Sitting of 27 June 1995

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

    Class Sizes
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will commission research on the effect of class size on achievement in education. [29107]
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The hon. Gentleman asks about achievement in education. It is my view that that depends on the quality of teaching.
    Mr. Williams: In fact, I asked about class sizes. Why do the Government insist on the nonsense that class sizes do not matter? It goes against common sense. Has the Secretary of State seen the report published a couple of weeks ago by the National Commission on Education, which draws attention to the importance of class size in primary and, particularly, infant schools? Has she seen the research carried out in Tennessee, whereby a comparison of a class of 15 pupils with a class of 25 pupils shows that higher standards are achieved and pupils behave better in smaller classes? Is it not a shameful record of this Government that class sizes have risen from 25—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is a very bad start. I constantly harass Ministers to give brief replies, so I must ask Back Benchers to put brief questions.
    Mr. Williams: May I wind up my question?
    Madam Speaker: Order. We do not wind up questions. I think that the Minister has got the point.
    Mrs. Shephard: I am, of course, aware of the document from the National Commission on Education. I am also aware of the most recent research from the United States. Even if research from America tells us that class sizes of 13 or 15 are desirable, research from America and from here tells us that interventions that impact on teaching methods rather than on class size offer better results and better value for money. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that class sizes have edged up a little over the past two years and standards have risen a great deal.
    Mr. Dunn: May I support my right hon. Friend's view that it is the quality of teaching that matters? Does she remember the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) that some teachers can
    670
    teach 60 children in a bus shelter and achieve good results while other teachers will have a riot on their hands with one dead chicken?
    Mrs. Shephard: As I said, achievement in education depends on the quality of teaching and the quality of teachers. Very large classes can be more difficult to teach, but it is important to remember that Her Majesty's chief inspector has never suggested that current class sizes are depressing standards. I reassure my hon. Friend that I agree with the drift of our right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson).
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question on commissioning research? Is it not a disgrace that we must depend on American research like the Tennessee Star project and the Ypsilanti project on nursery education? Is it not a fact that, in the past 10 years, education research expenditure has been cut from £79 million to £23 million a year? Does that not show callous indifference by the Government towards the educational needs of the country?
    Mrs. Shephard: In a word, no. What is a fact is that, although class sizes have edged up a bit over the past two years, so have standards. Standards have gone up a great deal, despite the Opposition's best efforts to vote against every measure to raise standards. There is a lot of research evidence around. We shall have more information from the Office for Standards in Education database. At present, I do not see a case for more long-term research on class sizes as such, but I see every reason for having useful research that can improve standards.

    Parental Choice
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has had about the exercise of parental choice of schools on the Isle of Wight. [29108]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): The Department has received correspondence in respect of 20 pupils who have not been offered a place in their first choice of school for the coming September.
    Mr. Field: My hon. Friend is aware that Janet Dawson from his Department has visited the island to look at the admissions policy, and that the education officer has publicly stated that there was an error in the school numbers. What advice can my hon. Friend offer about the coming year to the parents, who are frustrated, the angry school governors and head teachers? Does he agree that the promise of a review for the next year just will not do?
    Mr. Squire: I obviously have considerable sympathy for my hon. Friend's point and those made on behalf of the parents whom he represents. I can confirm that my officials have been in contact with the local education authority, although none of the cases raised with us to date provides scope for action by the Department. My hon. Friend knows that the school must admit up to its minimum number, but it is entirely open to the LEA to agree higher admission numbers with that school. If it wishes to admit more pupils, and it cannot get the LEA to agree to that, it can write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

    Drugs
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about drugs education and the national curriculum. [29109]
    The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): My right hon. Friend and I are committed to the Department—and the education service—playing a full part in the Government's widely welcomed strategy for drug prevention. Aspects of drug education are a statutory requirement of national curriculum science for pupils aged from five to 16, demonstrating the importance that we attach to the subject. It is, of course, for schools to decide how best to organise drug education for their pupils. We have, however, set out in our recent circular the principles that we believe should underpin effective drug education, and at our request the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority has drawn up guidance to help schools to plan their curriculum provision in that area.
    Mrs. Knight: Young people hear of drugs from a frighteningly young age, so I welcome my hon. Friend's initiative. Does he agree that it is not just what is taught that is important but who teaches it? Teenagers in particular are far more likely to listen to warnings from people with whom they identify, who are probably just a few years older than them, than to listen to warnings from someone of my age, whom they would instantly assume probably does not understand and was never young anyway?
    Mr. Forth: I hope that any young person would listen attentively to my hon. Friend, as we all do when she pronounces. She has made an important point. Our circular makes it clear that schools should look imaginatively at every way in which they can get the message about drugs across to young vulnerable people. That will include using teachers in their authoritative positions and anyone from outside a school whom the school considers to be appropriate for its pupils to listen to and be guided by. We want to leave as much of the strategy as possible to the schools to decide, within the framework and the guidance that we have offered them in support. I am confident that that will happen.

    Secondary Schools
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many secondary schools have opted out of local authority control in the last three years. [29110]
    Mr. Robin Squire: In the past three years, 448 of England's secondary schools have become grant-maintained.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister share the concern of the people of Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency, that the boon of praise that the Government give for those schools that have opted out has obviously not been shared in Northern Ireland, where it is now apparently policy for grammar schools to report to the education boards when hitherto they reported to the Department of Education? Is this a seamless Government or are we witnessing a different way of governing Northern Ireland, against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Member will know that my remit does not extend to the schools in Northern
    672
    Ireland, but I may say from this Dispatch Box, without risking too much, that, first, I shall relay his comments to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I understand that those comments arise from a consultation paper that my right hon. and learned Friend has issued for discussion. Secondly, I also understand that the aim of the specific proposal to which the hon. Gentleman referred is to simplify school funding and not to extend local authority control over schools. Voluntary grammar schools will continue to he self-governing and there is no intention of changing their autonomy in that respect.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend, however, bear it in mind that if we manage to achieve extra funds for education in the forthcoming year, many Conservative Members will want to make sure that the money goes straight to schools and not to local education authorities to do with as they will? Will he look seriously at any proposal for extra cash to ensure that it goes direct to schools?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One of the many curious aspects of the policy document that appeared from the Opposition last week was that it tried to justify how, if 10 per cent. of the funding of existing, successful grant-maintained schools was taken away, those schools would still be as effective and efficient as they are at present.
    Mr. Rooker: As the Member with probably the country's largest opted-out secondary school in his constituency, with more than 2,000 pupils, may I ask why the Minister thinks that so few schools—he gave a figure of 400—have opted out in the past three years? How many of those have opted out in the past 12 months?
    Mr. Squire: The practical reason why relatively few schools have opted out in the past 12 months compared with the previous 12 months is that more than nine out of 10 governing bodies have still refused to give parents the opportunity to vote. If I may extrapolate from that why that should be so, the reason is that Labour Members and councillors and Labour-controlled councils up and down the country are still utterly opposed to grant-maintained schools, notwithstanding the sweet words that we have heard from the Labour Front Bench.
    Dame Angela Rumbold: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity, following his last answer, to reaffirm that the Government will follow the climate of the Education Reform Act 1988 for grant-maintained schools, maintain exactly the same circumstances in which schools can opt out and tell the country very clearly that the gobbledegook that has come from the Labour party recently on grant-maintained schools is not acceptable to a Conservative Government?
    Mr. Squire: I readily reassure my right hon. Friend in that respect. I saw nothing in the past seven days, and I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend did, to persuade us that there was a better way of treating grant-maintained schools than the one that we have established. All the Labour party tried, and failed, to do was to reconcile the preferences of a number of leading Labour politicians with the utter hatred that so many of them have for self-government.

