (b) public officials will be playing a part. [30682]

  Mr. Horam
  The Office of Public Service and Science is planning a number of public service events to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the citizens charter, including:a reception for users who have nominated organisations for the 1995 charter mark and representatives of the nominated organisations;

  the publication of "Charter News";

  a consultation and customer satisfaction seminar; the publication of a guide to consultation;

  a conference on the information super-highway; and

  an announcement on 1995 charter marks applications.

  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.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 178, if he will list all those occasions on which he did not give prior warning to hon. Members. [30749]

  Mr. David Hunt
  I always do my best to give prior warning to hon. Members when I visit their constituencies in an official capacity and I do not have a record of any occasions when the system has failed.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Structural Adjustment Programmes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to study the social effects of aid programmes tied to structural adjustment programmes. [28775]

  Mr. Baldry
  ODA has been studying the social effects of structural adjustment for some years, in consultation with the World bank and independently, and will continue to do so.

  European Development Fund
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support moves to budgetise the European development fund. [28776]

  Mr. Baldry
  We are opposed to budgetisation of the European development fund. This would reduce Government's ability to decide how much we wish to contribute. It would also increase the pressure on the Edinburgh financial ceilings.

  European Union Aid
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total
  465
  sum spent on overseas aid by the EU in the most recent year for which figures are available; and which committee or Department makes decisions on the issuing of individual grants. [28777]

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1993, the last year for which figures are available, total European Community overseas assistance was $4287.5 million of which $3637.2 million was net official development assistance to developing countries. Individual spending proposals are assessed by management committees on which ODA represents the UK.

  Eastern Europe
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the distribution of funds to organisations from the European Union's Poland and Hungary assistance for economic restructuring programme and the know-how scheme. [28778]

  Mr. Baldry
  The PHARE programme and the know-how fund channel funds through a variety of public and private sector organizations including non-governmental organisations and academic institutions. They are selected on the basis of value for money in helping to achieve the objectives of the two programmes.

  Developing World (Debt)
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the role on the non-governmental banking sector in the reduction of debt in the developing world; and if he will make a statement. [28779]

  Mr. Baldry
  There has been effective action to reduce the debt owed by developing countries to commercial banks. Commercial bank debt is no longer the priority issues in solving developing countries' external debt problem.

  Poverty Reduction
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of United Kingdom multilateral aid is for poverty reduction. [28780]

  Mr. Baldry
  Poverty reduction is the highest priority of many of the multilateral agencies to which the UK makes contributions. Because the nature of their programmes

  Year

  Name

  Date training completed

  Place

  1990–91

  Mr. Yusnar Arsyad, Lt. Colonel

  15 December 1990

  RIP A, London

  Mr. Adjie Rustarn Ramdja, Major

  15 December 1990

  RIP A, London

  Mr. Deddy S K, Lt. Colonel

  15 December 1990

  RIPA, London

  Mr. Medhy Chumadi, Lt.

  15 December 1990

  RIPA, London

  1991–92

  Mrs. Minton Mariaty Simanjuntak, Major

  12 December 1991

  RIPA, London

  Mr. Soekamid, Major

  30 September 1992

  Salford University

  Mr. Yadi Ermlady, Captain

  30 September 1992

  Kent University

  1992–93

  Mr. Soekamid, Major

  30 September 1993

  Salford University

  Mr. Yadi Ermlady, Captain

  30 September 1994

  Sheffield Business School

  Ms Pengasihan Gaut, Major

  30 November 1992

  Thames Valley University

  466
  varies widely, it is not possible to give precise figures for the proportion of our multilateral aid which is specifically for poverty reduction. However, of the UK's total contribution to multilateral agencies, we estimate that in 1993 more than 60 per cent. was spent in the poorest category of countries—that is, least developed countries as classified by the UN and in other low income countries with an income per head of under $676 in 1992.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the intended use of the recent loan to Indonesia; and if he will make a statement. [29318]

  Mr. Baldry
  The new concessional loan arrangement for Indonesia will be used to support developmentally sound projects up to a cumulative contract value for British goods and services of £80 million. Projects to be funded under the loan are to be identified, but are expected to be in the health, education, water resources and transport sectors.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 727, if he will state in respect of each Indonesian police office receiving scholarship training of less than one month, (a) the month during which and (b) the training establishment at which training took place. [30282]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: The training took place in July 1990, July 1991 and July 1992. It was based at the Surrey police headquarters in Guildford.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 June,Official Report, columns 17–18, whether the project regarding the regional physical planning project for transmigration in Indonesia included East Timor. [30290]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: Yes.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, columns 294–95, if he will state in respect of each Indonesian police officer receiving scholarship training of more than one month (a) the date on which the training was completed and (b) the training establishment at which the training took place. [30281]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]:
  467

  Year

  Name

  Date training completed

  Place

  1992–93 Cont.

  Mr. Adjie Ramdja, Major

  7 April 1993

  University of Manchester

  Mr. Pepe Tjhhana, Lieutenant Colonel

  7 April 1993

  University of Manchester

  Mr. Tito Karnavian, First Lieutenant

  28 September 1993

  Exeter University

  1993–94

  Mr. Herman Rasyid, Colonel

  20 June 1993

  Surrey Constabulary

  Zaire
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in reducing the number of refugees in Zaire. [29506]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government of Rwanda estimate 478,812 refugees have already returned from Zaire. The international community is working to encourage further voluntary refugee repatriation. Improved security in the camps has reduced intimidation. The United Nations High Commissioners for Refugees are considering resuming organised convoys to meet a growing refugee interest in repatriation.

  Tehri Dam, India
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the fast by Sunderlai Bahuguna in opposition to the construction of the Tehri dam in India; and if he will make a statement. [30219]

  Mr. Baldry
  None. There is no British Government involvement in this project.

  Somalia
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid has been given in(a) money and (b) personnel in Somalia over the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [29064]

  Mr. Baldry
  The following tables list total bilateral aid to Somalia for the period 1985 to 1993–94 and person years of technical co-operation personnel, consultants and volunteers wholly or partly funded by ODA.

  £000

  Year1

  Total bilateral aid2

  1985

  1,737

  1986

  3,941

  1987

  7,292

  1987–88

  7,746

  1988–89

  5,783

  1989–90

  2,635

  1990–91

  1,916

  1991–92

  3,025

  1992–93

  15,804

  1993–94

  5,509

  1 Information on bilateral aid is available on a calendar year basis up to 1987 and on a financial year basis from 1987–88 onwards.

  2 Includes emergency aid, technical co-operation; programme aid, and the joint funding scheme.

  468

  Year

  Personnel (person years)

  1985

  15

  1986

  15

  1987

  18

  1988

  19

  1989

  22

  1990

  8

  1991

  3

  1992

  1

  1993

  1

  Aid and Trade Project
  Mrs. Ann Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many aid and trade provision projects are being funded in this financial year in countries with per capita GNP of less than $700. [28781]

  Mr. Baldry
  Forty-six projects are being funded in 1995–96 in countries with GNP per capita below $700.

  Diversification
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of Britain's overseas aid budget is used to combat desertification; and which are the projects involved. [30394]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 14 June, Official Report, column 566.

  China (Abandoned Children)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what sums(a) the International Planned Parenthood Federation, (b) the United Nations Population Fund and (c) his Department have assigned for assisting the victims of the Chinese population control programme; [29790]

  (2) what sums have been assigned by (a) the IPPF, (b) the UNFPA or (c) his Department for the care of orphans and abandoned children in China; [29784]

  (3) on what occasions since 1965 (a) the IPPF, (b) the UNFPA or (c) his Department have advised the Chinese Government regarding the provision of care for orphans and abandoned children; [29785]

  (4) what is the involvement of (a) the IPPF, (b) the UNFPA and (c) his Department in the funding of Chinese state orphanages. [29789]
  469
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answers 20 June 1995]: Neither the Overseas Development Administration, the United Nations Population Fund nor the International Planned Parenthood Federation provides funding for operating orphanages in China or for the care of abandoned children. The United Nations system's involvement in the care of children comes under the remit of the United Nations Children Fund—UNICEF.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what reports has he received from the IPPF and the UNFPA regarding the condition of children in Chinese state orphanages; and what investigations his Department has conducted; [29788]

  (2) what information he has on the standards of medical care for abandoned children in Chinese state orphanages; and if he will make a statement. [29782]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answers 20 June 1995]: We have not received reports on the conditions of, or the standards in, China's orphanages from the United Nations Population Fund or the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the links between the Chinese population control programme and the condition of orphans and abandoned children in China; and if he will make a statement. [29787]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 June 1995]: We have no reliable analysis of the link between the Chinese population programme and the condition of orphans and abandoned children in China.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the balance between the sexes in respect of abandoned children and orphans in China; to what he attributes it; and if he will make a statement. [29786]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 June 1995]: We have not made an assessment of the balance between the sexes in respect of abandoned children and orphans in China.

  "Secret Asia: The Dying Rooms"
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek a transcript of the Channel 4 programme, "Secret Asia: The Dying Rooms", for his departmental library. [29779]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 June 1995]: A copy has been placed in the ODA library.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors allow his Department to distinguish between funds donated by the Overseas Development Administration to primary health care and family planning in Bangladesh; and for what reasons his Department is unable to make this distinction in respect of the other countries where primary health care donations are made. [28962]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: Most health projects funded under the aid programme include, as one of their aims, the promotion of better reproductive health through provision of voluntary family planning,
  470
  safer motherhood, and sexually transmitted disease services. Given that such services are generally integrated with other aspects of primary health care, it is extraordinarily difficult to identify expenditure which could be classed as primary health care "excluding family planning provision". In the case of Bangladesh, a distinction was made for projects under way in the 199394 financial year, although with great difficulty. We have concluded that for our professional staff to undertake further estimates in other countries would consume unreasonable amounts of public servants' time, preventing them from designing new and high-quality primary health care projects.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Attorney-General what are the criteria used by the Crown Prosecution Service in determining whether a prosecution is in the public interest. [28739]

  The Solicitor-General
  The criteria are set out in the code for crown prosecutors, which states that a prosecution will usually take place in cases of any seriousness, unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to extend the operations of the Serious Fraud Office. [28740]

  The Attorney-General
  The revised criteria for allocation of fraud work between the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office recommended in the Davie report have now been adopted. They are likely to lead over time to a heavier case load for the Serious Fraud Office.

  Private Lee Clegg
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received in the last month about the case of Private Lee Clegg; and if he will make a statement. [28741]

  The Attorney-General
  The Law Officers have received no representations in the last month about the case of Private Clegg.

  Charter Week
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Attorney-General 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.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service has contributed to the court service charter for court users. This is due to be published in July to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the citizens charter. The charter has been drawn up as part of officials' normal
  471
  duties. It does not involve any additional staff resources or additional costs. No other special events are planned in my departments.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  South Eastern Education and Library Board
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what shortcomings in the performance of the South Eastern education and library board were revealed by his review of educational administration. [29503]

  Mr. Ancram
  The proposals for change were based not on the shortcomings of particular education and library boards but on an assessment of the most appropriate administrative structure for education across Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations he has received about the abolition of the present identity of the South Eastern education and library board; and how many were in favour. [29500]

  Mr. Ancram
  So far, I have received some 1,300 written responses to the "Proposals for Change" document. These relate to the full range of proposals in the document rather than simply to the proposed merger of Boards. Further written responses are still being received and I am continuing to meet deputations from interested groups.

  The responses are being analysed at present and I will write to the hon. Member when the analysis is complete.

  Education Administration
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what are the administrative staffing costs of the Department of Education in Northern Ireland; [29499]

  (2) what personnel with costs, are included in "Proposals for Change" under the term, administrative staffing costs of the education and library boards. [29496]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) on 5 May,Official Report, columns 334–35.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the funding for the education service as a whole the administrative staffing costs of the education and library boards form. [29497]

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1994–95, the administrative staffing costs of the education and library boards were 2 per cent. of the funding provided for education, including libraries and youth.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which areas of staffing of the Department of Education in Northern Ireland will increase under his "Proposals for Change", and which will decrease; and by how much in each case. [29498]

  Mr. Ancram
  The functions of the Department of Education for Northern Ireland which would be affected 472
  by the proposals for change are set out in the document itself, a copy of which is in the Library.

  The effects on staffing will depend on final decisions still to be taken on the extent of any transfers of functions.

  Privatisation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [29426]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Functions within the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments which have been contracted out as a result of market testing are as follows:

  Department of Education
  This Department contracted out two functions: catering and security at Waterside house for which there were no in-house bids. In these cases, the catering staff did not express an interest in submitting a bid and Waterside house was a newly opened building; therefore, no security staff were previously employed. There are no current plans to contract-out any other functions.

  Department of Health and Social Services
  This Department contracted out the health and personal social services computer mainframe operations without an in-house bid as the Department judged that the private sector was clearly better equipped to deliver the specific service and had the capacity to invest in new technology. There are no current plans to contract out further functions.

  NI Child Support Agency
  The following services were contracted out without in-house bids:

  Facilities Management

  Typing

  Telephonists

  Receptionist

  Cleaning

  Security

  Post Opening

  Messengerial

  Porterage

  Handyman

  Catering

  Reprographic

  Stationery Store

  Off-Site File Store

  The provision of these services arose when the agency was set up in April 1993 and there was no existing in-house capacity. There are no current plans to contract out further functions.

  Department of the Environment
  This Department contracted out the following services without an in-house bid:
  Minor road surface dressing and general road maintenance work.
  Grounds maintenance at historic monuments and country parks
  Secretariats for the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, the Historic Monuments Council and the Historic Buildings Council.
  The operation of Castle Archdale caravan site.

  473
  In-house bids in these cases were not prevented by lack of expertise.
  This Department has currently identified, subject to value for money considerations, the following activities for contracting out.
  various roads service provider activities
  management of the Marina at Castle Archdale country park and the operation of the small railway at Peatlands country park; and research and analysis work associated with the preparation of area development plans and co-ordination of the Department's property certificate service.
  Expertise is available to mount in-house bids.

  Northern Ireland Office
  This Department contracted out office cleaning, Government car hire and air travel contracts without an in-house bid as no NIO staff previously performed these tasks.
  No parts of the remaining Departments and Agencies have been privatised without an in-house bid taking place. Any future contacting out will depend on the outcome of market testing. There are no plans to prevent in-house bids in any future tests.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the per capita funding for each of the different types of secondary school in Northern Ireland. [29501]

  Mr. Ancram
  The average per capita costs based on the initial budget allocations in the 1994–95 financial year in the various types of secondary schools were as follows:

  £

  Controlled Secondary

  2,253

  Maintained Secondary

  2,231

  Controlled Grammar

  2,156

  Voluntary Grammar

  2,211

  Grant Maitnained Integrated

  2,525

  Scheme

  Mean (Weeks)

  Median (Weeks)

  Standard deviation (Weeks)

  Agricultural Development Operational Programme Capital Grant Scheme

  23.44

  21.57

  5.05

  ADOP Farm Innovation Scheme

  25.57

  23.00

  7.50

  Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme—non plan

  22.02

  19.07

  16.37

  Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme—plan

  24.97

  23.21

  12.70

  Sub-Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development Capital Grant Scheme

  13.05

  11.28

  9.37

  Note:

  The information relates to all claims including those not properly substantiated when received. Delays in the issue of payments often arise from the need to return a high proportion of claim forms to applicants for further validation.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish any consultation paper on the structure and role of the corporate bodies he is establishing for colleges of further education. [29502]

  Mr. Ancram
  No decisions have yet been made on the future arrangements for further education.

  Housing Policy Review
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to publish the housing policy review. [29758]

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the total land area of Northern Ireland was designated as environmentally sensitive; what financial provision his Department allocated to environmentally sensitive areas in each of the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96; what percentage of the total land area of Northern Ireland will be designated as environmentally sensitive; and what financial provision his Department will allocate to environmentally sensitive areas in each of the years 1996–97 and 1997–98. [29325]

  Mr. Ancram
  Five areas in Northern Ireland, totalling 220,000 hectares have been designated as environmentally sensitive, representing 16.29 per cent. of the total land area. The financial provision for the years 1993–94, 1997–98 is set out in the table. There are no plans at present to designate any further areas.

  1993–94: 750,000

  1994–95: 700,000

  1995–96: 2,800,000

  1996–97: 5,100,000

  1997–98: 5,139,000

  Agricultural Grant
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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 the Northern Ireland Office. [29453]

  Mr. Ancram
  The following statistics derive from an analysis of all claims paid under the main capital grant schemes in the period from 26 July 1994 to 16 June 1995.

  Mr. Moss
  The housing policy review is in its final stages and a consultative paper is expected to be published during the summer. Following publication, a consultation period of some three months is envisaged.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his Department's estimate of the backlog of maintenance on properties owned by his Department. [29760]

  Mr. Moss
  The Northern Ireland departments have estiamted their backlog of maintenance work to be in the region of £7.5 million in the current year. This does not take account of any work arising from the implementation
  475
  of the recommendations of the report by Sir Reginald Doyle on the Stormont fire and fire safety in Crown buildings.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of(a) firearms certificates held in Northern Ireland, (b) shotguns held on such certificates, (c) handguns held on such certificates, indicating how many are held by present or past members of the security forces, (d) .22 rimfire rifles held on such certificates, (e) sporting rifles held on such certificates of a calibre larger than .22 rimfire, (f) specialist target shooting rifles held on such certificates and (g) other rifles used for target shooting held on such firearms certificates. [29659]

  Sir John Wheeler
  As at 1 June 1995, there were 88,089 current firearms certificates. The following firearms were held under them:

  Shotguns: 85,024

  Pistols and Revolvers: 13,020'

  .22 Rimfire Rifles: 11,225

  Greater than .22 calibre Sporting Rifles: 402

  Specialist Target Shooting Rifles: 1,537

  Other Rifles2: 283

  Notes:

  1Information on how many of these handguns are held by serving or former members of the RUC and armed forces could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  2Includes miscellaneous target shooting rifles, other than .22 and .303 calibre.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of terrorist-related incidents in which firearms were used, the number of other crimes in which firearms were used and the types of firearms used with particular reference to(a) handguns, (b) assault rifles, (c) sub-machine guns and (d) other rifle types and shotguns in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [29657]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The available information is given:

  Shooting incidents where terrorist involvement has been established

  Year

  Number of incidents

  1990

  559

  1991

  499

  1992

  506

  1993

  476

  1994

  348

  Armed robberies (including robberies where the impression of a firearm was given)

  Year

  Number of armed robberies

  1990

  492

  1991

  607

  1992

  739

  1993

  643

  1994

  555

  Note:

  The overwhelming majority of these robberies were terrorist related.
  476

  Number of crimes recorded in which firearms (including re plica firearms) were used (1990–94 inclusive)

  Type of firearm

  990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Handgun

  676

  757

  958

  847

  671

  Shotgun

  86

  67

  109

  60

  64

  Rifle

  86

  131

  121

  129

  72

  Machine gun

  22

  19

  20

  14

  41

  Other not specified firearm

  120

  80

  25

  33

  54

  Two or more firearms

  50

  46

  60

  68

  22

  Explosive device and firearm(s)

  8

  13

  13

  7

  8

  Total number of crimes

  1,048

  1,113

  1,306

  1,158

  932

  Notes:

  1. Explosive device includes bombs, drogue bombs and rocket launchers.

  2. Recorded crime data are not collated so as to permit the extraction of non-terrorist crime, except at disproportionate cost.

  3. Crime records are not collated so as to allow the disaggregation of weapon categories to show the number of crimes where assault rifles and other types of rifle have been used.

  4. In a number of incidents, two or more firearms will have been used. In such cases the incident has been recorded under one firearm category only.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many legally held firearms have been identified as having been used by those entitled to hold them in the commission of(a) terrorist-related crime and (b) other crimes in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years for which figures are readily available. [29658]

  Sir John Wheeler
  This information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of GDP in Northern Ireland is accounted for by construction; and what information he has about the equivalent figure in the rest of the United Kingdom. [29759]

  Mr. Moss
  In 1993 construction accounted for 5.37 per cent. and 5.43 per cent. of GDP in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom respectively.

  Roads Service
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement regarding market testing of the Roads Service agency. [29757]

  Mr. Moss
  It is planned that the Department of the Environment's Roads Service will become a next steps agency on 1 April 1996. In common with other departmental agencies, it will be expected to move progressively towards becoming a purchaser rather than direct provider of executive services. In this context, the Roads Service agency will be looking to contract out strategically to the private sector many of its existing "provider" activities, subject to value for money considerations. This has resulted in the current suspension of market testing in the Roads Service.

  Private Lee Clegg
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to make a decision and announcement about the release of Private Lee Clegg. [29847]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I am considering the advice of the Life Sentence Review Board and I have sought the views of the judiciary. I will notify the prisoner of the outcome of my decision as soon as possible.

  Charter Week
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [30683]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The public service events planned in Northern Ireland to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the citizens charter are:the publication of health and personal social services performance tables for 1994–95;
  the launch of a charter standard statement for community services.

  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.

HEALTH

  Census Statistics
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, in rank order, by parliamentary constituency, the proportion of residents who are(a) in households headed by someone from the new Commonwealth or Pakistan or (b) not identified as white in the most recent census returns. [29560]

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

  Royal Colleges
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sums of money have been paid each year from 1989 to 1995 from her Department's(a) research and development budget and (b) other budgets to the (i) Royal College of Surgeons, (ii) Royal College of Physicians, (iii) Royal College of Psychiatrists, (iv) Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, (v) Royal College of Radiologists and (vi) Royal College of Anaesthetists. [29355]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the tables.

  Royal College of Surgeons

  Year

  Research and development

  Medical education £

  Clinical audit £

  1989–90

  —

  192,714

  25,000

  1990–91

  —

  208,132

  160,000

  1991–92

  —

  191,125

  316,000

  1992–93

  —

  199,250

  378,000

  478

  Royal College of Surgeons

  Year

  Research and development

  Medical education £

  Clinical audit £

  1993–94

  17,271

  219,228

  436,000

  1994–95

  —

  257,896

  348,000

  Royal College of Physicians

  Year

  Research and development

  Medical education £

  Clinical audit £

  1989–90

  —

  143,675

  —

  1990–91

  —

  155,169

  231,000

  1991–92

  —

  230,220

  254,432

  1992–93

  16,304

  277,406

  423,706

  1993–94

  —

  300,150

  412,320

  1994–95

  —

  339,640

  186,000

  Royal College of Phychiatrists

  Year

  Research and development

  Medical education £

  Clinical audit £

  1989–90

  —

  64,561

  —

  1990–91

  —

  90,726

  51,000

  1991–92

  —

  109,294

  108,000

  1992–93

  —

  117,604

  126,000

  1993–94

  —

  119,688

  94,574

  1994–95

  —

  127,489

  83,000

  Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

  Year

  Research and development

  Medical education £

  Clinical audit £

  1989–90

  —

  95,899

  —

  1990–91

  —

  103,579

  62,000

  1991–92

  —

  145,597

  66,000

  1992–93

  —

  151,184

  68,000

  1993–94

  —

  182,221

  105,907

  1994–95

  —

  211,936

  102,000

  Royal College of Radiologists

  Year

  Research and development

  Medical education £

  Clinical audit £

  1989–90

  —

  19,632

  —

  1990–91

  —

  21,203

  70,000

  1991–92

  —

  33,979

  62,000

  1992–93

  —

  46,904

  79,000

  1993–94

  —

  32,546

  70,000

  1994–95

  —

  38,571

  75,000

  479

  Royal College of Anaesthetists

  Year

  Research and development

  Medical education £

  Clinical audit £

  1989–90

  —

  —

  80,000

  1990–91

  —

  —

  27,000

  1991–92

  —

  69,350

  80,000

  1992–93

  —

  64,576

  56,000

  1993–94

  —

  84,861

  57,000

  1994–95

  —

  94,161

  70,000

  Notes:

  1. For 1989–90 and 1990–91 advances to the anaesthetists from the medical education budget were made as part of the grant to the Royal College of Surgeons. The advances were not separately identified.

  2. In addition to the funding shown, moneys have been provided, through those medical royal colleges which are responsible for undertaking, or have oversight of, specific clinical audit projects of national significance. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the impact that funding from her Department to the medical royal colleges has had on(a) improving the cost-effectiveness of medical practice, as measured by rigorous randomised controlled trials and (b) changing clinical behaviour. [29354]

  Mr. Malone
  The medical royal colleges have a long and respected history of promoting the highest standards of professional practice, and this role has become even more important with the increasing specialisation of medical care. Improving the clinical effectiveness of services in the NHS is a key goal for my Department. As professional associations, the colleges provide leadership and guidance to their members in this important area. My Department provides funds to support their contribution to medical training and clinical audit in the NHS, in order to help local clinicians and managers provide more effective services.

  Oestrogen
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effect of oestrogen on (i) child health and (ii) adult health. [29458]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to counter advertising campaigns from the tobacco industry. [29644]

  Mr. Sackville
  Advertising campaigns for tobacco are governed by the voluntary agreement between the Government and the tobacco industry. The agreement includes a number of measures which restrict in particular the exposure of children and young people to tobacco advertising. The committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship investigates any complaints alleging breaches of the agreement. If there is found to be a breach, the tobacco company concerned takes immediate remedial action.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average fee charged per week for a resident in(a) a residential home and (b) a nursing home; and what proportion of this is for nursing care. [29712]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department does not collect information on fees charged, but Laing and Buisson have estimated on the basis of their latest—November 1994—survey of independent sector homes that the average weekly fees for elderly residents were £234 and £333 for residential care and nursing homes respectively. No information is available on the proportion of nursing home fees which relates to nursing care.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in(a) residential homes and (b) nursing homes have preserved rights to income support; and how many in each case are now receiving that benefit. [29713]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have been asked to reply. The information is set out in the table.

  Residential care homes

  Nursing homes

  Estimated number with preserved rights

  154,000

  116,000

  Number in receipt of higher income support limits

  116,200

  84,460

  Source:

  Income support figures—The Quarterly Statistical Enquiry (QSE) November 1994.

  Information on people not in receipt of benefit is not collected and the numbers have been estimated from the November 1994 QSE and the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Personal Social Services: Residential Accommodation in England 1994".

  Paediatric Heart Surgery
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paediatric cardiac units perform the "switch" operation. [30030]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlay her Department's decision to set up a protocol covering future performance of all complex cardiac surgery in the United Bristol Healthcare Trust; and if she will list the other paediatric cardiac units similarly treated. [30007]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department draw up no such protocol. In response to concerns expressed about the paediatric cardiac surgical service at Bristol Royal Infirmary, the United Bristol Healthcare Trust drew up a protocol on how it should manage the service pending the implementation of previously agreed changes. That protocol was then agreed with South and West regional health authority and the Department.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paediatric cardiac surgeons were registered in each of the last five years. [30006]
  481
  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Paediatric Surgeons: whole-time equivalents England at 30 September each year

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Consultant Senior

  40

  40

  50

  40

  50

  Registrar

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Registrar

  20

  20

  20

  30

  30

  Totals

  80

  80

  80

  90

  90

  Notes:

  1. All figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. The figures in the table may not sum to the total because of rounding.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list each paediatric cardiac unit in England, indicating for each the number of beds. [30008]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the basis of the figure given as the ordinating capital debt for each national health service trust listed in SI 1955/407; if she will list each relevant component; and what method was used to ensure a common means of assessment of each. [30032]

  Mr. Sackville
  The originating capital debt of a national health service trust represents the excess of the value of the assets over the sum of the liabilities transferred to it on establishment. The relevant components of the originating capital debt and the method used to ensure a common means of assessment of each are as follows:

  Asset/liability

  Means of valuation

  Land

  District valuer

  Buildings

  District valuer

  Assets under construction

  District valuer

  Equipment

  Taken from asset registers

  Debtors

  As stated in the transferring authority's accounts

  Creditors

  As stated in the transferring authority's accounts

  Stocks

  As stated in the transferring authority's accounts

  Cash imprests

  As stated in the transferring authority's accounts

  The Valuation Office Agency is appointed by the NHS Executive to act as an independent valuer and uses a standard method of valuation for land and building assets. The value of equipment is taken from an asset register which every health authority and NHS trust must maintain and which is subject to independent audit. The calculation of the current value of equipment in these asset registers is standardised throughout the NHS. Debtors, creditors, stocks and cash imprests are stated in accounts in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice.
  482
  In all instances, the values transferring to the trust are agreed and certified by both the transferring authority and the trust and are subject to external audit.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the members of(a) the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy, (b) the Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food and (c) the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, together with their current employers. [29995]

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

  Consultants
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the percentage expansion of consultant numbers required in each of the next five years to implement the Calman report. [30453]

  Mr. Malone
  Medical staffing policy aims to ensure an adequate supply of appropriately trained doctors in each speciality. Officials are currently taking advice from the medical profession and national health service managers, through SWAG—the specialist workforce advisory group—to ensure that there are enough doctors in training in each specialty and to assess the anticipated need for consultants as a result of the Calman changes.

  GP Lists
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been struck of general practitioners lists in each of the last five years in each region and family health service authority. [30464]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply that I gave her on 25 January 1995,Official Report, column 254.

  Health Authority Addresses
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the name and address of each family health service authority, district health authority, trust and directly managed unit. [30428]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the address of each health authority and trust in England is published annually in the National Health Service Yearbook, copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS Executive (Declaration of Interests)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are made by the NHS Executive to register interests; and how many interests have been declared by employees of the NHS Executive and her Department. [30438]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department's staff rules require that business, financial or other interests which staff or immediate members of their families hold, and which might be influenced or affected as a result of their official position, must be declared to their line manager. Records of such declarations are not available centrally.

  Drug Research
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research the Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into a comparison of the effect of Nifedipine GITS and hydrochlorothiazide/amiloride on cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality; and if she will make a statement. [30474]

  Mr. Sackville
  This Department has neither commissioned nor evaluated any research in this area.

  NHS Trusts (Public Relations)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Department's policy with respect to the employment by trust hospitals of press and public relations officers; and if she will make a statement. [30785]

  Mr. Malone
  It is for individual national health service trusts to determine their own press and public relations needs and ensure they employ the appropriate number of staff to meet these needs.

  Hyperactive Children
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's assessment of(a) the relevance of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder for problems of school pupil behaviour and aggression, (b) the number and percentage of pupils affected by attention deficit disorder and (c) the likely degree to which children may inherit attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; and if she will make a statement. [28730]

  Mr. Bowis
  Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is one of several possible causes of behavioural problems, including aggression, in school pupils. The number of pupils affected is not available centrally. Recent research suggests that severe hyperkinetic disorder, which is one form of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, is found in about 1 in 200 children.

  The degree to which children may inherit attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is a complex issue, but it is accepted that there is some inherited component.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has in association with the Department of Education to promote knowledge of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, together with appropriate training, among child psychiatrists and paediatricians to contribute towards dealing with problems of classroom discipline. [28731]

  Mr. Bowis
  The handbook on Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, which we published jointly with the Department for Education in March, includes references to the training of professional groups involved in the treatment of young people with emotional and behavioural disorders. Copies of the handbook are available in the Library.

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals Trust
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received alleging that fundholding patients are being seen ahead of non-fundholding patients with the same clinical problem at the Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospital Trust. [30298]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Asthma
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will commission research on the relationship between the incidence of asthma and the number of undiagnosed thyroid sufferers; and if she will make a statement. [30265]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have no plans to commission such research at this time. However, within the Department's centrally commissioned research programme there is a range of projects under way and in planning of relevance to respiratory diseases and especially asthma, with a total estimated value of over £125,000. The Medical Research Council is also funding a large amount of work on asthma, concentrating mainly on the fundamental mechanisms underlying the disease, and some 14 projects supported by grants and work at MRC units are currently under way. In 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available, the MRC spent £919,000 on research into asthma and a further £1,000,000 on research which may be relevant to the condition.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many asthma sufferers are estimated to live in each London borough. [30738]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 14 March 1995,Official Report, column 553, for the available information.

  General Practitioners' Hours
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has made any analysis of the ballot result of general practitioners on cuts in hours; and, if so, what that analysis is. [30299]

  Mr. Malone
  No. We shall continue our discussions with general practitioners to ensure that standards of service to patients are maintained.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 130, if she will list all those occasions during the current parliamentary Session when warning of visits was not given to hon. Members. [30745]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 21 March 1995,Official Report, column 131. We are aware of one such oversight.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to issue guidelines to general practitioners and pharmacists concerning requests by patients for private prescription forms for items whose production and distribution costs are lower than the standard prescription charges. [30678]

  Mr. Malone
  Guidance to general practitioners on the issue of private prescriptions to national health service patients was issued on 4 May 1994 under FHSL (94) 26, copies of which are available in the Library. Pharmacists are already accustomed to dispensing private prescriptions, so no new guidance is necessary.
  485
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her current estimate of the proportion of all prescription-only items in the formulary whose production and distribution cost is lower than the current pre-item prescription charge. [30677]

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

  Drug Addiction
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children under the age of 16 years are currently receiving treatment for any form of drug addiction, giving figures for each region. [30740]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested. Information on the number of children aged under 15 presenting to some drug services for the first time, or after an absence of six months or more, by region, can be found in table 7 of the statistical bulletin, "Drug Misuse Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Ministerial Guidance
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what legislative powers she has to issue guidance which is required to be taken into account by courts and tribunals for the purpose of determining legal liability where approval by Parliament is now required; and what such guidance has been issued. [30496]

  Mr. Sackville
  Numerous enactments—for instance, section 7A of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 and section 17 of the National Health Service Act 1977—confer on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the power to give to certain public bodies, including local authorities, health authorities and NHS trusts, directions with which those bodies are obliged to comply. Unless contained in a statutory instrument, such directions are not laid before Parliament, but nevertheless have legal consequences.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also gives guidance, falling short of directions, to certain public bodies with respect to their exercise of functions. In some cases, the power to give guidance is expressly recognised in statute—for instance, section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 requires local authorities, when exercising their social services functions, to act under the general guidance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In certain other cases, guidance is given as part of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's general statutory responsibilities; for instance, guidance is issued to health authorities under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's general powers in section 2(b) of the National Health Service Act 1970 to do anything which is conducive or incidental to the discharge of a duty imposed by that Act.

  Even guidance which is given under express statutory powers does not necessarily require the approval of Parliament. Whether the courts would take account of guidance when determining the legal liability would depend on the matters at issue and the circumstances in which the guidance was given. They would, in appropriate
  486
  cases, be likely to have regard to guidance given in pursuance of express statutory powers to a body which is required to act under it.

  The statutory powers to give directions and guidance have been exercised on a large number of occasions over the years by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her predecessors. If the hon. Member has a particular problem in mind and would care to write to me about it, I will identify such relevant directions or guidance as there may be in existence.

  Charter Week
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the main events that she 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. [30687]

  Mr. Malone
  There are no new major events planned for Charter Week. A number of events which were already scheduled to take place outside Charter Week have been re-timed to take place during that period. These are the launch of the second set of national health service performance tables and an announcement about a consultation leaflet on the patients charter and NHS services for children and young people. 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. We are not collecting centrally information about activities in the NHS.

  GP Fundholding
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total of general practitioner fundholder savings in 1994–95. [30758]

  Mr. Malone
  This information will not be available until final audits are complete.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the amount of general practitioner fundholder savings spent in each year since 1991–92. [30759]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Information Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sums have been authorised and under which vote she has authorised them to be paid for the establishment of a pilot project known as the "Ask-a-Nurse" information service; what arrangement she has made with a named contractor for such a service; what locations are under consideration; and what consultations she has initiated with those professional and statutory bodies providing related services. [27900]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: The East London and City health authority has spent £25,000 London initiative zone grant on consulting interested parties about the feasibility of setting up a project. London initiative zone expenditure is made from vote 1. Decisions to purchase services are a matter for local health authorities.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Reem Abdulhadi
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what charge Reem Abdulhadi is being held; and if he will make a statement. [28736]

  Mr. Howard
  I understand that Reem Abdulhadi was arrested on 2 June 1995 and charged with unlawfully possessing an explosive substance with intent to endanger life, contrary to section 3(1)(b) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883, and two counts of possessing a firearm and ammunition with intent to endanger life, contrary to section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968. Reem Abdulhadi appeared at Bow street magistrate's court on 5 June and was remanded in custody.

  Police Pensions
  Mr. MacKinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to alter the funding of police pensions to fully funded schemes; and if he will make a statement; [30258]

  (2) what would be the transitional cost to Her Majesty's Government if they were to facilitate a change in the financing of police pensions from revenue to fully funded self-financing schemes. [30259]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to alter the police pension scheme to a fully funded scheme.

  The current police pension scheme came into operation in 1948. It is based like many other public service pensions scheme on the "pay as you go" principle under which the funding for liabilities is provided as and when those liabilities arise. The transitional cost of creating a fund which would be capable of meeting existing police pensions liabilities, including the present value of future pension benefits accrued to date, has been estimated by the Government Actuary's Department as about £20 billion.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received from charities concerned about a loss of income as a result of the national lottery. [28752]

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning losses suffered by charities because of a decline in contributions since the introduction of the national lottery. [28763]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We have received a number of representations from charitable organisations concerned about a possible loss of income following the introduction of the national lottery. It is too early to assess the effect of the lottery on charitable income. The Government are, however, committed to monitoring any such changes. The National Lottery Charities Board will in any case be a major source of new income for the voluntary sector.

  Fire Prevention Units
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office how many fire prevention units of local fire authorities have been closed during the past 18 months; and if he will make a statement. [30483]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We are unaware of any closures during this period.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in respect of the closure of the fire prevention unit of the Merseyside fire authority; and if he will make a statement. [30484]

  Mr. Baker
  We have received letters from four hon. Members about proposals by Merseyside fire and civil defence authority to reduce the level of fire prevention work.

  It is entirely a matter for the authority how to deploy its resources in this area.

  Police Identification
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued concerning requirements on police officers wearing riot gear to display their number; and if he will make a statement. [30548]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 7 February 1995,Official Report, column 222.

  Charter Week
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the main events he is proposing for Charter Week; what is the total costs to public funds; and how many(a) civil servants and (b) other public officials will be playing a part. [30686]

  Mr. Howard
  The focus of the programme to mark the fourth anniversary of the citizens charter is on local events laid on by local services. No record is being kept centrally of the activities proposed. The UK Passport Agency has, however, contributed to a major article for the July edition of "Charter News" and the agency's regional managers stand ready to participate in joint events arranged through charter networks.

  There will be no additional costs or staff resources as a result of these activities taking place in July. The officials concerned will be working on the events as part of their normal duties.

  Mrs. Quereshi Bibi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 January 1995,Official Report, column 302, if the sponsor of Mrs. Quereshi Bibi, BV100/25109 was invited to interview at Leeds/Bradford airport on 5 February; and if he will make a statement. [30707]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The sponsor of Mrs. Quereshi Bibi. BV100/25109, was interviewed as arranged at Leeds/Bradford airport on 5 February.

  Police Review
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the final report of the review of police core and ancillary tasks. [31089]

  Mr. Howard
  The final report will be published tomorrow and a copy placed in the Library.

  Community and Race Relations
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 June 1995,Official Report, column 523, how many staff at the police staff college have received training in race and community relations from the Home Office specialist support unit; when they received this training; and how many were (a) civilians and (b) police officers. [30727]

  Mr. Maclean
  There are currently two members of staff who have received training in community and race relations from the specialist support unit; one police officer and one civilian. The training was undertaken in 1989 and 1993 respectively.

  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 June 1995,Official Report, column 524, how many of the 15 directors of studies at CPTU and line managers at central planning and training unit at Bramshill have been deemed capable of delivering and assessing the delivery of race and community relations training by the Home Office specialist support unit. [30730]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is not held in this form. For trainers attending courses provided by the specialist support unit, an assessment is made on an individual basis of the student's competencies during the course, and a written assessment is provided to the student and to the organisation which has requested the student's training.

  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 June 1995,Official Report, column 524, if the figure of Home Office funding of the support unit for race and community relations training for 1993–94 includes the sum of £60,000 for the salaries of police liaison officers. [30728]

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes.

  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many West Yorkshire police trainers have undergone training at the Home Office specialist support unit; how many are still delivering race and community relations to front line officers; and what research has been conducted into the effectiveness of such training. [30725]

  Mr. Maclean
  Eleven officers have undergone training in community and race relations at the specialist support unit. Six of those officers are still delivering training in the West Yorkshire police force, including community and race relations training. No specific evaluation of the effectiveness of training has been carried out, but the force relies on the validation of materials produced by the specialist support unit.

  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 June 1995,Official Report, columns 523–24, who is the Minister with
  490
  responsibility for ensuring that the provision of police training in race and community relations is effective; and if he will make a statement. [30731]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have responsibility for police policy matters. It is for the police service itself to ensure that it delivers effective training programmes.

  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training in community and race relations is currently received by front-line operational police officers(a) nationally and (b) in West Yorkshire. [30724]

  Mr. Maclean
  All new recruits to the police service receive community and race relations training at police training centres as part of their probationer course. Management training courses for inspectors and sergeants include material on community and race relations. In addition, various training is provided by individual police forces.

  West Yorkshire police provide race awareness training for all officers; staff at chief inspector and superintendent level have received knowledge based training provided by specialist support unit staff, and a programme of knowledge and skill based training for other ranks is being prepared.

  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 June 1995,Official Report, column 523, which of the recommendations of Lord Scarman he has taken into account in relation to the employment of civilian staff in race and community relations training. [30721]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government recognise the need to provide training in community and race relations issues for officers at all levels and the value of using civilian staff and contributors from the ethnic minority communities in such training. It is for police service managers to determine the content and structure of training courses, with assistance where appropriate from the specialist support unit.

  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations underlie the change in the level of funding for the Home Office specialist support unit for community and race relations training for the police; and what assessment he has made of the effect on the level of risks of disturbances. [30726]

  Mr. Maclean
  Considerations include the level of service required by the police service from the unit; the level of training which the police service itself can deliver; and competing demands on expenditure. There continues to be regular contact between the Home Office and the police about the possibility of disturbances.

  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 May 1995,Official Report, column 193, if he will explain the discrepancy between this figure and the figures given in his answer of 14 June 1995, Official Report, column 524; and if he will make a statement. [30729]

  Mr. Maclean
  The figures given on 14 June are for the years 1993–94 and 1994–95, as requested. The hon. Member's previous question asked about the reduction in budget for 1995–96. The budget for 1995–96 is £504,000—a reduction of £39,000 on 1994–95.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Algerian asylum seekers are currently detained in Rochester prison; and how many days each of them has been held in detention. [30378]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of Algerian nationals detained1 at Her Majesty's Prison Rochester, who had sought asylum, by length of detention on 20 June 1995

  Length of detention at Rochester (days)

  Number of detainees

  1 to 10

  5

  11 to 20

  2

  21 to 30

  7

  31 to 40

  2

  41 to 60

  4

  61 to 80

  2

  81 to 100

  2

  101 to 150

  3

  150 and over

  4

  Total

  31

  1 Persons detained solely under the powers contained in schedules 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. In some cases the asylum application will have been lodged subsequent to the applicant being detained. The figures include both detained asylum applicants who applied at ports, and those detained in after-entry enforcement work. These figures include people awaiting the setting of directions for removal following refusal of the application, as well as those whose applications where under consideration or subject to appeal.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have requested asylum on arriving on the Eurostar train at Waterloo station since 1 January. [29627]

  Mr. Baker
  During the period 1 January-19 June 1995, 173 applications for asylum were received from people arriving at Waterloo on the Eurostar train.

  Street Watch Schemes
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many street watch schemes are in operation in England and Wales. [30009]

  Mr. Maclean
  A total of 41 street watch schemes had been notified to the Home Office as at 21 June.

  Women Prisoners (Births)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women were sentenced to a term of imprisonment within(a) a week and (b) a month of giving birth for each year since 1990. [30377]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Prison Drugs Testing
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the cost of each mandatory drug test in gaols; [29955]

  (2) what proportion of mandatory drug tests in England and Wales have proved positive; [29956]
  492
  (3) which was the main drug detected in cases where mandatory drug testing has proved positive; [29957]

  (4) what disciplinary action has been taken in cases where mandatory drug testing in prison has proved positive. [29958]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on 18 May to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter),Official Report, columns 370–72.

  Prison Security
  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the findings of General Sir John Learmont's inquiry into prison security. [29983]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend will publish the report after he has received and considered it.

  Prison Food Expenses
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the daily food expenses allowed per person inmate in prisons in England and Wales. [29543]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 26 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the daily food expenses allowed per prison inmate in England and Wales.
  Daily food allowances are allocated in three bands according to population sizes as follows:

  Population

  Food allowance

  Up to 200

  £1.405 per inmate day

  201–500

  £1.385 per inmate day

  501 and above

  £1.37 per inmate day

  Prison Language Services
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the foreign language prison information packs which are available for prisons in England and Wales; how such information packs are obtained; and if prisons requiring such information packs are required to pay for them; [29539]

  (2) if a list is kept in prisons of prison officers who are able to speak a foreign language and if he will make a statement; [59541]

  (3) what funding has been made available to the foreign national liaison committee in prisons in England and Wales; [29538]

  (4) what system exists in prisons in England and Wales to help foreign nationals who are held in custody on possible immigration offences and who do not wish to make contact with their high commission or embassy. [59542]
  493
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 26 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions concerning foreign national prisoners' issues in the Prison Service.
  Two foreign language information packs are issued centrally by the Prison Service. These are the Foreign Prisoners' Resource Pack, which is available in 11 languages and the Prisoners' Information Pack, which is available in 14 languages. These are provided to prisons on request. Other foreign language information packs have been produced locally by some establishments and by other agencies, but details are not kept centrally.
  Some Prison Service establishments have produced local lists of staff who are able to speak other languages. However, these details are not held centrally and no single comprehensive list exists.
  The setting up of any committee to consider issues solely relating to foreign nationals, is a matter for individual establishments, as is any funding.
  To assist those held in custody on possible immigration offences, six Immigration Service advisory leaflets are provided for issue on reception to both foreign and Commonwealth nationals held under the Immigration Act 1971.
  These leaflets include information about help agencies and are available in a minimum of four languages, although one is available in 11 languages. Further assistance is available from designated prison and probation staff.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all areas within(a) his Department, (b) agencies under his Department's control and (c) organisations for which he has ministerial responsibility to which Crown immunity applies; what consideration he has given to removing this; and if he will make a statement. [28656]

  Mr. Howard
  The reference to Crown immunity in the question is taken to refer to legislation which does not bind the Crown. Certain legislation is expressly applied to the Crown. In most legislation, however, particularly older legislation, there is no such express provision. In those circumstances whether legislation applies to the crown will depend upon the implications to be drawn from the terms and context of the legislation.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost in 1994–95 to his Department of detaining persons under Immigration Act powers in(a) Immigration Service detention centres, (b) Prison Service establishments and (c) police cells. [26291]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 25 May 1995]: The total cost of detaining persons under Immigration Act powers in Immigration Service detention centres in 1994–95 was £11.35 million. Both custodial and in-country escorting costs are included in this figure. The cost of detaining persons under the Act in Prison Service establishments cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost since accounting systems do not distinguish between Immigration Act detainees and those on remand or serving a prison sentence. In the year 1994–
  494
  95 the police charged the Immigration Service £993,000 for the use of police cells and for escort duties.

  In appropriate cases, the immigration department recovers costs from carriers under schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971.

  Child Abduction
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that the removal of travel controls and documentation for EU nationals travelling between EU countries does not lead to an increased risk of child abduction from the United Kingdom. [30386]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: Operational responsibility at ports and airports for identifying children who may have been abducted is a matter for the police. The Immigration Service gives every assistance, where embarkation controls make this practicable, to draw to the attention of the police departing children who may be in this category. As the under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), announced on 15 December 1993, Official Report, column 655, in response to a question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir. I Lawrence), embarkation controls are not routinely carried out on purely intra-EU traffic except where there is reason to believe that someone of interest to the police in connection with serious crime is likely to leave the country by a particular route.

  Where a child is successfully abducted to a country which is a signatory to the Hague convention, an extradition warrant may be issued. If the country is not a signatory to the convention, the existing channels of communication and co-operation between the relevant police forces are used to seek the return of the abducted child.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Spending
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who in his Department is responsible for the Government's fundamental review of public spending; and if he will make a statement. [28747]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am responsible for the review, which has involved a thorough examination of how the Department employs its programme expenditure.

  National Lottery
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many millionaires the national lottery has created to date. [28754]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I understand that there have been 69 prizes of over £1 million, but some of these have been shared.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about using lottery money to aid arts students. [28761]
  495
  Mr. Dorrell
  In addition to my hon. Friend's correspondence on this subject, my Department has received one other representation, from one of his constituents.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what amount was raised in the most recent week for which figures are available from the national lottery and from scratch cards. [28762]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Income from the national lottery into the national lottery distribution fund for the week to Tuesday 20 June totalled £28.8 million. I understand that approximately 60 per cent. of ticket revenue comes from the on-line lottery game and 40 per cent. from scratch cards.

  20. Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the chairmen of the national lottery distributing bodies to discuss procedure; and if he will make a statement. [28764]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I meet the chairman of the national lottery distributing bodies frequently to discuss a wide range of lottery-related issues. Last week I met the chairman of the London-based distributors in my capacity as chairman of the Millennium Commission.

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the sports bodies in West Yorkshire to which grants from the national lottery have been awarded, indicating the amounts given. [28765]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Sports Council has made seven awards to sports bodies in West Yorkshire:

  £

  Slazenger Sports and Social Club, Wakefield

  100,000

  Yarnbury Rugby Club, Leeds

  35,000

  Cumberworth Cricket Club, Kirklees

  31,380

  Todmorden Cricket Club, Calderdale

  26,396

  Roundhay Lawn Tennis Club, Leeds

  13,169

  Hillside Tennis Club, Kirklees

  9,100

  Keighley RUFC, Bradford

  8,165

  Total

  223,210

  I understand that a further 23 applications from sports bodies in West Yorkshire are under consideration.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the way in which lottery funds have been spent to date; and if he will show the total amount spent and a list of the grants made to date to projects which indisputably benefit socio-economic groups who have contributed most of the money. [26865]

  Mr. Dorrell
  To date, 486 projects have been awarded national lottery funds of £95 million. I have today placed a full list of the projects that have received awards in the Libraries of both Houses. People in all socio-economic groups are enjoying playing the national lottery and will benefit from these lottery-supported projects.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many grants have been made from national lottery income to local authorities in respect of projects which would otherwise be met from normal local authority income; and if he will list each of these cases. [30025]
  496
  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: It is the Government's policy that national lottery funding should be additional to other forms of public expenditure. The 11 distributing bodies will take this into account when making individual funding decisions.

  Tourism
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what studies the tourism industry has made of the effect the daylight saving campaign would have on United Kingdom tourism. [28759]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Daylight Extra Group produced a survey in 1994 which estimated that additional earnings of £1 billion would be generated for UK tourism by a move to single/double summer time.

  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on tourism in the midlands. [28766]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Tourism makes a substantial contribution to the economy in the midlands, providing 240,000 jobs and generating revenue of at least £900 million.

  The midlands will benefit, as will other regions, from Government initiatives to assist the tourism industry to become more competitive. These were announced in the document "Tourism: Competing with the Best", published by my Department earlier this year.

  Island Games, Gibraltar
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's involvement in the island games to be held in Gibraltar in July. [28767]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Governor of Gibraltar, Field Marshall Sir John Chappell GCB CBE, will represent Her Majesty's Government at the opening of the island games.

  Music Industry
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what his Department is doing to promote the British music industry. [28768]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department supports the development and the wider availability and appreciation of music in this country through the Arts Council of England and the regional arts boards. The council will spend more than £42 million on music in 1995–96, as well as the funding disbursed by regional arts boards at a more local level. My Department is also the major sponsor of National Music Day. In addition, the Department of Trade and Industry has undertaken a range of measures in support of the commercial music industry in this country.

  Channel 4
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Independent Television Commission to discuss matters concerning Channel 4. [28769]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no plans to meet the chairman of the Independent Television Commission to discuss Channel 4.

  Regional Theatre
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet the Theatre Managers Association to discuss the implications of the Arts Council's consultation paper on regional theatre. [28770]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no such plans.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to respond to the National Heritage Committee's third report of session 1994–95, HC 276, on relations between rugby union and rugby league. [28771]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department responded to the National Heritage Select Committee's report on 31 May and a copy of the response was placed in the Library on 22 June.

  Angling
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received within the last six months with regard to angling. [28753]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have received a small number of representations on angling.

  Charter Week
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the main events that 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. [30684]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department is not proposing to hold any specific events itself for Charter Week, but it firmly supports the initiative and the progress made by our sponsored bodies in terms of public service and accountability. The Imperial War Museum, which won the award in 1994, will be hosting a display on the charter mark and its function. No additional cost or staff resources will be required.

  Mar Lodge
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration the national heritage memorial fund gave to consulting the Scottish people before buying Mar Lodge. [26847]

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is a matter for the national heritage memorial fund, which is an independent body. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Members and to place copies of his letters in the Libraries of the House.

  Arts and Heritage Funding
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the effect of inflation on arts bodies over the past two years. [30977]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Arts Council received an increase of over £5 million this year. Taken with increased attendances and low inflation, this has helped arts organisations to sustain a lively arts scene throughout the country.
  498
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what will be the rate of increase of Government support for the arts and heritage over the next two years. [30976]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department of National Heritage annual report 1995 shows my Department's forward expenditure plans for 1996–97. A copy of the report is in the Library. My Department has not yet announced detailed allocation of its provision for 1997–98.

  Royal Opera House
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his latest estimate of the cost of the Royal Opera House development plan. [28758]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Royal Opera House development project is currently estimated to cost £193.8 million. A further £20 million is likely to be needed to cover transitional costs during the period of closure.

  Cricket
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what support his Department is giving to English cricket at national, local and school levels; and if he will make a statement. [29063]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government are keen to encourage young people to participate in sport, including cricket. In 1994–95, the Sports Council, which is funded by the Department of National Heritage, gave grants of £187,500 to the Cricket Council, £37,500 to the Women's Cricket Association and £13,334 to the English Schools Cricket Association. Cricket projects are also eligible for funding from the sportsmatch scheme and for national lottery funding from the Sports Council.

DEFENCE

  Royal Military Police
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions and on what dates in each of the last 12 months the Royal Military police have stopped(a) military and (b) civilian vehicles on the A345 road between Salisbury and Amesbury; at what time of day; on what grounds; and what was the outcome on each occasion. [30099]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no record of the Royal Military police stopping any vehicles on the A345 during the last 12 months, but if the hon. Member wishes to write to my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence with full details of any alleged incidents, we will ensure that the matter is thoroughly investigated.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list every contaminated site owned by his Department, together with the total area covered; [29844]

  (2) what is his estimate of the cost of cleaning up contaminated land owned by his Department. [29841]
  499
  Mr. Soames
  Information on the total number of Ministry of Defence sites with contamination problems and on possible decontamination costs is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 18 April,Official Report, column 126, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark).

  Land Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much land owned by his Department has been sold off in each of the last five years. [29909]

  Mr. Soames
  The information is not held in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The total net figure of land and foreshore holdings in the UK, in thousand hectares, in each of the last five years is as follows:

  1991: 242.8

  1992: 243.4

  1993: 242.5

  1994: 241.9

  1995: 240.3

  RAF Woodvale (Noise Pollution)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to reduce the noise pollution created by training aircraft from RAF Woodvale, over West Lancashire. [29846]

  Mr. Soames
  A broad range of measures has been introduced to minimise any noise disturbance caused by military training aircraft operating from RAF Woodvale over west Lancashire. For example, flight paths are dispersed over as wide an area as possible avoiding populated areas, and aircrews are regularly briefed on the need to conduct their operations with consideration for those on the ground. The volume of military flying training from RAF Woodvale, which generally ceases by 5 pm, is kept to the minimum commensurate with service needs.

  Astra
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date a schedule of documents removed from the Astra group of companies was prepared by his Department's police. [29719]

  Mr. Soames
  The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 requires a police officer receiving property into Ministry of Defence Police possession to record it as soon as practicable. There is no one schedule of documents removed from the Astra group of companies by the MDP. The individual schemes were prepared between March 1990 and July 1992.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department's police began their investigations into the Astra group of companies; and on what date those investigations were wound up. [29724]

  Mr. Soames
  Investigations by the Ministry of Defence police into the Astra group of companies began in February 1990. The inquiries closed in January 1993.

  General Sir Donald Isles
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the periods of service and the nature of duties with his Department of General Sir Donald Isles; and whether, as part of his duties, General Sir Donald Isles had any functional supervision of, or responsibility for, Mr. Gordon Foxley. [30061]

  Mr. Freeman
  Major General Donald Isles served in the general staff in the Ministry of Defence from 1968 to 1971; in the Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment from 1971 to 1972; as director of munitions with the British defence staff in Washington from 1972 to 1975; as director of munitions with the British defence staff in Washington from 1972 to 1975; and as Director General Weapons (Army) in the Ministry of Defence from 1975 to 1978, responsible for managing the procurement of a wide range of weapons systems for the Army. In the last of these appointments, he was a senior line manager to Mr. Gordon Foxley, who was at that time an assistant director in his organisation.

  International Military Services Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if IMS Ltd, and its subsidiaries have gone into liquidation. [30092]

  Mr. Freeman
  International Military Services Ltd. ceased trading in July 1991 but will not be wound up until all its outstanding obligations have been discharged.

  Debt Collection
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 December,Official Report, column 1167, if he will update the number of collection visits; what was the value of the items; what was the nature of the items which were the cause of the debt collection visits; and whether that expenditure was incurred in this country or the countries specified. [29555]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Accounts Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from M. A. Rowe to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 26 June 1995:
  On 15 June 1995 you asked the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 December 1994, Official Report, Column 1167, if he will update the number of collection visits; what was the value of the items; what was the nature of the items which were the cause of the debt collection visits; and whether that expenditure was incurred in this country or the countries specified. This matter falls to me, in the absence of the Chief Executive of the Defence Accounts Agency, for reply.
  The only visit to add to the list provided in December is one to Belgium on 30 March 1995. As in the previous cases, this visit was to deal with the debt owed by the customer, both in Belgium and in the UK.
  I regret that I am unable to provide details of the amounts owed and the services provided as this is a matter of confidentiality between Her Majesty's Government and their customers.

  Naval Refits
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) in what circumstances shipyards other than Rosyth will be entitled to bid to undertake refits of Hunt and Sandown class minehunters in the period up to the year 2005; [30938]
  501
  (2) what further review he has undertaken of the allocation of future refits of Hunt and Sandown class minehunters as part of his consideration of the possible deferment of the transfer of nuclear refit work from Rosyth to Devonport; and if he will make a statement; [30942]

  (3) what circumstances prevailing at the time of individual refits he intends to take into account when determining which shipyards should undertake the refit of Hunt and Sandown class minehunters; [30940]

  (4) how he intends to fulfil the commitment referred to in his oral statement of 24 June 1993, Official Report, columns 447–50, to ensure that the cost of refits to Hunt and Sandown class minehunters in the period up to 2005 are fair and reasonable; [30939]

  (5) what further review he has undertaken of the allocation of future refits of Hunt and Sandown class minehunters as part of his consideration of the possible privatisation of Rosyth; and if he will make a statement. [30941]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's policy on the refitting of Hunt class vessels remains as set out in my right hon. and learned Friend's statement to the House on 24 June 1993, Official Report, columns 447–50. Refits of Sandown class vessels are included in the allocated programme of refits to be undertaken at the royal dockyards. No review of this policy has been undertaken in the context of the planned privatisation of Rosyth or the on-going assessment of docking facilities for nuclear submarines. The precise details of the allocated programme are subject to the circumstances prevailing at the time of individual refits, including operational factors and the needs of other vessels. My Department has considerable information on market rates for refits and maintenance work on a wide variety of vessels. Under our "No Acceptable Price, No Contract" pricing initiative our policy is not normally to place a contract until we are satisfied that the price is fair and reasonable.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funds for submarine refitting have been diverted from Faslane to Devonport; and what factors underlay this policy. [30038]

  Mr. Freeman
  None. Submarine refits are not undertaken at Faslane.

  Privatisation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [29419]

  Mr. Freeman
  Ministry of Defence activities, including those of Defence agencies, which have been privatised or contracted out without an in-house bid during the last three years under my Department's "Competing for Quality" programme are listed. Information concerning the lack of expertise in individual business areas which might have prevented in-house bids 502
  is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The decision on whether to mount a market test with an in-house bid depends on the circumstances of the business in question. For example, the Department may consider that the private sector is better equipped to delivery a specific service, has better understanding of market needs or specialist expertise, or has a capacity to invest in new technology. Similarly, a strategic decision to contract out without an in-house bid could be taken where an activity is relatively small and peripheral to the Department's functions, leading to the conclusion that in-house provision of the service would detract from our ability to concentrate on our core functions. There is also a general presumption in favour of strategic contracting out of new services where there is no existing in-house operation, subject to management and value for money considerations.

  It is not yet known what defence support business activities will in future be contracted out to the private sector. This will depend on the outcome of feasibility studies which determine how activities can best be exposed to competition from the private sector, and the results of the subsequent competitions.

  Activities exposed to the "Competing for Quality" process between 1 April 1992 and 31 March 1995 which were contracted out with no in-house bid being made.

  Gardening, Royal Marine School of Music, Deal

  Harrier Aircraft Service Support, HMS Heron

  Helicopter Maintenance and Engineering Support, HMS Osprey, HMS Heron and HMS Seahawk

  Simulator Helicopter Control Operations, HMS Osprey

  Wireless Stations (Operation and Maintenance), Inskip and Crimond

  Works Services, HMS Seahawk

  Work Services, HMS Dolphin

  Bielefield bakery

  Catering strategy study, UK Land Forces

  Central Engineer Resources, Plant Hire, Long Marston

  Food distribution in BAOR

  Food distribution in rear combat zone (BAOR)

  Freight Service, Germany

  Line of Communications—Freight Service, (Low Countries)

  Mobile Civilian Artisan Groups, Germany

  NAAFI food study

  Verbatim Court Records, Salisbury

  Air Weapons Range, Rosehearty

  Electronic Warfare training tasks, 360 Sqn, RAF Wyton

  Engineering and Supply (multi-activity contract), RAF Scampton

  Government Pipeline and Storage System, (Operation and Maintenance)

  Parachute Transport Flight, RAF Hullavington

  RAF/RN Elementary Flying Training, RAFTopcliffe

  Repair of Defence Accommodation Stores, RAF Quedgeley

  Station Engineering Management Aid, (Maintenance Analysis and Computing Division), RAF Swanton Morley

  Support for Parachute Training

  The Queen's Flight, (engineering support) RAF Northolt

  Curtain manufacture, British Forces Hong Kong

  Domestic Services, MOD Police, Wethersfield

  503

  Food supply, British Forces, Hong Kong

  Furniture repair, British Forces, Hong Kong

  School bus service, British Forces Hong Kong

  Support Services, Akrotiri, Cyprus

  Support Services, British Forces Hong Kong

  Work services Maintenance, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Falkland Islands, Belize

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston

  Combat Systems Information Management Team

  Data entry, Met Office, Bracknell

  Guarding, Abbey Wood

  Relocation Reconnaissance Visits, Bristol

  Bett Review
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work is in hand in analysing the independent review by Mr. Michael Bett of "Service Career and Manpower Structures and Terms of Service"; and when he expects to respond to the recommendations of that review. [30667]

  Mr. Soames
  We have conducted an initial examination of Sir Michael Bett's proposals. The aim, as foreshadowed in my statement of 5 April,Official Report, column 1143, has been to identify the interrelationships between the different elements of the recommendations, and to form a view on the work required before decisions can be taken. This initial examination has confirmed that Sir Michael's proposals merit detailed study and development. The next phase of work has now been set in hand. As well as considering a range of wider management issues, we are conducting major and detailed studies into pay and structures and job evaluation; career structures, incentives and pensions; allowances and charges; rank structures; mobility, stability, sociological assumptions, accompanied service and housing; personnel strategy; and administration and pay schemes.

  This work will require a substantial amount of effort and time, and the studies will need to be developed into an overall strategy. I intend to have completed this process and to make a definitive statement on the way ahead in the spring of 1996.1 shall keep the House informed of progress.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, columns 117–18, which visit it was that was not notified to hon. Members. [30747]

  Mr. Soames
  The visit in question was to a number of naval and Royal Marine establishments in the Plymouth area.

EDUCATION

  Classroom Behaviour Difficulties
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received from the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers regarding classroom behaviour difficulties; what assessment has been made of the role of attention deficit disorder in contributing to such problems; and if she will ensure a study of this field by her Department. [29913]
  504
  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from the National Association of Head Teachers about behaviour and discipline in schools. She has now invited the association to meet her to discuss what additional action might be taken to support schools in this area.

  I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is providing the hon. Member with such information as is available about the assessment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in contributing to pupils' behavioural problems. This Department has no plans to commission any further studies.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many special educational needs tribunals have been heard to date; [30612]

  (2) what proportion of special educational needs tribunals has related to parents' wishes to have their child educated in the independent or non-maintained sector; [30613]

  (3) what is the total amount of public money diverted to the independent or non-maintained sector as a result of decisions of special educational needs tribunals; [30614]

  (4) if she will provide an annual report on the outcomes of special educational needs tribunals. [30615]

  Mr. Forth
  I understand from the president of the special educational needs tribunal that 170 tribunal hearings have taken place.

  The decisions of tribunals are entirely independent of the Department. I have therefore asked the president to write to the hon. Member about the questions relating to the independent and non-maintained sectors.

  The president of the tribunal will provide an annual report to the Secretary of State, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the number of 16-year-olds in each local education authority in England who have left school with fewer than five GCSE passes above C grade for each of the last seven years. [30734]

  Mr. Forth
  Information on school leavers is no longer collected by the Department. The attached table lists the percentage of 15-year-old pupils, at the start of the academic year, achieving fewer than five GCSE passes above grade C in maintained schools, including grant-maintained and special schools, in each local education authority area in England for the last three years.

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils achieving fewer than five GCSEs at grade C or above

  LEA

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Camden

  65.4

  62.5

  59.4

  Greenwich

  76.7

  74.0

  73.0

  Hackney

  80.6

  76.3

  77.3

  Hammersmith

  73.1

  72.1

  68.1

  Islington

  80.5

  80.0

  78.1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  71.9

  69.2

  65.5

  505

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils achieving fewer than five GCSEs at grade C or above

  LEA

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Lambeth

  81.8

  78.9

  78.0

  Lewisham

  74.8

  74.6

  72.9

  Southwark

  84.9

  81.8

  81.7

  Tower Hamlets

  84.0

  81.1

  81.3

  Wandsworth

  73.8

  71.9

  70.9

  Westminster

  76.1

  73.4

  74.9

  Barking

  84.5

  80.5

  72.4

  Barnet

  57.2

  54.5

  48.9

  Bexley

  65.7

  61.0

  59.7

  Brent

  71.2

  67.5

  65.1

  Bromley

  55.7

  54.8

  50.8

  Croydon

  62.0

  62.2

  62.8

  Ealing

  73.2

  72.2

  67.8

  Enfield

  67.6

  62.8

  59.6

  Haringey

  76.0

  75.3

  71.6

  Harrow

  50.3

  55.5

  51.6

  Havering

  61.6

  58.6

  57.5

  Hillingdon

  64.8

  63.5

  62.3

  Hounslow

  65.1

  64.6

  59.7

  Kingston upon Thames

  53.7

  47.6

  48.4

  Merton

  66.8

  66.3

  66.6

  Newham

  79.3

  78.0

  77.0

  Redbridge

  62.7

  59.5

  53.5

  Richmond upon Thames

  57.5

  55.3

  50.0

  Sutton

  54.4

  49.9

  47.1

  Waltham Forest

  74.2

  68.9

  69.9

  Birmingham

  74.9

  73.1

  69.6

  Coventry

  67.2

  66.6

  65.7

  Dudley

  64.9

  62.0

  58.6

  Sandwell

  78.1

  77.9

  72.7

  Solihull

  58.3

  55.9

  52.0

  Walsall

  68.6

  69.9

  67.7

  Wolverhampton

  75.3

  70.4

  70.4

  Knowsley

  83.7

  83.4

  78.7

  Liverpool

  78.5

  75.2

  75.0

  St. Helens

  69.5

  67.4

  64.5

  Sefton

  63.1

  55.9

  54.9

  Wirral

  63.4

  60.6

  60.3

  Bolton

  64.7

  62.2

  58.1

  Bury

  59.5

  53.8

  54.4

  Manchester

  81.4

  79.5

  76.8

  Oldham

  72.9

  67.4

  67.9

  Rochdale

  74.0

  70.0

  67.7

  Salford

  74.8

  70.4

  70.9

  Stockport

  59.3

  54.2

  51.4

  Tameside

  70.1

  68.3

  65.8

  Trafford

  63.4

  59.1

  55.9

  Wigan

  60.7

  58.5

  58.3

  Barnsley

  75.9

  75.5

  70.2

  Doncaster

  72.3

  68.2

  66.3

  Rotherham

  70.3

  65.8

  65.2

  Sheffield

  70.8

  66.5

  64.4

  Bradford

  77.3

  74.7

  73.3

  Calderdale

  67.0

  66.4

  63.2

  Kirklees

  68.5

  64.6

  62.7

  Leeds

  68.7

  66.3

  63.8

  Wakefield

  72.2

  68.8

  64.4

  Gateshead

  71.5

  66.3

  66.4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  73.1

  69.6

  69.7

  North Tyneside

  65.3

  62.7

  58.8

  South Tyneside

  70.1

  68.2

  64.5

  Sunderland

  71.8

  69.4

  70.0

  Isles of Scilly

  42.9

  25.0

  32.0

  Avon

  63.9

  62.8

  59.9

  Bedfordshire

  65.1

  61.9

  59.7

  Berkshire

  59.1

  55.9

  51.8

  Buckinghamshire

  56.4

  53.2

  50.6

  Cambridgeshire

  60.5

  58.9

  56.7

  Cheshire

  58.9

  55.6

  53.0

  Cleveland

  70.2

  68.7

  65.2

  Cornwall

  61.9

  58.3

  54.0

  Cumbria

  62.5

  59.5

  56.6

  506

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils achieving fewer than five GCSEs at grade C or above

  LEA

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Derbyshire

  63.9

  62.2

  59.1

  Devon

  62.2

  59.5

  57.1

  Dorset

  59.3

  55.7

  50.7

  Durham

  68.2

  65.7

  65.4

  East Sussex

  59.9

  57.9

  56.7

  Essex

  63.2

  61.0

  58.6

  Gloucestershire

  57.2

  55.2

  53.7

  Hampshire

  60.6

  58.4

  55.7

  Hereford and Worcester

  62.1

  59.6

  56.2

  Hertfordshire

  56.4

  55.1

  52.4

  Humberside

  69.2

  68.8

  66.2

  Isle of Wight

  64.9

  64.8

  59.5

  Kent

  63.0

  61.0

  59.6

  Lancashire

  63.5

  60.6

  58.9

  Leicestershire

  66.8

  62.4

  60.7

  Lincolnshire

  63.4

  61.1

  57.4

  Norfolk

  64.5

  61.3

  59.9

  North Yorkshire

  57.2

  52.6

  51.0

  Northamptonshire

  63.8

  62.0

  61.1

  Northumberland

  62.1

  59.1

  58.7

  Nottinghamshire

  70.2

  66.9

  65.4

  Oxfordshire

  58.7

  55.2

  53.7

  Shropshire

  59.6

  56.8

  52.7

  Somerset

  57.2

  56.1

  52.6

  Staffordshire

  66.8

  63.5

  61.9

  Suffolk

  61.0

  56.5

  55.9

  Surrey

  55.7

  53.0

  52.2

  Warwickshire

  63.0

  60.2

  57.4

  West Sussex

  53.8

  52.8

  49.6

  Wiltshire

  59.8

  57.3

  54.5

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the percentage of those students who remain at school or college to take A-levels who have failed to complete two or more of their A-levels in each of the last 15 years for each local education authority. [30742]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list, by local education authority, the number of 16-year-olds in each local education authority in England who have left school with no formal qualifications for each of the last five years. [30735]

  Mr. Forth
  Information on school leavers is no longer collected by the Department. The table lists the percentage of 15-year-old pupils, at the start of the academic year, achieving no GCSE passes in maintained schools, including grant-maintained and special schools, in each local education authority area in England for the last three years.

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils with no passes at GCSE

  LEA

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Camden

  13.5

  10.7

  11.3

  Greenwich

  15.7

  12.5

  14.6

  Hackney

  18.3

  11.2

  11.5

  Hammersmith

  16.7

  11.0

  11.3

  Islington

  23.7

  18.1

  14.8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  13.5

  6.6

  12.3

  Lambeth

  24.1

  20.8

  16.0

  Lewisham

  13.5

  10.7

  9.1

  Southwark

  19.7

  12.5

  14.6

  Tower Hamlets

  20.5

  14.8

  11.9

  Wandsworth

  12.1

  11.4

  12.5

  Westminster

  13.0

  11.2

  12.5

  507

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils with no passes at GCSE

  LEA

  7992

  1993

  1994

  Barking

  13.2

  9.9

  10.7

  Barnet

  9.9

  7.2

  6.3

  Bexley

  6.3

  5.0

  6.4

  Brent

  10.3

  9.8

  7.0

  Bromley

  8.0

  5.0

  4.5

  Croydon

  6.8

  7.4

  8.6

  Ealing

  12.5

  11.6

  9.1

  Enfield

  8.2

  6.3

  6.3

  Haringey

  18.7

  15.3

  12.4

  Harrow

  2.4

  5.0

  5.2

  Havering

  5.7

  4.1

  6.3

  Hillingdon

  18.0

  6.5

  7.7

  Hounslow

  9.7

  9.6

  10.0

  Kingston upon Thames

  6.5

  6.9

  7.7

  Merton

  10.0

  8.8

  9.7

  Newham

  17.1

  12.1

  12.0

  Redbridge

  7.6

  6.1

  5.3

  Richmond upon Thames

  8.1

  5.6

  7.4

  Sutton

  5.7

  5.5

  5.6

  Waltham Forest

  8.6

  7.6

  9.3

  Birmingham

  13.4

  12.4

  13.1

  Coventry

  8.2

  8.8

  9.3

  Dudley

  4.0

  4.0

  6.4

  Sandwell

  9.9

  9.7

  10.9

  Solihull

  3.4

  3.5

  3.5

  Walsall

  9.9

  9.4

  9.9

  Wolverhampton

  10.2

  7.7

  11.0

  Knowsley

  19.5

  20.7

  20.2

  Liverpool

  16.6

  16.5

  16.3

  St. Helens

  10.3

  8.4

  8.6

  Sefton

  7.9

  8.3

  7.6

  Wirral

  7.9

  7.1

  9.7

  Bolton

  9.5

  9.0

  9.0

  Bury

  6.3

  3.4

  3.4

  Manchester

  23.0

  20.1

  19.6

  Oldham

  13.1

  10.8

  12.0

  Rochdale

  15.8

  11.8

  11.2

  Salford

  11.2

  12.8

  13.9

  Stockport

  6.0

  4.6

  5.7

  Tameside

  8.3

  6.8

  8.0

  Trafford

  7.5

  6.1

  8.0

  Wigan

  6.0

  5.1

  6.6

  Barnsley

  9.9

  9.2

  11.3

  Doncaster

  10.9

  9.1

  12.3

  Rotherham

  7.0

  6.1

  10.1

  Sheffield

  11.9

  9.5

  10.6

  Bradford

  12.2

  11.5

  11.2

  Calderdale

  9.7

  7.3

  9.4

  Kirklees

  8.9

  8.6

  9.5

  Leeds

  10.5

  10.0

  11.4

  Wakefield

  8.9

  8.0

  9.5

  Gateshead

  9.4

  10.7

  12.1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  13.9

  14.0

  17.5

  North Tyneside

  8.9

  7.7

  8.7

  South Tyneside

  7.3

  6.9

  8.7

  Sunderland

  7.9

  9.0

  9.9

  Isles of Scilly

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Avon

  7.0

  6.1

  6.9

  Bedfordshire

  5.4

  5.2

  5.5

  Berkshire

  6.6

  5.3

  5.4

  Buckinghamshire

  8.8

  4.9

  5.1

  Cambridgeshire

  6.4

  6.2

  6.7

  Cheshire

  6.4

  5.1

  5.6

  Cleveland

  11.0

  10.4

  11.1

  Cornwall

  4.7

  3.8

  3.5

  Cumbria

  7.0

  5.6

  6.8

  Derbyshire

  5.6

  4.9

  6.1

  Devon

  5.5

  4.7

  5.1

  Dorset

  4.3

  4.3

  4.5

  Durham

  7.4

  7.0

  9.4

  East Sussex

  6.1

  6.5

  7.2

  Essex

  6.3

  6.0

  6.4

  Gloucestershire

  4.9

  4.3

  4.4

  508

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils with no passes at GCSE

  LEA

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Hampshire

  6.4

  5.2

  5.2

  Hereford and Worcester

  6.3

  5.3

  6.0

  Hertfordshire

  6.5

  5.7

  5.4

  Humberside

  8.5

  8.4

  10.1

  Isle of Wight

  2.7

  4.2

  4.6

  Kent

  7.7

  6.0

  6.4

  Lancashire

  8.6

  7.3

  7.8

  Leicestershire

  7.5

  6.1

  6.9

  Lincolnshire

  6.0

  5.8

  6.6

  Norfolk

  6.5

  5.7

  6.7

  North Yorkshire

  4.9

  3.7

  5.3

  Northamptonshire

  5.3

  4.7

  5.3

  Northumberland

  6.1

  5.8

  8.2

  Nottinghamshire

  8.1

  7.3

  9.0

  Oxfordshire

  6.4

  4.6

  6.7

  Shropshire

  3.2

  3.8

  3.9

  Somerset

  4.6

  3.1

  3.8

  Staffordshire

  7.4

  5.9

  7.7

  Suffolk

  3.9

  3.4

  3.7

  Surrey

  5.7

  5.0

  4.9

  Warwickshire

  4.9

  4.7

  5.8

  West Sussex

  5.0

  4.1

  5.1

  Wiltshire

  4.1

  3.5

  4.5

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many 16-year-olds in each London borough have left school with fewer than five GCSE passes above grade C for each of the last seven years. [30743]

  Mr. Forth
  Information on school leavers is no longer collected by the Department. The attached table lists the percentage of 15-year-old pupils, at the beginning of the academic year, achieving fewer than five GCSE passes above grade C in maintained schools, including grant maintained and special schools, in each London borough for the last three years. The available data on school leavers for earlier years were not robust enough to be analysed at the individual borough level.