    Capital Works, Ealing
    Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the level of supplementary credit approval for capital works requested by the London borough of Ealing for the present financial year; and what was the level approved. [129111]
    Mr. Robin Squire: No specific requests have yet been made by Ealing for supplementary credit approvals—SCAs—for schools in 1995–96 and thus no SCAs have as yet been issued to the authority. However, the Department is considering whether a further SCA can be issued in 1995–96 for the LEA's liability on capital works at Cardinal Wiseman Roman Catholic voluntary-aided high school, which received SCA cover in 1993–94 and 1994–95.
    Mr. Khabra: Does the Minister agree that, in my borough and across London, resources are being reduced at a time when the number of schoolchildren in London is increasing faster than the national average? Does he agree that the system for determining education annual capital guidelines needs investigating to ensure that resources are directed to where they are most needed?
    Mr. Squire: No, I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman on the essence of his question. The capital guidelines for the current year—the total amount that the Government approve for capital spending by local authorities—was increased in cash terms by 3.5 per cent. The priorities were drawn up a decade ago in discussion with local authorities. I have made it clear that I am happy to revisit those priorities, but the hon. Gentleman would not expect his authority to be treated differently from the rest. The priorities will, logically, continue to be existing projects, meeting basic need, and the removal of surplus places.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for the good work at Cardinal Wiseman high school. All the money will be well spent there. Ealing Labour council has £17 million in reserves, yet it has the effrontery to cut teachers' jobs—it is seeking to cut three at Northolt primary school which should be restored immediately. It has no right to deprive children of a proper education by taking away teachers' jobs or money from schools; there is plenty in the bank and Ealing Labour council had better put it back into schools straight away.
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend does well to remind us of the great discretion that local education authorities enjoy over how they spend their money, but the example of my hon. Friend's Labour-run authority is a very bad one. My hon. Friend also reminds me that the Government's borrowing approvals are but a part of the total capital spending. Indeed, in the most recent full year for which I have figures—1993–94—they represented only 50 per cent. of the total amount spent on our schools.

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will commission studies into the educational impact on their original schools caused by the departure of pupils on assisted places schemes. [29112]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: No. The scheme is an outstanding success, and it is here to stay.
    Mr. Flynn: Nought out of 10, I am afraid. Would the Secretary of State care to read the question again and try to do better next time? I am seeking to make the serious point that none of the appraisals of the assisted places scheme has concentrated on the effect on feeder schools of having their brightest pupils creamed off. Such schools lose those pupils who give an example to others and who take the lead and set the pace. If we are to make a proper appraisal of the scheme, is it not essential that we consider the effect of creaming off those pupils?
    Mrs. Shephard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not articulating any hostility towards selection, the assisted places scheme or, indeed, independent schools. His Front-Bench team has performed at least half a dozen U-turns on education policy since the beginning of the year. Last week, we were given to understand that it was paying lip service to diversity in education—although the small print revealed that it was not. Next month, the hon. Gentleman might find that his Front-Bench team has left him in the lurch—and that is not a very comfortable place to be.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Surely my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will agree that whether a school is full of SAT—standard assessment task—level 8 or SAT level 2 children should make no difference to the quality of the school. As the purpose of teaching is to bring the best out of every child, it should make no difference to a school, although it may make a difference to the individual child. Should not every teacher concentrate on each child's potential, regardless of the level that each child is innately able to reach?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. The whole point of the assisted places scheme is that it offers choice and opportunity to able children from less well-off families, and what a pity it is that at this stage, and this month, Opposition Members do not seem to be in favour of it.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she expects all three and four-year-olds, whose parents wish it, to be in nursery education. [29113]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Prime Minister's commitment is to provide, over time, a pre-school place for every four-year-old whose parents wish to take it up, with the first new places, with new money, coming on stream in the lifetime of this Parliament.
    Mr. Prentice: Is it not an absolute disgrace that, almost 25 years after Baroness Thatcher pledged that every three and four-year old should have a nursery place if the parents wanted it, the Government have not delivered on that pledge? Why have the Government got it in for three-year-olds?
    Mrs. Shephard: We do not believe in printing money. We are planning to provide places for all four-year-olds in the first instance. It is clearly best to take one carefully planned step at a time.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) appears to forget that the Labour party was in power between 1974 and 1979. Having been in local government, and having been the deputy chairman of an education authority, may I tell my right hon. Friend that I accept that the education received by a young child—boy or girl—at the nursery stage will undoubtedly affect that child's career, ultimately, and his ability to do well in his subsequent years in education? Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that we warmly welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to nursery education?
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend. I am currently putting the finishing touches on the policy and I shall make a full announcement to the House in the next couple of weeks. I have always made it clear that early education is very important. We shall base our policy on maximum choice for parents between the maintained and the private and voluntary sectors. We shall ensure that, whatever delivery mechanism is used, it will not crowd out the private and voluntary sectors. We shall also make sure that the scheme is practical and of good quality and that it will work successfully.
    Mr. Don Foster: Further to the Secretary of State's answer, will she confirm that, in respect of the delivery of expanded nursery education, she has said frequently that the use of vouchers would be unnecessarily complicated and bureaucratic? Will she also acknowledge that the Prime Minister clearly overruled her in his statement on Saturday? Does she believe that that stems from complete ignorance, stupidity, or the unacceptable slap of firm leadership?
    Mrs. Shephard: Dear me, the hon. Gentleman can do better than that. I have said frequently from this Dispatch Box and elsewhere that the delivery mechanism would have to provide choice for parents and that nothing was ruled in and nothing was ruled out. However, I can confirm that putting buying power and choice in the hands of parents will be a key feature of the scheme and that, therefore, vouchers will be part of it.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the steady advance of nursery education is not intended to be at the expense of the pre-school playgroup movement, which has received considerable support from the Government?
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes. I can confirm that the scheme will certainly not crowd out the important voluntary sector, and I have also mentioned the private sector. The work of the pre-school playgroup movement has been invaluable to the learning experience of millions of children. It is interesting that the movement has rechristened itself the Pre-School Learning Alliance, which I think signifies the importance that it places on the education that it provides.
    Mr. Blunkett: The Secretary of State may have read in this morning's papers about the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and the fact that Mr. Spock and the occupants of Planet Vulcan do not believe in nursery education at all. On Saturday, the Prime Minister emeritus told us that there was a new definition of nursery provision which included any place for any child. Although we support pre-school and other provision, does the Secretary of State agree that, in defending herself against the onset of vouchers, she must
    676
    also make it absolutely clear—so that she is not left uncomfortably in the lurch—that she still believes in nursery places for four-year-olds and that she believes in places for every four-year-old, not just those whose parents who can afford to top up a voucher or travel a long way to a place?
    Mrs. Shephard: I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman on all those counts. I am sure that he will be further reassured when I make my detailed announcement to the House. My reading this morning included an interesting letter from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in which he describes Labour's new education policy as a "big, bad idea". I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman read that.