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils achieving fewer than five GCSEs at grade C or above London boroughs

  LEA

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Camden

  65.4

  62.5

  59.4

  Greenwich

  76.7

  74.0

  73.0

  Hackney

  80.6

  76.3

  77.3

  Hammersmith

  73.1

  72.1

  68.1

  Islington

  80.5

  80.0

  78.1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  71.9

  69.2

  65.5

  Lambeth

  81.8

  78.9

  78.0

  Lewisham

  74.8

  74.6

  72.9

  Southwark

  84.9

  81.8

  81.7

  Tower Hamlets

  84.0

  81.1

  81.3

  Wandsworth

  73.8

  71.9

  70.9

  Westminster

  76.1

  73.4

  74.9

  Barking

  84.5

  80.5

  72.4

  Barnet

  57.2

  54.5

  48.9

  Bexley

  65.7

  61.0

  59.7

  Brent

  71.2

  67.5

  65.1

  Bromley

  55.7

  54.8

  50.8

  Croydon

  62.0

  62.2

  62.8

  Ealing

  73.2

  72.2

  67.8

  Enfield

  67.6

  62.8

  59.6

  Haringey

  76.0

  75.3

  71.6

  Harrow

  50.3

  55.5

  51.6

  Havering

  61.6

  58.6

  57.5

  Hillingdon

  64.8

  63.5

  62.3

  Hounslow

  65.1

  64.6

  59.7

  Kingston upon Thames

  53.7

  47.6

  48.4

  Merton

  66.8

  66.3

  66.6

  509

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils achieving fewer than five GCSEs at grade C or above London boroughs

  LEA

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Newham

  79.3

  78.0

  77.0

  Redbridge

  62.7

  59.5

  53.5

  Richmond upon Thames

  57.5

  55.3

  50.0

  Sutton

  54.4

  49.9

  47.1

  Waltham Forest

  74.2

  68.9

  69.9

  Key Stages (Tests and Tasks)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total cost of producing, administering, marking and providing supply cover for the tests and tasks for key stages(a) 1, (b) 2 and (c) 3, in each year since 1990. [30733]

  Mr. Forth
  The information by financial year for development, printing and distributing the tests and tasks is as follows:

  £ million

  Key stage 1

  Key stage 2

  Key stage 3

  1989–90

  1.9

  —

  1.8

  1990–91

  2.9

  —

  3.7

  1991–92

  2.5

  0.01

  3.8

  1992–93

  2.5

  0.2

  5.6

  1993–94

  2.2

  2.9

  6.5

  1994–95

  1.2

  2.2

  2.5

  Total

  13.2

  5.3

  23.9

  The costs of external marking of the test scripts of pupils at key stages 2 and 3 in 1994–95 were £3.4 million and in 1995–96 an estimated £18.6 million. In addition, my Department is supporting 60 per cent. of the estimated £8 million costs of auditing the marking of the tests and tasks for key stage 1 in 1995–96.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave about supply cover costs on 6 June, Official Report, column 11.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) when she intends to introduce the nursery voucher scheme; and what will be the level of allowances made to parents; [30811]

  (2) what plans she has to ensure that all four year-olds have the opportunity of a place in a nursery under the Government's nursery voucher plan. [30787]

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

  Funding Agency for Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines are issued to the Funding Agency for Schools on declarations of members' interests. [30945]
  510
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department wrote to the then chief executive-designate of the Funding Agency for Schools on 15 March 1994, requesting that the agency set up and maintain a register of members' interests. That register is available for public inspection at the agency's headquarters at Albion wharf, York.

  Standard Assessment Tests
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what policies her Department has for assessing pupils of too low an academic standard to take the formal standard assessment test. [30644]

  Mr. Forth
  Teachers formally assess the school work of all seven, 11 and 14-year-olds in English, mathematics and science. Practical classroom-based national curriculum tasks are provided for teachers to administer where they feel it is appropriate.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received concerning standard assessment tests(a) in total and (b) from people in Nottinghamshire; and what proportion of these representations was critical of the test. [30626]

  Mr. Forth
  We do not have a breakdown of all representations received.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the total cost of administering the standard assessment tests for(a) seven-year-olds (b) 11-year-olds and (c) 14-year-olds. [30635]

  Mr. Forth
  The costs of developing, writing, printing and distributing the tests and tasks between 1989–90 to 1994–95 are as follows:

  (a) seven-year-olds: £13.2 million

  (b) 11-year-olds: £5.3 million

  (c) 14-year-olds: £23.9 million.

  Grant-Maintained Schools
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what are her Department's stipulations for a school to be considered for grant-maintained status; [30648]

  (2) on how many occasions her Department's stipulations for a school applying for grant-maintained status have been bypassed; and which were the schools involved; [30640]

  (3) in what instances a school applying for grant-maintained status can bypass any of the stipulations for grant-maintained status issued by her Department. [30634]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Country and voluntary schools apply for grant-maintained status only where the results of a ballot of parents held in accordance with sections 28 to 30 of the Education Act 1993 shows a majority of votes cast in favour of seeking such status for the school. The governing bodies of such schools are required to publish proposals in accordance with section 32 of the Act. There is no provision for these statutory requirements to be waived. When considering applications for grant-maintained status, my right hon. Friend considers proposals on their individual merits, taking into account all relevant factors.
  511
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how much is the total value of grants and bonuses awarded to the grant-maintained schools in (a) 1993–94 and(b) 1994–95; and what is the estimated budget for grants and bonuses to be awarded to grant-maintained schools in 1995–96; [30633]

  (2) what is the amount that has been awarded in grants and bonuses to schools in Nottinghamshire that are grant-maintained. [30636]

  Mr. Squire
  Responsibility for the calculation of grants for grant-maintained schools has been a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools since April 1994. The FAS also holds information on grants for earlier years. I have asked the chairman of the Funding Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received concerning grant-maintained status(a) in total and (b) from existing grant-maintained schools; and what proportion of these representations was critical of grant-maintained schools. [30625]

  Mr. Squire
  My right hon. Friend receives a wide variety of representations on this subject from many sources, including grant-maintained schools. No GM school has criticised grant-maintained status, nor suggested that it would wish to revert to its former status, through several have sought further improvements to the benefits that GM status brings.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make it her policy to establish a direct link between standard spending assessments and the common funding formula for grant- maintained schools. [29649]

  Mr. Squire
  The common funding formula already takes as its starting point the education standard spending assessment for the local authorities in which it operates. This is adjusted to give a total for secondary schools which is allocated through a simple formula to provide actual budgets for grant-maintained schools and notional budgets for LEA schools. Where a local education authority, through its scheme for the local management of schools, funds its own schools at levels higher than those implied by the CFF, the budgets of GM schools are increased by the same proportion. This link to LEA decisions was triggered in Gloucestershire in 1994–95, but not in 1995–96.

  Mature Students Grants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education who is entitled to claim the mature students grant allowance; what plans she has to discontinue this allowance; and if she will make a statement. [30512]

  Mr. Boswell
  The older students' allowance is payable under the current Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1994 as part of a means-tested mandatory award. Students who are aged 26 and over at the start of their course and who meet an earning threshold are eligible. Most students starting new courses from 1 September 1995 will not be eligible for the allowance but transitional arrangements will protect the position of 512
  students who were in full-time further or higher education prior to that date.

  Advertising Agencies
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the total amount spent on outside advertising agencies in her Department in each year since 1979 including 1995 to date. [30632]

  Mr. Boswell
  The expenditure figures for advertising, including press, television and radio by the Department for the financial years since 1979 are provided:

  £000

  1979–80

  224.9

  1980–81

  18.5

  1981–82

  164.4

  1982–83

  10.6

  1983–84

  16.2

  1984–85

  29.7

  1985–86

  22.5

  1986–87

  786.8

  1987–88

  393.2

  1988–89

  677.8

  1989–90

  307.3

  1990–91

  2,965.9

  1991–92

  3,255.5

  1992–93

  1,119.6

  1993–94

  1,442.2

  1994–95

  147.1

  In the current financial year, 1995–96, the Department has not spent any money on advertising to date.

  Schools (Funding)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received concerning the funding of schools for 1995–96(a) in total and (b) from people in Nottinghamshire. [30647]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department receives many letters and other representations about all aspects of school funding, some of which from Nottinghamshire.

  School Meal Services
  Sir Irvine Patrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list in ascending order the difference between income and expenditure for school meal services for all metropolitan districts in each of the last seven years. [29985]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table gives the total net expenditure on the school catering service for all metropolitan districts from 1987–88 to 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available. The figures are not necessarily comparable because over the seven years, returns were not received from all authorities.
  513

  School catering services 1987–88 to 1993–94

  £000

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Net expenditure Total

  Solihull

  1,747

  1,220

  1,204

  1,331

  1,442

  1,340

  1,216

  9,834

  Bury

  1,351

  1,435

  1,027

  1,574

  1,729

  1,388

  2,328

  11,183

  Trafford

  1,504

  1,551

  1,385

  1,846

  1,881

  1,987

  1,785

  12,297

  Rotherham

  1,199

  1,286

  1,463

  2,402

  2,255

  2,117

  2,100

  13,194

  Oldham

  2,629

  2,374

  n/a

  2,136

  7

  n/a

  5,897

  13,396

  St. Helens

  2,038

  1,810

  1,797

  1,819

  2,011

  2,065

  1,978

  13,860

  Calderdale

  2,755

  1,755

  1,597

  1,681

  2,035

  2,032

  1,954

  14,190

  Gateshead

  2,223

  1,614

  1,902

  2,044

  2,133

  2,213

  2,354

  14,873

  Stockport

  2,192

  2,255

  2,020

  2,450

  2,532

  2,661

  2,210

  16,676

  South Tyneside

  2,083

  2,280

  1,826

  3,017

  2,108

  2,661

  2,421

  16,789

  Tameside

  3,287

  2,415

  1,840

  2,435

  2,522

  2,669

  1,882

  17,407

  Salford

  n/a

  n/a

  2,967

  4,180

  3,790

  3,464

  3,372

  18,128

  Wigan

  2,675

  2,339

  2,589

  2,573

  2,781

  2,948

  2,354

  18,618

  Rochdale

  3,160

  n/a

  2,567

  2,960

  3,077

  3,207

  3,312

  18,637

  Wolverhampton

  n/a

  2,184

  2,418

  3,365

  3,670

  3,768

  3,800

  19,541

  Dudley

  2,770

  2,798

  3,236

  2,454

  2,848

  2,741

  2,546

  19,725

  North Tyneside

  3,014

  2,915

  2,414

  2,795

  3,275

  3,598

  3,054

  21,457

  Barnsley

  2,668

  2,496

  2,873

  2,878

  3,637

  3,481

  3,204

  21,607

  Sefton

  2,879

  2,672

  3,135

  3,377

  3,399

  3,275

  3,685

  22,765

  Bolton

  2,701

  2,524

  3,120

  3,311

  3,630

  3,701

  3,765

  23,101

  Sunderland

  4,697

  3,126

  2,638

  3,053

  4,345

  2,516

  2,507

  23,276

  Coventry

  3,063

  2,728

  2,970

  3,204

  3,512

  3,657

  4,041

  23,506

  Knowsley

  3,195

  3,835

  4,276

  3,074

  3,480

  3,040

  3,075

  24,315

  Wakefield

  3,827

  n/a

  n/a

  4,752

  4,883

  5,053

  6,269

  25,168

  Wirral

  4,112

  4,526

  3,419

  3,770

  3,816

  3,394

  3,462

  26,843

  Doncaster

  3,887

  3,357

  3,518

  3,588

  4,057

  3,726

  4,402

  26,906

  Sandwell

  3,375

  3,062

  3,446

  4,600

  4,009

  4,241

  4,139

  27,205

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  4,186

  3,714

  4,663

  4,715

  4,681

  4,886

  4,965

  32,201

  Walsall

  3,992

  4,099

  4,966

  3,661

  4,005

  9,217

  3,043

  33,318

  Sheffield

  n/a

  6,982

  4,054

  5,907

  5,873

  5,981

  5,622

  34,792

  Kirklees

  5,543

  5,003

  4,109

  5,081

  6,806

  5,573

  5,463

  37,960

  Liverpool

  7,896

  6,240

  6,443

  6,197

  6,572

  6,380

  6,784

  46,853

  Bradford

  6,372

  5,750

  6,185

  7,095

  9,723

  8,869

  3,821

  48,195

  Leeds

  7,508

  7,520

  6,381

  7,205

  9,041

  7,535

  6,653

  52,226

  Manchester

  6,957

  n/a

  n/a

  11,175

  13,022

  10,814

  11,531

  53,851

  Birmingham

  14,967

  10,845

  11,276

  13,147

  16,425

  16,368

  16,974

  100,332

  Note:

  n/a = not available

  Child Employment Officers
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if she will publish a table listing the number of specialist child employment officers working for local education authorities together with(a) the number of registered and (b) the estimated number of all compulsory school age children in paid employment for each year from 1979; [30202]

  (2) if she will list the local education authorities which employ specialist child employment officers; and which local education authorities combine their statutory obligations to register the employment of school children with other education welfare services. [30215]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available centrally.

  Teaching Entrants
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers have started teaching during 1994–95 and in each year since 1979(a) nationally, (b) in Nottinghamshire. [29916]
  514
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table provides the numbers of full-time new entrants to teaching for the years that are available.

  Full-time new entrant1 teachers in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sectors

  31 March

  England and Wales

  Nottingham LEA

  1979

  25,493

  —

  1980

  21,652

  —

  1981

  16,283

  —

  1982

  13,190

  —

  1983

  13,269

  —

  1984

  12,809

  —

  1985

  11,137

  —

  1986

  11,458

  195

  1987

  12,486

  200

  1988

  12,272

  188

  1989

  13,411

  220

  1990

  14,652

  205

  1991

  14,947

  202

  1992

  15,645

  261

  1993

  16,044

  244

  1 Those in full-time service at 31 March of the year shown who were not in service the previous year and have less than one year's service.

  2 —Not available.

  Source: Database of teacher records.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of people who completed teacher training courses chose not to look for teaching work(a) within the first six months of qualifying, (b) within a year of qualifying and (c) within 18 months of qualifying when qualifying in 1994–95 and in each year since 1979. [29912]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many people have completed teacher training courses in 1994–95 and in each year since 1979(a) nationally and (b) in Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Squire
  The table provides the number of people successfully completing initial teacher training courses leading to qualified teacher status for the years that are available.

  Year

  England and Wales

  Nottinghamshire

  1983–84

  12,700

  318

  1984–85

  13,102

  358

  1985–86

  13,774

  382

  1986–87

  14,115

  419

  1987–88

  15,564

  454

  1988–89

  15,547

  445

  1989–90

  15,969

  419

  1990–91

  17,244

  471

  1991–92

  20,481

  537

  1992–93

  22,771

  622

  Source: Database of Teacher Records.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much has been spent on publicity concerning teacher training in 1994–95 and in each year since 1979. [29910]

  Mr. Squire
  The teaching as a career—TASC—unit was established in 1987 with the objective to promote teaching as a career and provide information and advice on teaching and teacher training. The functions of the TASC unit were taken on by the Teacher Training Agency in October 1994. Total DFE expenditure on TASC, and expenditure on the information and promotional activities of the Teacher Training Agency, since April 1987 was as follows:

  1987–88: £493,398

  1988–89: £913,166

  1989–90: £931,631

  1990–91: £1,448,383

  1991–92: £1,548,631

  1992–93: £1,360,556

  1993–94: £1,021,770

  1994–95: £1,106,966

  In addition, the Department, in conjunction with TASC, ran teacher recruitment advertising campaigns in 1990 and 1991. The expenditure on these campaigns was as follows:

  1990–91: £2,199,900

  1991–92: £2,383,700

  516
  Expenditure on publicity for teacher training before 1987 is not separately identifiable within the Department's total expenditure on publicity.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of people who completed teacher training courses found teaching jobs(a) within the first six months of qualifying, (b) within a year of qualifying and (c) within 18 months of qualifying in 1994–95 and in each year since 1979. [299131]

  Mr. Squire
  Information is not available in the precise form required but estimates made from teacher's service details show the following:

  Of those successfully completing courses of initial teacher training leading to qualified teacher status in England and Wales in the calendar year 1984, 76 per cent. were known to be in teaching service as at 31 March 1985 and 76 per cent. in service as at 31 March 1986. Of those completing training in the calendar year 1991, 78 per cent. were known to be in service as at March 1992 and 77 per cent. in service as at March 1993.

  Teaching service includes both full-time and part-time service in any school in England and Wales plus full-time and some part-time service in public sector further and higher education in England and Wales but excluding the old university sector.

  This is the earliest and most recent data available. Information for the intervening years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many people have embarked on teacher training courses in 1994–95 and in each year since 1979(a) nationally and (b) in Nottinghamshire. [29915]

  Mr. Squire
  The information requested is as follows. Comparable data prior to 1982–83 are not available.

  Year

  England and Wales

  Nottinghamshire

  1982–83

  16,928

  497

  983–84

  16,218

  481

  1984–85

  16,707

  486

  1985–86

  16,725

  446

  1986–87

  16,945

  447

  1987–88

  19,180

  475

  1988–89

  20,183

  467

  1989–90

  21,757

  589

  1990–91

  23,795

  650

  1991–92

  28,792

  657

  1992–93

  31,980

  762

  1993–94

  33,215

  794

  1994–95

  31,494

  737

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total budget for teacher training in 1994–95; and what it is for each year since 1979. [29911]

  Mr. Squire
  Allocations by the Higher Education Funding Council for England in respect of courses of initial teacher training were as follows:

  Academic year

  Allocation £ million

  1992–93

  82.1

  1993–94

  107.3

  1994–95

  155.9

  517
  In addition, Department for Education allocations to schools running the school centred initial teacher training scheme totalled £1.3 million for 1993–94, and £4.8 million for 1994–95.

  These do not include the costs of fees, met for most students by a mandatory award, or student support for those on courses of initial teacher training.

  Funding of higher education was brought under one body for the first time in 1992. Information for earlier years is not available in the form requested.

  These figures do not include expenditure on the in-service training of teachers.

  Teacher Redundancies
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers have been made redundant during 1994–95 and in each year since 1979(a) nationally, (b) in Nottinghamshire and (c) in Norfolk. [29917]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on the number of teachers made redundant is not centrally held.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what projects are currently being run by her Department which have the objective of recruiting new teachers. [29923]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Responsibility for promoting teacher recruitment is now a matter for the Teacher Training Agency. However, the following three projects due to end within this financial year are still being funded by the Department.Manchester university school of biological sciences—taster courses to encourage biochemistry undergraduates into teaching.
  The Open university—the development of course materials for a distance learning PGCE in music.
  Bradford and Ilkley community college—compact with local secondary schools to encourage ethnic minorities into teaching.

SCOTLAND

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions his Department has had with representatives of the British Linen Bank Group relating to the development of the proposed new Edinburgh royal infirmary; to what extent those discussions have included the construction and the management of hospital facilities and hospital services; and what facilities and services are being considered. [27932]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Office officials have met representatives of a number of private sector financial institutions, including the British Linen bank, construction companies and other organisations to discuss private finance issues. No meetings have taken place with representatives of the British Linen Bank Group specifically to discuss the royal infirmary of Edinburgh. The briefing documents prepared by the royal infirmary of Edinburgh NHS trust and issued to 518
  interested parties describes the scheme as being for the design, building and financing of the new hospital facility, together with the operation of a range of non-clinical support services. Staff involved in providing clinical services will continue to be employed by the trust.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the occasions on which his Department has employed executive search agencies to recruit for direct or indirect employment in each of the past five years, including for employment in agencies, trusts, quangos and other arms-length bodies which are funded by his Department; what was the value of each assignment; and if he will make a statement. [28564]

  Mr. Lang
  The occasions on which my Department employed agencies to conduct executive searches are set out. The value of individual contracts is a matter of commercial confidentiality, but the total cost was approximately £300,000. The list does not include occasions when such agencies have conducted open recruitment competitions without search on behalf of my Department.

  My Department commissions executive searches when it considers that the particular post will be difficult to fill and where suitable candidates are likely to be in current employment and therefore may not be expected to respond to press advertisement of the open recruitment competition.

  Year

  Appointment

  1991

  —

  1992

  Director of Finance, Scottish Prison Service

  1993

  Chief Executive, NHS management executive

  1994

  Director of Human Resources NHS management executive

  Director of Finance, NHS management executive

  Director of Finance, NHS management executive (re-run competition)

  Chief Executives (3), new water authorities

  1995 (to date)

  Director of Finance and Planning, East of Scotland Water Authority

  Director of Human Resources, East of Scotland Water Authority

  Legal Adviser, East of Scotland Water Authority

  Director of Operations, North of Scotland Water Authority

  Director of Human Resources, North of Scotland Water Authority

  Head of Public Affairs, North of Scotland Water Authority

  Director of Finance, North of Scotland Water Authority

  Legal Adviser, North of Scotland Water Authority

  Floods
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment his Department has made of the aftermath of the floods in Paisley and Johnstone since February 1995, excluding the visits he and his Ministers paid to the area before then; what benchmark he has used to assess the effect to people's lives and the need for new flood prevention measures since the floods; how such assessments have involved or resulted in the consultation of flood victims; when he next plans to revisit the area to discuss the longer-term impact of flooding on the lives of people'; and if he will make a statement. [28571]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The effects of the floods have been full considered by the Scottish Office and by Ministers. However, the assessment of flood prevention needs in Paisley and Johnstone is essentially for Strathclyde regional council. An internal report by the council has concluded that it would not be practicable for it to undertake any further major flood prevention works. Indeed, the council has undertaken only one scheme in its 20 years' existence, despite the wide powers available under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 and the availability of Government grant.

  For the Government's part, we have already proposed a number of measures to enhance the statutory and planning framework so that councils may take well-informed decisions on flooding matters in the light of local concerns and the public interest.

  Participating schools

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–951

  Aberlour House

  8

  7

  10

  11

  9

  Albyn School

  23

  20

  18

  19

  24

  Ardvreck School

  2

  3

  3

  5

  6

  Beaconhurst School

  6

  6

  10

  13

  9

  Belhaven Hill School

  3

  3

  2

  1

  2

  Belmont House School

  20

  23

  23

  26

  25

  Blairmore School

  5

  4

  3

  School closed

  Butterstone School

  4

  5

  2

  4

  5

  Cargilfield School

  4

  4

  4

  14

  4

  Clifton Hall School

  7

  7

  8

  7

  6

  Craigclowan School

  9

  9

  9

  12

  10

  Craigholme School

  39

  36

  38

  145

  45

  Crawfordton House School

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Croftinloan School

  4

  5

  6

  6

  4

  Dollar Academy

  68

  59

  71

  72

  72

  Drumley House School

  5

  3

  3

  2

  2

  Edinburgh Academy

  48

  50

  52

  54

  54

  Fernhill School

  29

  30

  34

  134

  30

  Fettes College

  32

  33

  40

  39

  35

  Fort Augustus School

  33

  34

  28

  School closed

  George Heriot's School

  236

  247

  247

  250

  255

  George Watson's College

  243

  238

  234

  238

  248

  Glasgow Academy

  37

  89

  98

  98

  90

  Glenalmond College

  30

  33

  33

  38

  41

  Gordonstoun School

  26

  29

  28

  128

  31

  Hamilton College

  12

  14

  15

  14

  14

  High School of Dundee

  182

  180

  197

  196

  194

  High School of Glasgow

  38

  39

  45

  49

  48

  Hutcheson's Grammer School

  135

  138

  152

  157

  163

  Keil School

  66

  67

  66

  65

  69

  Kelvinside Academy

  58

  67

  80

  85

  87

  Kilgraston School

  51

  53

  59

  52

  54

  Kilquhanity School

  18

  18

  20

  20

  11

  Lathallan School

  5

  5

  6

  6

  6

  Laurel Bank School

  54

  53

  53

  60

  63

  Glasgow Regeneration Alliance
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much funding has been given in each of the last three years to each of the local employment companies covered by the Glasgow regeneration alliance areas. [29278]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Funding for the local economic development companies in Glasgow comes from a variety of sources, including the local authorities, Glasgow Development Agency, urban programme and European structural funds. The information is not held centrally.

  Devolution
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of States for Scotland what recent representations his Department has received in favour of(a) devolution and (b) regional parliaments; and if he will make a statement. [29626]

  Mr. Lang
  In the period 1 January 1995 to 31 May 1995 my Department has received 43 representations in favour of devolution and none in favour of regional parliaments.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those schools which have participated in the assisted places scheme in the past five years, and the number of placements for each school per year. [29708]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information for the last five school sessions is as follows:
  521

  Participating schools

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–951

  Lomond School

  39

  44

  49

  54

  54

  Loretto School

  31

  33

  35

  33

  33

  Merchiston Castle School

  60

  62

  65

  168

  65

  Morrison's Academy

  164

  168

  169

  1157

  140

  New Park School

  3

  3

  4

  5

  4

  Oxenfoord Castle School

  11

  13

  11

  School closed

  Park Lodge School

  nil

  1

  1

  nil

  nil

  The Park School

  72

  68

  68

  69

  68

  Rannoch School

  28

  30

  31

  35

  38

  Robert Gordon's College

  63

  64

  163

  164

  70

  Rudolph Steiner School, Edinburgh

  56

  57

  59

  63

  57

  St. Aloysius College

  160

  166

  165

  172

  168

  St. Columba's School

  32

  42

  39

  36

  33

  St. Denis and Cranley School

  30

  28

  31

  29

  31

  St. George's School

  20

  25

  29

  31

  42

  St. Leonard's School

  31

  35

  37

  36

  37

  St. Margaret's School, Aberdeen

  19

  22

  22

  20

  20

  St. Margaret's School, Edinburgh

  68

  70

  72

  71

  74

  St. Mary's School

  4

  1

  2

  2

  4

  Stewart's Melville College and the Mary

  274

  276

  282

  296

  284

  Erskine School

  Strathallan School

  42

  42

  46

  47

  46

  Wellington School

  48

  44

  55

  '54

  51

  Westbourne School

  60

  Amalgamated with Glasgow Academy

  1 Provisional figures pending receipt of audited returns from schools.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many assisted place pupils sat A-level examinations in each of the past five years. [29710]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given.

  School session

  Number of assisted place pupils

  1990–91

  69

  1991–92

  79

  1992–93

  84

  1993–94

  91

  1994–95

  1—

  1 Information not yet available.

  Charter Week
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [30681]

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Court Service agency will publish information about their performance against service standards during 1994–95 and several health boards are to launch revised local charters during Charter Week. These events were anyway due to take place at this time and there is therefore no additional cost to public funds. Information on the numbers of civil servants and public officials participating in Charter Week is not available.

  NHS (Private Sector Involvement)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 702, if he will make a statement indicating what specific provision within (a) Dundee Teaching Hospital NHS trust, (b) the Grampian
  522
  Healthcare NHS trust, (c) the Law Hospital NHS trust, (d) the Hairmyres and Stonehouse NHS trust, (e) the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS trust, (f) the Western General Hospital NHS trust hospital, (g) the Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services NHS trust and (h) the South Ayrshire Hospital NHS trust is being considered for private finance initiatives; what companies have been consulted on the possible provision of these facilities; and what is the value of the services being considered under the private finance initiative and the current position as regards the formal conclusion of contracts between the NHS trusts and the potential investor in the facilities. [29688]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: The following schemes are in progress at the trusts listed, each of which involves a private finance element.
  Dundee Teaching Hospital NHS trust—equipment for the new accommodation at Ninewells hospitals into which services provided at Dundee royal infirmary will be transferred.
  Grampian Healthcare NHS trust—the preparation of a proposal for Grampian health board to provide clinical facilities including GP beds in Stonehaven, which has been offered by the board to open competition.
  Law hospital, Hairmyres and Stonehouse, and the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS trusts—provision of new facilities to replace the existing hospitals.
  Western General Hospitals NHS trust—extensive new build, refurbishment and alterations on current site.
  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health NHS trust—an inpatient facility for the acute mentally ill at Stobhill.
  South Ayrshire Hospital NHS trust—the preparation of a proposal for Ayrshire and Arran health board to provide specified clinical facilities in East Ayrshire, which has been offered by the board to competition between Ayrshire trusts.
  523
  Four NHS trusts have advertised in the Official Journal of the European Communities seeking private sector partners and all have shortlisted, or are in the process of shortlisting, tenderers. The shortlist for the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS trust contains three consortia—BICC/BET/Royal Bank of Scotland; Laing/Miller Group/British Linen bank; Wimpey/Serco Services/Impreglio SpA, Morrison Construction. Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health NHS trust consists of four consortia—British Linen bank/McAlpine/Serco; Royal Bank of Scotland/Balfour Beatty/Initial; Henry Boot/Quayle Munro/Trigon; Laing/Nikko bank. The Western General Hospital and Hairmyres and Stonehouse NHS trusts have not announced their shortlists. None of the schemes has yet reached the stage of concluding contracts. The value of the services will not be known until final proposals have been received from the consortia.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all areas within(a) his Department, (b) agencies under his Department's control and (c) organisations for which he has ministerial responsibility to which Crown immunity applies; what consideration he has given to removing this; and if he will make a statement. [28646]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: An Act of Parliament is presumed not to bind the Crown unless the contrary intention is clearly stated, or there is necessary implication that the Crown is to be bound. The Government's policy on Crown immunity—as set out in Cm 1599—"The Citizen's Charter—Raising the Standard"—is that Crown immunity is being progressively reduced, as legislative opportunities arise. In the meantime, Crown bodies are expected to behave as though they were bound by regulations.

  Council Tax Appeals
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appeals are outstanding in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole in respect of the valuation of properties for council tax. [27311]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 13 June 1995]: The available information relates to all classes of proposal to change the valuation list made to assessors and subsequent appeals, and is available only for regions and for Scotland as a whole. At March 1995, the latest date for which information is available, there were 5,974 outstanding proposals/appeals lodged in Strathclyde and 14,422 in Scotland.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep in a consignment exported from Shoreham on the Northern cruiser on 17 May were dead on arrival in Dieppe; what was the cause of death; how many sheep gave birth during the journey; how many sheep died during the unloading and how;524
  whether any prosecutions are to be brought in respect of any sheep that died and any sheep that were transported contrary to the prohibition of the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1994 on the transportation of an animal which is likely to give birth during transport; and if he will make a statement. [27105]

  Mrs. Browning
  The French authorities have reported that two sheep were dead on arrival at Dieppe and that one gave birth during the journey. The Ministry is supporting the local authority in investigations into these matters.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [28498]

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 21 June 1995,Official Report, column 241.

  Agricultural Grants
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [29454]

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Targets for the payment of claims for grants and subsidies are set out in the Ministry's regional customer service standard "Commitment to Service". A revised edition was published in January 1995. For details of performance against targets, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 20 July 1994,Official Report, column 356.

  Similar details on performance for 1994–95 will be announced later this year. I should emphasise that for many schemes Community rules prescribe dates for submission of applications and payment of eligible claims. These vary between individual schemes.

  Privatisation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [29424]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) and for Barking (Ms Hodge) on 16 December 1994,Official Report, columns 867–68 and 8 June 1995, Official Report, columns 313–18 inclusive.
  525
  Market testing, strategic contracting out and efficiency review exercises either in process or yet to start cover information technology service provision from the information technology directorate; staff training; the management maintenance and operations of the fisheries research vessels at DFR Lowestoft; IT services—other than that provided by the ITD—HQ reprographic services; non-scientific services, CSL; national food survey; training services procured from ATB landbase; fisheries aerial surveillance; and the national diet and nutrition survey, with Department of Health. In addition, it is intended that some elements of the industry development press and industry relations and marketing directorate functions of the Meat and Livestock Commission will be market tested.

  For the future it is not possible to predict in advance of recommendations following structural, strategic or management reviews which services or functions will be contracted out. Contracting out without an in-house bid can occur when my 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. This has been true, for example, in some cases of information technology services provision. Where an activity may be relatively small and peripheral to my department's functions, a strategic decision to contract out could also be taken. Decisions over whether services are most effectively discharged in-house or contracted out are taken in light of one of my Department's stated aims-namely, to ensure the best use of internal resources in support of the Ministry's business.

  Milk
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the change of cost of milk to the milk processing industry since the introduction of Milk Marque; and what assessment he has made of the change in employment in the dairy and milk processing industry since then. [29513]

  Mr. Jack
  It is not possible to make a general comparison between the price of milk for processing under the old and new milk marketing arrangements because of the different selling systems involved and the variety of contracts now on offer by Milk Marque. Some companies have announced restructuring plans since 1 November 1994, but most of the job losses are in the bottling and distribution of liquid milk where the principal factor is the intense competition from supermarkets rather than deregulation.

  Advisory Committees
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the members of(a) the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods, (b) the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and (c) the Food Advisory Committee together with their current employers. [29996]

  Mrs. Browning
  The current membership of the committees is as follows:

  (a) ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NOVEL FOODS AND PROCESSES

  Professor D. C. Burke, CBE, BSc, PhD, HonLLD, DL (Chairman)
  Vice Chancellor, University of East Anglia
  526
  Professor G. E. Adams BSc, PhD, DSc, FACR
  Director, MRC Radiobiology Unit, Oxford

  Professor P. J. Aggett MSc, MB, ChB, FRCP(L)(E)(G), DCH
  Head of the Department of Nutrition, Diet and Health, Institute of Food Research, Norwich Laboratory, Norwich

  Professor A. T. Atkinson BSc, PhD
  Retired-Former Deputy Director, PHLS Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, Porton Down

  Professor H. M. Dick CBE, MD, FIBiol, FRCP, FRCPath, FRSE
  Department of Medical Microbiology, Ninewelis Hospital and Medical School, Dundee
  Dr. M. J. Gasson BSc, PhD
  Head, Genetics and Microbiology Department, Institute of Food Research, Norwich

  Professor W. P. T. James CBE, MA, MD, DSc, FRCP (London and Edinburgh), FRSE
  Director, Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen
  Professor D. A. Ledward MSc, PhD, FIFST
  Professor of Food Science, University of Reading

  Professor B. J. Miflin BSc, MS, PhD
  Director of Research, Institute of Arable Crops Research, Rothamsted Experimental Station
  Mrs. H. Millar MA, FRSA
  Adult Education Department, University of Glasgow

  Professor B. E. Moseley OBE, MSc, PhD
  Retired-Former Head of Reading Laboratory, Institute of Food Research Reading

  Rev. J. Polkinghorne MA, PhD, ScD, FRS
  The President, Queens' College, Cambridge

  Dr. P. J. Rodgers MA, DPhil
  Zeneca Bioproducts, Billingham, Cleveland

  Professor T. Sanders BSc, PhD
  Head of Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Kings College, London

  Professor J. E. Smith BSc, MSc, PhD, DSc, FIBiol, FRSE
  Head of Applied Microbiology Division, University of Strathclyde

  Professor R. Walker BSc, PhD, FRSD, CChem, FIFST
  Professor of Food Science, University of Surrey

  Professor H. F. Woods BSc, BM, BCh, DPhil, FFPM, FRCP (London and Edinburgh)
  Head of Department of Medicine and Pharmacology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Sheffield

  (b) ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PESTICIDES

  Professor Sir Colin Berry DSc, MD, PhD, FRCPath, FFPM, FRCP (Chairman)
  Professor of Morbid Anatomy, and Dean of the London Hospital Medical College.

  Professor Geoffrey Sagar CBE, BA, MA, DPhil (Oxon)
  (Deputy Chairman)
  Professor of Agriculture Botany and Vice Principal of the University College of North Wales.

  Dr Andree Carter BSc, MISoilSci, MIWEM
  Principal Research Officer and Laboratory Manager at the Soil Survey and Land Research Centre, Cranfield Institute of Technology.

  Professor Nicola Cherry MD, PhD, FFOM
  Professor and Director at the Centre for Occupational Health at the University of Manchester's Faculty of Medicine.
  527
  Professor Michael Claridge MA, DPhil, FIBiol, FLS, FRES
  Head of School and Professor of Entomology, University of Wales, Cardiff.

  Professor Anthony Dayan BSc, MD, FRCP, FRCPath, FFPM, FIBiol
  Professor of Toxicology and Director of the DH Toxicology Laboratory, St. Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College, University of London.

  Mr John Leahy MA(Oxon), CChem, MRSC
  Retired—Formerly General Manager of the Severn Trent Laboratories.

  Professor Donald L. Lee BSc, PhD(Cantab), FIBiol, FRSA
  Professor of Agricultural Zoology, University of Leeds.

  Dr. Alexander Proudfoot BSc(Hons), MB, ChB, FRCP, FRCPE
  Consultant physician, Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and Director of the Scottish Poisons Information Bureau.

  Dr. Eve Roman BSc, PhD
  Staff Scientist at the Imperial Cancer Research Fund Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Oxford.

  Mr. Roger Tayler BSc(Agric), Postgrad Dip Agric(Reading), NDA, CBiol, MIBiol
  Senior Tutor in the Faculty of Agriculture and Food and Senior Lecturer in crop production, Department of Agriculture, University of Reading.

  Professor Paul Webster BSc, PhD, FBIM, FRSA
  Department of Agricultural Economics at Wye College, University of London.

  (C) FOOD ADVISORY COMMITTEE

  Professor Sir Colin Campbell LLB (Chairman)
  Vice Chancellor, University of Nottingham

  Professor Douglas Georgala CBE, PhD, FIFST (Deputy Chairman)
  Independent Scientific Consultant. Formerly Director of the Institute of Food Research

  Dr. Margaret Ashwell OBE, BSc, PhD, FIFST, FRSH
  Independent Scientific Consultant. Formerly of the British Nutrition Foundation

  Mr. Robin Evans BSc, MChemA, CChem, FRSC, AIFST
  Public Analyst, Tayside Regional Council

  Mrs. Joy Hardinge BSc, FIFST
  Head of Legislation (Flavours and Ingredients), Quest International

  Mr. Roger Manley OBE, FITSA
  County Fair Trading and Advice Officer, Cheshire County Council

  Miss Patricia Mann FCAM, FIPA, CMInst, FRSA
  Director of External Affairs, J. Walter Thompson Company Ltd.

  Mr. Tom Martin BSc, MIFST, FIBrew
  Technical Director, Carlsberg-Tetley Brewing Ltd.

  Mr. Tom Miller BSc, FIFST, FRSH, MHCIMA
  Technical Services Manager, Whitbread plc

  Mrs. Jill Moore OBE
  Vice-Chairman of the National Federation of Consumer Groups and Member of the Meat and Livestock Commission's Consumer Committee

  Dr. Richard Pugh BSc, PhD, CChem, FRSC, FIFST, FRSA
  Technical Director, Tesco Stores Ltd.

  Professor Christopher Ritson BA (Econ), MAgr Sc
  Professor of Agricultural Marketing, University of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne

  Ms Barbara Saunders BA
  Freelance consultant on consumer policy
  528
  Mr. Philip Strachan MA Cantab, FIFST
  External Technical Relations Adviser, Colman's of Norwich

  Professor Frank Woods BSc, BM, BCh, DPhil, FFPM, FRCP(London and Edinburgh)
  Head of the Department of Medicine and Pharmacology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Sheffield

  Intervention Grain
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that Spanish pig farmers are not being given a competitive advantage through the purchase of cut-price barley from intervention stocks. [30554]

  Mr. Jack
  The sale of United Kingdom intervention barley to Spain is one of a package of similar special measures intended to alleviate feed grain shortages caused by the drought in this region. The UK and certain other member states remain strongly opposed to the supply of subsidised grain below the prevailing market or intervention price but were overruled on this occasion.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 157, if he will list all those occasions during the current parliamentary Session when he did not give prior warning to hon. Members. [30748]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I always do my best to give prior warning to hon. Members when I visit their constituencies in an official capacity.

  Meat Levies
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what would be the total revenue raised for the Meat and Livestock Commission if animal exporters had paid the current levies on each animal exported in(a) 1993 and (b) 1994. [31014]

  Mr. Jack
  Total revenue due to the MLC from levies from all sources, including exported live animals, for the years ending 31 March 1993 and 1994 was £29 million and £29.9 million.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 3 May,Official Report, column 226, if he will provide comparable details on civil service early retirement packages on grounds of inefficiency. [29285]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: Inefficiency is a ground for dismissal. An immediate lump sum payment of up to two years' salary can be made in specific cases where a Department judges payment of compensation to be appropriate. Where compensation is agreed and the person dismissed is over age 55, this may be forgone in favour of immediate payment of the accrued superannuation benefits which would otherwise be preserved for payment at retiring age. There have been 23 departures on inefficiency grounds in the past five years. Details for the Ministry and its agencies are as follows:
  529

  Annual compensation payment to age 60 (rate pa)

  Superannuation lump sum

  Lump sum compensation payment £

  Compensation in lieu of notice £

  1990–91

  nil

  nil

  8,708.79

  nil

  1991–92

  nil

  nil

  45,393.76

  nil

  1992–93

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1993–94

  nil

  nil

  51,316.94

  11,969

  1994–95

  nil

  nil

  96,677.28

  663.6

  Fishing Subsidies
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much subsidy has been given to the United Kingdom in each of the last three years from the European Community for fishing; and what is the forecast of funding to the United Kingdom for each of the next three years. [28163]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: As explained in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on 6 June, Official Report, column 6, changes have taken place in the way these subsidies are provided. Prior to 1994, European aid to the fishing industry was financed under a variety of different sections of the EC budget and it is not possible to identify separately all the expenditure relating to fishing. If comparable figures are extracted from the same EC sources as my earlier reply then the statistics for UK would be as set out in table 1. However, we have more detailed information from departmental records for decommissioning of vessels, promotion activities, marketing and processing, vessel grants, market support—calender year—and aid to sea fisheries committees for enforcement and this is set out in the upper part of table 2. From 1994 onwards, the financial instrument for fisheries guidance came into force, amalgamating the various fisheries structures and marketing and processing regulations. The figures in the lower part of table 2 shown the amount of Community funding available for the investment set out in the relevant UK programmes for objective 1, 5(a) and PESCA. They include measures for the benefit of aquaculture. An additional £2.4 million1995–96—and £2.2 million—1996–97 and 1997–98—is forecast for sea fisheries committee enforcement, and market support measures.

  Table 1: Elements of European Community financial assistance to the UK fishing industry

  Calendar year

  MECU

  £ million

  19921

  7.7

  6.5

  19931

  2.3

  1.9

  19942

  20.61

  17.3

  1995

  20.60

  17.3

  1996

  20.62

  17.3

  1997

  20.61

  17.3

  1998

  20.63

  17.3

  Table 2

  Financial/Calendar Year

  Mecu

  £ million

  1992–933

  47.35

  6.18

  1993–943

  413.98

  11.76

  1994–955

  413.97

  11.75

  530

  Table 2

  Financial/Calendar Year

  Mecu

  £ million

  19942

  20.61

  17.23

  19956

  25.67

  21.46

  1996

  28.29

  23.65

  1997

  29.29

  24.49

  1998

  28.12

  23.51

  1 Figures taken from European Court of Auditor's Annual Reports copies of which are in the House Libraries.

  2 Figures from 1994 onwards include expenditure plans which are contained in the UK sectoral plan 1994–1999 for objective 5(a)`Fisheries', copies of which are in the House Libraries.

  3 Excludes promotion, and the marketing and processing awards under EC regulation 355/77, the majority of which were paid prior to 1994 and financed under the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, guidance section (Agriculture).

  4 Approximate conversion rate.

  5 Includes estimated figures for reimbursement for decommissioning.

  6 Figures from 1995 onwards include expenditure plans for the PESCA initiative for fish diversification projects which are contained within the UK operational programme 1995–1999 as submitted to Brussels for approval.

WALES

  Earnings (Hotels)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estiamte of the average wage in the hotel industry in Wales. [29630]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are no reliable estimates of average wage rates in the hotel industry in Wales.

  Examination Papers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost expressed in present day prices of the publication of examination papers in GCSE and pre-GCSE equivalent examinations in(a) 1964, (b) 1974, (c) 1984 and (d) 1994; and what assessment he has made of the level of reading age required to be able to understand the questions set. [29595]

  Mr. Richards
  Comparative publication costs for GCSE and equivalent pre-GCSE examinations for the relevant periods are not available; the Joint Council for GCSE Examination Groups commissioned research into reading age standards for GCSE papers in 1991. The findings were considered in the development of subsequent GCSE examination papers.

  Gipsy Representations
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received from local authorities and from hospital trusts concerning gipsies; and if he will make a statement. [29636]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have received a number of letters from Clwyd county council about gipsy sites in Clwyd. No representations have been received from hospital trusts.

  Mental Hospital Discharges
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were discharged from mental hospitals in each of the last 10 years. [29633]
  531
  Mr. Richards
  The number1 of discharges—including deaths—from mental illness hospitals and mental illness units within other hospitals are as follows:

  Number

  1984

  13,111

  1985

  14,207

  1986

  13,825

  1987

  13,702

  1988

  14,080

  1989

  14,479

  1990

  14,668

  1991–92

  16,236

  1992–93

  16,342

  1993–94

  17,006

  Data prior to 1991–92 is not strictly comparable with later years, since the data collection system changed on 1 April 1991.

  1 It should be noted that the data relates to discharges and deaths during the year and not to individual patients; patients discharged more than once during the year will therefore be included in the data upon each discharge.

  Wepre CP School
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will take to ensure enhanced staffing at the Wepre CP schools language unit; and if he will make a statement. [30168]

  Mr. Richards
  Staffing at the language unit is a matter for the local education authority.

  Wrexham-Birkenhead Railway
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for discussions with Regional Railways concerning the improved service on the Wrexham-Birkenhead line; and if he will make a statement. [30167]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Welsh Office officials discussed this railway line when they met the director of Regional Railways (North West) on 15 June. Regional Railways has no plans to change the service on this line.

  Schools Inspections
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many HM inspectorate inspections were made in(a) 1991 and (b) 1994 of (i) high schools and (ii) primary/infant schools for each local education authority area. [30169]

  Mr. Richards
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector to deal with and I have arranged for him to write to the hon. Member.

  Environmental Industries Commission
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet the Environmental Industries Commission; and what proportion of United Kingdom exports of environmental technologies and services he assesses can be met by Welsh companies. [30521]
  532
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are no plans to meet representatives of the organisation known as the Environmental Industries Commission Ltd. Overseas markets for environmental technologies and services are important to Welsh companies in that sector. However it is impossible to say what proportion of United Kingdom exports can be met by Welsh companies since the size of the market and an individual company's capacity to export will vary from day to day.

  Rhondda Borough Council
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he received a copy of the Audit Commission report entitled "Rhondda Borough Council: Audit of Accounts of 1993–94 Renovation Grants—Report of Investigations into the Operation and Management of the System and on the Results of Investigations into Alleged Irregularities"; and what action he plans to take. [30616]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office received a copy of the report from Rhondda borough council on 22 June.

  Under part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, local authorities are charged with the administration of the renovation grants scheme. It is for the council to act on the findings of the district auditor's report and to implement the agreed recommendations. Papers have been passed to the police. The Welsh Office will keep in close touch with the district auditor about any implications for the payment of Government subsidy.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice his Department has issued on the safe use by farmers and farm workers of organophosphorus sheep dips. [30962]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government have issued numerous press releases and guides for information, the latest being the revised booklet on sheep dipping published in March this year.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance his Department has issued to Welsh farmers about the use of pyrethoid based sheep dips in preference to organophosphorus sheep dips. [30964]

  Mr. Jones
  The current booklet giving advice on sheep dipping provides information on the reasons for treating sheep and which licensed products are effective against particular parasites. The information includes alternatives to organophosphorus dips, but no specific advice has been given as this is a matter for individual farmers to decide in the light of their particular circumstances and in consultation with their veterinary adviser.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research his Department has undertaken in the last five years into possible links between organophosphorus sheep dips and(a) physical and (b) mental health problems; and what was the outcome. [30963]

  Mr. Jones
  Government agricultural research and development relating to Wales and England is undertaken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Welsh Office discusses research and development programmes with the Ministry of Agriculture before they are implemented. The Government have accepted the recommendation of the veterinary products committee for
  533
  epidemiological studies into possible long-term effects of using organophosphorus sheep dips, and proposals for studies are currently being considered.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research his Department has undertaken in the last five years evaluating the effectiveness of protective clothing worn by farmers and farm workers when using organophosphorus sheep dips; and what was the outcome. [30961]

  Mr. Jones
  Research on the effectiveness of protective clothing used whilst dipping sheep has been undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive. It was found that where protective clothing was worn it reduced exposure very substantially in comparison with situations where it was not worn. Information on the use and care of protective clothing is set out in the Government's guidance on sheep dipping.

  Suicides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farmers and farm workers have committed suicide in Wales in each of the last 10 years. [30983]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Deaths of farmers and farm workers recorded as suicide

  Farmers

  Farm workers

  1983

  12

  2

  1984

  12

  3

  1985

  6

  6

  1986

  17

  2

  1987

  2

  2

  1988

  9

  2

  1989

  7

  0

  1990

  10

  1

  1991

  8

  2

  1992

  4

  0

  19931

  9

  2

  1 In 1993 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys made changes to the coding and data collection system which may have affected the numbers of deaths for many causes, including suicides.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many young people in Wales who left school at 16 years in 1994 are currently(a) registered for vocational training courses, (b) in employment and (c) receiving bridging allowance. [31020]

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

ENVIRONMENT

  Offshore Installations
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what factors led to the United Kingdom signing the United Nations law of the sea convention in relation to the abandonment of offshore oil and gas installations. [28924]
  534
  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom did not sign the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. Part XI—on mining the deep seabed—contained provisions unacceptable to the United Kingdom and most other industrialised states. An agreement adopted in July 1994 resolved these problems before the convention entered into force in November 1994. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) announced to the House on 20 July 1994 the United Kingdom's intention to accede to the convention. The provisions of the convention which deal with artificial islands, installations and structures on the continental shelf are consistent with the policies and legislation of the United Kingdom.

  Yorkshire Dales National Park (Quarrying)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment what representations he has received from the Council for National Parks and others concerning his decisions not to call in the planning application to extend quarrying at Swinden in the Yorkshire Dales national park. [30379]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  To date, no representations has been received from the Council for National Parks concerning the Secretary of State's decision not to call in this planning application. Two representations expressing concern about the decision have been received from members of the public.

  Planning Inquiries
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when planning inquiries Nos. N/P/R0715/219/94/5 and N/P/B2925/174/94/1 are expected to conclude. [30037]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The public inquiry into the Berwick Hills project in Middlesborough—Ref No. N/P/R0715/219/94/5—was held in September 1994. The inspector's report was received in January 1995 and is under consideration. It is hoped to issue a decision in mid-July.

  The public inquiry into the proposed superstore at Fewsters depot, Hexham—Ref No. N/P/B2925/174/94/1—was held in October 1994. The inspector's report was received in December 1994 and is under consideration. It is hoped to issue a decision this month.

  Local Government Ombudsman
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 19 June, column 132, how many representations he has received since 1 January 1994 (a) asserting that the local government ombudsman service is no longer needed and (b) asserting that it works unsatisfactorily. [30270]

  Mr. Curry
  Since 1 January 1994 we have received more than 200 written representations expressing some dissatisfaction about the operation of the local government ombudsman service, including some 20 questioning the need for the service.

  Recycled Aggregate
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of substituting recycled aggregate for newly quarried material. [30431]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government's policy on the use of secondary and recycled materials in place of primary aggregates is set out in minerals planning guidance note 6—MPG6— on aggregates provision in England. This explains that recycling is a key policy in pursuance of sustainable development, and sets targets—40 million tonnes per year by 2001 and 55 million tonnes per year by 2006—for the increased use of recycled material in the construction industry.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will end the capping of police authorities for the year 1996–97. [30257]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I shall consider capping criteria for 1996–97 in the context of decisions on next year's local government finance settlement.

  Severn Trent Water
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made as to the extent to which savings made by Severn Trent Water plc are being proportionally passed on to consumers in terms of prices; and if he will make a statement. [30263]

  Mr. Atkins
  This is a matter for the Director General of Water Services, who has published his views on the sharing of benefits from greater efficiency by the water companies.

  Right-to-buy Scheme
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been spent by his Department advertising the right-to-buy scheme; and how many properties have been purchased under the scheme in each of the last 10 years. [30737]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information requested on the costs of advertising the right-to-buy scheme—including the costs of printing booklets, leaflets and posters—is as follows:

  Financial year

  £ thousands

  1984–85

  1,341

  1985–86

  266

  1986–87

  670

  1987–88

  25

  1988–89

  75

  1989–90

  66

  1990–91

  1

  1991–92

  45

  1992–93

  972

  1993–94

  321

  1994–95

  42

  April to June 1995

  27

  The numbers of properties purchased under the scheme is as follows:
  536

  Calendar year

  Local authorities

  New towns

  Housing associations

  Total

  1985

  76,319

  663

  1,451

  78,433

  1986

  73,767

  556

  2,791

  77,114

  1987

  84,007

  792

  2,046

  86,845

  1988

  128,566

  1,091

  3,323

  132,980

  1989

  139,722

  1,332

  3,700

  144,754

  1990

  92,995

  365

  3,369

  96,729

  1991

  51,414

  177

  1,871

  53,462

  1992

  41,445

  166

  669

  42,280

  1993

  41,248

  180

  666

  42,094

  1994

  43,116

  45

  831

  43,992

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many properties purchased from local authorities under right to buy have been for sale for over 18 months. [30736]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  This information is not available.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proportion of all new secure local authority lettings has been allocated to households accepted as homeless under part III of the Housing Act 1985 in each year since 1985; [30526]

  (2) what proportion of all new housing association lettings has been allocated to households accepted as homeless under part III of the Housing Act 1985 in each year since 1985. [30527]

  Mr. Curry
  The available information for England, which relates to financial years, is given in the table:

  New secure local authority lettings

  Housing association lettings (excluding transfers)1

  Total (000s)

  Percentage to homeless households

  Total (000s)

  Percentage to homeless households

  1984–85

  229

  20

  49

  n/a

  1985–86

  236

  24

  51

  n/a

  1986–87

  232

  25

  52

  n/a

  1987–88

  229

  28

  54

  n/a

  1988–89

  223

  28

  57

  n/a

  1989–90

  208

  31

  60

  n/a

  1990–91

  215

  35

  62

  14

  1991–92

  207

  39

  69

  21

  1992–93

  204

  39

  90

  25

  1993–94

  213

  35

  112

  25

  n/a = not available

  1 Figures for housing association lets in 1988–89 and earlier are estimates based on England and Wales data.

  Source:

  Local authority—Annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP1) returns.

  Housing association—annual HAR10/1 returns.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of repossessed owner-occupiers was accepted by local authorities for permanent rehousing under part III of the Housing Act 1985 in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [30529]
  537
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The data provided by local authorities on the numbers of households for which they accept responsibility to secure permanent accommodation accepted under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985 include information on the main reason for the homeless households' loss of their last settled home. Eight per cent.—10,230—of households accepted in England in the 12 months ending March 1995 were as a result of mortgage arrears; cases where the mortgage arrears led to repossession are not separately identified.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of new lettings by private landlords in the most recent 12 months for which figures are available would have been of suitable size and rent for the average household accepted as homeless by local authorities under part III of the Housing Act 1985. [30531]

  Mr. Jones
  The size and composition of households accepted as homeless are not recorded centrally, nor is the rent they could afford unaided. The rents of households on low incomes, however, can be met by housing benefit.

  The most recent figures available are for 1993–94, when about half of all new lettings by private landlords were accessible to the public and in self contained accommodation with three or more rooms-including bedrooms.

  These estimates are from the 1993–94 survey of English housing. Like all estimates from sample surveys, they are subject to sampling error.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what analysis with regard to any additional expenditure local authorities may incur in implementing and administrating the proposed new duties towards homeless people as announced by the Minister for Housing on 18 July 1994,Official Report, columns 25–34 and if he will place this information in the Library. [30528]

  Mr. Jones
  In his statement to the House last July,Official Report, columns 25–34, the then Minister for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), said that the Government estimated that the cost of the proposals for reform of the homelessness legislation would be broadly neutral, although it would depend on the timing of legislation and its interpretation. We are still analysing the likely financial effects of the proposals.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many submissions he has received from private landlords in response to (a) the consultation paper"Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies" published in January 1994 and (b) announcement on the proposed arrangements for homeless people by the Minister for Housing on 18 July 1994 Official Report, columns 25–34, and what percentage was (i) in support and (ii) opposed to the proposal that homeless households should be rehoused in the private sector. [30530]

  Mr. Jones
  Nine responses to the consultation paper were classified as being from private landlords. Three of these were supportive of our proposal that local authorities could discharge their duty by placing homeless households directly with private sector landlords.538
  Correspondence about the 18 July 1994 announcement was not recorded separately from general correspondence.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of homeless applicants has been accepted for permanent housing by local authorities under the provisions of part III of the Housing Act 1985 in each year since 1985. [30525]

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is not available. Data are collected from local authorities on applications/inquiries made but the data areas not reported on a common basis—they reflect differing local administrative practices—and cannot, therefore, be used for national or regional estimates of applications/inquiries.

  Preston Farm, Stockton-on-Tees
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate how many people now work on Teesside development corporation's Preston farm site in Stockton-on-Tees. [30649]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  It is estimated that 1,400 people now work on the Preston farm site.

  Cash Incentive Schemes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been made available to each London borough to operate the tenants' cash incentive scheme in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [30739]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The table provides information on the supplementary credit approvals issued to local authorities in London during this period. No SCAs were issued in 1993–94. With the approval of the Secretary of State, local authorities may also use their own resources to fund cash incentive schemes.

  In the period 1989–90 to 1993–94 the cash incentive scheme has created over 6,000 vacancies for reletting in London and has enabled the same number of London households to buy their own home.

  £

  London Borough

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Total

  Barnet

  454

  250

  500

  750

  1,954

  Bexley

  —

  360

  110

  320

  790

  Brent

  2,220

  2,000

  520

  1,920

  6,660

  Bromley

  1,000

  —

  —

  —

  1,000

  Camden

  725

  1,000

  1,500

  1,500

  4,725

  City of London

  —

  100

  110

  150

  360

  Croydon

  3,000

  1,000

  1,420

  2,200

  7,620

  Ealing

  2,661

  1,000

  350

  1,710

  5,721

  Enfield

  2,000

  400

  700

  800

  3,900

  Greenwich

  —

  500

  460

  1,240

  2,200

  Hackney

  1,000

  840

  689

  2,250

  4,779

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  860

  300

  450

  1,750

  3,360

  Haringey

  1,870

  725

  820

  2,430

  5,845

  Harrow

  1,288

  500

  450

  1,000

  3,238

  Havering

  267

  100

  100

  300

  767

  Hillingdon

  2,006

  1,700

  810

  1,000

  5,516

  Hounslow

  1,570

  500

  380

  1,000

  3,450

  Islington

  2,750

  2,300

  610

  2,385

  8,045

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,673

  750

  180

  400

  3,003

  539

  £ 000s

  London Borough

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Total

  Kingston upon Thames

  700

  300

  400

  300

  1,700

  Lambeth

  1,140

  1,000

  540

  565

  3,245

  Lewisham

  540

  450

  180

  565

  1,735

  Merton

  684

  500

  270

  445

  1,899

  Newham

  —

  500

  630

  800

  1,930

  Redbridge

  433

  150

  450

  350

  1,383

  Richmond upon Thames

  884

  1,000

  500

  1,000

  3,384

  Southwark

  825

  250

  149

  2,385

  3,609

  Sutton

  1,164

  720

  297

  770

  2,951

  Tower Hamlets

  580

  500

  310

  700

  2,090

  Waltham Forest

  1,000

  100

  810

  1,000

  2,910

  Wandsworth

  2,565

  500

  750

  1,000

  4,815

  Westminster

  2,250

  700

  840

  1,735

  5,525

  Total

  38,109

  20,995

  16,285

  34,720

  110,109

  National Park Authorities
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses he has had in relation to his consultation on a proposed amendment to the membership of national park authorities as currently proposed in the Environment Bill[Lords]; if he will list those organisations that responded; and if he will list those who supported the proposed amendment and those who did not.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responses received by my Department up to 23 June 1995 have been deposited in the Library of the House, except for those where respondents indicated that they should not be made publicly available.

  United Nations Environment Programme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr Booth),Official Report, 15 June, columns 612–13, if he will place in the Library a copy of the United Nations Environment Programme's refocused work priorities; and if he will arrange for copies of other countries' submissions to the Commission on Sustainable Development to be placed in the Library. [31060]

  Mr. Atkins
  I have arranged for copies of the United Nations Environment Programme's refocused programme of work to be placed in the Library.

  The Department does not as a matter of course receive copies of other countries' reports to the Commission on Sustainable Development. However, I have arranged for copies of a matrix summary produced by CSD to be placed in the Library. The summary covers the reports of 44 countries, which were received in time to be included, on the thematic issues being reviewed at this year's CSD session

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish an analysis showing the cash sum received by a local authority and the effects on its(a) capital receipts and (b) total borrowing if a local
  540
  authority were to repurchase a local authority leasehold property valued at (i) £30,000 in 1986 or (ii) £20,000 in 1982 and sold at full discount, and it is repurchased for (1) the original sale price or (2) the original sale price uprated in line with inflation. [30790]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  There will be no implications for capital receipts whether the flat is repurchased at the original sale price or the original sale price uprated in line with inflation.

  The expenditure on repurchasing property will be capital expenditure for the purposes of part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Capital expenditure may be financed out of credit approvals, usable capital receipts or revenue.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement listing the construction types of local authority leasehold properties which are not normally mortgageable under current market conditions; and if he will estimate the total number of such properties which have been sold under right-to-buy legislation and voluntary sales by local authorities. [30792]

  Mr. Jones
  Decisions on mortgage lending are for the commercial judgment of, and vary between, individual lenders.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of all the responses received to the consultation on the leasehold exchange scheme and the extension of mortgage indemnified by local authorities. [30794]

  Mr. Jones
  I will place a list of respondents in the House Library. Copies of individual responses can be obtained from the Department of the Environment central library.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the number of council leaseholders who will be eligible for assistance under(a) the leasehold exchange scheme and (b) the extended powers of local authorities to issue mortgage indemnities. [30791]

  Mr. Jones
  (a) Research carried out for my Department in 1994 showed that, of 168,000 leaseholders who had bought council flats, under 2 per cent. had difficulty in reselling. The number eligible for the exchange sale scheme will depend on how many people meet the criteria set out in the regulations which were laid before Parliament on 19 June.

  (b) Mortgage indemnities are designed to facilitate lending in areas where lenders are otherwise reluctant to operate. It is for each authority to decide in the light of the individual circumstances of each case whether a mortgage indemnity would be appropriate.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the average mortgage which will be required by a council leaseholder seeking to take advantage of the leasehold exchange scheme. [30793]

  Mr. Jones
  None. This would depend on a wide range of factors including individual leaseholders circumstances and the arrangement made between them and their local authorities.
  541
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations exist limiting total value of loans which can be identified by a local authority; what estimate he has made of the total value of loans indemnified by local authorities; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which local authorities' ability to extend mortgage indemnities will be restricted by the level of their existing indemnities on loans for those and other purposes. [30795]

  Mr. Jones
  There are no regulations limiting the total value of loans which can be indemnified by a local authority under section 442 of the Housing Act 1985. Estimates based on local authorities' returns to my Department indicate that in the period 1 April 1986 to 31 December 1994, local authorities entered into indemnity agreements with a total value of £48 million in respect of over 2,600 properties, and that in the same period some 90 agreements with a total value of just under £1 million were invoked. There is no obvious reason why local authorities' ability to enter into further indemnity agreements should be restricted by the level of existing agreements.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the latest meeting of the United Kingdom round table on sustainable development.

  Mr. Gummer
  The third meeting of the UK round table was held on 15 June under the co-chairmanship of myself and Professor Sir Richard Southwood. The round table focused on transport, energy and mechanisms to secure environmental improvements. It concentrated on obstacles to sustainability and how these could be removed.

  The round table decided to launch five projects:

  i. defining a sustainable transport sector. Charles Secrett of Friends of the Earth will take the lead in preparing a definition, taking account of environmental, economic and social factors;

  ii. a freight study. Roderick Paul, Chairman of the CBI's Environment Committee, will chair a working party looking at minimising freight journeys and where goods are transported, how to limit the environmental impact;

  iii. a city-region project. A city or large town will be chosen as a demonstration project. The round table will work with local interests to devise and implement proposals to reduce traffic. Work will be steered by a group chaired by Professor Sir Richard Southwood, co-chairman of the round table;

  iv. competition in energy supply. A round table subgroup, chaired by Barbara Young, chief executive of RSPB, will examine how the competitive market for the supply of gas and electricity can deliver objectives of sustainable development;

  v. environmental auditing. A group chaired by the hon. Sara Morrison, a director of GEC, will carry out a study to identify, and assess the extent of best practice.

  Proposed Environment Agency
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made on the boundaries to be adopted by the proposed environment agency. [31199]

  Mr. Atkins
  The Environment Agency Advisory Committee has now submitted recommendations to 542
  Ministers on the boundaries of the agency. Copies of the recommendations have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I will announce shortly the Government's decision on EAAC's recommendations.

  Brent Spar
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for the period January 1991 to June 1995, all meetings held and all correspondence or other documentation received or sent between Ministers or officials in his Department with any of the Royal Dutch/Shell group of companies or any of its subsidiaries, including the Shell Petroleum Co. Ltd. UK, in which options for the future of the Brent Spar installation were mentioned, giving for each separate meeting or documentation(a) the date on which the meeting was held, the correspondence or documentation received or correspondence or documentation sent, (b) a full list of attendees at each meeting or authors and recipients of the correspondence or documentation, and (c) the topics discussed at the meeting or title and nature of the correspondence or documentation; and if he will place copies of each piece of correspondence or documentation in the Library. [31002]

  Mr. Gummer
  Since the statutory responsibilities for the Government decisions on the disposal of the Brent Spar lie elsewhere, my Department was not involved directly in exchanges with Royal Dutch Shell or its subsidiaries. However, a representative of Shell UK saw the head of the UK delegation to the preparatory meetings for the North sea conference on 2 June, immediately before that conference, to explain Shell's views and gave him copies of some papers which Shell had made public.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at what time and date and by what method Ministers or officials in his Department were first made aware of the decision by Shell UK to abandon plans to dispose of the Brent Spar installation by deepwater disposal. [31005]

  Mr. Gummer
  My office first learned of the decision of Shell UK from a telephone call followed by a facsimile from the company of their press release in the afternoon of Tuesday 20 June. My office immediately informed me.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for the period January 1991 to June 1995, all meetings held and all correspondence or other documentation received or sent between Ministers or officials in his Department and Ministers or other representatives of other foreign Governments in which options for the future of the Brent Spar installation were mentioned, giving for each separate meeting or documentation(a) the date on which the meeting was held, the correspondence or documentation received or correspondence or documentation sent, (b) a full list of attendees at each meeting or authors and recipients of the correspondence or documentation, and (c) the topics discussed at the meeting or title and nature of the correspondence or documentation; and if he will place copies of each piece of correspondence or documentation in the Library. [31003]

  Mr. Gummer
  Communications between Governments are conventionally sent and received in confidence.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that with the approval of Her Majesty The Queen I am to visit Strasbourg between the dates of Wednesday 28th and Friday 30th June 1995. Here I will be representing the Foreign Secretary at the opening ceremony of the new Human Rights Building. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence on Thursday 29th June 1995.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link
2.35 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have rejected the findings of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration that the Department of Transport was guilty of maladministration concerning a number of claims for compensation for blight caused by the Channel Tunnel rail link, and whether they will review this decision.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government's position is set out in detail in the letter written by the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Transport which responded to the commissioner's draft report and was published with it. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Permanent Secretary have both given evidence to the PCA Select Committee. We are now awaiting the outcome of the committee's deliberations.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, may I ask the Minister how, against the finding of unquestionable maladministration—because that was the finding of the Parliamentary Commissioner—he would feel if he were one of those householders whose homes have been blighted for a period between 1990 and 1994, when the Government resist the conclusions that are independently reached, and in an almost unprecedented way? How would he feel if he were in the position of such a householder denied any remedy?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the fact is that we do not accept the findings of the Parliamentary Commissioner in regard to maladministration. We gave evidence fully to the Select Committee. The Select Committee has been through the report and has taken evidence on it. I certainly would not want to pre-empt the response of the Select Committee or the Government's response to that committee.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, if Ministers are going to deny redress recommended by the Parliamentary Commissioner simply on the ground that they would have found differently about their own administration, what is the point of having a Parliamentary Commissioner?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there is a clear point of having a Parliamentary Commissioner and that is to investigate these matters fully. Nonetheless, it remains the case that we maintain our line. We reject the finding of maladministration for the clear reasons laid out in our response to the commissioner's report, which are too long for me to rehearse in full detail at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. Nonetheless, they are clearly laid out in terms of our response to the accusation of maladministration in the areas concerning, for example, generalised blight. The Select Committee has taken evidence from the Government and we await its report.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord in his first reply to the Question referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner's draft report. Is that the precise status of the document? Is it Her Majesty's Government's practice to refer to a report by an ombudsman which they do not like as a draft report?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, at that stage it was a draft report. I believe that with the inclusion of the Permanent Secretary's letter it became a final report.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister realise that he has not really answered my question, which was to put himself into the position of one of these householders? Does he accept that there must he a considerable measure of resentment, not only on their part but on the part of their Members of Parliament, who have expressed decided views about the matter? Does he accept that there must be that resentment?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I could not possibly follow the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, down that line and put myself in that position. This was a report by the Parliamentary Commissioner, which we take extremely seriously. We have been through it in the greatest possible detail. The charges relate to maladministration concerning generalised blight and the redress for that. We have given our full response, and that response has been examined by the Select Committee. When the Select Committee comes forward with its response, we shall consider that carefully.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what happens if the Select Committee disagrees with the Government's excuses?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we shall have to read carefully what the Select Committee says.

Parking: Local Authority Enforcement
2.41 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support those local authorities which are trying to prevent the parking of cars on pavements in streets where this is unnecessary or inappropriate.
Viscount Goschen: Yes, my Lords. The introduction of decriminalised parking enforcement in London has greatly assisted the London authorities in their efforts in this respect, and the publication last month of the guidance enabling authorities elsewhere to apply for similar powers has opened the way for them to tackle this problem effectively.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I applaud action to reduce parking in unsuitable places. Can he confirm that private persons have not committed an offence when they have bounced cars off the pavement causing no damage and apparently they have done so with the subsequent approval of a transport Minister?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, this is a complex area of the law and I am sure that the courts would want to take a full view if such a case ever came before them. The important thing is that parking on the pavement is dangerous. We think that the decriminalisation of the parking regime has provided local authorities with a better framework for enforcing solutions to the problems faced by pedestrians. As regards my noble friend's remarks about what was said by my honourable friend, I believe that my honourable friend was reinforcing the message that the dangers to pedestrians of illegally parked cars are severe.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Viscount consider and help to resolve a serious situation in Greenford in Ealing, where motor cars not only park on the pavement but drive on the pavement? Drivers seem to be tempted to drive on the pavement to avoid stopping on the yellow line. That has confused Ealing Council, which has brought in a private firm to deal with the issue. The council has told the police that it does not want the police to interfere. The result is that the traffic situation in that part of Greenford in Ealing is dangerous and lawless. Can the noble Viscount have the situation examined and some common sense brought to the problem, and a solution implemented? We should not have to wait until some woman with a child in a pram is killed, as nearly happened last week, or something similar happens before either the council or the Government act.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, if people are driving on the pavement that is very dangerous and very serious. There is a specific offence that covers driving on the pavement. It is up to the police to enforce the law. I am sure that the police will take careful note of the points raised by the noble Lord.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the police often say that they will not bother with prosecutions because this matter is not considered a priority? Is he also aware that on occasions they produce the excuse that parking on the pavement allows the emergency services to get through? Is that not entirely unacceptable?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is why we introduced measures to decriminalise parking in order to allow local authorities to enforce this measure. It was clear that the police were having great difficulties in enforcing the pavement parking rules. It is equally clear
524
that under the new regime local authorities are in a much better position to enforce the regulations regarding illegal parking on pavements.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, what about cyclists who ride down the pavements? Is that illegal?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is indeed illegal. It is a specific offence under Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, as amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the Government's experience of giving assistance in these matters at the highest possible level, and in the light of their national experience, will they advise local authorities to use stalking horses to help them in this matter?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord gets the prize for the question furthest away from that on the Order Paper. I have made it clear that we take this problem very seriously, and I feel that the noble Lord should too. It is a question of physical danger to pedestrians, and we have taken firm action to stop it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my noble friend Lord Bruce was very much on the ball? The problem to which he alludes of erratic driving in Whitehall is very prevalent at the present time, and in particular in the area of the occupancy of No. 10.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, wins the second prize for the silliest question so far today.