    School Standards
    Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what increased resources her Department is providing to raise standards in primary and secondary schools in Somerset. [29114]
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend will have welcomed last week's decision to raise the capping limit for Somerset. It is, however, for the authority to decide the level of funding that it provides for its services, including education, from the increased total available. There is no clear causal connection between levels of education expenditure and standards achieved.
    Mr. Robinson: Despite the result of Somerset's appeal, is my hon. Friend aware that there are still to be 35 compulsory redundancies in schools in Somerset or thereabouts'? Does he realise that that runs counter to a pledge that was given by the Liberal Democrat leader of Somerset county council, that the £4 million agreed package with local Members of Parliament would obviate the need for such redundancies'? Does that not show that Liberal Democrats, as always, do not honour their commitments, do not stand by their pledges and are not prepared to put Somerset's children first?
    Mr. Forth: Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was perplexed—nay, shocked—at what I learnt about Somerset. It does seem to me to be perverse, to say the least, although not surprising, that the Liberal Democrats should so casually go back on their promise. I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will press very hard indeed for an explanation from the authority as to why it is playing politics with children's education, and then seek to pressure that authority to use the increased money available to it to better education in the way that I am sure that all his constituents and other people in Somerset expected.

    Education Authority Budgets
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration she has given to the preparation of the budgets for education authorities for 1996–97. [29115]
    Mr. Robin Squire: The public expenditure survey for spending in 1996–97 is currently under way.
    Mr. Dowd: Can the Secretary of State explain why education authorities, parents or schools should believe her protestation of jam tomorrow, in the light of their

    677
    experience this year and in all the previous years? If it is because the Prime Minister has committed himself to that, can she be certain that he is telling her the truth, any more than the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) told her the truth last Friday about his intentions for the leadership of the Conservative party?
    Mr. Squire: If I can bring the hon. Gentleman back to education matters for a moment, I should like to say that he starts off from an interesting position in criticising education funding, as his own authority had an increase of 4.6 per cent. this year, which is the type of increase that most of his hon. Friends, and certainly most of my hon. Friends, would have welcomed. However, it is not a question of jam tomorrow, as he puts it. We shall increase spending on education as the economy continues to improve, but we have increased spending until now. As the hon. Gentleman will know if he is reminded, since we came to office spending per pupil has increased by about 50 per cent. and spending per pupil on repairs and maintenance has increased by about 15 per cent. in real terms.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the growing debate about national funding for education that is taking place. May I ask him to draw attention, in any deliberations that are taking place and any negotiations that he has with local education authorities, to the vagaries of the local formulae and the perverse effects that they can have on many schools in the same local education authority area?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is right to highlight not only the possibility of a new funding formula—the Education Select Committee, which he chairs, as I said at a previous Question Time, is doing sterling work on that aspect—but the fact that every local education scheme has its own local management of schools scheme. There are 109 different schemes, and within those schemes there is significant scope for education authorities to reflect the different needs of the schools that remain under their control.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: During this period, when local authorities have suffered so much from the savagery of cuts inflicted by the Government's failure fully to fund the teachers' pay award, were not local authorities consoled by the opinion of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State that things might be better next year? What are those assurances worth from a Prime Minister who may be on his way out and a Secretary of State who may be in that uncomfortable position that she has already mentioned this afternoon—in the lurch?
    Mr. Squire: I am confident that the Prime Minister will be Prime Minister in two weeks', two months' and two years' time. On the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question—[Interruption.]—it has been a tight settlement, as the Government have freely conceded, but it is interesting, is it not, that every remaining Conservative education authority funded the teachers' settlement in full—as, in fairness, did several Labour-controlled authorities—and most of the problems came from Liberal Democrat and several Labour-controlled local education authorities.

    Grammar Schools
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children are being educated in
    678
    grammar schools in England; and how many of them arc provided with free transport. [29116]
    Mr. Forth: In January 1994, the latest year for which data are available, some 118,000 pupils were being educated in selective schools. Information is not available centrally on the number of those pupils being educated in grammar schools and receiving free transport, as that matter is for locally elected, accountable education authorities.
    Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend will be aware that with nearly 31,000 grammar school children in Kent—about one third of all children being educated in Kent—we are particularly anxious about the kind of story coming out of Essex, where a Labour-controlled council has denied free transport to grammar school children. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will do all that he can to protect our children against that kind of envy politics, which make it impossible for children to receive the kind of education that they deserve?
    Mr. Forth: We will always discharge our duty, and the Secretary of State in particular is anxious to protect vulnerable pupils from the depredations of local authorities wherever possible. I emphasise that great discretion is given to local education authorities in determining transport arrangements for pupils in their charge. If people decide in a local election to change the complexion of their local authority, it should not surprise them too much if a vindictive authority controlled by the Labour or Liberal party chooses to wreak cheap vengeance on the pupils in its care.
    Mr. Jamieson: Does the Minister accept that a local authority could make funding available for parents who want to send their children to a comprehensive school of their choice?
    Mr. Forth: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, LEAs have wide discretion in providing transport for the pupils for whom they are responsible. The problem arises when LEAs use that discretion to exercise political leverage over pupils in their care and parents. That is happening in authorities that have passed into Labour control.

    School Places, London
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the effect of the Greenwich judgment upon the availability of school places of their choice within their own borough for the children of parents resident in Greater London. [29117]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): The Greenwich judgment removed an artificial restriction on the exercise of parental choice. My right hon. Friend considers that it would be inappropriate to seek a change in the law to overturn its effects.
    Mr. Wilkinson: What advice would my hon. Friend give parents in my constituency who are unable to place their children in the secondary school of their choice because children from the neighbouring boroughs of Ealing, Hertfordshire and Harrow are moving into the first-class secondary schools with grant-maintained status in my constituency? As a consequence, parents cannot even place their children in the third school of their

    679
    choice. Simply increasing money from the funding agency is no solution because there is an optimum size for secondary schools.
    Mr. Boswell: While I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in the problems of his constituents, the exercise of choice by parents outwith the borough must he matched with the concerns that he expressed of his constituents within the borough. We do not believe that an artificial distinction determined by geography is the right way to decide the matter. As my hon. Friend implied, it is open to the schools funding agency, in the case of Hillingdon, to bring forward proposals for the expansion of popular schools—where capacity can be provided.
    Mr. Gerrard: When will the Minister stop misleading parents into believing that they have a choice of schools? Is not the truth that parents can express a preference but that schools make the choices now? In any case, schools do not have elastic walls. When they are oversubscribed, many parents are left angry and frustrated. Will the Minister start being honest with parents?
    Mr. Boswell: As a result of Conservative Government policies, the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party recently exercised his choice as a parent in respect of his own child.
    Mr. Forman: Is my hon. Friend aware that many parents came to live in my constituency of Carshalton and Wallington to take advantage of the excellent education available in the London borough of Sutton provided by grant-maintained schools and local authority schools? Would it not be advantageous and in the interests of local parents if greater weight were given in the school admission procedures of both kinds of schools to parents who live locally?
    Mr. Boswell: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern but the funding formula is neutral as between children within and without a borough. We do not feel that it would be appropriate to overturn the Greenwich judgment and to disappoint one set of parents at the expense or preference of another.