Mortgage Arrears and Repossessions
2.46 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What help they propose to give to owner occupiers of homes who cannot meet mortgage obligations and are threatened with repossession.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, our proposals for changes to the rules on income support help with mortgage interest payments will encourage the development of comprehensive, quality insurance. That will provide all home owners with the opportunity to protect themselves against the threat of repossession, and not only the 30 per cent. who may be eligible for income support.
Lord Jay: My Lords, since many thousands of families who had absolute security as council tenants were induced by government propaganda to buy their homes and now find themselves unable to meet their mortgage dues, partly due to the Government's high interest rate policy, and are threatened with repossession, is there not a strong moral case, with repossessions still running at about 1,000 a week, for the Government to give some effective relief to those in that situation, particularly the unemployed?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I explained in my original Answer to the noble Lord, the steps that the Government propose to take will. we believe, provide the opportunity for everyone to be

525
covered, not only those persons who become redundant and are eligible for income support. Something like 70 per cent. of the people whose homes have been repossessed do not receive income support. Therefore, if the noble Lord is looking for help he is looking in the wrong place. The real place to look for help is insurance, and the lower interest rates brought about over the past four or five years by the sensible, stable policies of this Government.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in his reply to my noble friend, the Minister made much of mortgage protection policies and said that everyone would be covered. Will he confirm that the Department of the Environment's latest research on mortgage arrears and repossessions shows that half of those on income support currently having mortgage payments made for them could not have obtained mortgage protection policies? They would have been without cover. Will he also confirm that, as the research shows, of those who had mortgage protection policies two-thirds of the claims were unsuccessful? Does that not suggest that far from mortgage protection policies covering everyone, as the Minister said, they will do little or nothing to prevent repossessions? They are merely a paper policy.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, which I do not suppose will surprise her. The Government, lenders and insurers are currently working together to ensure that the policies which are coming on stream—and a great many are coming on stream via the building societies themselves as well as the insurance companies—will do the job of giving people cover. Two-thirds of all home owners do not qualify for income support if they become unemployed. Therefore, our proposals will help to bring cover to that two-thirds as well as to the other one-third.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister understand that the devastating crisis in which the Conservative Party finds itself at present is largely due to its policy on housing and indeed its policy of undermining the family? That has been achieved in three ways: by the reduction of mortgage income tax relief from 25 per cent. to 15 per cent.; with the same consideration as regards the married man's allowance; and the 8 per cent. increase on domestic fuel. In the circumstances in which the Conservative Party now finds itself, will the Government re-examine their policy to deal with those issues?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall not take lessons from Members of the party opposite about encouraging home ownership. After all, from 1979 on, the party opposite consistently opposed the selling of council houses, although, like its recent U-turn on education policy, I believe that it has now decided that we were right all along. With regard to mortgages and what we are doing, even at the reduced rate now in place the MIRAS help for an average mortgage payer comes to about £360 a year and costs the Treasury £3 billion a year. My understanding is that at least some people in the party opposite want to abandon that relief altogether. New housing is very affordable. Indeed last year about ½ million new first-time buyers entered the market. That is a sign that people still believe that buying a house is a good bargain.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as recently as last month it was estimated that insurance will cost some £22 a month, plus insurance premium tax? How can people already in great difficulties over their mortgage afford that sum?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government's major proposal affects only new borrowers and only for the first nine months. But—and this is a point that the Opposition manage to ignore on all occasions that the matter is discussed—after nine months state help will trigger in again. We are talking about the first nine months.
Building societies up and down the country—even those most vociferous in their opposition—are now beginning to offer policies. The policies vary from the free redundancy protection cover offered by the Skipton Building Society, through the Halifax Building Society which offers £6.90 per £100, and higher. Looking slightly wider, General Accident offers to average borrowers costs as low as £4 per £100.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister think again about his reference to the buying and selling of council houses? Most of the opposition was centred around the fact that it should be left to local authorities, bearing in mind the number of houses that would be taken out of local authorities' control and out of rented control? Have the concerns of the local authorities not been borne out? The lack of affordable rented houses is the biggest problem in the housing market today. It has been caused by reducing the stock base by the sale of so many ordinary rented houses.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it appears that I was wrong in thinking that the Labour Party had reversed its policy. I am afraid to tell the noble Lord that I remember the opposition to the policy when I was a Member of another place, as he was at the time. That opposition did not seem to have any qualification. The Labour Party was simply opposed to the sale of council houses. But selling a council house does not remove it from the housing market. The people remain in the house; they buy the house. If they sell it on, someone else buys it. The house remains inhabited by some family or another.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, why have the Government not allowed local authorities to recycle the proceeds of the sales to ensure additional housing to meet the needs of those who can afford only to rent?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have gone a little wide of the Question to matters pertaining more to the Treasury. However, I am happy to answer, as I have done before. The issue relates to the amount of capital money that local authorities can spend in order to keep the economic position under control—to keep public spending under control—so that we have the kind of economic results that we have watched over the past four to five years.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord accused me of being against owner occupiers. Is he aware that when I was the leader of the Reading County Borough Council and chairman of its housing committee, not only did I arrange that people should have houses to rent. we

527
also built houses for sale. We sold council houses and had a first-class mortgage scheme to help those who wished to buy their houses. The scheme was second to none in the country. In the light of my personal record, will the noble Lord please withdraw his accusation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was talking about the policy of selling council houses. That policy was greatly opposed in the 1979 Parliament. But I am happy to accept that the noble Lord subscribes to some of the principles of the Conservative Party. I wonder how long it will take him to make the second move-he has made his first move towards the Liberal Benches—to come and join us.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Government stated that home owners who are unemployed and therefore cannot meet their mortgage obligations will receive government support after nine months. The Jobseekers Bill provides unemployment benefit for six months only. Thereafter those people who remain unemployed will have to obtain income support. If a householder does not wish to trust the insurance company and decides to save money against the possibility of unemployment, what will his situation be if his savings effectively take him above income support rules? Under the Government's new proposals in the Jobseekers Bill, he will not receive income support for those three months between the end of unemployment benefit and the receipt of income support after nine months.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, under the Government's proposals we would expect new borrowers to cover themselves for the first nine months. In the case illustrated by the noble Lord, there would be unemployment benefit for the first six months and then three months of the equivalent of income support, although the terms have changed. Thereafter the income support mortgage interest will trigger in if necessary. However, the noble Lord makes a valid point. People may not be eligible for income support because they have savings, their partner works, their spouse works or something else like that. That is why I said that two-thirds of people who own their own homes are not eligible for income support if they become unemployed; hence the need to encourage insurance cover.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he deserves the warm congratulations of the whole House on having located the interrogative in the last supplementary?

Granny Flats/Annexes: Council Tax
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the recent court decision to assess "granny flats" separately for rating and council tax purposes, they will issue clear guidance to councils and valuation officers as to what constitutes a self-contained "granny flat".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, comprehensive, clear and consistent national guidance was issued in early 1992 (when the banding task began) and 2,000 cases of "granny flats" or "granny annexes" have been settled in accordance with this guidance since council tax came into effect in April 1993.
The Government will consider the transcript of the judgment carefully once it is available. However, on present information there seems no need to amend the guidance.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, it seems to conflict with the reports in the papers which state that self-contained accommodation need not contain a toilet or a bathroom. Will he confirm that that is the position?
Is the Minister aware that for carers who have an elderly relative living in such accommodation that may cause great hardship? Under the council tax measures, could some rebate be offered to such people? Those carers save community services and therefore council costs.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that some of the reports were somewhat alarmist in terms of the impression they gave. Whether the granny flat or annexe is a separate property would be a question of fact. It would depend on whether all the necessary facilities—living space, washing and cooking facilities, WC and so on—are separate. As I said in my original Answer, that is why we issued guidance in 1990. Since then we have had of the order of 2,000 appeals, most of which have been settled; only about 150 have been the subject of valuation tribunal decisions and only 14 of those have had to be taken to the courts to be resolved. I believe, therefore, that it would be unnecessary to issue further guidance.
As regards the second part of my noble friend's question, if an individual granny—he or she granny—is living in a separate flat and has a low income, there would be an entitlement to council tax benefit which would help with the separate tax that that annexe or flat commanded.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does not the decision of the court cast a doubt on the situation? If elderly relatives are accommodated by a householder, may that not expose the householder to a double dose of the council tax? Given that it is a court decision, is it not also a fact that clear guidance by the Government may not suffice to remove the problem?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, we wish to see a transcript of the decision before we make any further comments. However, we believe that the reports were somewhat alarmist. Perhaps I may correct one further point which my noble friend made. Obviously the flat would not attract a double whammy of council tax to the home owner. In the case of the second property, if it were deemed to be a second property, it would he the occupant of the second property—the granny—who would be liable for benefit. As I made clear, if he or she were on a low income, there would he the possibility of council tax benefit up to 100 per cent.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what is the relationship between the statement which he made just now that there is no need to amend the guidance and the statement made by Mr. David Curry on 19th June that he was demanding an urgent report into the High Court ruling? Does the proposition which the Minister has just put forward derive from the report which Mr. Curry demanded? Alternatively, are we still awaiting that report? Furthermore, is not the difficulty which is being created even greater than that noticed by the noble Baroness? If a granny flat is deemed a separate property, would it now attract capital gains tax when the property is sold since it would no longer be an integral part of the principal private residence of the householder?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as regards the first point, my honourable friend was quite rightly reacting to the press reports and he wished to know what was going on. As I made quite clear, we wish to see the transcript of the case before we make any further judgment. So there is no validity in the point which the noble Lord was attempting to make.
As regards his second point about capital gains tax, the matter would be treated separately as to whether, in relation to rating law or, in this case, council tax law, the two properties were separate.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, as a male grandparent of some standing, I wish to ask my noble friend whether the expression "he granny" is official.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not know whether it is official, perhaps it will make it into the Oxford Dictionary as a result of my use of it at the Dispatch Box. I was trying to make clear to my noble friend and the House that the expression "granny flat" or "granny annex" would cover such accommodation as my noble friend might move to.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister did not make himself clear or perhaps I did not understand his answer. Did Mr. Curry ask for a report? Was a report made? Can that report be made available to the House so that it can be considered as an urgent and important matter affecting the care of many elderly persons?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my honourable friend saw the reports of the case in the press. He quite rightly expressed a degree of concern—as anyone would—as a result of the alarmist reports. He therefore asked his officials in the department to report to him on those matters. As I made clear, we shall look at the transcript of the case when it is available and, if necessary, then react.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister think that the decision might be a great disincentive to people who would have considered providing a place for elderly relatives in their home? Does my noble friend believe that it is important that the Government should review the situation to ascertain what action is required?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that my noble friend might think that on some occasions it could act as a disincentive. I do not believe that that is the case. To start with, there is the possibility that the creation of the annexe as a separate unit will reduce the banding on the main unit and therefore reduce the bill on it. As I made clear earlier, liability for the bill on the annexe falls to the person living in it and there might be 100 per cent. relief on it. Further, the individual would have paid full council tax on a possibly larger property before moving into the annexe. I do not believe that there is the disincentive that my noble friend suggested. However, if the decision created a disincentive, it would be quite right that we should look at it again and possibly make appropriate amendments.

Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Commonwealth Development Corporation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Criminal Appeal Bill
3.6 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Appeal against sentencing recommendation of trial judge in murder cases
. An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) against a recommendation by the trial judge to the Secretary of State under section 1(2) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 as to the minimum period which should elapse before the release on licence of a person convicted of murder.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, some 52 years ago in a case in your Lordships' House called the General Medical Council v. Spackman, Lord Atkin, one of my most distinguished predecessors, made the following observation:
"Convenience and justice are seldom on speaking terms".
The validity of that proposition will be amply borne out by the debate on my amendment. It will be my submission that the requirements of justice are the foundation of the amendment, whereas the demands of convenience dictate the Government's opposition.
I wish to make good my observation. As your Lordships know, there are two types of life sentence. There is the mandatory life sentence which applies automatically to all cases of murder; there arc no longer categories of murder because that proved unworkable. Murder, therefore, applies to a whole range of killings from the mercy killing through to the excessive use of

531
self-defence, through an intent to do grievous bodily harm (the intent to kill is not necessary) up to the worst type of murder, terrorism.
The other type of life sentence is the discretionary life sentence, the sentence which a judge is entitled to impose if he thinks it appropriate, in a wide range of cases covering attempted murder, manslaughter, cases dealing with explosives and the like. Those cases can involve offenders who are a great deal more dangerous and more of a risk to the community than those convicted of murder. I believe that your Lordships had an example last week of a man who entered a school and sprayed bullets around, not killing but obviously attempting to murder. He had life sentences imposed upon him.
Since 1991, there has been a significant difference between the procedures relative to the two types of life sentence. It has come about as the result of decisions in the courts and in the European Court. Until those decisions, the alteration had been strongly resisted by the Government. I draw the attention of the House to the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and in particular to Section 34. It relates to discretionary life sentences. Under that section a judge may specify what is known as the relevant period; namely, the period to cover retribution (a rather pompous name for punishment) and deterrence. There remains, quite apart from the relevant period, the time that is necessary to expire before the offender is safe to be released. The judge specifies the relevant period, be it 10, 15 or 20 years.
In 1993, the Lord Chief Justice passed a practice direction stating that that section should be resorted to by judges except in very exceptional cases. The consequence of the section and the practice direction is quite simply that the judge in the discretionary life sentence hears submissions from counsel in open court. He then decides what is the relevant period for retribution and deterrence. There is then available an appeal. If and when the case goes to appeal, once again the Court of Appeal Criminal Division hears submissions and decides whether the trial judge was right or wrong and, if he was wrong, corrects the decision.
There has thus been produced not only a consistency in regard to how the discretionary life prisoner is treated, but there is also—this is very important, and it caused the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, to agree to support the amendment on the last occasion—the cessation, as the result of this procedure, of the behind-the-scenes correspondence—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Will the noble and learned Lord forgive me for intervening? I did not support the amendment. I supported the recommendation in open court and sought time to consider what was said. I thank the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Ackner: I am grateful to the noble Lord. My only reference is to column 1480 of Hansard. Following a number of questions directed by the noble Lord to the Lord Chief Justice, the noble Lord made this intervention:
"I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord [the noble Lord, Lord Taylor]. The views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice as to the type of practice directions that will be given
532
will be recorded in Hansard. It is on that basis of implementation that this amendment is supported".—[Official Report, 8/6/95; col. 1480.]
That sounds pretty clear to me.
As I was saying before the intervention, one of the consequences is that there is no behind-the-scenes correspondence, as exists at the moment in the mandatory life sentence, with the trial judge indicating by confidential letter what he believes should be the appropriate period for retribution and deterrence, and a similar letter by the Lord Chief Justice, who, having considered the trial judge's recommendation—with nothing else to go on; he has heard no mitigation—gives his view. In other words, it was the transparency that now exists which so moved the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and others to see the wisdom of openness in this situation.
In discretionary life sentence cases, after the prisoner has served what is referred to (as I have already indicated) as the period for punishment and deterrence, the Parole Board considers whether or not he is safe to be released. If it concludes that he is, that is the end of the matter, and there is no discretion in the Home Secretary to prolong his incarceration. The Government, through the Home Secretary, currently have the discretion to decide how long a murderer should spend in prison. I wish to emphasise that this amendment in no way prejudices or detracts from that discretion.
I now turn to the mandatory life sentence. Under Section 1(2) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 it is provided that,
"On sentencing any person convicted of murder to imprisonment for life the Court may at the same lime declare the period which it recommends to the Secretary of State as the minimum period which in its view should elapse before the Secretary of State orders the release of that person on licence under",
the appropriate section.
Last April there occurred the case of R. v. Leaney. Leaney had been convicted of murder. He, a young man, stabbed and killed another young man. The trial judge concluded that there was an element of racialism about the events. He also concluded that Leaney was a danger generally to the public. Exercising the power to which I just referred, he made a recommendation for 20 years. With the leave of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, Leaney appealed. The court, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice, was not satisfied that there was an element of racialism or that Leaney was a danger. It concluded that the 20-year minimum recommendation was excessive. But it also concluded, with marked reluctance, that it had no power to interfere with the recommendation because it was not part of the sentence: the appeal jurisdiction relates only to a sentence or an order of the court, and this was neither. There were three previous decisions of the Court of Appeal saying exactly the same. Therefore the appeal was dismissed. But the Lord Chief Justice commented that this threw up nowadays, as a result of the 1991 Act, a series of anomalies in the procedure dealing with life sentences which Parliament might wish to take an early step to put right. Leave to appeal was refused.
An hour or two before I rose to move this amendment in Committee, I learnt that Mr. Leaney had applied to this House for leave to appeal. That meant that none of

533
the sitting Law Lords could take part in the debate, as one or more of them might be involved in hearing the application for leave and, if leave was granted, hearing the substantive appeal. Accordingly, I said in terms that I would not divide the Committee, since, by the time the matter came up on Report, one might know with greater certainty what was the situation of the appeal. I am happy to tell the House that there is certainty: the application for leave was rejected. That is therefore the end of that case, in the sense that the decision in the Court of Appeal remains as it is. I am told that there was no question of those who heard the application being other than entirely of the view of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, both in relation to the recommendation being excessive and to there obviously being a need for an appeal; also, in the final conclusion, that there was no provision for appeal. If the debate continues for long enough I shall hope for the arrival of one or more sitting members of the Lords of Appeal—because my brothers sit until at least 4 o'clock—rather than have your Lordships rely upon the retired Law Lords. But this is not a filibuster speech.
My amendment seeks to provide the same four quite essential requirements of justice which apply to the discretionary life sentences. First, it would enable the judge to hear submissions before he decided upon his recommendation. Secondly, the judge would make his recommendation in open court. Thirdly, there would a right to appeal. Fourthly, as I indicated to your Lordships on the last occasion and as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice confirmed, there would be an analogous practice direction to that given in relation to discretionary life sentences, with the resulting cessation of behind the scenes correspondence going up to the Home Secretary.
I should say that, as a result of a decision in your Lordships' House, the gist but not the reasons for the recommendation by the trial judge, the Lord Chief Justice and the Home Secretary, if he disagrees with them, has to be the subject matter of information to the prisoner. However, the letters are confidential and not open to the public. So those four requirements would apply.
What is the basis of the Government's resistance? It is pure convenience—perhaps I ought rather to say undiluted convenience. It arises in the following way. During the debate in Committee, the noble Baroness the Minister agreed that the views of the Lord Chief Justice cm what is the tariff, the deterrent and the retribution aspect of the sentence are taken very seriously by the Home Secretary. She also accepted that the Home Secretary places considerable value on the views of the judiciary.
In those circumstances, I cannot understand why the Government should not be delighted with this amendment. It will ensure that the views that the Home Secretary receives are better informed. The trial judge will have heard submissions and made his decision. If it is not appealed, the inference will be that it was a sensible decision. If it is appealed, the Lord Chief Justice, as he indicated on the last occasion, will preside over the appeal. The Home Secretary will have the benefit not merely of the Lord Chief Justice's decision
534
as at the moment, but a decision, after having heard the basis of the trial judge's decision, having listened to submissions and with the advantage of having had two brother judges to consult before he gave his view. As the Home Secretary, treats the information with such seriousness, one would have thought that he would be delighted with that better information.
The Minister also conceded that there was a case for wider or broader transparency. That is exactly what the amendment provides. Once again, one might have expected a pat on the back for tabling the amendment.
So what exactly is the reason for the resistance? I indicated that it was convenience. It is convenient because the present situation gives no publicity to the judicial decision as to the correct punishment for the particular case. Where the Home Secretary disagrees, as he frequently does, and departs from the judicial decision, that is not publicised. If a transparent situation—an open situation—which one would have thought reflects very much the philosophy of today—were to prevail, it would mean that the public would be able to see the contrast between the judicial approach to sentencing and the Home Secretary's approach, with the inevitable political input that must occur from time to time. That could be inconvenient.
Therefore, I invite your Lordships to accept the amendment. It was described by Justice in its briefing material as:
"a modest but useful step towards justice."
I emphasise that it does not affect the Home Secretary's power, which he is anxious to safeguard, to be the final decider of how long a murderer should remain in prison. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I sought to make two matters plain at Committee stage (Hansard, cols. 1475–76). First, I supported the recommendation being made in open court. But that can be done with a practice direction, without any need for legislation. I also sought time to consider the proposed appellate structure to which the noble and learned Lord referred today.
I tried to find out (col. 1480) —I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, for giving it to me—the information on which he supported the amendment. If I allowed the Chamber to believe that I supported it, such was not my intention. I have indeed considered the matter in the light of what was said at Committee stage and have come to the conclusion that this amendment, which was ha led as a modest step in the right direction, could well lead down a blind alley from which there is no logical escape.
Why is that? On the one hand, on the face of it, the amendment affirms the unique gravity of the offence of murder. That is the only foundation for the mandatory life sentence, with its own disparate sentencing regime. On the other hand, the amendment rejects such a regime designed to mark out such unique gravity from all other offences. It does so by assimilating, as the noble and learned Lord explained, the procedure applicable to the discretionary life sentences, save only as regards the Home Secretary exercising a discretion as to release.

535
Having had the privilege of serving on your Lordships' Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment, I totally reject the concept of unique gravity. Personally, I would abolish the mandatory life sentence. But that is not to the point. What is to the point is that the amendment is flawed by an intrinsic, logical inconsistency which could render it unacceptable, irrespective of whether one wishes to retain or abolish the mandatory life sentence. It is claimed that that disparity between the respective sentencing regimes—the mandatory and discretionary life sentences—is unjustifiable, illogical and anomalous. Such is not the case. Such disparity was part and parcel of a deal reflected in Section 1(2) of the 1965 Act and but for which this Bill would not have passed this House. Such disparity was in continuance of the concept that the unique gravity of murder demanded a sentence disparate from other offences to mark the gravity of the offence.
It is that question of unique gravity—it is essentially a lay question—around which the debate on Amendment No. 1, at root, inevitably depends; the concept upon which the mandatory life sentence was introduced and founded, with its own disparate sentencing regime. This is a question which lies with lay people and does not lie within the exclusive province of any lawyer, however eminent he may be.
The cleavage of opinion on whether or not murder is a crime of unique gravity bedevils this debate. On that point, the majority of your Lordships and the Select Committee of your Lordships' House have already said that it is not a unique crime of that order. The minority of your Lordships' House, the Government and another place, said that it is. That was the assumption made in 1965 when the mandatory death sentence was abolished by the same statute which introduced the mandatory life sentence. So it is and has remained to this day. With regard to the suggested anomaly between the sentencing regimes, at Committee stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, said,
"I recognise the logical reference to the existence of anomalies but perhaps I could remind the Committee that the real anomaly lies in a mandatory life sentence".— [Official Report, 8/6/95; col. 1481.]
As to the compromise which enabled the Bill to pass, to which I referred at Committee stage, my understanding is based on the information given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—who I am relieved to see in his place—who, as Government Chief Whip, was present when that deal was made. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that it was founded upon the concept of unique gravity which demanded a disparate sentencing regime to mark the gravity of the offence, and that recommendations from the judiciary could be made as to the minimum term to be served before release for the consideration of the Home Secretary in the exercise of his unfettered discretion as to the date of release. I hope I have that right.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in one respect. However, I do not believe, when the deal
536
was done as he said, that any of those other matters applied in any of the minds of those involved in the discussions.
As it has been raised, the House may think it helpful for me to explain. As your Lordships know, it was a Private Member's Bill and the Government of the day has no role in the way in which Private Members' Bills are taken through this House. There were splits in all the parties. There was a vote in the House of Commons with Conservatives, Labour Members and Liberals voting together both in support and against the Bill. The situation was similar in this Chamber.
It was at the end when there was a real risk that the Bill could be lost—it related to the anxiety that a life sentence was not severe enough; that it would not be long enough in terms of a prisoner who had committed a specifically vile sort of crime—that a deal was reached between the opponents and proposers of the Bill. The only part that the Government played in that matter was to provide the amendment to meet the wishes of both parties. Therefore, it was not a political deal. We provided services only and never considered the ramifications of what was being proposed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. As regards the recommendations, I have dealt with the first one and accept it. It was also confirmed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice that the effect of the amendment would be that the Home Secretary would not continue, in accordance with common practice, to obtain a letter from the Lord Chief Justice, but that practice directions along those lines would be issued.
It was claimedb—not by the Lord Chief Justice—that this amendment would enable the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to give better advice to the Home Secretary. But it is plain beyond peradventure that the Home Secretary rejects that and would wish the current practice to continue. The Home Secretary would want at least two judicial views in every case as only one part of the tariff-setting process which goes far wider than the normal sentencing functions and takes into account broad considerations of a public character.
The letter from the Lord Chief Justice is confidential. Only the gist of it is disclosed to the prisoner and it is clearly undesirable that the letter should be in the public domain. That would inhibit the quality and value of the advice tendered. It may well affect the prisoner and his family to their detriment. It would be inconsistent with the due exercise of an unfettered discretion as to release on the part of the Home Secretary, who is entitled to seek such advice in such manner as he pleases.
As regards the exercise of discretion, it is claimed (at col. 1487 of Hansard) by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that the authority of the Court of Appeal, (Criminal Division), would induce the Home Secretary to accept the recommendations of the court as to release, otherwise he would be exposing himself to public criticism. Although it is to be doubted whether any Home Secretary would be so influenced, the fact that he could be is another reason for rejecting the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: My Lords, the rationale behind the amendment has already been explained, with his customary lucidity, by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. It was thoroughly debated at Committee stage. I hope today that we may have the benefit of the views (and the votes) of some of those who were excluded from taking part on a previous occasion—members of the judicial committee—because of the pending case to which reference has been made. I do not propose to repeat what I said on 8th June. I rise merely to make some simple points, not so much to explain what the amendment will do, as to clarify what it will not do, which seems to have been a matter of concern on the previous occasion. The debate on that occasion showed that there was some confusion on this score, not least, if I may say so with respect, on the Government Front Bench.
First, the amendment would not affect the imposition of a mandatory life sentence for murder. As we all know, that subject is an emotive one about which many have strong views, both in this House and in another place, where a Bill with Cross-Bench sponsorship was introduced only last week. It is also under consideration by a Select Committee and it is a subject which creates a great deal of interest and varying views countrywide. This has nothing to do with the subject which we are debating this afternoon and I entirely reject the suggestion made by the noble Baroness the Minister, when responding to the debate in Committee, that those noble Lords proposing this amendment were trying to use the debates on the Bill to open up such wider arguments. The amendment assumes that the mandatory life sentence for murder remains. Its aim is to administer the operation of that mandatory life sentence more fairly, more effectively and more openly.
Secondly, the amendment would not affect the powers or responsibilities of the Home Secretary ultimately to specify the length of the penal element of the sentence—that is to say, the length of time which the prisoner must serve for the purposes of retribution and deterrence. These would continue. And in exercising his powers the Home Secretary could still take such additional advice from his officials and from experts as he needed once the judicial process had run its course. He would also continue to be required to consider representations made by the prisoner himself.
Nor do I believe that the amendment involves a breach of what the noble Baroness described as "good legislative practice" by relying upon a practice direction to implement its desired effect. Much of our primary legislation depends upon subsequent administrative action or upon the making of subordinate legislation of one kind or another, and Ministers frequently give undertakings as to the way statutory powers will be exercised. Perhaps even more relevantly, one of the noble Baroness's former colleagues at the Home Office, Mrs. Angela Rumbold, had no hesitation, when moving what is now Section 34 of the 1991 Act in another place, in making undertakings about how that section would work in practice. Those undertakings could be fulfilled only by the Lord Chief Justice making a practice direction. which I did.
538
So what actually is the change? The change is that we would dispense with the confidential procedure whereby the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice fill in a form behind the scenes. It would be replaced with an open system in which the trial judge would give his or her advice in public under the overarching guidance and supervision of the Court of Appeal, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice. The noble Baroness the Minister was very kind to say to the Committee that the Home Secretary placed considerable value on the views of the Lord Chief Justice when making his decision on the tariff and would continue to seek the views of the holder of my office even if the amendment were made. I hesitate to say the number of occasions on which he departs from the advice. But however many that may be, he apparently finds it valuable. With respect, I have to say that it would be quite unnecessary for him to seek the views of the Lord Chief Justice. And may I make it clear that when I give my views under the present convention I have very little information. I have not been at the trial, I do not have the benefit of hearing representations and I have only a brief report from the trial judge.
Under the system envisaged by the amendment the Lord Chief Justice of the day would retain a central role in the system. He would preside over constitutions of the court when appeals were made against a judicial recommendation and so would he responsible, with the assistance of the two other judges sitting with him, for establishing clear and open criteria, according to which other trial judges would be able to tender their advice in the generality of cases after hearing representations from counsel for each side and in the full face of the public and the media. I would have expected an Administration who profess their support for open government to welcome such a move towards greater transparency. The amendment certainly has the support of every judge with whom I have discussed it.
I would like briefly to comment on the observations which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I frankly find difficulty in understanding his position. He states that he would personally be against retention of the mandatory life sentence and yet he says that, while it exists, there must be some distinction between the mandatory life sentence and the discretionary life sentence. What is that distinction? It is the miserable distinction that in the more important matter where murder has been committed what is decided is decided behind the scenes, whereas it has to be up front in relation to discretionary life sentences. I personally do not find that a distinction which can be described as anything other than dismal.
But, furthermore, he seeks to justify this stance by referring to what he called a deal that was made at the time when the death penalty was abolished. In so far as a deal was made—I am grateful for the remarks which have fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as to what happened at that time—it was that there would be a mandatory life sentence in place of the death penalty; not anything to do with the mechanics of how that sentence would he worked out or what advice would be

539
given, whether openly or behind the scenes. So there is nothing in this amendment which would fall foul of any deal that was done at that time.
Furthermore, a great deal of water has flowed under the bridge since the time when that change was made. Attitudes nowadays are vastly different. They are predominantly in favour of openness, whenever openness can be achieved. In my view, it can be achieved, and I would support the amendment which has been proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, if I may say so with respect, this debate may be improved a little if we have the voice of a layman. There is something to be said for murderers. We heard very little in the debate last time and we have heard very little in the debate today on the human side of the condition of those who receive a life sentence for their wicked act of murder. If public opinion is that a murderer should surrender his own life and that the death penalty should be imposed as a mandatory sentence of the court, that is one thing. You just kill him and there is no further argument. But the public were not entirely satisfied with the mandatory nature of the death sentence. So there was a fallback in favour of deserving cases, which was the prerogative of the Crown to reprieve a person convicted of murder and convert his sentence into one of life imprisonment.
What the public rarely considers in this matter is what life means in a long period of imprisonment. Is it life after death, or is it life before then, or is it not life at all? That is what the argument is about. I am against the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. It is cruel and inhumane and has no useful purpose whatever. In my view the argument would end to a large extent if this amendment were carried. As regards the mandatory life sentence, public opinion has caused the recommendations of judges as to how long a convicted person shall serve, partly for retribution and partly as a deterrent. So we are modifying our approach to the sentence of life imprisonment.
If we are to adopt the proposal in this amendment, which I am heartily in favour of, we shall then have another reserve position as regards the use of the sentence for this crime—that is to say, the recommendation of the trial judge as to how long, in his opinion, the convicted prisoner should remain in prison before he is considered for parole. At present I believe that the secrecy which surrounds the recommendations of the trial judge and the supplementary recommendations of the Lord Chief Justice, is an offence against the onus of the administration of justice. If one is to condemn a person to life imprisonment one should consider what sort of life anyone is entitled to live, even in prison. The public are not entitled to shut their eyes to the consequences of their own prejudices in a matter of human affairs. Therefore, when a sentence of life imprisonment is automatically imposed in particular cases, we have to consider what we want to do to the life of that person.
540
Most people believe that life imprisonment does not mean life, and neither should it. But it is a sham if it does not. That is where the whole system needs radical reconsideration. We do not send people to prison for life and it would be a downright shame if we did.
In my constituency I had three or four cases of murder. The prisoners went either to Armley gaol in Leeds or to Wakefield. I heard their stories and I went to the Home Secretary. I had grievous cases where the sentence of death would have been a crime in itself. A sentence of life imprisonment for a young man of 23 who slew his child in a fit of passion, having been driven mad at the behaviour of both his wife and child, would have been a very severe penalty to impose on him.
I asked the Home Secretary what life sentences were supposed to do. They were supposed to express the disapproval of society of the heinous crime of murder. But so what. Is there no hope then? Is anything justified if it is done that way? It is very difficult to rationalise emotional thought in the approach to things of this nature. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to the reply given by the noble Baroness the Minister to the debate on the last occasion, conceding this and that about the merits of what was being proposed, but still the Government were against it.
The Government are against it in this case because of politics. Their policy on crime is to increase the severity of punishment. They believe that the more severe and harsh the law the greater the deterrent will be to that crime. On that basis we should still be hanging people for sheep stealing. I believe that there is no truth either in experience or in logic why such a severe sentence should deter people when, in many cases, it is not within their rational capacity to stop what they are doing. That is one of the basic difficulties with murder. It does not matter what one does to many people convicted of murder because they cannot stop themselves. We are human beings. We have passions, emotions, sadism, aggression and a demand for retribution and retaliation. We are a mixed-up lot intellectually and we cannot always steer the course of reason and sanity. We must make allowances. If we send people to prison for long periods we must give them some hope that they will return to a life of liberty and live out their lives in a most useful way. I support the amendment.
I finish by saying that mandatory sentences are wrong in principle. After one has decided what penalties an offence may have, the courts should be so constituted as to enable the law to be administered with discretion, humanity and, if necessary, with mercy. But at present we have none of those things. in all the circumstances I say that it is politics which is behind this just as much as it is politics behind the Government's refusal to remove the mandatory sentence on pit-bull terriers. I wish that some of the noble Lords who have spoken had come to my aid in 1991 when the Government removed all discretion from the magistrates' courts in England and Wales as regards the sentence to be imposed on a dangerous dog under the Act's definition of what that is.
I must get these little points in because they are relevant to the main argument and important in themselves. Therefore, I wholly support the amendment.

541
I hope that the implication is—and these are my final words—that we are on the way to abandoning the mandatory life sentence altogether.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, we have listened to a remarkable and deeply-felt speech by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. It is heartening to hear the traditional values of penal reform so eloquently expressed.
I have been interested in the subject of the penalty for murder for many years now. I have sat on two committees. There was your Lordships' Select Committee on which I served with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. More recently I served on another committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord Lane, who is present for the debate this afternoon.
Illogicalities and anomalies have arisen in recent years—I stress it is only in recent years—between the mandatory penalty for murder and the discretionary life sentence which covers other forms of homicide falling short of murder, but not necessarily less culpable, and by no means carrying less risk to the public. Some of the diminished responsibility cases, with a conviction for manslaughter resulting in life sentences, carry the greatest risk to the public. Sentencing decisions are exceptionally difficult in that particular field.
One of the problems of discussing this issue is that it has become so extraordinarily complex that there are very few people concerned with public policy and administration who understand the intricacies of life sentences of imprisonment. A good proportion of those who do are present in this Chamber this afternoon.
What we have seen in recent years—I say this to my noble friend at the Home Office since I occupied the same office as she does 25 years ago—is a gradual whittling away of the Home Secretary's decision to decide on the period of time to be spent in custody by an offender sentenced to life imprisonment.
Let us consider discretionary life sentences. I should say that the distinction between discretionary and mandatory sentences only goes back to 1983. I was then chairman of a committee which I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who is in his place in the Chamber today, may have had something to do with setting up. It was a joint committee between the Parole Board and the Home Office which reviewed the cases of all life-sentence prisoners. It did not make any difference whether the sentence was for murder or for manslaughter: all cases were reviewed on their merits. Recommendations were made to the Home Secretary as to when it was regarded as safe to release a particular prisoner. It was only in 1983 that the distinction came into existence. Moreover, subject to correction from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, I believe that only from that date did the practice of the Lord Chief Justice making his recommendations in private on what judicial recommendation had been made by the trial judge also come into effect. I am glad to have the affirmation of the noble and learned Lord on that point.
We have now arrived at a situation where discretionary life sentences are governed by judicial procedures. The decision is taken in open court; the
542
defendant is present, has been seen in court by the trial judge and is represented by counsel. The sentence is subject, with leave of the Court of Appeal, to review on appeal. That is not so with mandatory life sentences. We are aware that the description is a misnomer in that the mandatory life sentence is not a compulsory sentence for life. It is an indeterminate sentence, containing within it a fixed term. How is that fixed term set? It is set by the recommendation of the trial judge, subject to review, as we have just heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, by the Lord Chief Justice who has little more new information available to him. Indeed, all he can rely on is the fact that he sees a number of such cases. Therefore, he can introduce an element of consistency if he feels that the recommendation is out of line. There is very little else that he can do. Then the minimum term to be served is decided in private by a Minister who has not seen the defendant, who is not aware of the particularities of the case, and who may have other, possibly political, considerations in mind.
For many years it was highly unusual for the Home Secretary not to accept, or to vary, the judicial tariff. But that practice began to change some years ago and now we know, through Answers to parliamentary Questions and judicial reviews in the courts, that the Home Secretary may and quite frequently does, alter the tariff if he feels that circumstances justify it.
We are now looking at just one more step in a laborious process, which is what it has been over the years as a result of decisions taken in this House on the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and in Strasbourg cases at the same time which led to separate handling for discretionary life sentence cases. There have been further cases involving judicial review, many of which have arisen as a result of the decisions of the Court of Appeal and in some cases of the House of Lords.
We are moving bit by bit to a new situation. So long as we have a fixed term within the indeterminate sentence—the minimum period of time to be spent in custody by the convicted offender—that is a sentence. What we are looking at today is just one more step, not a large step, towards a process of fairer justice which would have an end result which it is hard to deny. With all the strength at my command, I support the case put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner.
4 p.m.
Lord Lane: My Lords, perhaps I may make one or two remarks in support of the amendment. My only excuse for rising to speak at all is that, as my noble friend Lord Windlesham has just indicated, over my last few years in the position of Lord Chief Justice I had the task of considering upwards of 300 life-sentence cases every year—some of them mandatory and some of them discretionary—and of sending my recommendations on a pro forma to the Home Secretary.
It is all too easy to overlook the object of the exercise and the object of all these procedures. That object is not to preserve the powers of the Home Secretary or political powers; it is to do justice, as far as possible. to

543
the prisoner, on the one hand, and to try, on the other hand, to ensure—again as far as possible—the safety of the public.
In order to do justice, there are certain fundamental, simple requirements. The first is that the facts should be ascertained and known to the person who is determining the sentence. At present the trial judge is the only person who has a full command of the facts and even he does not have it in every case. The Lord Chief Justice certainly does not have a full account of the facts. He has a précis—or used to have in my day; I do not know whether it is still the same—of the facts, and a précis only. The same goes for the Home Secretary in whose hands the matter finally comes to rest.
The second requirement is that the arguments of counsel on behalf of the prisoner should be heard by the sentencer—the prisoner's representations. One then hears the other party's argument as part of the fabric of justice. The third requirement is that there should be a right of appeal. Of course, human fallibility is to be found in sentencing as in every other aspect of our lives. Finally, justice can be done only if the matter is heard openly so that the public can see what is going on and the basis upon which the Home Secretary—the final determinant—has reached his conclusions.
Certainly those last three requirements are not fulfilled at the moment. The amendment would go at least some way towards filling the gaps, which are all too prevalent at present, in those requirements of justice. I shall not go on any longer because all the other arguments have been set out so clearly and so plainly by my noble and learned friend Lord Taylor, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and indeed my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. That is .all I need to say.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for setting out so clearly the purpose of the amendment and also other noble and learned Lords for setting out both what the amendment is intended not to do and the principles upon which it should be adopted. Not having ever practised at the criminal bar, I find myself in a rather extraordinary position today. I have observed with some amazement the practice of some learned judges who have carried on for 30 years since the 1965 Act in a manner in which some of them now consider to be unprincipled, unjust and unfair. Therefore, I wonder whether the amendment proposed is one which would remedy the defects which clearly exist in this case.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to whom I know we all listen with the greatest respect, was asking for the abolition of the mandatory life sentence. I would remind him that that Act was adopted in 1965 during the period of a Labour Government. So it seems that they had time to consider the issue. I am sure that many of us in the House would like to see the mandatory life sentence as a principle abolished and to go down what might be called the slippery slope towards discretionary life sentences along the lines touched upon by my noble friend Lord Windlesham. But we are faced with the legal position that in the case of a mandatory life sentence the trial judge is giving only a recommendation. He is not making a decision.
544
The idea that we shall rectify that procedure by giving someone the chance to go to the Court of Appeal on a recommendation is the anomaly. It is not that the anomaly exists; we are creating an anomaly in the legal procedure. That is probably not the best way to go about the matter. Those of us who studied the classics so many years ago will remember that it was said that injustice arises when it is sought to impose equality among the unequal, just as much as injustice arises when one is imposing inequality among equals. That principle attaches to the way the amendment is being proposed. I am certain that all of us in the House wish to see justice done. We wish to see fairness. Many of us, as I say, would wish to see mandatory life sentences abolished, but I do not believe that this is the right amendment to do that. It will create more anomalies.
In conclusion, perhaps I may draw attention to the statement made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in Committee (8th June, col. 1480) when he said that he would issue a practice direction saying that judges should implement Section 1(2) of the 1965 Act in all cases of murder, save perhaps for some very exceptional reason. If we are going to introduce a practice direction, it should apply in all cases. I believe that we are once more creating a new anomaly. I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that she rejects the amendment, and that at some later stage we should look at the question of mandatory life sentences to see whether a more suitable, fairer and more just way of proceeding should be introduced.
To come to the House after 30 years of the Act being in force, the judges having carried out to the best of their ability, as we hope, justice in this country, and to tell us that there is no justice in the way it is being done is not a strong argument in favour of the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, she referred to what has gone on over the past 40 years. I think she has overlooked the fact that the purpose of the amendment is to iron out the anomalies between the discretionary life sentence and the mandatory life sentence. That anomaly has arisen only since the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and more so since 1993 when the practice direction required judges, save in exceptional circumstances, to exercise their powers under Section 34; so that in truth and in fact the anomalous position which we are seeking to alter has been in existence only three years.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for making mat statement. My point is that it is the mandatory life sentence that has been in force since 1965. It is that which has in fact created the anomalous position in which noble Lords now find themselves.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I shall briefly add my voice to those who support the amendment. It is of paramount importance that justice should be done in public. To make decisions behind closed doors and in private about how long a convicted murderer should serve is both unjust to him and, more important, unjust to the family and friends of his victim.

545
The anomaly which undoubtedly exists today between a mandatory and a discretionary life sentence is plainly a nonsense. I am surprised that the Government do not grasp this opportunity provided by the amendment to remedy that anomaly.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lowry: My Lords, I remain strongly in favour of the amendment. Your Lordships now have a better idea than before its consideration in Committee of the grounds upon which the amendment is resisted. I wish to refer to those grounds shortly. Perhaps initially I may quickly summarise the points I made on an earlier occasion. First, under the proposal, if a recommendation is made in court, the accused hears it and will be able to appeal. If he does not that fact in itself is a guide to the Home Secretary. If he does appeal, the Court of Appeal will hear submissions, as with an appeal against sentence, and give its decision, with reasons, in open court. That procedure must be of great assistance to the Home Secretary.
At present, if the judge does not make a recommendation at the trial, he may die or retire before giving the advice. In every case, of course, the Lord Chief Justice has a duty to advise. He considers the case on paper, without the benefit of argument—here I rely on a regrettably extensive experience in another jurisdiction—and he has little alternative, unless he considers that the first recommendation is right out of line, but to confirm that recommendation, if one has been given. That is not helpful.
My second point was that a recommendation, although not part of the sentence, is an important part of the administration of justice, and should be treated as such, and justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. It is increasingly accepted that that principle applies also to executive actions.
Thirdly, the Home Secretary's power and executive discretion remain intact. He will continue to have the last word, but that last word will be pronounced with the benefit of much more helpful advice than heretofore.
What is said against my noble and learned friend's apparently reasonable proposal? I hope that the Minister will allow me to say that your Lordships all agree that she invariably treats with good sense and moderation every subject on which she touches, but I must respectfully suggest that on this point she has been given a difficult brief.
The word "anomaly" has been mentioned, but as I ventured to point out in Committee, the real anomaly is the mandatory life sentence for murder which neither the judge who pronounces it, nor the Home Secretary—or indeed the general public—contemplates being carried out save in a very exceptional case. I agree that there is an anomaly where the judge pronounces a life sentence as he must and then recommends what part of that sentence should be served. That could not have happened when the mandatory sentence was the sentence of death. Whether to commute that sentence and how long an accused whose death sentence was commuted—that is, changed into a life sentence—
546
should stay in prison were purely executive decisions for the discussion of which in open court there could be no place.
Let me consider briefly some of the supposed objections. One is that some trial judges may not make a recommendation at the trial. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice meets that by saying that he can give a practice direction. A further objection then is that it would not be good legislative practice to pass a law which would have to depend upon a practice direction for its effectiveness. My noble and learned friend dealt thoroughly with that point. However, perhaps I may add that the further objection could easily be met by enacting a statutory provision in the same terms as the proposed practice direction.
The second point that was made was that under the present law there is room for a judicial view, including that of the Lord Chief Justice. That is true. However, the view expressed by the Court of Appeal under the new law would be infinitely more valuable. Thirdly, as a reason for preferring the present system the Minister relied earlier on the need to maintain public confidence in the system of justice. Understandably, she contemplated the possibility of occasions on which the Home Secretary would differ from the judges. I suggest that openness in the administration of justice is one of the main foundations of public confidence.
Furthermore, under the proposed law the Home Secretary will have the benefit of advice based on reasoned discussion—advice which he may be more likely to feel able to accept because it is likely to be better advice. And when he does not accept the advice, the Home Secretary is his turn can state his reasons openly. Secrecy, on the other hand, erodes confidence, and now that thanks to a ruling of your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity an accused must be told what the judicial recommendation was, discrepancies between that recommendation and the course taken by the Home Secretary behind closed doors can be publicised informally in quite a misleading and harmful way from the point of view of both the Bench and the administration.
Finally, would it not be wise for us to recall that these recommendations are made by the same judges who are already entrusted, subject to the Home Secretary's exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, with the task of fixing the length of imprisonment in cases of attempted murder, conspiracy to murder and other crimes in respect of which a life sentence can be but need not be imposed? Of course, such sentences can be considered on appeal by the Court of Appeal.
Recently my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was kind to me in this Chamber. Therefore, I hope that he will not consider me churlish if I refer to his comment about the unique gravity of the offence of murder. We can probably remember without difficulty that murder is what has been called—admittedly called by me—a "result" crime. You may not intend to kill someone but if you intend seriously to injure him and he dies that is murder. Attempted murder and conspiracy to murder require the element of an intention that somebody should be killed. That sounds potentially even more serious as regards the moral obliquity.

547
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice reminded us, the amendment is based entirely on the acceptance, at least for the time being, that the mandatory life sentence, of which I very much disapprove, will continue in force. We must not be sidetracked into the argument that this is all about the mandatory life sentence; it is about the right way to go about dealing with it.
I was pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and to hear what he said. He gave one Home Office view, but your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord also had considerable experience of a Home Office nature when he served in the Northern Ireland Office. That was when I first had the honour of meeting him. In view of the noble Lord's experience, it behoves us to pay great attention to him. I submit that in reality the proposed amendment can only help the Home Secretary. Therefore, I strongly support it and hope that it will be adopted.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, on behalf of Members on these Benches, I associate myself with the amendment. Unfortunately, I was not present when the matter was discussed in Committee but I looked at the Official Report, in particular at the words of the Minister in rejecting the amendment which was then tabled. She said:
"Parliament has taken the view…that there should be a distinction between murder and other crimes which are subject to life sentences. That is the point at issue".
However, I do not believe that was the point at issue then and clearly from our debate today it is not the point at issue now. The Minister continued:
"There is not only a distinction but a distinct process through which cases have to go".—[Official Report,. 8/6/95; col. 1486.]
She implied that in some way the amendment interfered with that process.
It is plain that the point is narrow: it is whether the process should be secretive, as it is now, or whether it should be transparent, which is what the amendment is designed to achieve. It is unfortunate, and perhaps a reversal of the expectations of many of us, that the judiciary wishes to see change in favour of greater openness, while Ministers—the politicians—wish to retain a process that is secretive. Change will come. The only question is whether it will come today or later.
Lord Monson: My Lords, any layman who ventures into these waters does so with the greatest trepidation. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if one small but important point could be clarified. I wonder whether in winding up my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner will say whether his amendment will theoretically permit, in certain grave circumstances, the Court of Appeal to recommend an increase in the period which should be served before an individual can be released on licence, as well as permitting the court to recommend in the majority of cases that it should be reduced or left unaltered.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, when we last considered this new clause, many of those who spoke in its support drew particular attention to their concerns about the operation
548
of the current tariff setting procedure. In order to ensure that there is no confusion on the point of transparency, I want to make clear how the tariff—the minimum period required for retribution and deterrence—is now set in mandatory life sentence cases.
The decision on the period to be served by a person given a mandatory life sentence for murder has been entrusted by Parliament to the Secretary of State. In relation to the penal element, or tariff, the legal position was clearly set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, in the Doody judgment. He said that:
"Parliament has not by statute conferred on the judges any role, even as advisers, at the time when the penal element of a mandatory sentence is fixed".
Shortly after the trial has been completed, the trial judge completes a standard form of report to the Secretary of State. He includes a description of the offence; the issues before the court; medical considerations, if any; and factors leading to a minimum recommendation. General comments on the case and assessment of future risk are also made. Finally, he gives his view of the appropriate period for retribution and general deterrence.
The trial judge sends the report to the Lord Chief Justice for his comments, which are generally limited to the tariff recommendation. When completed the report is sent to the Secretary of State, usually within two or three weeks of conviction. The whole of this report, apart from opinions about future risk, is sent to the prisoner, together with the other papers, such as records of previous convictions, which will be put to Ministers in due course. We refer to disclosure of the gist of the judicial recommendations because that was the term used in Doody. But I would stress that, in practice, the prisoner sees everything that is relevant to the setting of tariff.
The prisoner is invited to make any representations on the judicial recommendations and the other contents of the report. But he is left in no doubt that the judicial views are advisory and that the tariff will be set by the Secretary of State. The prisoner's representations, along with the judicial report, are then submitted to the Minister, who makes the decision on tariff.
Prisoners see a copy of the report which of course includes the reasons for the recommendations on tariffs, save for any references, as I have said already, to future risk. If the prisoner is to make any meaningful representations, he must have disclosed to him the reasons for recommendations. I must tell the House that that is done.
The procedure enables the trial judge to make a recommendation on the basis of having heard all the evidence and having made an assessment of the prisoner. The Lord Chief Justice sees every case and can bring to bear his wider experience of these cases to confirm a recommendation or offer a different view if he thinks fit. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary regards that advice as very valuable. I am happy to repeat that. Indeed, one of the drawbacks to what is proposed in this amendment is that we would lose that co-ordinating element in cases where there is no appeal against the trial judge's recommendation. I shall say more about that later.

549
As I have indicated, the views of the judiciary are made available to the Secretary of State very soon after the trial and, unless there is an appeal outstanding, they are communicated to the prisoner who is invited to make any representations. If, after considering the judicial view and the prisoner's representations, the Secretary of State decides in the public interest that a higher tariff than that recommended is required for deterrence and retribution, the prisoner is given detailed reasons for that decision. And these reasons are, of course, open to scrutiny by the courts through judicial review.
Since the responsibility for decision on tariff lies clearly with the Secretary of State, I submit to your Lordships that this is a much more satisfactory way to proceed than by an appeal procedure which might end up in some cases with a public declaration of three levels of tariff—two advisory and one decisive. To my mind, that is a recipe for confusion for the prisoner, the public and, by no means last, the family of the victim.
The prisoner is aware of the judicial view on which he can make representations. He is told of the tariff set. If there is any departure from the judicial view, he is given detailed reasons. Once the prisoner has been informed of the tariff, we are prepared to disclose both the tariff and the judicial recommendation in individual cases to anyone who asks. The process cannot, therefore, reasonably be described as secretive or behind closed doors. We believe that it is consistent both with the need for openness and with the proper discharge of the serious responsibility which Parliament has unambiguously placed on the Secretary of State.
The amendment has been proposed on the basis that it would resolve an existing anomaly. I believe, as does my noble friend Lady Elles, that the new clause would create anomalies. There are certainly differences between the procedures in relation to mandatory and discretionary life sentences, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Windlesham. But differences do not constitute anomalies. Direct comparisons between the two can indeed be regarded as rather spurious. The philosophy, statutory framework and the executive practice of the two sentences are quite different as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, made clear in his speech giving the House of Lords' determination in the Doody judgment. This House may wish to bring the two sentences into closer alignment. However, as matters stand, there are very real differences between them, and deliberately so. There is no inherent unfairness because mandatory and discretionary life sentence prisoners are more readily compared with determinate sentenced prisoners sentenced for the same type of offences than to mandatory life sentence prisoners.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, referred to that distinction and quoted what I said from Hansard. I believe that that is the point at issue because the point at issue is that Parliament has decided that there should be a distinction between those subjects to discretionary and mandatory life sentences. This amendment is dealing with the distinction in the process for both.
As the House knows, in the case of discretionary lifers, the judge now specifies in open court what the "relevant part" will he in the particular case. This term
550
represents the penal element of the sentence and is set with reference to the determinate sentence which would have been imposed had it not, in the view of the trial judge, been appropriate to impose a life sentence. The relevant part is an order of the court which determines the minimum period of detention.
The Executive has no power to substitute a different order. It is therefore entirely right that the decision should be appealable. I mentioned during Committee stage that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane (the then Chief Justice) confirmed that there was a right of appeal against the relevant part, he referred to the acid test being that there:
"was no modification, revision or alternative which could be substituted for that by the Minister".
The judicial recommendation in the case of a mandatory life sentence, on the other hand, is just that; a recommendation. It is subject to modification by the views of the Lord Chief Justice and then to the views of the Secretary of State who makes the final decision, having regard to the recommendations he has received. While the Minister gives very careful consideration to the recommendations he receives, he is not hound to accept them. The trial judge is thus no more than an adviser in the tariff setting process. It seems to us to be inappropriate to erect an appeal mechanism to deal with that advice, which in any case forms only a part of the tariff setting process.
I would emphasise again that although there is no right of appeal against the trial judge's recommendation, there is in every case a further judicial view expressed. Where there are differences in the view taken by the trial judge and that taken by the Lord Chief Justice, the reasons for the disagreement are given very careful consideration.
As I made clear during the debate on this amendment in Committee, the amendment would, on the face of it, create an anomaly. In those cases where the judge made a recommendation in open court, the prisoner would be able to make an appeal against the recommendation, whereas in those cases where the judge wrote to the Home Secretary with his recommendation, he would not.
The Lord Chief Justice has of course indicated that he would issue a practice direction to judges telling them to use their discretion to make minimum recommendations in all but the most exceptional cases. However, it is doubtful that it would be good legislative practice to pass provisions which depend on the issue of a practice direction to have a reasonable interpretation.
I appreciate that the provisions relating to discretionary life sentence prisoners were the subject of such a practice direction. However I do not see the two situations as analogous. It was made clear during the passage of the 1991 Act that the only reason that judges were not to be required to set relevant parts under Section 34 was because there could be exceptional cases where a discretionary life sentence would be passed on grounds of seriousness rather than risk and where life ought to mean life; in other words, where it would be entirely inappropriate to specify a relevant part. The

551
practice direction issued by the Lord Chief Justice spelt out the position very clearly for judges—to avoid any possible doubt about the intention of the provision.
A further anomaly, and one which I have already touched upon briefly, is that the Lord Chief Justice has made it clear that, if a right of appeal were in place, he would no longer act independently in advising the Home Secretary on tariff lengths. Instead, he would himself sit in the Court of Appeal in any such case. This would leave the Home Secretary bereft of alternative judicial advice in all cases where there was no appeal by the prisoner against the recommendation. This might be a considerable proportion of cases—and would certainly include those cases where the judge had erred on the side of an unduly lenient recommendation. This means that precisely in those cases where it would be be patently right for the Secretary of State to consider imposing a longer tariff than that recommended, he would have no second judicial view to help him in reaching a decision.
It has been suggested that the role played by the Court of Appeal would improve the quality of advice provided to the Secretary of State. I am bound to say that I do not accept that this would be the case. I do not see what improvement is introduced if the Secretary of State is to receive only one judicial view rather than two in some cases. A number of noble Lords have made clear their support for the idea that minimum recommendations should be made in open court in every case. I do not think that it is unfair for me to point to the fact that judges have had the power for the past 30 years to make their recommendations in public. If the judges choose in future to make such recommendations in all cases because of their concerns about openness, then the Government would have no objection. However, we are happy to leave the matter to the discretion of the judiciary, and primary or secondary legislation is not required for the purpose.
If judges choose to make such recommendations in all but the most exceptional cases then, as I understand the position, there would be the opportunity for a speech in mitigation to be made before any recommendation was made. I hope therefore that I am right in saying that the new clause is not a prerequisite for any such change in procedure. If the judiciary feels strongly on the point the remedy is available to it without needing to introduce an anomalous right of appeal.
If minimum recommendations were to be made on this basis, I would see no reason to do away with the judge's report to the Home Secretary. On tariff, the report would simply summarise the points made by the judge when making his minimum recommendation in open court. However, the Lord Chief Justice would still have the opportunity to comment on tariff, and the whole would be disclosed to the prisoner for him or her to make any further representations.
As regards transparency for the prisoner, I have already outlined in considerable detail just how transparent the process is now. It is. I think, a far cry from the picture painted by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, during Committee stage of a procedure in which, as she said,
552
"decisions appear to be taken behind closed doors, with no opportunity to challenge, correct errors or persuade in any way".— [Official Report, 8/6/95; col. 1476.]
I mentioned during Committee stage that the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place has been considering, among other things, whether there might be a case for recommending to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that when tariffs have been set they are made public as a matter of routine. As I said then, my right honourable friend has indicated that he can see that there might well be arguments for doing so. At this stage we do not know what the committee will recommend, but I know that the case for any changes in this area will be looked at carefully.
This new clause does not, as has been stressed, directly affect the Home Secretary's role in tariff setting—except in so far as it is being proposed that he should make his decisions in some, perhaps many, cases without the benefit of a second judicial view on tariff. That in itself would, I think, be undesirable. I also said during Committee stage that the new clause has potentially wider implications for the mandatory life sentence and its operation. We do not, as has been suggested, resist the amendment because the Home Secretary might find it harder to perform his role in tariff setting if the Court of Appeal had considered a case, although this might prove to be the case over time.
I know that many in this House are strongly opposed to the mandatory life sentence for murder and the role of the Executive in dealing with such prisoners. However, this amendment does not—as has been said—alter that position. Instead we believe it introduces confusion and creates anomalies for the reasons I have set out. I wish to put on record my agreement with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I took wholly his meaning that he was for declaration in open court in these matters. I have to admit that I personally have some sympathy with that case. That was certainly what I understood his case to be.
The existence of the mandatory life sentence and the arrangements for the management of life sentence prisoners should of course be open to challenge by this House. However, this Bill is not about sentencing. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, referred to my having been given a difficult brief. I think he probably meant that it was not only a difficult brief but that it was also a bad brief. I believe in the case that I have been given to support at the Dispatch Box and I believe the case is a good one. Personally I do not believe that it is right to have a formal appeal procedure against what, at the end of the day, is a piece of advice—a recommendation and part of a process. I urge the House to accept that mandatory life sentence issues should be considered as a whole rather than legislated on piecemeal. I hope noble Lords will accept that it would not be right for this House to attempt to legislate for an appeal which touches on only a part—and not the most significant part—of the tariff setting process, and which moreover creates anomalies rather than addressing them. For all these reasons I hope that your Lordships will agree that this new clause should not be pursued.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether she will kindly confirm that the Home Secretary is answerable to both Houses of Parliament for the various decisions which she has mentioned.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can confirm that. I can also confirm that he is subject to judicial review which is yet another check and balance in the system.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, he is only subject to judicial review not by way of an appeal process but if he has acted wholly irrationally in the decision which he has reached. I shall he brief. I have only a few points to make. There has been a risk of this modest amendment being diverted on the basis of re-arguing the question of the wisdom of the mandatory life sentence. This amendment neither touches nor concerns that matter at all, as the noble Baroness has frankly accepted. It leaves the Home Secretary's discretion entirely intact. He can do what he wishes. What it does do is to produce a more open system so that some of the anomalies between the two types of life sentences do not exist.
With regard to the question which was posed to me as to whether with this amendment the Court of Appeal would have the power to increase the recommendation made by the trial judge, I would have thought the answer is clearly yes. But the procedure which would be adopted would no doubt be by process of the Attorney-General seeking to move the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) as he does in other cases where it is alleged there has been under-sentencing. That is the procedure that I would assume would occur. I hope that answers the question.
With regard to the adoption of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I would only say this. He raised specifically the question about openness, and that is what determined his attitude. He asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice—as is stated in Hansard—
"May I ask the noble and learned Lord to explain something for clarification? Is the noble and learned Lord with me on the point or against me, that the private letter of the judge should cease"?— [Official Report, 8/6/95; col. 1480.]
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was anxious that the private letter should cease. He is now supporting it. Back came the answer—again at col. 1480—
"Most certainly; I am sorry if that has not been made clear. I thought that I had sufficiently referred many times to openness rather than to a situation behind closed doors. It is precisely to get rid of the behind the scenes letter from, first of all, the trial judge and then, secondly, the Lord Chief Justice that this measure should in my submission be supported by the Committee".
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, then said—again at col. 1480—
"I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice as to the type of practice directions that will be given will be recorded in Hansard. It is on that basis of implementation that this amendment is supported".
That is a total U-turn, but fellow feeling makes us wondrous wise and this may be another example of a difficult brief.
554
I end by saying that the House has had the benefit of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales saying in terms that this amendment to the process to which it is directed would make that process more "effective, more open and more fair". His submissions have been supported by a former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, and they have also been supported by the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, my noble and learned friend Lord Lowry. His Christian name is so well known that I almost forgot his surname. In these circumstances I have no hesitation in inviting your Lordships to prefer the course of justice to that of convenience, which are the rival contestants in this case. Accordingly, I commend the amendment to the House.
4.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 142; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Addington, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Airedale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Harrowby, E.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Haskel, L.

Barnett, L.

Hayter, L.

Beloff, L.

Healey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bridges, L.

Hoffmann, L.

Brightman, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hood, V.

Carter, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Howell, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh ,L.

Hylton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ilchester, E.

Craigavon, V.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Jay, L.

David, B.

Jeger, B.

Dean of Thornton- le-Fylde, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Derwent, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Desai, L.

Judd, L.

Diamond, L.

Kennet, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Lane, L.

Donoughue, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Ezra, L.

Lock wood, B.

Falkender, B.

Longford, E.

Falkland, V.

Lowry, L. [Teller.]

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Gallacher, L.

McNair, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Glasgow, E.

Marsh, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Gregson, L.

Mayhew, L.

Grey, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Hacking, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Halsbury, E.

Molloy, L.

Hamwee, B.

Monkswell, L.

555

Monson, L.

Stedman, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Steyn, L.

Mustill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nelson, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Nicol, B.

Strafford, E.

Ogmore, L.

Taylor of Gosforth. L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Templeman, L.

Peston, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rea, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Redesdale, L.

Varley, L.

Richard, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Waverley, V.

Russell, E.

Weatherill, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Sandwich, E.

White, B.

Seear, B.

Wigoder, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Simon, V.

Windlesham, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Woolf, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Stallard, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOTCONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Addison, V.

Gainford, L.

Ailsa, M.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Aldington, L.

Goschen, V.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Annaly, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Hambro, L.

Harlech, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Astor, V.

Henley, L.

Balfour, E.

Hives, L.

Barber, L.

Hogg, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Blaker, L.

Hothfield, L.

Blatch, B.

Howe, E.

Boardman, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Borthwick, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Kingsland, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Burnham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Butterworth, L.

Layton, L.

Cadman, L.

Lindsay, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Carnock, L.

Long, V.

Carrington, L.

Lucas, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Lyell, L.

Chesham, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

McConnell, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Courtown, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Manton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Davidson, V.

Melville, V.

Denham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mersey, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Milverton, L.

Elles, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Fitt, L.

Munster, E.

Foley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

556

Newall, L.

Shannon, E.

Northesk, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Orkney, E.

Strange, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Sudeley, L.

Rawlings, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Rees, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Renton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renwick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Vivian, L.

Romney, E.

Whitelaw, V.

St. Davids, V.

Wise, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Bridge of Harwich Lord Bridge of Harwich moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Applications to quash indictments appeals
. Where an application is made, on or before arraignment, to stay proceedings on indictment on the ground that they are an abuse of process, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) from any decision of the Crown Court granting or refusing the application by leave of the Crown Court or of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 3. The two amendments are alternative to each other. I shall say a few words a little later about the relatively minor differences in their practical effects. Either amendment addresses the problem which arises when a defendant to an indictment seeks a stay of proceedings on indictment on the ground that the prosecution is an abuse of the process of the court.
Far and away the most common and most significant ground on which such a stay is granted is that there has been such delay as to cause prejudice to the defendant in the conduct of the defence or to make a fair trial impossible. As your Lordships know, in criminal trials on indictment there is no applicable statute of limitations. Therefore it is only the exercise of this abuse of process jurisdiction in appropriate cases which provides any safeguard to the citizen against being unreasonably prosecuted for something which happened a long time ago.
Since the issue raised when such a stay is sought goes to the fairness of the trial, the question which has to be determined is always a serious one, often a difficult one. The judge will often have to weigh in the balance different and conflicting considerations. He will normally hold a preliminary hearing and decide the issue whether or not to grant a stay. The law used to be that whichever way the decision went, it could be challenged by way of judicial review. But that law has now been reversed and it is to that situation that my amendments are addressed.
Perhaps I may explain in a few words how that situation has arisen. The jurisdiction of the Divisional Court by way of judicial review was first invoked on an

557
application for judicial review of a judge's refusal to grant a stay of proceedings on indictment in a case called Randle in 1990. Your Lordships may remember the case. It was the case of the two men who in the late 1980s had had published a book describing how they had engineered the escape of the notorious spy, George Blake, from prison back in the 1960s. Perhaps not surprisingly, they then found themselves in the dock at the Old Bailey. But they made an application saying that to prosecute them after so many years would be an abuse of the process of court. The trial judge refused it.
They then obtained leave to seek judicial review. A distinguished Divisional Court was presided over, if I remember, by my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick—Lord Justice Lloyd, as he then was. No, I have gone a step too far. It was not my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd who presided over Randle. It was Lord Justice Watkins. I am so sorry.
In 1990, the court held in Randle that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application for judicial review. But on the merits it was refused. Therefore it was that case which for the period of the next three years established the law that a decision either way by a judge of the Crown Court to grant or withhold a stay of proceedings on this ground was subject to judicial review.
It is three years later that we come to the case involving my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick. It was a case called Ashton. It was a case of conspiracy. It had taken some considerable period of time to identify all the conspirators and to assemble the evidence against them. When an application was made to stay the proceedings on the indictment against the conspirators on the ground that the delay amounted to an abuse, the circuit judge was persuaded to grant a stay. This time it was the Director of Public Prosecutions who exercised the right to seek an application for judicial review against that decision. This time it was my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd, presiding in the Divisional Court, who said that the judge's decision had been clearly and demonstrably wrong and overturned it.
It was then that the matter came before your Lordships' House on appeal, not on the merits but on the technical issue of the jurisdiction of the Crown Court to entertain an application for judicial review in those circumstances. The governing statute was, and indeed presently is, Section 29(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. That provision in terms excludes the jurisdiction to grant judicial review in relation to any decision made by the Crown Court,
"in matters relating to trial on indictment".
In your Lordships' House—I was a party to the decision—faced with that clear language we felt obliged to decide, and indeed when the matter came to your Lordships' House the DPP felt obliged to concede, that a decision granting or refusing a stay of proceedings as an abuse of process was a decision relating to trial on indictment. That decision was given in February 1993. It was, it seems to me, clearly right as a matter of the construction of Section 29(3). However, it had most unfortunate consequences. The first and obvious one was that the conspirators, if such they were, went free and there was absolutely nothing that the Crown could
558
do about it. In my submission, that is an unsatisfactory state of the law and one which one or other of my amendments seeks to remedy.
However, I invite your Lordships to consider separately the position of the Crown when a stay is wrongly granted, on the one hand, and, on the other, the position of defendants when a stay is said to have been wrongly refused. To give either a right of appeal or to restore a right to seek judicial review when the Crown wishes to do so upon the grant of a stay by the Crown Court judge who is alleged to have got the matter wrong would be, in my submission, entirely in line with the modem approach to conferring an appellate jurisdiction on the court to remedy errors which have operated unjustly and wrongly in favour of the defendant.
If a judge now misdirects a jury and it wrongly convicts, the Court of Appeal is not obliged simply to allow an appeal. It may also order a retrial. If a prisoner is now inadequately sentenced, the Attorney-General may invite the Court of Appeal to increase the sentence. Of course, it is true that if a defendant is wrongly acquitted by a jury following an unduly favourable direction given by the judge in his favour, then all that can happen is that an Attorney-General's reference can be brought in order to correct the error of law but the defendant cannot be retried. I apprehend that that is because of our deeply rooted sense that once there has been an acquittal by jury, that must be the end of the matter. However, I cannot see any possible ground on which anyone could resist the proposition that when a judge has made a total error in granting a stay of proceedings on indictment, where no such stay should have been granted, the decision ought to be open to correction by a higher court.
I emphasise that leave would he required in either case. I anticipate that it is only when we come to the effect of a defendant being given the right to seek leave, that it will be said that no such right should be granted. A defendant who unsuccessfully seeks a stay and who is eventually convicted by the jury then has his right of appeal. As I understand it, the whole ground on which either amendment will be resisted is that it would introduce an unnecessary element of delay.
There are two scenarios to be considered. First, it may be said that if the jurisdiction were conferred on the court some defendants would exploit it for the purposes of delay. That presupposes that applications for leave either to seek judicial review or to appeal, as the case may be, when the judge had refused a stay, would be made purely for the purposes of delay. That in turn presupposes counsel acting in an irresponsible way. I trust and believe that that would happen only in the rarest cases, but when it happened leave would clearly be refused and the delay need only be minimal.
The more serious question arises in relation to the case where there is an arguable issue as to whether the delay has been such as to preclude a fair trial. My primary submission to your Lordships in those circumstances is that if in truth no fair trial is possible, the justice of the case requires that the defendant should not have to undergo the trauma of standing trial. But even if that is not accepted, one must look at the balance of advantage in relation to the two further possibilities

559
that arise. The possibilities which arise when a seriously arguable case is brought before the court and the court is asked to give leave either to appeal or for an application for review, are these. The first is where leave is granted and the appeal is eventually dismissed. I have to accept that in those circumstances some perhaps quite substantial delay will occur which would not have occurred if the jurisdiction had not been conferred on the court.
On the other hand, we also must consider the second case where leave is granted and the appeal is allowed. In the nature of the case, long delayed prosecutions are liable to generate long trials. So whatever the disadvantage in the case where leave is granted and an appeal is eventually dismissed so that the trial proceeds, I submit it is to a significant measure offset by the advantage that would be gained in the case where the appeal is allowed. At the price of perhaps one, two or three days' hearing in the Court of Appeal or the Divisional Court, the time and costs involved in a trial perhaps lasting for many weeks will be saved.
Judges are fallible. I should be the first to recognise that they are fallible at every level of the judicial hierarchy. However, I like to think that the nearer one gets to the apex, the less the possibility of error. We are considering decisions of great importance which will be made on some, perhaps many occasions by the lowest—I use the word in no pejorative sense—tiers of the judicial hierarchy, the assistant recorders and recorders. I submit that it cannot be right that a decision on such an important matter, made by a judge of that standing, should be beyond challenge.
I am sorry to have taken so long but I shall conclude with a few words on the difference in effect between the two alternative amendments which I advance. Leave would be required in both. If the first amendment were approved, leave could be given by the judge in the Crown Court as well as by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In the second amendment, it could only be given by the Divisional Court. In the Court of Appeal, the case would come before three judges, in the Divisional Court it might come before two or three. In either case, the court would be presided over, if not by the Lord Chief Justice then by a Lord Justice of Appeal. There is a theoretical difference in the scope of the challenge and the grounds which could be advanced. However, in the circumstances I believe that it would not be a practical difference. Theoretically, the Court of Appeal can allow appeals on wider grounds than the Divisional Court can allow judicial review. But here, having regard to the nature of the decision made by a judge granting or refusing a stay of proceedings on indictment, it seems to me that either the judge would have made an error of law or he would not. If he did, it would enable the higher court to interfere in all cases. Or he may have unreasonably exercised a discretion which again would allow the higher court of both characters to interfere.
The reason I put the alternative amendment down is that it puts the law back to where it was and where it appeared to be quite happy for three years before the decision in Ashton. My belief is that since it would
560
undoubtedly be an application relating to trial on indictment, an interlocutory application, the logical course is to grant a specific right of appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) exercisable only with leave in the special circumstances which arise in the case which the amendments address. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, there is little I wish to say in support of the amendment and in amplification of what the noble and learned Lord has just said. I am grateful to him for moving it. As some noble Lords may know, the origins were way back in the debates on the War Crimes Bill when the question arose that in every prosecution the application would be made if the indictment were laid. Undertakings were given that the law would remain as it has always been. I believe that my noble friend Lord Ferrers gave the undertakings that the accused would be able to apply. However, it would only be after conviction and after a long stayed trial. Therefore, the point was taken on a supplementary War Crimes Bill: ought there not to be a direct access to the Court of Appeal? After all, one avoids all the expense, it was unfair to the accused that he should be put in that position and it was merely importing the procedure from north of the Border where substantially the same principle applies as is proposed in Amendment No. 2.
Then, very properly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, as regards this amendment, took up the point, "What about the Crown?". Noble Lords may think that the noble and learned Lord gave an authoritative and most interesting dissertation as to the problems of the Crown. These were remedied by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, but that had to be of temporary duration in the course of the interpretation of the Act. All that does not matter. What matters is that noble Lords should appreciate that the law is in the state where something ought to be done about it to put it back into the state where it could operate reasonably as between the Crown and the defence perfectly fairly without any form of abuse. If leave is sought, that is an effective safeguard against abuse. In my experience as an advocate, it is much more difficult to get leave out of the Court of Appeal than it is to win. I do not know why, but it seems that the standard demanded is very high. I mention that quite openly because my noble friend the Minister imagines, I truly believe, that even if this amendment contained the words "with leave", it would open up an avenue of delay and abuse. It would not.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, made the point that, after all, a recorder—somebody like myself before I became too old to do it—or an assistant recorder, is a sort of qualitative judge who makes these decisions. The noble and learned Lord says that he hopes that the higher up the mountain one goes towards the apex, the less fallible one becomes. The answer to that is that once you are at the apex, there is nobody to tell you that you are fallible. So one can never really satisfy that point.
I do not want to take up the time of the House. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for having consented to put his name to this amendment. If my noble friend the Minister cannot give

561
us any accommodation at all, on the basis of the reasoned argument advanced I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, may consider whether to take the opinion of the House.
Lord Lowry: My Lords, it seems a shame that your Lordships should have to put up with me twice in one afternoon, especially with the Test Match in progress. I rise to support the proposed amendment. My main, if not only, reason for speaking is that, of the two amendments, I much prefer the straight appeal, both on its merits and for a procedural reason which may not occur to all noble Lords.
This is the kind of amendment which, if it is adopted, would be enacted in Northern Ireland as well, where the procedure is exactly similar. The Crown Court in Northern Ireland is part of the Supreme Court. There is no provision there—and I certainly do not wish to see it introduced—for judicial review to go to the Crown Court. The main reason is that appeals from the magistrates' court are heard by the county court in Northern Ireland, and therefore it was not necessary to have a provision, as it was in this jurisdiction, so that the prerogative remedies of judicial review could go to the Crown Court in England despite its being part of the Supreme Court. I shall not go into detail, but that is one important reason why, if the amendment commends itself, I hope noble Lords will prefer Amendment No. 2 to Amendment No. 3.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, when this matter came before the House on 8th June, in a short and characteristic intervention I suggested that if leave was an obligatory requirement, then the anxiety about abuse and delay ought to be very largely mitigated. I am delighted to see that leave is now part of what is suggested in Amendment No. 2.
Another way of dealing with delay is, if and when leave is granted, that the application is expedited. That in itself will hurry along the proceedings. Otherwise we face the prospects of long trials going on and on and ultimately proving to be quite unnecessary because at an earlier stage a possible attempt to knock the whole proceedings out was not available. Those are my reasons for supporting the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the first of these new clauses would provide a right of appeal to either party against a decision of the Crown Court either to grant or refuse an application to stay proceedings on the grounds of abuse of process. At present there is no such right of appeal, although it is open to the defence to challenge a decision in the Crown Court on appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction. There is no means of redress for the prosecution. The second new clause would make decisions on applications to stay proceedings subject to judicial review.
Until 1993 it was thought possible for both parties to seek judicial review of such a decision. However, in the case of Ashton, the House of Lords ruled that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to review those decisions as they were matters,
"relating to a trial on indictment".
Both new clauses seek to achieve the same effect, although by a different means.
562
I can see the argument for providing a means of challenging decisions on applications to stay proceedings, but I remain convinced that the implications for the administration of justice in general outweigh the benefits that might result in a small number of cases. An extra stage would be added into the process, further delaying the trial. It might be open to exploitation by the defence, who could use such appeals as a delaying tactic. I do not believe that adding a leave requirement would negate these adverse effects. Indeed, if leave to appeal were required from the Court of Appeal, yet another hearing would be needed to consider the application for leave. The trial would still be delayed even if the application was worthless. Such delays are particularly undesirable where the case has already taken a considerable length of time to reach court.
An application to stay proceedings could be made at any time until arraignment. The length of time between arraignment and the start of the trial varies. In some cases they can start at the same time. If they arc scheduled to start together and an application is made to stay proceedings, that will be heard in the absence of the jury and the trial will then proceed—or not, as the case may be. If there is to be an appeal against the decision of the trial judge, that will inevitably delay the start of the trial. The proceedings will then have to be adjourned while a separate, and higher, court considers the appeal. Further delays are undesirable in principle, and particularly when the prosecution itself has been delayed.
Although I can see arguments in favour of a prosecution right of appeal against such decisions which might result in important criminal proceedings being halted, it is not altogether surprising that one does not exist. Rights of appeal have not traditionally been available to the prosecution. The defence, on the other hand, if aggrieved by a particular decision of the Crown Court, can have that decision reconsidered by the Court of Appeal following conviction. That, together with the consideration given by the trial judge to the question, on an application, whether a fair trial is possible, seems to us to provide adequate redress for the defence.
A general right of appeal at the interlocutory stage against such decisions would need a good deal of further consideration before it could be adopted, particularly in view of the possible implications for the handling of court business and the timely conduct of the trials.
In the light of those objections, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw the new clauses. But I noted how strongly they were presented to the House. Therefore, I await the response with bated breath.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, I am a little surprised that the Minister did not feel able to go a little further than saying that it was at least arguable that it would be beneficial to the Crown to have a right of appeal. I cannot see any conceivable argument against it. One could say that traditionally the Crown has not been able to appeal against acquittals. I accept that in the case of acquittals by jury. But acquittal by a judge on a wholly erroneous view of the law ought to be subject to correction. I have yet to hear anyone suggest any opposition to that.