    Curriculum Reviews
    Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the experience in other countries of permanent standing bodies to review the school curriculum in key subject areas. [29119]
    Mr. Boswell: The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is charged with keeping all aspects of the school curriculum under review. In so doing, it takes account of experience in other countries.
    Mr. Timms: I thank the Minister for that response. Is he aware of the growing concern about the effectiveness of the current ad hoc arrangements for curriculum review, not least because those who are undertaking the review are thrown together for a short while and barely have time to get on top of the subject, let alone come up with effective review proposals? Will the Minister comment
    680
    on the possibility—it is a proposal that is attracting wide support—of introducing standing review committees on the model that has been adopted in other countries?
    Mr. Boswell: As for experience in other countries, the SCAA has asked for, and circulated, information from 11 other countries. As for our own arrangements, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have only recently, on the back of an almost unprecedented consultation exercise, revised the national curriculum. He will know also from correspondence from its chief executive that the authority is most anxious to continue dialogue with practitioners and to continue to take their advice.
    Mr. Stephen: Even though spending per pupil on education has risen enormously during this Government's life, is my hon. Friend not concerned that far too many children are leaving school with little or no understanding of the basic events of our nation's history? Is it that children arc specialising too early'? Will he keep the matter under review?
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend will realise that we have recently had a massive revision of the national curriculum to make it slimmed down and more manageable. The teaching of history, especially English history, has featured largely in that review. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that, while we believe that the proper basis for teaching has now been secured, we shall continue to monitor its effects. We share my hon. Friend's determination to ensure higher and more demanding standards of performance.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Minister can review the curriculum all he wants, but Warwickshire is facing larger class sizes and 172 teachers losing their jobs this year, lowering education standards. Does he understand that we shall not see the standards that children deserve in the county that I represent in part?
    Mr. Boswell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to remind his constituents that the teacher count in January was 2,500 greater than the year before. I am sure also that he will want to join me in welcoming the reduction in the work load of teachers that has been brought about by the slimming down of the national curriculum.

    Free School Transport
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action she intends to take to ensure that pupils attending grammar schools continue to qualify for free school transport. [29120]
    Mr. Forth: Under section 55 of the Education Act 1944, it is for individual elected, accountable local education authorities to decide whether free transport is necessary to enable a pupil to attend school.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Is he aware that five of my sons attended the local grammar school in Rugby, a grammar school that, like every other, is a ladder of opportunity for pupils from all classes? Is he further aware that Essex county council's spiteful policy of cutting free school transport will prevent many parents sending their children to grammar schools'?

    681
    Will my hon. Friend assure me that he and his Department will do all that they can to ensure that free transport to grammar schools remains?
    Mr. Forth: I can assure my hon. Friend, who raises a subject of great concern to an increasing number of parents throughout the country, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will do everything that she can and should do to protect the interests of pupils. My hon. Friend will be aware, however, that it was the change of political control in Essex that brought about the disgraceful situation that we now face. I am sure that many of those who changed the nature of the local education authority will want to reconsider their actions of some two years ago, and will want to put those actions in the context of what is now available. Under Conservative authorities, the problem did not arise. It has arisen because of nasty political spite by the Opposition parties.
    Mr. Olner: Surely it would be better to talk not about grammar school places and free transport in Essex but about transport in Warwickshire and about giving free transport to children who want to attend comprehensive schools and not just grammar schools in the Rugby area.
    Mr. Forth: I hope that the people of Warwickshire and those elsewhere will keep a close eye on what their local education authorities are up to. If the hon. Gentleman's LEA acts anything like some others seem to be doing, many of the pupils in his county will risk receiving the education that they deserve.

    Further Education Colleges
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received on the current level of discretionary grants paid by education authorities to students in colleges of further education. [29121]
    Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend has received representations on this subject from a variety of individuals and organisations.
    Mr. Jones: Does the Minister accept that, to a large extent, many further education colleges depend on their students receiving discretionary awards? In recent years, many of those colleges have seen the number of students attracting discretionary awards reduce quite substantially. Will he make it absolutely clear to local authorities, through extra funding if necessary, that they have a responsibility both to ensure that students receive discretionary awards and to maintain our structure of further education colleges?
    Mr. Boswell: What I will do is to make it clear to colleges, whether in Wales or in England, that they receive substantial amounts of public funding to discharge their duties and that one of those is to secure the appropriate provision of further education. How they interpret that duty must remain a matter for them.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is my hon. Friend aware that discretionary grants are no longer available to children in Kent because of the totally vindictive action of the Lib-Lab controlling group on Kent county council? That is already affecting youngsters who are talented in dance and music and in other subjects. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time that something was done about that?
    Mr. Boswell: I am all too sadly aware of that local situation.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June. [29138]
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently in Cannes attending the European Council.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House rather anticipated me. I had not called Mr. Keith Hill. However, we shall take his question as read, and I now call Mr. Hill to put his supplementary question.
    Mr. Hill: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for sorting out the confusion that seems to overwhelm the Conservative party. Does the Leader of the House agree that if anyone other than the Prime Minister wins the current leadership election contest on Tuesday, he will have no democratic legitimacy to govern because he will not have the consent of the people for the policies that he pursues?
    Mr. Newton: Those of us on the Government Benches have the democratic legitimacy of the fact that we achieved more votes in the last election than any party had ever achieved in a British election. In any case, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will win.
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June. [29139]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the matchless city of Chester, crime continues to fall and detection rates continue to improve? Is he further aware that in Chester, since 1979, the number of policemen has increased by 38 per cent. and that the only time that police numbers in Chester have fallen was under the last Labour Government? Is he also aware that, this year, Cheshire is to get an additional 195 police officers and special constables for policing on the beat? Does my right hon. Friend share Chester's and Cheshire's commitment to front-line policing?
    Mr. Newton: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on making those points and, indeed, Cheshire police on their achievements. I understand that recorded crime in the county fell by some 7 per cent. in 1994 and I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was able to visit the force recently and to congratulate it personally on its policy of front-line policing. Her Majesty's Government are supporting the force with a funding increase of £9 million and are making funds available for closed circuit television in Chester.
    Mr. Blair: Has the Leader of the House any awareness not just of the despair, but of the disgust that most people feel about the spectacle that the Conservative party has become? Is not the real choice that the British people want not one between the warring factions of that party, but

    683
    one between a Conservative party that is disintegrating and a Labour party that is in touch with the people and ready to serve?
    Mr. Newton: Well, it certainly seems to be in touch with the lot of people in Monklands. [Interruption.] I shall not regret it. The people of Monklands may regret it and I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman may regret the thrust of his question because, if and when he gets the chance, he will have to stop fudging and come clean on his spending and taxing policies, on his minimum wage and creating unemployment policies, and on his European policies, not for an opt-out, but for a sell-out. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the constituency of Torridge and Devon, West has the highest proportion of older people in the United Kingdom and that, two weeks ago, Mrs. Cleverdon celebrated her 105th birthday? Would he like to consider the wisdom of the Tories in west Devon, especially their Conservative association, which promotes the Prime Minister's cause and has asked me to vote in his favour, which I shall do?
    Mr. Newton: I think that I should do three things. I should congratulate my hon. Friend's centenarian constituent, the association, and my hon. Friend on her intention.
    Sir David Steel: Could the Leader of the House explain to innocent bystanders such as myself how it is that a party which is proving by the hour that it is incapable of governing itself can have any lingering claim to govern the country?
    Mr. Newton: Well, what a typical Liberal question. I am not sure about innocence, but the right hon. Gentleman is certainly a bystander.
    Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government's policies of choice and diversity, of testing and reporting to parents, have driven up standards in education? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Dr. Spink: Does he also agree that the Labour party's recently announced policy would drive down standards in education?
    Mr. Newton: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the policies of the Government have increased parental choice, raised educational standards and given schools greater freedom, and I equally agree with him that the policies of the Labour party would threaten all those objectives.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Bradford. [29140]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—partly to the reply I gave some moments ago and partly to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no current plans to visit Bradford.
    Mr. Madden: If the Prime Minister cannot visit Bradford, will the Leader of the House urge him to meet
    684
    a deputation from Bradford as soon as possible so that there can be discussions about how the city can be helped to overcome the poverty and deprivation that we suffer? If the Bradford congress is successful in devising an inquiry form which is acceptable to the local community, will the Leader of the House urge the Prime Minister to adopt the proposal and fund it from central Government so that the inquiry can be conducted as a matter of urgency, and so that it can be professionally administered?
    Mr. Newton: I will, of course, ensure that the hon. Gentleman's request is drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention, but I do not think that I can add very much to what I said to the hon. Gentleman when he last questioned me about this. He will know that the Police Complaints Authority is supervising an investigation into complaints made about the police in the course of the riots and I think that the hon. Gentleman also agreed on a previous occasion that that is an independent inquiry and can be expected to do a thorough job. As I said before, I think that the right course of action is to allow that investigation to proceed and for discussion between the police and members of the Asian community to continue with the aim of restoring trust. I do not, at the moment, see any need for other inquiries.

    Engagements
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June. [29141]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Garnier: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency of Harborough, unemployment is down yet again and that confidence in every sector of the economy is up and continues to grow week on week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is all due to the policies of the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Newton: The experience reported by my hon. and learned Friend of what is happening in his part of the country reflects what has been happening in our economy as a whole. In the past two years, we have experienced the fastest growth of any major European economy, we have the best record of low inflation for some 30 years, we have unemployment that is well below the European average and continuing to fall and we have a recovery that is export and investment led and that is the most soundly based this country has seen for a generation.
    Mr. Hoon: Does the Leader of the House agree with the Foreign Secretary that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has damaged the effectiveness of Britain?
    Mr. Newton: It is absolutely clear from the work that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been able to conduct in Cannes that they are acting effectively and continuing to bat for Britain's interests.
    Mr. Heald: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June. [29142]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    685
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Heald: Is my right hon. Friend aware that crime levels in north Hertfordshire have also been falling recently? However, does he agree that there is more to be done and that one way of dealing with it is closed circuit television? I thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for the £100,000 grant that has been given for closed circuit television for Hitchin town centre. Is it not astonishing that the new Labour administration on North Hertfordshire district council is now reconsidering closed circuit television and talking about big brother? Is that not more like old Labour than new Labour?
    Mr. Newton: I have already made some reference to these matters in response to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). As my hon. Friend said, recorded crime fell by 5 per cent. nationally in 1994. Together with a 1 per cent. fall in 1993, those two years show the biggest fall in recorded crime for some 40 years. I believe that that reflects the efforts that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made to get more police on the beat, to strengthen the law through the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and, not least, through his very imaginative scheme for CCTV. I am appalled to learn what my hon. Friend said about CCTV being reviewed by his district council.
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June. [29143]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Denham: In the light of the statement by one of the Prime Minister's leading supporters, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the programme of the former
    686
    Secretary of State for Wales is ultra-right wing and likely to keep the Conservatives out of power for 1,000 years, does the Leader of the House believe that the Cabinet is well rid of him?
    Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has always made a positive contribution to the development of Government policies. My only puzzlement is why he should not have stayed to continue to make that contribution.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June. [29144]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday's celebration of 50 years of achievement by the United Nations was wholly appropriate? Does he also agree, however, that it is unacceptable that this country is expected to bear a disproportionate burden of United Nations military activities when many countries are not even paying their dues? Will my right hon. Friend put pressure on those countries to remedy an unacceptable situation? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, like me, was present at the excellent ceremony held in Westminster Hall yesterday, which undermined—[Interruption.]—underlined our continuing commitment to the United Nations organisation. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reminded that gathering—it is an important point, to which my hon. Friend has adverted—that we have put forward proposals not only to strengthen UN peacekeeping and preventive diplomacy, but to reform its financial mechanisms. We shall continue to press that case.

    Housing
    3.31 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about our housing policies. The Government are today publishing the White Paper, "Our Future Homes". Copies will be available immediately after this statement in the Library and the Vote Office.
    Home ownership, opportunity in renting and unlocking resources to provide help where it is needed—those are the hallmarks of the Government's housing policies and have been since 1979. The objective of our housing policy is that a decent home should be within reach of every family. A population living longer and staying longer in their homes, together with the breakdown of traditional family structures, means that there will be an increasing demand for homes. We live in a heavily populated country, yet we shall have to meet the demand for new homes in an environmentally sustainable way. The public sector needs to look for new and imaginative ways in which to work with the private sector to achieve our aims.
    The proposals that I am putting forward today embody three themes: opportunity, choice and responsibility. Those are things that people value. We remain committed to continued sustainable growth in home ownership. Home ownership is what 80 per cent. of people want. More than 4 million households in addition have become home owners since 1979. Over the next 10 years, our aim is that 1.5 million more families will own their own homes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has today underlined our commitment by reaffirming that there will be no cut in the tax relief on mortgage interest for the rest of this Parliament.
    Now we want to go further and give more people the opportunity to buy. First, we propose to introduce a new voluntary grant scheme, to give housing association tenants cash help to buy the homes that they live in. Housing associations will receive the full market price and will be able to keep the receipt from the sale to build a new home.
    Secondly, we propose to legislate to make it a condition of future grant to social landlords that landlords—including housing associations—commit themselves to making the new houses and flats available for sale to tenants on request. Again, sales will be at full market price, with grant to tenants to help them buy.
    Thirdly, we shall challenge private developers, public bodies and housing associations to bring forward development proposals for support from English Partnerships to build on derelict land, to bring more home ownership into the heart of our cities, building healthier, more balanced communities.
    We shall also change the renovation grants system to allow a more strategic approach in providing help to low-income home owners, including elderly people and people with disabilities, for essential improvements and adaptations to their homes. We shall have a discretionary system, except for grants for disabled people, which will remain mandatory.
    Of course, we realise the real difficulties that are currently being faced by some home owners. Our objective must continue to be sustainable home ownership, able to cope with changing economic conditions.
    688
    Sustaining a healthy private rented sector is the second key element in providing people with choices and opportunities. In 1988, we removed the controls that were strangling that sector. Since then, we have seen its steady growth from 1.7 million to 2 million homes. Now we want to do more to unlock new resources.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to legislate to allow the creation of housing investment trusts, to encourage financial institutions to invest. They will benefit from a reduced rate of corporation tax and exemptions from tax on capital gains.
    We propose to legislate to help small landlords, by simplifying letting arrangements and making it easier to evict tenants who do not pay the rent. We propose to legislate to improve the safety and fitness of houses in multiple occupation. I intend to strengthen the powers already available to local authorities, particularly in respect of ensuring adequate fire precautions in high-risk houses in multiple occupation. Those proposals will, I believe, sustain the growth in private renting that has been achieved under this Government.
    Our White Paper also reaffirms our commitment to maintaining a social rented sector at rents below market levels. Affordable rents mean that people have real incentives to work and to save. On current plans, the Government will provide 180,000 additional social rented lettings in three years. Now we need to look for yet more ways to increase investment through partnership with the private sector, to extend choice and to improve further the service provided to tenants.
    We propose to legislate to allow commercial providers to compete alongside housing associations for grants to provide social housing at below market rents, increasing competition so that we can get more homes for taxpayers' money. [Interruption.] Opposition Members who do not want more homes for taxpayers' money are letting down not the Government, but the people who would otherwise be provided with decent homes.
    We shall introduce a system to ensure that all new social sector landlords are delivering the required level of service to tenants. There will be no question of operating on an unequal playing field.
    There is considerable potential for using large-scale voluntary transfers of local authority stock to help wider regeneration in urban areas. We shall be encouraging transfers—if the tenants agree—in cases where there are benefits for tenants through increased investment, as well as a reduction in the burden on taxpayers. Where there are costs, we shall support transfers that offer the best return on the resources that we have available.
    We shall encourage transfer to a wider range of private landlords. That could include local housing companies, as well as commercial landlords. Local authority companies will need to be clearly in the private sector.
    By 2005, we intend to transform the remaining large—[Laughter.] For the first time, a Government have committed themselves to transform all the worst housing estates in Britain and the only thing that the Opposition can do is laugh, for they have no policy and cannot face the realities of Britain's housing problems. Opposition Members who care only for party political slogans and do not care to improve the housing of the people of Britain can go on giggling into the next century, for we have work to do.