563
I have accepted that there would be some delay, but with compensating gains where appeal against refusal of a grant was successful. But as regards delay in giving a right of appeal to the defendants, the significant part of this debate, as in one of Sherlock Holmes' famous cases, was the dog which did not bark. This jurisdiction to seek leave to apply for judicial review, not a full-scale appeal to the Court of Appeal, existed for very nearly three years from the date of the decision in Randle to the date of the decision in Ashton. There is one other reported case in that period when leave was granted to apply for a judicial review and, in the event, it was unsuccessful.
However, if the courts had been inundated with vexatious applications to stay proceedings on the ground of abuse in those years, the noble Baroness would surely have been told about it by the Home Office. There must be statistics and records available about what happened and whether unreasonable delays occurred in the administration of justice in the period from the decision in Randle to the decision in Ashton from which your Lordships would be able to see at once that the jurisdiction causes great problems. But we have not heard a word about it. I have no anecdotal evidence of any such experience.
In those circumstances, I feel that I should seek the opinion of the House on the issue. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
5.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 118; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Airedale, L.

Falkender, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Falkland, V.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Barnett, L.

Fitt, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Freyberg, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L. [Teller]

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Brightman, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller]

Gregson, L.

Halsbury, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hamwee, B.

Carter, L.

Hanworth, V.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Harrowby, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh. L.

Haskel, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Healey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe. L.

Henderson of Brompton, L

Craigavon, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hollick, L.

David, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Howell, L.

Desai, L.

Hylton, L.

Diamond, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ilchester, E.

Donoughue. L.

Jay, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Dubs, L.

Jeger, B.

564

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Richard, L.

Judd, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Kennet, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Russell, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lawrence, L.

Seear, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lockwood, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Longford, E.

Slynnof Hadley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stedman, B.

Lowry, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McNair, L.

Strafford, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Templeman, L.

Marsh, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Tordoff, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mayhew, L.

Varley, L.

Milnerof Leeds, L.

Waverley, V.

Monkswell, L.

Weatherill, L.

Monson, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

White, B.

Mustill, L.

Wigoder, L.

Nelson, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Palmer, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Windlesham, L.

Rea, L.

Woolf, L.

Redesdale, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gainford, L.

Ailsa, M.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Aldington, L.

Goschen, V.

Annaly, L.

Gridley, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L..

Hambro, L.

Hanson, L.

Astor, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Balfour, E.

Harlech, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Birdwood, L.

Henley, L.

Blaker, L.

Hives, L.

Blatch, B.

Holderness, L.

Boardman, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hood, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hothfield, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Howe, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Bridgeman, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Burnham, L.

Killearn, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kingsland, L.

Cadman, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Carnock, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Layton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Lindsay, E.

Chesham, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Long, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Lucas. L.

Courtown, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cox, B.

Lyell, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

McConnell, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor. ]

Davidson, V.

Digby, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Marlesford, L.

Elles, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Fanshawe of Richmond. L.

Melville, V.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale. L.

Foley, L.

Mersey, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie. L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

565

Milverton, L.

Sharples, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mountevans, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Munster, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Norrie, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Northesk, E.

Stewartby, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Strange, B.

Onslow, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Sudeley, L.

Peel, E.

Swinfen, L.

Pender, L.

Tebbit, L.

Prior, L.

Teviot, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rees, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renwick, L.

Vivian, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Romney, E.

Wise, L.

Seccombe, B.

Young, B.

Milverton, L.

Sharpies, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mountevans, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Munster, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Norrie, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Northesk, E.

Stewartby, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Strange, B.

Onslow, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Sudeley, L.

Peel, E.

Swinfen, L.

Pender, L.

Tebbit, L.

Prior, L.

Teviot, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rawlinsonof Ewell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rees, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renwick, L.

Vivian, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Romney, E.

Wise, L.

Seccombe, B.

Young, B.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

5.41 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Evidence to be received on appeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 4:
Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new clause:
Evidence
(".—(1) In section 23 of the 1968 Act (evidence)—
(a) in subsection (l) (power to receive evidence etc.), for paragraph (c) substitute—
"(c) receive any evidence which was not adduced in the proceedings from which the appeal lies.",
(b) for subsection (2) (duty to receive evidence in certain circumstances) substitute—
"(2) The Court of Appeal shall, in considering whether to receive any evidence, have regard in particular to—

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

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

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

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

(c) in subsection (3), after "any" insert "evidence of a".

(2) In section 25 of the 1980 Act (evidence)—
(a) in subsection (1) (power to receive evidence etc.), for paragraph (c) substitute—
"(c) receive any evidence which was not adduced at the trial.",
(b) for subsection (2) (duty to receive evidence in certain circumstances) substitute—
"(2) The Court of Appeal shall, in considering whether to receive any evidence, have regard in particular to—
566

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

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

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

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

(c) in subsection (3), after "any" insert "evidence of a".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4 I shall speak also to Amendments 21 and 22 which are consequential upon it, and also Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25 which amend the same section of the Act.
I should begin by apologising for the lateness with which these amendments were tabled. We had hoped to table them last Thursday so that they would have appeared on Friday's list, but in the event we were unable to do so. These amendments are all concerned with the receipt of fresh evidence by the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, and by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal and the Courts-Martial Appeal Court which operate the same procedures.
At present, Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 contains two separate provisions on the receipt of evidence on appeal. The relationship between them is somewhat complex and has given rise to difficulties for the Court of Appeal. Subsection (1), which dates from 1907, provides a general discretion to receive the evidence of any witness where this would be in the interests of justice. It appears that by the 1960s the circumstances in which the Court of Appeal would exercise its discretion to admit fresh evidence in fact corresponded with the circumstances in which the court now receives it under subsection (2): namely, that it was relevant, credible, and admissible, and could not reasonably have been adduced at the original trial. Parliament responded in the Criminal Appeal Act 1966 (which was consolidated by the 1986 Act) by adding to the general discretion a narrower duty to admit fresh evidence if those conditions were satisfied.
The effect of this has been to create room for argument in appeal hearings about whether the court should receive evidence under the narrow, qualified duty in subsection (2) or under its general discretion in subsection (1). But the development of case law has rendered this into a distinction without a difference. If fresh evidence meets the criteria in subsection (2), it will always be in the interests of justice to receive it under subsection (1). Subsection (2) has in effect been subsumed into subsection (1), but that is obscured by the presence of two separate provisions on the statute book.
We have therefore taken the opportunity to devise amendments to improve the construction of Section 23. These are intended to provide a unified test for the receipt of fresh evidence which reflects the current practice of the Court of Appeal. The amendments retain the general discretion to receive the evidence of any witness in subsection (1). They replace the qualified duty in subsection (2) with a set of criteria to which the Court of Appeal is to have regard in considering whether to receive evidence. Those criteria are based on the existing tests in subsection (2). They require the

567
court to have regard in particular to whether the evidence is capable of belief; whether it might afford any ground for allowing the appeal; whether it would have been admissible at the original trial, and whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it at trial. They accordingly retain the change effected by Clause 4 of the Bill, which these amendments replace, whereby the threshold for the receipt of fresh evidence is lowered to evidence which is "capable of belief".
The amendments also make it clear that the Court of Appeal is concerned under Section 23 with the receipt of fresh evidence rather than with evidence which has already gone before a jury at trial. This has always been the practice of the Court of Appeal.
We intend that these amendments should not in any way narrow the scope for the receipt of fresh evidence by the Court of Appeal. We have consulted the Lord Chief Justice about this and we are satisfied that the amendments would not alter the current practice of the court. I understand that the Lord Chief Justice is in full agreement with these amendments, though I hesitate to give his views on the matter before he has spoken. In particular, we do not think that there are any circumstances in which the court would decline to receive, under subsection (1), evidence which it would have received under subsection (2).
The amendments make equivalent provision for the receipt of fresh evidence by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal and by the Courts-Martial Appeal Court so as to keep them in line with the Court of Appeal in England and Wales.
I turn now to the amendments to Schedule 3 to the Bill. These are minor and technical amendments which simply repeal a provision in Section 23(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 which no longer has any effect. When the Criminal Appeal Act was before Parliament, it was the law that the wife of a defendant was not compellable to give evidence on his behalf except on application by him; and vice versa. This reflected the law on the compellability of husbands and wives as set out in Section 1(c) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898. Since then, the law has changed. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 repealed the relevant provision of the 1898 Act so that a husband or wife is compellable to give evidence on behalf of a defendant. That rendered the provision in subsection (3) redundant. However, Parliament did not take the opportunity in 1984 to remove this spent provision, and it has survived—presumably unnoticed—until now.
The other two amendments repeal the equivalent provision in the legislation on appeals in Northern Ireland and in relation to courts-martial. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister was good enough to write to me on Friday to make her apologies for tabling the amendment late and she gave me a full explanation of it and of the existing situation. I am grateful to her for that. She will recognise however that that is not the same thing as making it available to any noble Lord who may be interested and I hope that that situation does not occur in the same way again.
568
We accept the Minister's arguments that these amendments relate to the tidying up of a rather awkward construction of Section 23 of the 1968 Act and a comparable Act for Northern Ireland. It is important that the phrase "capable of belief' maintains its primacy, as it did in the original version of Clause 4 of the Bill. We accept that the conditions (a), (b), (c) and (d) in subsection (2) erode the "shall" provision at the beginning of that section. We accept that there is no major difference in the actual procedure of the courts as it is today, which we believe to be satisfactory.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment, with which I entirely agree. Perhaps I can briefly say why.
As many of your Lordships will know, Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 governs the admission of fresh evidence by the Court of Appeal. As the section stands, fresh evidence can be admitted either under subsection (1), which provides a power to admit fresh evidence if it is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice, or under subsection (2) which imposes a qualified duty to receive fresh evidence in certain restricted circumstances. I say "qualified" because the court must be satisfied that the evidence would, if received, afford a ground for allowing the appeal; it must be satisfied that it is credible and admissible, and that there was a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it at the trial.
The case law has now reached the position that the duty to admit evidence in pursuance of Section 23(2) is effectively subsumed within the requirement in subsection (1) to satisfy the interests of justice. New Clause 4 will replace this rather awkward two-pronged provision with a unified test for the admission of fresh evidence which will be both clear and comprehensive. The new test will eliminate the rather sterile arguments which have been raised over the years about the distinction between and the application of the power in Section 23(1) and the qualified duty in Section 23(2), which I have just described.
I should emphasise to the House that this amendment will in no way lessen the likelihood of fresh evidence being received on appeal. The duty in Section 23(2) is, in my view, mandatory in appearance only. I and the judges whom I have consulted on this have been able to think of no occasion on which evidence would he received under the present Section 23 which would not be received under the new section contained in new Clause 4. It is therefore our view that the interests of justice will be better served by retaining the discretionary power to adroit fresh evidence in its current form but replacing subsection (2) with a set of criteria by reference to which the court should be required to test evidence when deciding whether or not to receive it on appeal. I support the amendment.
Clause 13 [General provisions about references):
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 10, line 40. after ("raised") insert ("or not adequately raised or not adequately considered").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 6, which is consequential. I make no apology for returning to this small but important amendment which I withdrew after debate in Committee. If the amendment is not accepted I believe that there will be a small but significant number of cases in which a miscarriage of justice has occurred which the commission recognises as such but is powerless to refer on to the Court of Appeal—in other words, which it has no means of putting right
As it stands, Clause 13 allows the commission to refer a case on to the Court of Appeal only when two hurdles have been cleared. First, the commission must consider that there is a real possibility that the verdict or finding is unsafe and would not be upheld if a reference were made; and, secondly, the argument or evidence which leads the commission to that conclusion has never been raised before in earlier proceedings. Amendment No. 5 allows the commission to refer a case with a verdict or finding which it believes has a real possibility of being unsafe when the evidence or argument was raised or considered, but only inadequately at the earlier proceedings.
As an illustration, this will cover the case where the lawyer was guilty of incompetence, or, perhaps rather more commonly, of inadvertence, or made an error of judgment in his conduct of the case, or failed to appreciate the significance of evidence or an argument at the time. Lawyers make mistakes. When a man or woman is wrongly convicted as a result of such a mistake it would seem to be wrong that the commission should be prevented from sending that case on to be properly considered and, it is to be hoped, corrected.
When I raised this matter at the Committee stage the noble Baroness in answer raised two essential objections to the amendment. First, she said that the commission should not be required to review decisions taken by the appropriate courts. In other words, to use her phrase, the commission must not be allowed to usurp the role of the court. I agree totally with that. This amendment would do no such thing. Where an argument or evidence has been properly raised and properly considered by the earlier court the commission will not be permitted to refer the case back. It is only when the argument was not properly advanced or considered in such a way that the court has been able or willing to give adequate consideration to it that the commission would be permitted to make such a reference.
Secondly, the noble Baroness said that the commission would receive a great number of applications which were in effect complaints from prisoners about the way in which their lawyer had handled the case, claiming that he or she had done so inexpertly, inadequately or ineffectively. That, I suspect, will be the case in any event. I anticipate that the commission will receive a large number of applications based upon those lines. As it stands, unless there is new argument or new evidence, the applicant must be turned down, whatever the merits of his or her complaint. The amendment simply enables the commission, in a case where it believes it is likely that the conviction is unsafe
570
and in its opinion the lawyer did not adequately advance the argument to the court or the court did not give proper consideration to it, to send that case for that proper consideration. I simply ask: what is wrong with that?
Worry about the pressure of numbers of applications to the commission must not be allowed to lead the commission to be put at its inception into a straitjacket which will prevent it from doing the job which it is being set up to do—in other words, to identify and try to correct the mistakes which have led to miscarriages of justice.
The Royal Commission in effect gave birth to this piece of legislation. This very aspect of the Bill was, I understand, something which occupied the Royal Commission for a considerable period of time. At the Committee stage of the Bill the chairman of the Royal Commission, the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, who is unable to be here today, spoke in support of the amendment. Perhaps I may briefly remind the House of what he said:
"We were well aware of the history of the argument for finality. We were, I think I can say, unanimous that the cases on record showed quite conclusively that this argument had in effect acted against the interests of justice: that deserving appellants had not had the hearing which they deserved in the Court of Appeal because the court was at that stage of its history anxious—we would have said excessively anxious—that the defendant should not have (as it has sometimes been put) a second bite at the cherry.
I seriously believe … that there is no downside to extending the clause by this small but important amendment".—[Official Report, 8/6/95; col. 1514.]
The amendment also received the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, who spoke with vast experience of the criminal law.
Having had the opportunity to look at both what was said in Committee on 8th June and to consider the matter again in the interim, I hope that the noble Baroness will today feel able to consider making what I believe to be a small but very important alteration to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it may seem a minor point, but I think it will be a difficult matter of interpretation to decide what comes within the meaning of the word "adequately". When someone has represented an accused personally in court that representative may have done his best but he may not have been very competent. He may not have done justice to the point that he was trying to raise. Does that mean that he has performed adequately? He may have taken quite a long time. I should have thought that this is a very difficult matter for the commission to decide, especially as the proceedings in question will not have taken place before the commission.
The word "adequately" applies not only to the question of raising the matter but to the question of it being "adequately considered". That raises a doubt in my mind as to whether Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 will be of advantage or will cause confusion. If we leave it with the word "raised" then the commission will have a pretty wide discretion. It might be better to leave matters like that instead of risking the confusion that could arise over arguments as regards the meaning, in particular circumstances, of the word "adequately".
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the objective of Clause 13(1) is to set broad conditions on the power of the commission to refer convictions, verdicts and findings to the courts. There are two essential requirements. First, there must appear to be a "real possibility" that the conviction, verdict or finding will not be upheld in the appeal which would follow a reference. Secondly, there must appear to be some evidence or argument not previously raised in the courts which now gives rise to that "real possibility" of a successful appeal.
The purpose of these conditions is to guide the commission, and those who put forward cases to it, as to the sort of circumstances in which it will be appropriate for the courts to hear a further appeal as a last resort. They are reasonable criteria, given that cases considered by the commission will usually have been twice before the courts already. These criteria serve to discourage applicants from believing that the courts may be persuaded simply to go over old evidence again and come to a more favourable view, which is one of the points made by my noble friend Lord Renton.
Amendment No. 5 seeks to expand one of these criteria, but for the reasons which I gave in Committee, I do not believe that it would be right to add to Clause 13(1) in this way. The amendment would, it seems to me, risk burdening the commission with many applications in hopeless cases where the applicant nevertheless represented that the jury or the Court of Appeal could not have considered his arguments properly. Of course, the commission would not be bound to refer these cases, but it would be required at least to go through the process of considering for itself whether the arguments had been adequately presented or considered at trial or on appeal: This would be an unfortunate requirement on the commission because it would be bound to reappraise the quality of the courts' previous judgments in a way which the conditions in the Bill as it stands do not.
Although I see difficulties with this amendment, I do understand the force of some of the concerns which the noble Baroness has expressed. In particular, it is not at all the intention of this Bill to prevent the courts from receiving a reference in any case where there is substantial ground for them to look again at a conviction. I agree with the view that in setting reasonable criteria for references we should he doubly careful to ensure that references are not inadvertently prevented where injustice would result. However exceptional, there may be circumstances in which a conviction plainly ought to be referred and yet there was doubt about whether this could be done even under the very broad criteria in Clause 13(1) (b). I therefore propose, so far as Clause 13(1) is concerned, to bring forward at Third Reading an amendment which would preserve the essence of the present criteria, while ensuring that they were not so tightly drawn as to risk excluding this sort or exceptional case.
I take a different view of Amendment No. 6 which would relax the parallel condition in Clause 13(2) governing the reference of sentences. That is the point: here we are talking about sentences. Having regard to the previous debates in which this provision was
572
criticised for not being tight enough, I see no need to relax it in the way now proposed. In particular, your Lordships will note that in relation to sentences in Clause 13(2) we have the concept of "information", which is a wider concept than "evidence". The amendment now proposed would be unhelpful for the same reason as in relation to convictions; that is, it would encourage questioning of the quality of the courts' reasoning and judgment. It would, I fear, give rise to many of the problems which the noble Baroness was concerned about when she moved to tighten the Clause 13(2) criteria in Committee.
This has been a helpful debate. It is important that the criteria for references should fully serve the purposes of the new arrangements in the Bill—above all, of course, the correction of miscarriages of justice. I shall bring forward at Third Reading an amendment to Clause 13(1) which will aim to meet some of the concerns that have been expressed. But I remain of the view that the balance in Clause 13(2)—that is to say, on sentences—is right as it stands. In that light, I hope that the noble Baroness will not see any need to press the present amendments.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I am encouraged that, as I understand it, her amendment is likely to make it clear to the commission that it will retain a wide discretion in relation to the cases it refers. As I understood the noble Lord, Lord Renton, his understanding is that the present wording already gives it a wide discretion. I hope that the amendment will make that abundantly clear.
I fully understand the reasons behind the noble Baroness's reluctance to embrace Amendment No. 6 in view of the slight dichotomy between the two amendments at Committee stage. I am very grateful to her. I look forward with interest to the amendment which she will produce, which I hope I shall feel able to support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Power to require appointment of investigating officers]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 14, line 23, leave out from ("may") to end of line 24 and insert ("either require the appointment of an investigating officer as provided in section 19 to carry out the inquiries or, if subsection (8) applies, themselves appoint an investigating officer.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing this amendment, I give the apologies of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who, as your Lordships know, finds it very difficult to attend the House at all and is unable to do so today. I have discussed this amendment in detail with him and he fully supports it.
This amendment follows one which the noble and learned Lord moved at Committee stage. In accordance with the way in which your Lordships like to consider matters of this kind, we have sought to moderate the

573
terms of the amendment which was put forward and voted on in Committee. What is now proposed is the essence of Amendment No. 8:
"The Commission shall only appoint their own investigating officer if there are … exceptional circumstances that would make it likely that any person appointed under section 19 would not be suitable to carry out the investigation".
We are well aware that there have been government amendments to Clause 19 which have been very helpful in increasing the power of the commission over the investigations carried out on its behalf. I believe that the House will agree that the integrity and independence of the commission are absolutely fundamental to the effective operation of this Bill. Certainly noble Lords from all parts of the House have emphasised that point, as indeed it was emphasised in another place.
So it is not that the Government are not moving to some extent in the direction we wish them to go, but we believe that they have not gone quite far enough. That is the view not only of my noble friends but of many others outside. The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, speaking in Committee, emphasised his support, as the chairman of the Royal Commission, for the amendments which were then proposed. The Association of Chief Police Officers, which does not take a view on the Bill as a whole, has argued that the commission should have what it calls "a central unit", independent of police forces within the commission, which can carry out or manage complex or controversial investigations. This amendment, in cases of complex or controversial investigations, would give the commission that power.
This is not a theoretical amendment. I am sorry to say this, but there are practical examples of the involvement of the originating police force in investigations which have been unsatisfactory. There are very recent examples and perhaps I may give one. I refer to the case of Mary Druhan who was convicted of arson and murder on 12th June 1989. Justice put forward representations on her behalf to the Home Office in a petition dated July 1993. In January 1994, Justice was told that the Metropolitan Police had been asked to make further inquiries. In January 1995, having heard nothing, Justice wrote to express concern because there had been no response and that message was passed on to the police.
In April 1995, Justice contacted the police again and found that there had been no response to the Home Office, that there had been no reinterviewing of any of the witnesses and that the police had not even seen a copy of the 1993 petition. The police had not taken the original Home Office letter to be authority to reinvestigate and had simply referred the matter to the police files. In June of this year—in other words, during this month—the Home Office recognised that the police inquiry had been inadequate and said that the case had been resubmitted to the same police force for proper inquiries to be undertaken.
This is June 1995 and Mary Druhan has been in prison for six years. It is nearly two years since a full dossier was submitted in the case and 18 months since the police were asked to respond. That is not good enough. Of course, much of that will he put right by the provisions of the Bill; but some of it will not because,
574
under the legislation, the natural expectation is that the case would go back to the originating police force and, in this case, the police force was very severely at fault.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships another example. I refer to the case of Brian Parsons, who was convicted of murder in 1988. The solicitors were passed information, after he appealed unsuccessfully, which suggested that the murder had been committed by two other men. The original police force was asked to reinvestigate in 1992, but television journalists found important forensic evidence which had not been disclosed to the defence. The independent forensic scientist has claimed that her investigations were severely hampered by the police. It took 18 months and 33 letters before she was allowed access to the exhibits.
Those cases have not yet been resolved and they must, of course, be taken with that fact in mind. However, I suggest that they offer sufficient evidence that the presumption that a case would go back to the originating police force is simply not satisfactory. The availability of the power to the commission in exceptional circumstances to have its own investigators is, we believe, essential to its integrity and independence.
In response to the amendment put forward in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, the Minister said that the staff were already there in the commission. But of course such staff are required to exercise supervision rather than conduct the cases. It was suggested that a body of people to carry out investigations would have a varying workload and that that would make it difficult for them to be used effectively and to be available effectively. But there will be something like 1,500 investigations taking place every year. If a few of them cannot be diverted without undue disruption to an internal force, it is difficult to know how effective the management is.
In Committee, the Minister referred to it as being a shadow police force. That is not the intention. The intention is that there should be a reserve power available. That is all that the amendments would provide. The Minister also argued that the commission's investigators would need the whole range of police powers such as the arrest and compulsion of witnesses. I confess that the amendment that we put forward on the powers of investigators was defective in the sense that it relied on the example of the Companies Act rather than on other legislation. But we have not sought to put forward the same amendments.
However, the "Police Complaints Authority" model, which has been adduced in support of the existing provisions in the Bill, is really no more satisfactory. If the amendments are agreed to, I am convinced that it would be possible without a great deal of difficulty, but with more expertise than I have, adequately to define what powers the internal investigators should have. After all, this part of the Bill refers to investigations to b carried out by a wide range of public bodies and not just by the police.
It is not a dramatic amendment and it is certainly not as far reaching as the amendment which both I and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, would have wished to put forward. However, it is a movement

575
towards the reaffirmation of the integrity and independence of the commission from the rest of the criminal justice system which we believe to be essential for the proper and effective implementation of such an important and worthwhile Bill. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in Clauses 18 and 19 the power to appoint an investigating officer is hedged about with a number of conditions. Perhaps I may invite the attention of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to Clause 18(6) which says:
"The Commission may direct—

(a) that a person shall not be appointed, or

(b) that a police force or other public body shall not be selected, under subsection (4) or (5) without the approval of the Commission.

That seems to give the commission the last word in the matter. Although I appreciate the motives of the noble Lord—indeed, if I may say so, he put the matter most fairly—I wonder whether his amendments would merely add to the elaborate precautions which Clauses 18 and 19 already contain.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, in rising to express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and standing also in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, I hope that it will be within the rules of order for me to speak obliquely to Amendment No. 9, which is tabled in my name. I understand that my amendment was originally grouped with Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, and that seemed to me to make good sense. However, the amendments were later ungrouped. I do not want to cause the Minister any embarrassment; but, if I were to speak now, I would deliver one short speech rather than two longer ones which at least would earn me some credit within the House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord's comments actually come as some relief to me. The amendments were grouped but I was invited to decouple them, which I agreed to do. However, I should be most happy to take all three amendments together, if the noble Lord opposite has no objection.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords; I have no objection.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am most grateful. When the Minister spoke in Committee on the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, I thought that she gave a fuller, more thoughtful and more convincing description of the processes of investigation and the powers provided in the Bill than we had heard hitherto. I did not have the opportunity on that occasion to say that I was indeed most grateful to her for explaining much more fully how the Government envisage the provisions of the Bill will work.
However, it did seem for a while that the Minister was arguing that the Bill already contained the provisions being requested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. Indeed, judging by her reply to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, it
576
seemed that we had perhaps overlooked certain provisions in the Bill. However, the Minister then said very firmly and fairly what the Bill would not do. Perhaps I may quote from the Official Report where the Minister said:
"The Bill does not provide for the establishment of a sizeable in-house team for the purpose of carrying out the sort of detailed, on-the-ground investigations that are currently carried out in a number of these cases by police forces".—(Official Report, 12/6/95: col. 1601.]
The Minister then went on to give what she called her practical reasons and reasons of "principle" as to why that was the case. Most of those reasons—and I do not complain—were of a rhetorical nature. Indeed, I believe that here were seven to eight questions in the course of a couple of paragraphs to which I believe there were convincing, non-rhetorical replies. Although I am tempted to quote them, I believe that it would detain the House unreasonably. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh said, we have covered that ground before and it is familiar to all of us.
I would only say that, as the Minister has conceded and as the House will know because it is provided in the Bill, there are three parties to the outcome of the Bill, taking account of discussions within the House and another place and then the appointment of an independent commission. There is the Minister and the Government who are responsible for the Bill; there is Parliament which is asked to support it; and then there is the commission which will have to operate the Bill's provisions thereafter.
I do not believe that a further debate would persuade the Minister that she is wrong and that there is a need to change the provisions on the face of the Bill, hut equally—I believe this is evident—she will not persuade all Members of the House that she is right. Indeed, in the vote on the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in Committee, Members from her own Benches, from the Cross-Benches as well as from the Opposition parties voted in favour of it. An honest difference of view is widely held. I should like to describe it as a drawn game. It is a drawn game from which we will leave the discussions on the Bill when eventually it has its Third Reading.
If the Government are not persuaded by their critics, and the Government's critics are not persuaded by the Minister, cannot we in some way leave it to the independent commission, given certain safeguards, to take a view as to whether an internal investigating team would make sense? The Minister thinks it would not, and has given reasons. Other Members of the House, myself included, believe that there are good reasons as to why there should be an internal investigating team. If we cannot persuade one another, why cannot we say that if in due course the independent commission decides that it would like an in-house investigating team, that missing clement in the Bill will he restored by means of a statutory instrument?
I should expect the commission, after a period of no fewer than two years from the commencement of the Act—clearly it must have experience of how the processes work—in its annual report, or at another appropriate time, or in another appropriate way, to indicate to the Home Secretary that it believed that the

577
powers which are denied it on the face of the Bill are now required to enable it to carry out effectively the independent function it has been given by Parliament. In those circumstances, the commission could say to the Home Secretary that it would like the Home Secretary to take those powers by statutory instrument.
It would still be within the Home Secretary's discretion to say no. The Home Secretary would still have the final say. He could say that as the Bill had been passed by Parliament, he saw no present need for those powers to be exercised. But if he, or a successor, took a different view, or the commission, over a period of time, decided that it needed those powers, it would be possible to take them by statutory instrument. That is a reasonable compromise. I hope that if the Minister finds it necessary to express her opposition to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which I support, she might at least, in a lifeline to the House, suggest that in rejecting that amendment she can accept mine as a reasonable compromise. She would then make us all very pleased with her, and she would find that the commission in future would regard that as a valuable concession by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it is by now well known that most serious miscarriages of justice took place in the cases known as the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, and the Ulster Defence Regiment Four. After many years, and, in some cases, several appeals and investigations, 13 out of 14 of those men were eventually rehabilitated. I had personal knowledge and dealings with a number of those men who have subsequently been cleared.
In the process of that, I wrote many letters to many different Secretaries of State. Out of those cases it became clear that circumstances can arise in which the conventional police forces have great difficulties in investigating one another. One can understand those difficulties. That is why I believe that it is of the greatest importance that the new commission should have the widest possible reserve powers in special and difficult circumstances. I take no view as between these various amendments and the various forms of drafting, but I hope that the Government appreciate the strength of the case for wide reserve powers relating to investigations.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that I can allay some of the misgivings that people have about this part of the Bill. We had a very useful debate in Committee, as a result of which it seemed to me that we were all virtually agreed on the question of who may be appointed to carry out inquiries on the commission's behalf. It was said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and other noble Lords that the commission would want to make use of police investigators in a substantial number of cases, but that in some cases it would want investigations done for it by someone other than a police officer, including, possibly, in some exceptional cases where a police officer would otherwise have been the natural choice. That is an entirely reasonahle view and the Government share it.
578
I would support Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 if they were necessary to enable the commission to have investigations done by its own staff or by someone else other than a police officer. But they are not necessary: the Bill already allows those things to be done.
The commission has power under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 1 to appoint its own employees, with no restriction as to the sort of people its employees may he. It must be plain that the commission does not need special provision in order to direct and supervise its own staff. Nor does it need such provision in order to engage the services of an outsider—for example, an accountant—to investigate a case for it. The commission could contract such a service; the terms of the contract would provide the commission with the necessary ability to supervise and direct matters. Alternatively the commission could itself employ the accountant or whoever on a temporary basis.
The amendments are therefore simply not necessary to achieve the flexibility on which we are all agreed. A power to require that an investigating officer he appointed is necessary in relation to police forces and other investigating bodies in order to ensure that police officers and members of those other bodies are available to assist the commission in relation to matters for which the police service or those other bodies have some wider responsibility. That is the purpose of Clauses 18 and 19.
While, I understand, therefore, the spirit behind these amendments I have to say that they would add nothing at all to the Bill—the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton. They confer no power on the commission or on any other person which is not already available under the Bill as it stands.
Amendment No. 8, on the other hand, appears rather surprisingly to limit the flexibility which the commission already has under the Bill. Instead of preserving the commission's ability to inquire into a case by whatever means at its disposal it judges best, it would appear to oblige the commission, before asking someone to carry out inquiries for it, to trawl police forces and other public bodies throughout the country to see if one of their officers could do the task. So the accountant I mentioned earlier could not he engaged until every police force had been asked whether an officer with suitable knowledge of financial dealings might be available. I am doubtful whether that is what the noble Lord intended, but I fear it will he the effect of the amendment.
I cannot commend these amendments because they add nothing to the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, except what, in the case of Amendment No. 8, appears to be an unhelpful restriction on the commission's freedom to inquire into cases by whatever available means it sees fit to use. Therefore I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. The Bill confers a number of specific duties on the commission, such as those in Clause 13(7) and (9) (which require the commission to give its reasons to the court when referring a case, and its reasons to the applicant when refusing to refer his case); Clause 14, subsections (1), (3) and (4) (investigations on behalf of the Court of

579
Appeal); Clause 15, subsections (10) and (92) (assisting the Secretary of State in relation to the Royal Prerogative of Mercy); and Schedule 1, paragraphs 8 and 9 (the requirement that the commission prepares annual reports and accounts and submits these to the Secretary of State). It also provides it with all the powers that the Government believe it will need to carry out its work.
Briefly, the commission will have the power to approve the choice of investigating officer. It will be able to require that another person be selected and appointed if it is not satisfied with the first person chosen; to insist on the appointment of an investigating officer from a force or public body other than the force or other public body which originally investigated the case and to approve the choice of the outside force or body; to direct what inquiries should be made; and to supervise their conduct to the extent the commission thinks necessary. The commission's directions can be as precise, and its supervision as close, as the member of the commission in charge of the case thinks fit. In addition to these extensive powers, the commission may take any other steps that it thinks appropriate to investigate its caseload.
It is not clear to me what additional duties should be imposed on the commission, nor what powers the commission might require in addition to those which I have described. Indeed, I know of no evidence to suggest that the commission will require any additional powers. But even if some such evidence should come to light in due course, I have to say to your Lordships that I do not believe that the procedure proposed in the amendment for conferring further powers or duties on the commission would be the right one. The powers and duties of the commission should be settled by Parliament in primary legislation, not by order of the Secretary of State.
I find myself in the ironic situation of considering how extraordinary this amendment is. If the Government had suggested that this open-ended power should be given to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—that is, to say that any such other powers which may be deemed by the Secretary of State to be necessary shall be enacted by secondary legislation—I should be called to the Dispatch Box to be told that it was an abuse of secondary legislation and we should not give an open-ended power to my right honourable friend to come forward and extend the powers of the commission. I believe that it is a matter for primary legislation.
I turn now to some of the issues that were raised during the debate. The noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Hylton, mentioned several cases. I hope that they will agree that the intention of the Bill is here almost precisely because of some of the examples raised by noble Lords. There is a genuine attempt on behalf of the Government to ensure that we do not see the like of those decisions again.
I wish to clear up the point about the commission having its own central unit. The Government intend that the commission should have its own unit of experienced investigators to advise it and also, as the noble Lord
580
suggested, to play a part in the direction of investigations. Therefore, the amendment is not necessary to enable that to be done, nor would it add anything to the Bill.
In making references to other cases, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the case of Mary Druhan. I hope that he will allow me to write to him about that. Under the Bill as proposed the commission will have powers which the Home Secretary at present does not have. In other words, if the commission wishes to appoint an outside police force, that can be done under the new circumstances.
It would not be appropriate for me to take the individual cases referred to by noble Lords because the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that those injustices are not repeated. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was a very remarkable reply because it raised a whole line of argument which was not raised in Committee, nor, as far as I know, when similar amendments were moved in another place. I listened to the Minister most carefully and I hope that I represent her argument correctly. She said that the powers already exist because of Schedule 1, paragraph 4(1). It states:
"The Commission may appoint a chief executive and such other employees as the Commission think fit, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury as to their number and terms and conditions of service".
Clearly, that provision refers to the permanent employed staff of the commission.
I now turn to Clause 18, which we are considering. It requires that the investigations should be carried out when the commission thinks fit and in two different circumstances. Subsection (2) provides that if the offence was investigated by persons serving in a public body—I shall return to the definition of "public body", which appears in Clause 21—the requirement may be imposed on the person who runs the public body or on a successor body if the public body ceases to exist. I have turned the wording of the subsection into English as opposed to legislative language. Subsection (3) provides that if no offence was investigated by persons serving in the public body, a requirement may he imposed on a chief officer of police.
Taking those two subsections together, the only people who can carry out investigations are those who are in public bodies, whether the offence was investigated by the public body or not. Clause 21 defines "public body" as:

"(a) any police force,

(b)any government department, local authority or other body constituted for purposes of the public service, local government or the administration of justice, or

(c) any other body whose members are appointed by Her Majesty, any Minister or any government department or whose revenues consist wholly or mainly of money provided by Parliament",

leaving on one side the Northern Ireland aspect.
The Minister brought together in her argument the provision in Schedule 1 which refers to the permanent staff of the commission and the provisions in Clause 18