    689
    We shall bring together resources to deal with the worst social, economic and housing problems. Within this decade, we shall see to it that families are no longer brought up in the dispiriting and destructive environment that pervades our worst estates—in councils largely run by the Labour party and where the quality of housing is a standing disgrace to that party throughout the land. It is the Opposition whose rent policies have meant that they have been unable to keep up the decent housing to which the electorate lay claim.
    We shall meet housing demand while protecting the environment. We have set ourselves targets for England for the next 10 years, to which Opposition Members on the Front Bench would do well to listen. The first is to reduce the percentage of empty homes in the public and private sectors to 3 per cent. of stock. The second is to reduce the number of Government-owned empty homes, selling off surplus empty homes within six months of their becoming empty. The third is to build half of all new homes on previously developed land, reducing building on green-field sites, protecting the environment and safeguarding the green belt.
    We need to ensure that social housing is allocated fairly to those with the best claim to it. In July 1994, we announced that we would proceed with plans to reform homelessness legislation and make the system of allocating social housing fairer—[Interruption.]—not something with which the Labour Front Bench appears to bother. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who is a Whip, cannot allow the House to listen to a fairer system.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been the tradition of the House that Ministers make statements uninterrupted, but is it not also part of the tradition that they are serious ministerial departmental statements and not a rant?
    Madam Speaker: I am following the ministerial statement carefully and the Minister is deviating considerably. As this is an important statement on which I expect a lot of questions, I hope that he will keep to the statement so that I can allow Back Benchers who seek to question it to do so.
    Mr. Gummer: We need to ensure that social housing is allocated fairly to those with the best claim to it. In July 1994, we announced that we would proceed with plans to reform homelessness legislation and to make the system of allocating social housing a fairer one. The White Paper confirms our commitment to legislating on that.
    These reforms will put all those with a long-term need for social housing on the same footing, while ensuring that there is a safety net for emergency and pressing needs. Too often, people who fit the statutory categories get a house before people on the waiting list, who have put up with long-term housing problems but do not happen to fit those categories. Local authorities will have greater flexibility to decide what is the best housing solution for people in need of help, in the light of circumstances in their area and of the particular circumstances of the individuals concerned.
    To help prevent homelessness, we shall legislate to ensure that suitable housing advice services are available in each local authority area. There will also be more help to low-income households to find a home, through pre-tenancy determinations of housing benefit for those renting in the private sector, and through powers for local authorities to provide rent guarantees.
    690
    Sleeping rough on the streets is the most visible form of homelessness. The Government's rough sleepers initiative in central London, which will have invested £182 million of public money over the six years to March 1996, has been highly effective. We shall build on that success to ensure that there is no necessity for people to sleep rough.
    In central London, we shall continue the rough sleepers initiative beyond March 1996, including the funding for people who do the hard job of working with the most difficult of cases out there on the streets. We shall also fund resettlement work and an annual winter shelter programme, and shall consider the need for funding for some temporary direct access hostel provision. Outside central London, we shall consider assisting the development of the rough sleepers initiative model in areas where rough sleeping is demonstrated to be a major problem.
    We want a better service for tenants in the social rented sector. We have given tenants a wide range of rights so that they have a bigger say in how their homes are run, and so that services are more responsive to local needs. Those changes appear in the council tenants charter, a new and improved version of which we published last week.
    However, tenants have not only important rights but important responsibilities, such as to stick to tenancy agreements, to pay the rent, and not to annoy other tenants. Sadly, there is a small minority of tenants whose selfish behaviour makes their neighbours' lives a misery, and we want to help local authorities to deal more effectively with anti-social behaviour. Our proposal is for probationary tenancies, so that local authorities can improve the quality of life for the responsible majority of tenants by taking firm action against the irresponsible minority.
    What is proposed is a balanced, sensible package that encourages private initiative and investment, and will promote competition to increase value for taxpayers' money. The package is designed to deliver genuine opportunity and to support individual responsibility, while recognising the responsibility of Government to provide effective help for those who need it.
    Our policies are set out in full in the White Paper. A number of detailed consultation papers are also being published either today or over the next few weeks. Those are listed in the White Paper, and copies will be made available in the Library.
    Mr. Frank Dobson: From that statement, one would never guess the scale of the housing crisis now harming the lives of families in every part of the country, whether they are owner-occupiers, whether they are renting or whether they are simply trying to get somewhere decent to live. After 16 years in office, the Government have produced a White Paper that neither addresses the immediate problems that millions of people face nor spells out a vision for a future in which everyone in Britain has a decent home.
    The White Paper is the product of a Government who have run out of ideas, and who now appear to be living in a world of their own. They have now started ignoring problems in the hope that people will not notice what has gone wrong or who is to blame. The White Paper does nothing to restore faith in the mortgage market, and little or nothing to end the crisis in housing investment. It does nothing to help the homeless or people living in overcrowded accommodation. Indeed, it is all too likely to make matters worse.

    691
    As the White Paper has not dealt with many of the problems that people face, I shall put the following specific questions to the Secretary of State. First, will he confirm that despite the one and a quarter million families in negative equity, the half a million families in mortgage arrears and the one third of a million families whose homes have been repossessed in the past five years, his statement did not mention the word "repossession", and the White Paper mentions it only once—and certainly does not come up with any answers?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that despite the Tory general election promise to retain mortgage tax relief, that too has been cut, and that even the promises announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are current only this side of the next general election? Will he confirm that, for every family with serious mortgage arrears in 1982, there are now 21 families with serious arrears, and that for every family whose home was repossessed in 1979, 16 families had their homes repossessed last year?
    Is not the Secretary of State ashamed that the number of homes being built for rent by housing associations and councils this year is less than 20,000—the lowest since the second world war? Is it not the case that, for every home being built for rent this year, seven were being built under the previous Labour Government and that, under this Government, rents are rising at four or five times the rate of inflation? Will he confirm that, despite a record number of houses in disrepair, he proposes to end families' rights to renovation grants? Will he explain where he expects the homeless to go when their temporary right to accommodation runs out, especially as fewer homes are available for rent? How will making it easier for private landlords to evict tenants reduce homelessness? Why does he think that a licensing scheme to improve the safety of homes in multiple occupation would amount to "over-regulation and bureaucracy", as stated in the White Paper?
    If, as the Secretary of State intends, council housing is to be transferred to private companies, how does he intend to keep rents down, and who will meet the cost of keeping rents down? Why does he refuse to allow councils to start investing in new homes the takings from the right-to-buy sale of council houses?
    Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that, despite anything that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said at his press conference this morning, when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Wales, he approved every word of this housing White Paper, which means that both candidates for the Conservative party leadership are totally responsible for this feeble and useless document?
    Mr. Gummer: It is an amazing experience to see that, despite the fact that the Labour party has profited from the theft of the White Paper for some days, that is all that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) can bring forward. His speech contained not a single idea about what he would do and, yet again, not a single suggestion about housing from the Labour party. In each of the previous 16 years we have been in exactly the same position: every new idea comes from the Conservatives, while every carping criticism comes from the Opposition, who still have no ideas.
    692
    Moreover, the hon. Gentleman still does not understand that if private landlords are not allowed to run the homes that they let reasonably, there will be no homes to let. The last time that the Labour party placed heavy restrictions on private landlords, it lost 500,000 letting homes. We now insist that if private landlords receive help from the Government to provide homes below market rents, they must meet the same requirements that are placed on housing associations. The hon. Gentleman has clearly not even read the White Paper, despite the fact that he has had an advantage over many hon. Members for several days.
    It is difficult to take the hon. Gentleman's attack on the Government's housing policy when every day we sell 200 houses to people who were previously in rented accommodation in the public sector. So 200 families a day are buying their own homes through the right to buy, an organisation and system that the Opposition have opposed tooth and nail throughout their period in opposition. In addition, we are building, renovating and improving lettings for those who need supported housing at a rate of 60,000 a year. That is a significant addition to the homes available to those who need subsidised and supported housing.
    Once again, the hon. Gentleman has shown that he has not read the White Paper and knows nothing about housing. Publicly to reveal his ignorance after so many days of being able to read the details simply shows how bankrupt he and his party are.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend has made an important statement. Housing is an essential of life. Would he accept from me, first, that there is some concern that the Conservative party and the Conservative Government have turned their face against home ownership and are now concerned more with the renting of homes than with home ownership? It would be a great encouragement to those who want to buy their homes if mortgage interest relief at source—MIRAS—was increased from 15 per cent. to 25 per cent., not least for first-time buyers, in order to give greater confidence and to stimulate home ownership.
    Secondly, would my right hon. Friend accept from me, representing as I do the only Conservative-controlled borough council north of the Severn to the Wash, that local government has a role to play in housing? The housing committee of Macclesfield borough council is highly responsible and sensitive to the needs of local housing. It is regrettable that those who have been democratically elected are being deprived of the opportunity to have some say in local government provision of housing.
    Mr. Gummer: The Government remain totally committed to home ownership. We are setting our sights on a further 1.5 million families owning their own homes. Now, 200 families, who used to be tenants of the state, are buying their own homes. Local authorities are encouraged to go for large-scale voluntary transfers—LSVTs. I can tell my hon. Friend from my experience in Suffolk, Coastal that when the local authority sold its council stock to Suffolk Heritage, the number of complaints that I used to receive in a month now account for what I get in over a year. That is the difference, because one has a dedicated housing group, which is concerned only about being a landlord. That housing authority had one of the best reputations in the country, and it will confirm that LSVTs is the way to tap into

    693
    capital and to use it to improve housing stock. Were even the excellent council in Macclesfield to do that, it would find the means of even bettering its performance to date.
    Mrs. Diana Maddock: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people in housing are concerned that the White Paper does not recognise the interlink between the economy and housing? While promoting unsustainable home ownership and doing absolutely nothing for those who already have mortgages in arrears, is not the Secretary of State merely stoking up the fires of excess in housing? In the end, that will mean that more trouble is stored up for the future.
    The Secretary of State has said that he believes that young people and families should have a stable environment, but his proposals mean that, in the last year alone, 67,000 homeless families would now have been in short-term, unsustainable accommodation.
    Mr. Gummer: On the first point, the hon. Lady is absolutely right: an economy with low interest rates and low inflation is an economy that provides sustainable home ownership. There has not been a better time for years in which to buy a house. The average cost of mortgages has dropped from £320 a month in 1990 to £190. I should remind my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that if MIRAS was increased as he suggested, the difference would amount to £10 a month. The real difference is achieved by getting the inflation rate down, keeping it down and, therefore, keeping mortgage repayments down. The policy of the hon. Lady's party would push inflation and mortgage rates up. Her party's policy and the extra taxation needed to fund what she claims she would do would create unsustainable housing.
    It is clear from the hon. Lady's final suggestion that she wants to continue to have a system where those in real need are bypassed by those who happen to fall in the right category. That is what she means. A single mother with a child, who had a terrible housing problem, would be left in that accommodation because, technically, she had a roof over her head while someone in better circumstances, fitting the category, would get ahead of her. That is what the hon. Lady wants and if that is Liberal fairness, it is not my concept of fairness.
    Mr. Charles Hendry: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on producing an immensely wide-ranging and positive White Paper? Will he confirm that the essence of what he has said is that there is a massive boost for the funds available for social housing through the recycling of money from the sale of housing association properties, by allowing private developers to bid for housing association grant and by opening the doors to massive new investment from private companies in the private rented sector?
    Is my right hon. Friend aware also that there will be a particular welcome from voluntary organisations for his comments on the future of the rough sleepers initiative? Will he confirm that there has been a dramatic fall in the number of people sleeping rough in London as a result of that initiative and will he now undertake a wide-ranging consultation exercise to establish exactly what format the scheme should take?
    Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. What we have announced today will mean that we shall make the very best use of taxpayers' money; draw in a great deal more
    694
    money from the private sector; ensure that we recycle that money so that more and more people are given the opportunity for a home of their own; and that we make sure that need is the main reason for entry into social housing—a most important change.
    As for the rough sleepers initiative, I promise my hon. Friend that we shall continue to work extremely closely with the voluntary sector. We shall talk to it in detail about how to take that forward. We have introduced the extension of the initiative because of the voluntary sector's very considerable support. My hon. Friend is right that the number of rough sleepers has now dropped in central London—by the voluntary sector's figures, from over 1,000 to the 200 mark.
    Mr. Gerry Steinberg: After that most inept performance by the Secretary of State, is he aware that in 1979 in the northern region, over 10,000 council houses were built? Last year, 68 council houses were built in the whole northern region. Does he not realise that local authorities have capital receipts from sales under the right to buy with which they could immediately start to build houses? That would not necessarily solve the problem, but it would go a long way towards solving it and releasing people from the lists into houses. When, in the name of heaven, will the right hon. Gentleman get rid of his damned dogma and allow local authorities to use the money to build houses so that people can get houses to live in?
    Mr. Gummer: If we are talking about ineptitude, what about a Member of Parliament from the north who does not know that housing associations have been building houses all over the north or recognise that estate action has improved large numbers of estates in the north of England and suggests that I am proceeding dogmatically when I am providing the widest choice ever known in this country? He is clearly so blinkered by his socialism that he wants houses to be built only by local authorities.
    The fact is that if local authorities were to spend their accumulated receipts, it would be many of the local authorities that had the least need to provide housing that would have the largest opportunity to spend receipts. The Labour party proposes that authorities should spend them, but, of course, it would have to reduce the grant and capital allowances provided by the Government to those authorities because the Labour party has admitted that it would not increase public expenditure. What would happen is that local authorities would not be able to build or help local housing associations to build, but in the plusher parts of the country there would be plenty of money to spend. If that is socialism, it is a very curious sort.
    Mr. Paul Channon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much in the White Paper is very welcome to Conservative Members? Can he clear up one point that concerns me, about charitable housing trusts? Did he say in his statement that in future they would be able to build only for sale? If that is so, I suspect that it will be in conflict with some of their charitable purposes.
    Mr. Gummer: No. What I was saying is that in normal circumstances when housing associations build to rent—which is what they do—the right to buy will in future be part of the tenants' offer, so that a tenant who begins renting accommodation under the new deal with the housing association will in future also have the right to