581
which require that the investigation should be carried out by a public body. Is she telling the House that under Clause 21(1) (c) a public body—in other words, any other body whose members are appointed by Her Majesty—can include the commission itself? If she is, we are totally satisfied and there is no problem whatever. If she is not telling us that the commission itself can constitute a public body as defined in Clause 21(1), what is the relevance of her reference to Schedule 1, paragraph 4(1)?
I must ask the Minister for a response to that question because it is fundamental to the amendment and to the powers of the commission. I hope that she will be able to give me an answer before I decide what to do about the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding has always been that the commission has the powers to investigate. I said in my response to the amendment that the Government intend that the commission should have its own unit of experienced investigators to advise it and also, as the noble Lord suggested, to play a part in the direction of investigations.
There may be some difference between us on investigating and, for example, using the powers of the police for powers of entry. The commission can prescribe the investigation, oversee it, specify it and supervise it as closely as possible. Its members can physically accompany the police if powers of entry are required, and they can go in and witness and observe the police if they wish the police to conduct the questioning. There may be a distinction in the noble Lord's mind about using the powers of the police in order to carry out the investigation. I understand that an investigation can be undertaken by the commission.
The Government's position has always been that the commission can employ investigative staff and can engage investigative expertise. The commission can do that as it thinks fit. If it decides to do things in that way, it will not need to use its Clause 18 powers. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord. It may be that I have not articulated that as well as I might have done; but, both in Committee and on Second Reading, I tried to say that that is the case.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the face of it, that seems to be extraordinarily helpful. It seems to answer the points which were raised on Second Reading and in Committee in a way that has not been done before. There may be some sub-text which we are not getting to. It may be that there is a difference between the power to investigate, as the Minister puts it, and the power to conduct investigations; I do not know. However, the Minister and I can discuss those matters between now and Third Reading.
On the basis of what the Minister says, which I believe to be a very significant advance in the powers, independence and integrity of the investigation, I shall not press this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Other powers]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
Postal application for legal advice and assistance
(". The Secretary of State shall make regulations to amend the Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations 1989 to permit a prisoner to make a postal application for legal advice and assistance under regulation 9 so that representations to the Commission may be made on his behalf.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as the noble Baroness may remember, in Committee I moved a rather wider amendment in relation to the provision of legal advice and assistance for prisoners making representations to the commission. I withdrew that amendment when the noble Baroness indicated her willingness to re-examine the present provisions in the light of the difficulties which I drew to her attention in connection with the operation of the green form scheme.
I am grateful to the Minister for the attention that she has given to the matter, and in particular for the letter which she sent me in the interval between Committee stage and today in which she gave me some considerable assurances on a number of aspects and in particular on tackling the delays in the granting of extensions of legal aid and attempts to promote consistency of decision among different area officers.
Unfortunately, the detailed submissions which I sent to her, which were prepared in part by the organisation, Justice, crossed in the post with her letter. In particular, they related to the need for changes to Regulation 9 to permit a postal application for legal advice and assistance. Therefore, I return to that one aspect of the matter on Amendment No. 10 in the hope that the Minister will give it further consideration today.
The present position is that under the green form scheme, legal aid is available for those who wish to petition the Home Secretary. On a number of occasions at earlier stages of the Bill, the noble Baroness said that she believes that that provision will be adequate to allow prisoners to prepare applications to go to the proposed new review commission.
There is a difficulty because under Regulation 9 of the legal advice and assistance regulations, the application form for green form help must, as a general rule, be signed by the client in the presence of a solicitor. That illustrates the difficulties which begin to arise because prisoners are scattered; the green form scheme allows two hours of assistance from the solicitor; to see the prisoner may involve a journey which takes a considerably greater time than that; and the solicitor is not paid to travel to see the prisoner, he is paid only after the form has been signed; nor is he paid for any preparation that he does before the form is signed, making it impractical for him to prepare the case and often to give truly meaningful advice when he first sees his proposed client.
There are two exceptions to the rule that the form has to he signed in the presence of the solicitor with the client there. The first is that a franchised solicitor is allowed to make those arrangements by post. Franchised solicitors may claim for telephone advice, for the cost of the outward journey, although somewhat curiously,

583
as I understand it, not for their own travelling time. But importantly—and most important in that context—they may accept postal forms.
The other exception is that a prisoner may authorise somebody else on his behalf to go to the solicitor's office and sign the form for him. That sounds well and good but if no changes are made to the present regulations, that in itself creates difficulties for a number of prisoners.
Perhaps I may indicate shortly some of those problems. Not all prisoners have somebody on whom they can call to act as their representative to visit the solicitor. Even if they have someone, that individual must be in a position to provide the solicitor with accurate and detailed information about the prisoner's finances. That person must be prepared to travel at his own expense to the solicitor. If he needs to see the proposed applicant to obtain the financial details, he may also have to travel at his own expense to see him in prison, wherever that may be. For many prisoners, it will simply not be practical to arrange for somebody else to do that.
Not all solicitors are franchised and the prisoner who wishes to be represented by a non-franchised solicitor, who perhaps conducted the trial for him and therefore is the most appropriate and ultimately most helpful person to the commission to give him advice, will be at a distinct disadvantage.
Such a prisoner represented by a non-franchised solicitor will face considerable difficulties. Perhaps I may outline three. First, the legal aid fund will not pay a non-franchised solicitor travelling expenses to the prison in order to get the form signed. The solicitor must be willing to pay for himself. When one is dealing with an organisation like Justice, which receives something in the order of 600 applications per year, it is not feasible in view of the fact that travelling to many prisons will occupy the time of a solicitor for something in the order of half a day. It is not feasible when, as often happens, long-term prisoners are moved frequently.
Secondly, even the costs of the return journey from seeing the prisoner may not he fully covered because some area officers set maximum limits on travelling expenses or insist that local solicitors act. Again, prisoners are moved and continuity is disrupted.
It may be asked why a local solicitor cannot act as agent and sign the form or even take the basic instructions and then pass them onto a specialist organisation with specialist lawyers such as Justice. But local solicitors will not visit prisons as agents to get the forms signed unless they are assured that they will be paid. An organisation like Justice is simply not in a position to pay solicitors privately. Of course, local solicitors expect to know that their costs and expenses prior to the signing of the form will be recoverable and they are not so recoverable under the present system.
The present regulations could be varied very simply and easily to allow postal applications from a prisoner in an appropriate case, even when the solicitor whom he has chosen is not franchised. The results would have three very beneficial effects. First, a solicitor could look
584
at the case and prepare it before he sees the client. He could perhaps knock on the head a worthless application which should never waste the time of the commission.
Secondly, the prisoner would not be reliant on having a solicitor who is sufficiently generous and charitable to pay his expenses out of his own pocket. Thirdly—and I hope that this will commend itself to the Minister—it will save the Legal Aid Board money because what on earth is the point of requiring a solicitor to travel to a prison to get a form signed? It seems to me that in this day and age of technology, the use of a 25 pence stamp or even second-class postage could save a great deal of money in appropriate cases.
Having pin-pointed in rather more detail one of a number of matters which I raised in Committee, I hope that on this occasion the Minister will be able to say that she can either make provision for the legal advice and assistance regulations to be amended to allow that small but important change or, at the very least, to say that further guidance will be given to local boards to enable that to happen. I beg to move.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, provision already exists in the Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations 1989 for some solicitors to accept postal applications for Green Form advice and assistance in certain circumstances. Where a solicitor holds a legal aid franchise for the particular category of legal aid work in which advice and assistance are to be given (which in these cases would be crime), and where it is considered justifiable, a postal or telephone application may be accepted. Circumstances in which it may be considered justifiable to accept a postal or telephone application include where the convicted person is in prison or disabled, in hospital, or where he or she is a single parent without child care.
Franchised solicitors may also claim for telephone advice and for the cost of outward travel, although not for travelling time, to attend on a client away from the office prior to the signing of a Green Form application. These franchises are the result of a relatively new initiative by the Legal Aid Board. At present there are 1,050 solicitors' offices which hold a legal aid franchise. These franchised offices are spread throughout England and Wales, albeit with some degree of regional variation. I understand that the Legal Aid Board aims to increase the numbers substantially over the next few years.
I accept that some prisoners will have, or will want to go to, legal advisers who are not franchised. If they wish to obtain Green Form advice and assistance from a non-franchised firm of solicitors, that of course is a matter for them. Postal applications cannot currently be made in such circumstances. But it is possible for the convicted person to authorise someone else to attend the solicitor's office and to make the necessary application on his behalf. The authorised person must be able to supply the solicitor with details of the convicted person's financial circumstances so that eligibility can be assessed. But this does not seem to be unreasonable.
We believe therefore that prisoners wishing to make representations to the commission will have access to legal advice and assistance through the Green Form

585
scheme without the need for further changes to the current arrangements. The current arrangements will be kept under review so that if any changes are thought necessary in the light of the commission's operations these can be considered. Changes can of course be made without the need for primary legislation, either by issuing guidance or by way of an amendment to the Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations 1989.
A legal aid franchise holder has demonstrated that his or her work practices meet certain specified standards. As a result, the Legal Aid Board is provided with assurances over the quality of the franchise holder's work. In return, the franchise holder is able to take advantage of a range of delegated powers, financial incentives and special arrangements, including the ability to accept postal applications for Green Form advice and assistance.
It is important that there should be proper control over public funds spent on the provision of legal aid. The Green Form scheme has recently been the subject of alleged abuse and in some cases even fraud by solicitors. The Legal Aid Board and the Lord Chancellor's Department are working closely together to improve control over the scheme and to identify and act upon cases of alleged abuse more quickly. Legal aid franchising is seen as an important tool in improving control by providing additional assistance and additional assurances about solicitors' working practices. To relax the requirements for firms which have not met the criteria for a franchise would run contrary to that aim.
The noble Baroness made reference to difficulties for the prisoner in finding authorised persons and the difficulty of whether the prisoner has someone who is appropriate and can properly represent his case. If the prisoner cannot find an authorised .person to visit the solicitor, he may ask a non-franchised solicitor to visit, for which I understand the solicitor would be paid, or he may choose a franchised solicitor. I rest my case. I hope that that was understood.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the Minister but it would appear that she has absolutely no sympathy with those who have a non-franchised solicitor and no one they can appoint to send for them. Those people will still face considerable difficulties. They will include people, for example, who send cases to organisations such as Justice. I shall not divide the House at this hour but I am concerned that there is a lacuna which affects those people. My only encouragement from what the Minister has said is that the position will be kept under review. I hope that she and the department will listen sympathetically, once the commission is up and running, to representations from organisations such as Justice which, it seems to me, are at the present time needlessly having to incur expense in travelling when they could be using legal aid money to give advice, which is what they should be able to do.
In the circumstances, I shall withdraw the amendment but I hope that the noble Baroness will keep an open mind on those people who fall outside the present provisions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the amendment is withdrawn. I have reread the note before me and I should put on record a rather crucial word that I missed
586
out earlier. The solicitor who has been chosen to act as the authorised person to go to visit the solicitor would not be paid if a non-franchised solicitor was chosen. However, of course the choice is there to use a franchised solicitor to act as the visitor.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [The Commission: further provisions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 23, line 36, leave out from ("The") to end of line 43 and insert ("Commission shall—

(a) pay to members of the Commission such remuneration,

(b) pay to or in respect of members of the Commission any such allowances, fees, expenses and gratuities, and

(c) pay towards the provision of pensions to or in respect of members of the Commission any such sums,

as the Commission are required to pay by or in accordance with directions given by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20.
The Treasury has decided to assume a more strategic role in relation to the oversight of non-departmental public bodies, their funding and their pay arrangements. As part of this process it is looking at ways of withdrawing from its current role in approving the pay arrangements and so forth of such bodies. With this in mind, it does not wish to acquire responsibilities in this respect for any additional NDPBs. Amendments Nos. 11, 13 to 17 and 20 therefore delete the references to the consent of the Treasury in relation to the proposed arrangements for paying the commission and its staff, the numbers of staff which the commission may employ and their terms and conditions of service. In preparing the amendments to make the necessary changes to the Bill's provisions, we came to the conclusion that there was no reason why the commission should not in fact handle the calculation and processing of the salaries and pension arrangements of the members of the commission. Amendment No. 11 therefore also makes this change. Essentially, under the new paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 1, the Secretary of State will determine, in broad terms, what salaries or pension arrangements may be made, and the commission will make the necessary payments in accordance with his directions. His directions can, of course, be as general or as precise as are required; for example, a direction could fix a particular salary or it could require a scheme for the payment of salaries and expenses to be set up.
Finally, by virtue of the transfer of functions (Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service) Order SI 1995/69, the Minister for the Civil Service assumed on 1st April certain of the Treasury's responsibilities for superannuation and pensions. Amendments Nos. 12 and 18 reflect this change by substituting references to the Minister for the Civil Service for the reference to the Treasury in paragraphs 3(3) and 5 of Schedule 1. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 18:
Page 23, line 46, leave out ("Treasury") and insert ("Minister for the Civil Service").
Page 24, line 3, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(1) (c)").
Page 24, line 9, after ("may") insert ("direct the Commission to").
Page 24, line 10, leave out (", with the consent of the Treasury,").
Page 24, line 13, leave out ("and the Treasury").
Page 24, line 18, leave out ("and the Treasury").
Page 24, line 23, leave out from ("The") to second ("may") in line 24 and insert ("Commission shall pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he").
7 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 25, line 22, at end insert:
("() In any such report the Commission may, on the basis of their consideration of cases, make such recommendations to the Secretary of State as they consider necessary for changes in the law and procedures.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will recall that we discussed this matter in Committee on an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. It appeared to me at that time that it was possible to try to frame some form of compromise which might be more acceptable to the Government. That being so, I wrote to the noble Baroness and made some suggestions as to how the matter might be handled.
The purpose of the amendment that I have tabled can be summarised extremely briefly. Should the commission have the power to report to the Secretary of State if, after its consideration of a case or cases, it believes that there should be a change in the law or in procedures? We think that it should have such a power. The amendment lays down that the commission can do that in the course of preparing its annual report to the Home Secretary.
It seems to me to be highly desirable that the commission should have an explicit power to report to the Secretary of State spelt out in statute. I believe that the public interest would be served were that to be done. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that the Government are prepared to look on the matter favourably. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was grateful to receive a copy of the letter that the Minister wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on 22nd June on this issue which, as he said, follows Amendment No. 62 which I moved at Committee stage. I was particularly grateful to read her assurance that the commission will have an ability, which I understand is to be spelt out in statute not today but at Third Reading, to comment on how it sees Clauses 9 to 24—which are the guts of the Bill—working in practice.
I agree that it is not desirable to treat the commission as a rolling Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. That would be inappropriate for its composition, powers and responsibilities. However, it is entirely sensible for it to be responsible for looking at the way in which miscarriages of justice are, we hope, being reduced and
588
any obstacles to the reduction of miscarriages of justice, and for those views to be spelt out in the annual report and encouraged by statute. I shall listen with eager anticipation to what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as promised, I looked at this issue very carefully in the light of the discussions we had on this point during Committee and the proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, kindly made available to me subsequently. I have concluded that there would be some merit in making specific reference in the Bill to make it clear that the commission may comment, if it thinks fit, in its annual reports to the Home Secretary on the sufficiency of Clauses 9 to 24 of the Bill (those which set out its role, functions and powers) and the way in which it believes they are working. I propose, therefore, to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to that effect.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am most grateful. That meets the point entirely. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 26, leave out lines 2 to 4 and insert:
("11. The Secretary of State shall defray the expenses of the Commission up to such amount as may be approved by him.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 20 with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 21 and 22:
Page 26, line 40, leave out ("5. In section 12 of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968") and insert:
("5. — (1) The Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 12").
Page 27, line 4, at end insert:
("(3) In section 28 (evidence) —
(a) in subsection (1) (power to receive evidence etc.), for paragraph (c) substitute—
"(c) receive any evidence which was not adduced at the trial.",
(b) for subsection (2) (duty to receive evidence in certain circumstances) substitute—
"(2) The Appeal Court shall, in considering whether to receive any evidence, have regard in particular to—

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

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

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

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

(c) in subsection (3), after "any" insert "evidence of a".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
Baroness Blotch Baroness Blotch moved Amendment Nos. 23 to 25:
Page 29, line 39, at end insert:
("In section 23(3), the words following "compellable".").
Page 29, line 40, at end insert:
('1968 c. 20.The Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968. In section 28(3), the words following "compellable".").
Page 30, line 4, at end insert:
("In section 25(3), the words following "compellable".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 23 to 25 en bloc.

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1995
7.3 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 22nd May 1995 be approved.
The purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. These provide the statutory basis for discipline in the three services.
The House will be aware that an Armed Forces Bill is brought before Parliament every five years, with the primary purpose of continuing in force the three single-service discipline Acts. Each Armed Forces Bill is also an opportunity for the services and Parliament to review service discipline.
Between each five-yearly Bill, the services' statutory arrangements for discipline are renewed annually by the continuation order procedure, involving an Order in Council which is approved by resolution of both Houses. The last Armed Forces Bill was enacted in 1991; the next one is obviously therefore due next Session. I thus ask the House today to give the necessary annual renewal to the discipline Acts by approving the order.
I hope that the House will find it useful if, as is customary on these occasions, I say a few words about some of the disciplinary and personnel issues facing the Armed Forces.
In April this year we published Sir Michael Bett's report Managing People in Tomorrow's Armed Forces.The review which Sir Michael and his team undertook was a major independent examination of all aspects of service manpower, career, rank and pay structures and of terms and conditions of service. Its aim was to enable us, against increasing competition from the outside world, to continue to recruit and retain the high quality people we need in the Armed Forces. The review and the follow-up to it are looking ahead to the early years of the next century.
The Bett Report contains some 150 wide-ranging recommendations. Given their complexity and importance, we do not intend to take decisions
590
precipitately. Many of the proposals need further consideration and development before we can take a view on their intrinsic merits. I can assure the House that the services are fully involved in this process, and we have encouraged individual members of the Armed Forces to give us their views and comments. We shall consider all of those very carefully.
It will be some months before we are in a position to make a final response to the report. However, we intend, before the Recess, to make a Statement about the further internal work we have commissioned to take the Bett recommendations forward. When, some time after that, we respond to the report's recommendations, we shall do so in terms consistent with the establishment of the review in the first place; namely, to enable us to continue to attract high quality people to a rewarding and worthwhile service career.
As now, we shall be seeking to attract these people from both sexes. Significant progress has been made recently in increasing employment prospects for women in the Armed Forces, and that progress is continuing. For example, there are now 11 qualified female pilots in the three services, including one in the RAF qualified as a fast jet pilot. Of course, these numbers are still small. But they must be seen as a start—even five years ago, few would have dreamt that we would he training and employing women in roles such as these.
Today, very few roles remain closed to women. The Armed Forces' policy is that in future they will normally be excluded only from those posts where their presence would impair combat effectiveness.
Last year's Criminal Justice and Public Order Act included provisions decriminalising the generality of homosexual acts by members of the Armed Forces. That fulfilled an undertaking given by the Government in response to the recommendation made in another place by the Select Committee on the last Armed Forces Bill, that homosexual activity that is legal in civilian law should not constitute an offence under service law.
Nevertheless, it remains our policy to exclude homosexuals from the Armed Forces. Many Members of this House were instrumental in inserting a reference to that policy in the provisions which decriminalised homosexual acts by service personnel. The reason for that policy is the special conditions of service life which, as I explained on another occasion, are quite different from those in the civilian community. I am glad that the judgment in the recent judicial review cases found the policy of excluding homosexuals from the Armed Forces to be lawful under United Kingdom domestic law, and that the EC equal treatment Directive was not applicable. However, a number of points were made by the court and we are giving them careful consideration.
It is customary on these occasions to pay tribute to the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. I am delighted to follow that tradition. I know that all Members from all corners of this House share the admiration, respect and affection which is felt for our servicemen and women by the nation as a whole. Those feelings are the entirely deserved result of the professionalism, commitment and loyalty demonstrated wherever British forces are deployed. We have seen in Bosnia examples of the more obviously exacting

591
challenges which confront our servicemen and women. But your Lordships will appreciate that difficulties and challenges of many kinds are successfully faced day in and day out by members of our Armed Forces, usually away from the public gaze.
The excellence of the British Armed Forces rests on a number of pillars, including training and equipment of the highest standards. Another pillar, I believe just as important, if not more so, is high morale. I can report that this is in as sound condition as ever. But even so, we cannot take good morale for granted. It needs careful maintenance. One tool which is necessary in maintaining high morale is a fair and equitable system of discipline, visible to all. That is what the service discipline Acts provide, and I therefore invite the House to approve the order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on these Benches do not seek to impede the order. The Minister has carefully pointed out that every five years there is what I call a major opportunity to consider these matters. That will fall next year.
I wish to say how impressed those of us who take an interest in such matters were with the thoroughness of the Bett Report. The Minister is absolutely right. There is so much to consider, and so many ways in which one can give effect to the report. We certainly do not expect precipitate action on any aspect of it.
However, as the Minister rightly pointed out, the opportunity is taken for Members on all Benches in this House to raise matters. Will the Minister say a little more about the role of women? He fairly pointed out that from a standing start five years ago, it appears as though there has been great increases in the effectiveness of women undertaking certain roles. However, he used the phrase, "roles such as these". Apart from the physiological limitations placed on women by the difference in the sexes, I should have thought that we ought to have a positive, encouraging, upbeat attitude towards using women far more widely to undertake aspects of the defence services. Is the noble Lord prepared to say that the Minister, the Ministry and the service chiefs are wholeheartedly behind encouraging an expansion in and extension of the use of women in our Armed Forces; or are they, as sometimes seems, simply going through the motions, not being as supportive as they might be?
Will the Minister say something about the incidence of drinking and the methods used in the forces to deal with that? We know, because from time to time there arc illustrations in localities, that in the forces, as in other areas where there are clubs or groups, it is possible for drink—sadly, alcohol—to he used as a means of dulling the senses. Those of us who have been in the services know just how easy it is to resort to drink. The Minister could be helpful to the House, and I believe to the nation, if he were to underline how the Government seek to eradicate the incidence of heavy drinking.
592
In his reply, will the Minister refer to the problem of drugs in the services about which there is deep anxiety? As he knows—I have never hidden the fact—for many years I had a close association with the Prison Service through the Prison Officers' Association. For years the Home Office denied strenuously that there was such a thing as a "drug problem" in prisons. Yet we who were close to the service knew that the problem existed; and it has been difficult to deal with it. Happily, I believe that it is being dealt with in a far better way now. It is not nice to say that there is a drug problem in the forces. I note that the Government, the Minister and the defence establishment seek to do their best.
Will the Minister tell us the position regarding the incidence of steroids? Where do steroids figure in the impact of drugs? As the Minister knows, steroids are the kind of substance which often is taken, especially by young men, to improve their physique. However, we also know that the drug can be addictive.
Will the Minister say something about the ethnic make-up of the services? At col. 7 of the Commons Official Report of the Fifth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c., my honourable friend Mr. Eric Martlew said:
"In 1992–93, of the 7,500 people who were accepted by the armed forces, 41 were black, 15 were Asian and 10 came from other ethnic groups".
The Minister must be as puzzled as I am that out of 7,500 individuals fewer than 100 were from ethnic groups. Will he tell us how seriously the Government seek to pursue an increase in and improvement to the ethnic mix of the forces? Those statistics—I have no reason to dispute them—certainly give me the impression that they need to be considered.
Perhaps I may deal specifically with the point the Minister made on the treatment of homosexuality in the forces. It was welcome news in respect of decriminalisation. However, the Minister made passing reference to the High Court judgment. That allows me to bring into the debate other aspects of the judgment. For instance, I am told by Stonewall—I believe that that organisation is doing a very decent job, representing lesbian and gay individuals in our community—that although Lord Justice Simon Brown said that he could not overturn a policy which had been approved by Parliament, he roundly rejected the MoD's arguments for maintaining the ban and recognised that the ban involved a fundamental breach of human rights. He commented that:
"The tide of history is against the Ministry. Prejudices are breaking down … it seems to me improbable. whatever the court may say, that the existing policy can survive much longer".
Will the Minister hazard a guess as to how long it might he before the Ministry accepts the illogicality of its present attitude?
The Minister and Ministry constantly say—I noted what the noble Lord said—that there are special conditions of service life. Can the Minister reflect on this factor? The special conditions of service life in Britain can be no more special than those in service life in other countries. He does not have to plead the case that living in closed communities, as servicemen and women have to do. is different from living in a family

593
environment. Yet, with the exception of Turkey, Britain is alone in NATO in totally excluding homosexuals from serving. In Britain identification as a homosexual is reason enough for discharge, and celibacy is no escape from the loss of your career, home and friends. Why do the Minister and Ministry insist on saying that service life is so special that it cannot survive, and cannot service defence needs in the same way as do many of our allies?
For instance, since the Select Committee on the Armed Forces in 1991 reported—we shall review the situation completely next year—there have been a number of changes to the way in which our allies have viewed homosexuality in their armed forces. In October 1992, Canada removed all the barriers to homosexuals serving in the Canadian services. In November 1992, Australia scrapped its ban. In December 1992, New Zealand lifted its ban. In 1993, Israel and Ireland did so. Can the Minister tell me what is special about the needs of the armed services in those countries, and about the nature of homosexuality among the individuals who are members of the armed services in those countries? What is special about either the defence needs of the country or homosexual needs? The Minister has a duty to be more explicit than he was.
I conclude by saying that we on these Benches are no exception, we share the Minister's tribute to our Armed Services and the men and women of whom we are rightly proud. We are proud of what they do, not least in Bosnia, the current field of conflict, but in many other ways. In the 50th year after the Second World War, those of us who served in the forces sadly recognise that many, even those serving now, may expect some of their comrades to he killed in action. They deserve our support; and I believe that the answers that the Minister can give will go a long way towards reassuring those on these Benches that he fully understands the problems.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I begin by echoing the tribute paid by the Minister to our Armed Forces. The fact that on these occasions we always refer to the achievements of our forces does not mean that we are not sincere. We are particularly struck by the international reputation of the British forces, which grows every year that goes by. We look forward to the Minister's replies to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, about drink and drugs and particularly about the ethnic make-up of our forces.
Last year I received the strong impression that the Government were making a serious effort to increase the proportion of servicemen from the ethnic minorities, yet it seems that it has not worked. Can the Minister give us a clue as to the reasons and the action which the Government are taking to overcome the problem?
I was particularly glad to hear from the Minister that the Government were giving careful thought to the implications of the recent court case to which both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred. We recall that three servicemen and one servicewoman challenged the legality of their discharge by the Ministry of Defence for being homosexual. The court upheld the ministry's view on the legality of the action, hut, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, Lord Justice Simon Brown accompanied the judgment with a withering
594
attack on the Government's policy towards homosexuality. However, I have to say that, notably, his colleague Mr. Justice Curtis dissociated himself from the criticisms. Next year we shall renew the Act. There will he debates and possibly divisions. I hope that the Government will think carefully about the situation now and will bring forward proposals for overcoming some of the drastic criticisms. Conditions in the forces are changing, attitudes towards homosexuality arc changing. The Government would be wise next year to bring forward a policy that meets the new situation. At the moment the policy is to ban all homosexuals from all branches of all three services without exception.
There was a contrast in the promising statement made by the noble Lord about the employment of women in the services. Women are apparently now welcome in all three services. They fly planes and drive military transport and there is practically no branch of Army, Navy or Air Force life where they are not welcome.
There is a contrast between the ministry's attitude to women and the ministry's attitude to homosexuals. At Question Time last month I asked whether the Minister was aware of the huge area of service life where sexual orientation was irrelevant. He agreed with me to the extent of saying, "Yes, we agree that sexual orientation is irrelevant. We invite women to do this, that and the other in all three services". I find it illogical and it needs explanation. The Minister said that the justification for the ministry's position is the special conditions which accompany service life. Those who have had experience of it will be slow to brush that argument aside. I am not saying that it is not a problem; on the contrary, it can be.
During the war for some months I shared living and sleeping space with 20 fellow rankers in a small loft above a French cowshed. Homosexual friendships in the group would not have helped at all. Some of us would, no doubt, have been tolerant; some would have been annoyed; some probably would have been repelled. Either way, we would have been divided and less efficient militarily. In my view, it is a great mistake to brush aside the problem, which is the main cause of the Government's policy.
The same problem exists in the Navy. Does opposition to sex discrimination mean admitting men who are openly homosexual to the crowded mess decks of the junior ratings? It is a practical question. The politically correct answer is yes: their orientation should be ignored; they should be admitted to the mess decks and discharged only if misconduct is proved against them. This is the point in my personal view—I speak with some experience as a former Navy Minister—where political correctness parts company with common sense. Sexual misconduct is had in the services, and it occurs. Our aim should be to diminish it and not in the course of opposing sex discrimination to increase it.
However, none of that justifies the blanket ban on all homosexuals in all branches of all three services. That can no longer be justified. That is why I was delighted to hear the Minister say that he was taking to heart and considering the consequences of the famous court case which has just been concluded. Before the Act is renewed next year, we look to the Government to put

595
forward proposals which, while allowing the services to use some common sense about their posting, will remove the blanket ban on homosexuals.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, in the main, I am grateful for the general welcome that both noble Lords gave to the order. I am sure they always would because these are necessary orders which we pass every year to maintain the discipline of our Armed Forces. Both noble Lords raised a number of points, and I hope that in the time available I can deal with most of them.
I start by saying that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for what he said about the Bett report and its value. I am also grateful that he recognised that it will take time and is not something we should rush into. We are dealing with pay and conditions and other matters relating to service life which will take the Armed Forces well into the next century. It is important to ensure that we develop the right package which will enable us to recruit the best people for the Armed Forces at a time when, because of demographic changes, it becomes increasingly difficult to recruit sufficient people of the appropriate quality.
The noble Lord went on to ask about our policy in relation to the employment of women in the Armed Forces. He asked us to take a positive and, I believe his word was, "upbeat" attitude. That is exactly what we have done in the past. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that the service chiefs are completely behind the policy of employing women. As I made quite clear, very few roles are now excluded to them. It is important that we should make use of half the population in this respect, particularly, as I pointed out a moment ago, given that demographic changes make recruiting generally that much harder.
As the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out, there are physical limitations in regard to what women can and cannot do. A lot of service life is particularly physical; and there are other limitations, particularly in relation to the Navy, where on submarines and some particularly small ships it becomes rather difficult to arrange accommodation. It is also right to point out that the Army believes—this applies to the other services, but particularly to the Army—that, where it is likely to affect combat effectiveness, it would not be right that women should serve. That means the front line units: the infantry, the Royal Armoured Corps, and on occasion the engineers.
The noble Lord then moved on to the question of drinking, drugs and steroids. He was right to underline their importance. Drunkenness is an offence under the service discipline Acts. I can assure the noble Lord that all three services offer a rehabilitation system for abuses of alcohol; but I am afraid that, as always, persistent abusers would have to he administratively discharged. When one is dealing with the very high-tech equipment that the Armed Forces have to make use of nowadays, it would not be right that those who were persistently drunk were retained in the Armed Forces.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister have any statistics that might be helpful as to incidence, especially in relation to those who have been discharged? He may not have the answer, but perhaps he will write to me.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should be happier to write to the noble Lord. I do not have any statistics with me at the moment about levels of alcohol abuse. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord and, if the noble Lord finds it convenient, place a copy of the letter in the Library.
The noble Lord went on to underline problems in relation to drugs, and also steroids. It is sensible to remind the House that the Army introduced a compulsory drug testing programme in January of this year. Its prime objective was to reduce the increase in recent years of drug-related offences within the service.
Introducing a compulsory drug testing programme is a fairly draconian measure. However, taking into account the importance and the threat of drug related problems, it was very important so to do. Since then, nearly 5,500 personnel of all ranks have been tested. Of those whose results are available, only 29 tested positive. Fifteen refused to give specimens. The commanding officers of the soldiers concerned are now taking appropriate action. Refusers have been, or will be, administratively discharged, as is the policy for the compulsory drug testing programme. Only soldiers of the rank of lance corporal or below who have tested positive may be retained—but again, only in exceptional circumstances. We certainly want to examine the individual very, very carefully.
Drug testing policy permits testing for steroids. But they are not perceived to be the major threat that what are termed mainstream drugs present. At present. it is more important, we believe, to use the compulsory drug testing programme to deter soldiers from the misuse of psychoactive drugs. Testing for anabolic steroids could be included in the current contract with the laboratory of the Government Chemist, but it would he at additional expense, or at the exclusion of another drug. Because they are not illegal in themselves. I do not believe it is necessary at the moment to take the matter any further. Were it in the future thought to he a problem, the matter could be looked at.
I now turn to the pleas that both noble Lords made about ethnic minority recruiting. It is obviously regrettable that the ethnic minorities arc under-represented among both applicants and entrants to the Armed Forces. Ethnic monitoring of applicants and entrants has been undertaken over the past seven years. The latest results—the provisional figures for 1993–94—showed that the ethnic minorities represented some 1.5 per cent. of applicants and I per cent. of entrants. We accept that those figures are disappointing, but we recognise that it will take many years of sustained effort before they substantially improve. The communities from which many such people come do not have an Army tradition. To create that feeling takes time. It is important for the Armed Forces to represent the broad spectrum of the community.

597
I assure noble Lords that all three services are committed to a range of measures to increase ethnic minority recruitment. These include increased use of black recruiters; better representation of ethnic minority service personnel in recruiting literature; special training for recruiters; production of brochures in ethnic minority languages to target parents; development of contacts with the ethnic minority communities; and advertising in the ethnic minority press and on local radio. We will do everything that we can in this field; but I am sure that the noble Lord would not expect an overnight increase of the kind that we wish to see. I assure the noble Lord that we take this matter very seriously.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. The noble Lord did not mention using the experience in the United States, for example, or of other countries where ethnic recruiting has been good. Could that not be fed into the mechanism?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should certainly be prepared to consider the noble Lord's point. Whether we could learn directly from the experience of the United States, where ethnic minorities have been in the country and have come there for different reasons at different times historically farther back than the ethnic minorities to which we are referring in this country, is another matter. It is certainly an idea that I should be prepared to examine, as I should the experience of our other NATO colleagues. As I said, one has to think very carefully as to whether we can learn from that.
Finally, I turn to the question of homosexuality. I am afraid that we are to some extent in opposing camps on this matter. I note the judgment of Lord Justice Simon Brown, and of his colleague. His colleague obviously supported us. Lord Justice Simon Brown spoke about "the tide of history". I have to say that it is not an argument that I ever take very seriously when people say that we must change our attitudes as a result of the tide of history. I do not accept that there is an illogicality in our position.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to the position in other countries, and particularly in other NATO countries. Perhaps I may deal with that canard once and very firmly. Britain is not alone in NATO—with the exception of Turkey—in terms of excluding homosexuals. If we take, for example, the policy of the Germans, there is an exclusion of officers but not of other ranks. In other words, they exclude their regular personnel but not those doing national service. The Americans, as we know, quite rightly, after pressure from service chiefs after President Clinton made his change, brought in their own revised version of policy which allows the exclusion of homosexuals. The same is true of many other countries. It is rather simplistic to claim that all NATO countries have gone down that
598
particular line. We are pleased that the recent judgment found our policy to be lawful under United Kingdom domestic law, and that the equal treatment directive was not applicable. As I made quite clear, we shall give very careful consideration to a number of points that were made by the court.
I should like to make just two points. First, comparisons with the employment of women are not relevant. The important matter to take into account is the advice of the service chiefs. It is to them that we look for advice in terms of the morale and discipline of the Armed Forces. Their advice is that homosexuality does, and would, undermine discipline and morale. Our approach is based on that assessment and not on a moral judgment. It is for that reason that, inevitably, the ban must be complete. It is simply not feasible to employ homosexuals in some areas of the Armed Forces but not in others.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, would the Minister say, therefore, that if the service chiefs, by one means or another, came to a different conclusion and decided to recommend policies that were more in line with their NATO allies, the Government would then recognise the wisdom of the advice from the service chiefs?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I made it clear that this is a matter where we obviously would have to take advice and consider very carefully the advice of the service chiefs. That was the mistake made by one particular politician in the United States: he did not listen to the advice of the service chiefs. On such a matter it is absolutely vital that we should look to their advice.
The advice from the service chiefs, which is given very strongly indeed, is that this is not something on which we should change our policy. But I shall consider some of the points made by Lord Justice Simon Brown. There is no more that I can say on that matter.
At the end of my opening remarks I paid tribute to the Armed Forces for all that they do and the excellence with which they serve. In responding to me, both noble Lords made similar points for which I am grateful.
I end by repeating, on behalf of the whole House, just how much we all value all those in all three services and all that they do on our behalf. I commend the order to the House.

Crown Agents Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with an amendment and with a privilege amendment; the amendment ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  Small Businesses: Trade with Europe
  Small Businesses: Trade with Europe
  European Union: Benefits of Membership
  European Union: Benefits of Membership
  European Legislation and British Interests
  European Legislation and British Interests
  Brussels Treaty: Greek Accession
  Brussels Treaty: Greek Accession
  Family Planning Organisations: Spending Information
  Family Planning Organisations: Spending Information
  Queen's Messengers
  Queen's Messengers
  Council of Ministers: Change of Name
  Council of Ministers: Change of Name
  Israel: Nuclear Weapon Status
  Israel: Nuclear Weapon Status
  Israel: Anti-Ballistic Missile System
  Israel: Anti-Ballistic Missile System
  Children's Rights: Draft European Convention
  Children's Rights: Draft European Convention
  Turkey: Human Rights
  Turkey: Human Rights
  Ms Necmiye Arslanoglu
  Ms Necmiye Arslanoglu
  Gibraltar Social Insurance Fund
  Gibraltar Social Insurance Fund
  VJ Day: Fiftieth Anniversary Celebrations
  VJ Day: Fiftieth Anniversary Celebrations
  Income Support: Maintenance Disregard Proposal
  Income Support: Maintenance Disregard Proposal
  National Business Opinion: CBI Survey
  National Business Opinion: CBI Survey
  Israel: Export from UK of Nuclear Supplies
  Israel: Export from UK of Nuclear Supplies
  Nuclear Power Station Provision: Funding
  Nuclear Power Station Provision: Funding
  Fast Reactor Development
  Fast Reactor Development
  Arts and Heritage Bodies: Directors Pay
  Arts and Heritage Bodies: Directors Pay
  Homicides by Previously Convicted Murderers
  Homicides by Previously Convicted Murderers
  Police Core and Ancillary Tasks: Review
  Police Core and Ancillary Tasks: Review
  International Law Enforcement Training Academy
  International Law Enforcement Training Academy
  Fine Defaulters: Imprisonment Statistics
  Fine Defaulters: Imprisonment Statistics
  Pollution—Related Deaths
  Pollution—Related Deaths
  Infant Deaths
  Infant Deaths
  Former Yugoslavia: US Intelligence Data
  Former Yugoslavia: US Intelligence Data