    695
    buy. We are extending the right to buy to those who will have houses that will be built in future by housing associations.
    Mr. James Molyneaux: When he comes to draft the legislation, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the plight of the owners of Orlit houses, which were built by non-registered housing associations and thereby excluded from grant repair schemes because of a flaw in the drafting?
    Mr. Gummer: I shall certainly consider carefully what the right hon. Gentleman said.
    Sir Richard Body: While I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his proposals, will he confirm that when a housing association receives the purchase price from the sale of a house, there will be no restriction by the Government on its ability to reinvest all that money in yet another house?
    Mr. Gummer: That is entirely correct. Someone who moves from being a tenant to being an owner releases money for the housing association. The housing association then gets the maximum price to build a new house, which can then be let. That is a constant return system.
    Ms Diane Abbott: On the question of council house allocation policies, does the Secretary of State accept that the notion that single-parent mothers are systematically queue-jumping is based on a myth? Nowhere in law do single-parent mothers get priority—homeless families with children get priority. Does he also accept that the children of single-parent mothers are not an inferior type of humanity? Why should the children of single-parent mothers have to suffer in temporary and hostel accommodation because Ministers seek to make moral judgments about those mothers' personal situation?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady did not listen to what I said, which was precisely the opposite. I said that it was a scandal when a single-parent mother in very bad housing was unable to get proper accommodation because someone else who was technically in a higher category jumped the queue ahead of her. The hon. Lady must not let her prejudice interfere with her ears. The fact is that I am on her side and believe that need must be the first priority. If the hon. Lady will join me in fighting to make need the first priority, we shall go arm in arm in the housing sphere.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a particular welcome for his decision to extend the rough sleepers initiative outside London and for his determination that new housing should be built on derelict land and previously used land? Does he accept that, while the aspiration for home ownership remains widespread, there is at least as pressing a need—socially and economically—for a diversified rented sector? If there is no terrible danger to the economy in allowing housing associations to reuse their capital receipts, what particular reason is there for continuing to restrain local authorities from doing likewise?
    Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is very important to promote home ownership, but it should
    696
    be done in concert with providing opportunities to rent accommodation. The Government have changed the rules so that landlords find it worth while to let. Without those changes, there would be no further letting accommodation. This is a further step in the same direction.
    Local authorities are of course able to spend a proportion of their receipts, but the problem is that local authority receipts and the need for housing are not in the same places. We therefore think it better to direct the opportunity to build to housing associations in areas where the need is greatest, which is what we are doing. Housing associations are getting the funds where the need is greatest. When they sell their houses, they are able to recycle the sums of money because we have already directed them to where the need is greatest. The problem is that many local authorities have been able to sell large quantities of houses and other assets, but they are not in the places where need demands that they build new houses, which is why we believe that they should be more targeted. Money from the taxpayer should be used to the full.
    Mr. David Clelland: Is the Secretary of State aware that, since 1979, homelessness in the northern region has doubled, council house rents have risen by more than 500 per cent. and people living in the housing association properties to which he referred in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) cannot afford to pay those rents unless they are on 100 per cent. housing benefit? Of course, if they get a job, they have to consider moving out. Is he further aware that 27,000 properties in the northern region are affected by negative equity? Is that a record of which the Secretary of State is proud? To what extent will the White Paper deal with such problems?
    Mr. Gummer: I notice that the hon. Gentleman does not mention that properties in the northern region have been allowed to run down and need considerable renovation precisely because of the rent policies of previous Labour administrations and Labour councils. [Interruption.] If tenants are not charged a reasonable amount to contribute towards the upkeep of the accommodation, the accommodation will run down. Opposition Members cannot get upset about it; it is a fact of life. If one does not spend money on the housing, the housing will run down.
    We now have a sensible rent policy, and those who cannot afford to pay the rent have the opportunity of receiving the generous housing benefit that costs the Government £8.9 billion. The Labour party is unable to face the fact that the Government's policies have done more to help the homeless and those in poor accommodation than any policies advanced by the Labour party.
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent proposals to bring much needed private enterprise into our town hall-dominated council estates—something for which I have argued for a very long time. Does he agree that examples in other countries show how much more the private rented sector can do? For instance, the private rented sectors in Switzerland and Germany are four times the size of our private rented sector and much of their housing is provided by private individuals.
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. Has he noticed that the Labour party does not understand any of that?

    697
    Labour Members laugh at anything that they could learn from anyone else. The Labour party is stuck in the 1940s, when council accommodation was provided for a limited number of people. That council accommodation has deteriorated because the Labour party has never been prepared to find ways of spending money properly on its upkeep.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is no wonder that the Tory party is going to the dogs when, after 16 years in government, it fails to recognise that it is facing a housing crisis. More than a quarter of a million building workers are looking for jobs, there are millions of bricks at the London Brick Company and elsewhere, thousands of people are on the streets without a roof over their heads and many more are on council housing waiting lists. Yet, despite all the talk about negative equity, today the Minister calls upon more people to get up to their necks in debt. The country is in never-never land, living on tick. The Minister, in his swan song speech—he is likely to be dumped—does not have the decency to tell councils to build some houses, get people back to work and put roofs over people's heads.
    Mr. Gummer: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman made that penultimate remark. He has said that every year since I first stood at the Dispatch Box, and he has been wrong every year. I was afraid that he would not say it again this year, because the year that he does not say it I shall really be in trouble.
    As usual, the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. What he says now is precisely what the Labour party said in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and again in the 1990s. It has never been able to meet the housing aspirations of our people. However, we are able to say not only that we have enabled more families to own their own homes and that every day 200 families buy houses under the right to buy and similar schemes, but that 1.5 million more families will purchase houses in the next few years. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is totally out of touch with real life and in contact only with the whimsical attitudes of his socialism.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the tenants of Hastings borough council will welcome his proposals for housing associations as they are voting to join the 1066 housing association? Will he confirm whether the new probationary tenancies will apply only to new tenants or whether they will apply to existing tenants who are causing problems? Can he also confirm whether responsible flying freeholders in the private sector are regarded as living in high-risk houses of multiple occupation?
    Mr. Gummer: I am concerned to ensure that there is a proper balance between the tenant's rights and the tenant's responsibilities. Therefore, it will be for new tenants that the probationary tenancy system will be available. However, we are discussing with the local authority associations ways in which we can help them deal with tenants who are already there and who are causing considerable difficulties to their neighbours.
    I believe that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was less than fair—even more less than fair than usual—when he railed at me on the subject of multiple occupation. We need to have a system whereby we protect tenants from the dangers of inadequate fire safety and the like, while not placing on
    698
    people such burdens that they do not provide that type of accommodation. Those are vulnerable people in two different ways—vulnerable if the accommodation is not properly protected, but vulnerable if there is no accommodation available.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: If Government policy on housing has been successful and equitable, can the Secretary of State explain why, in the London borough of Newham, expenditure on the homeless has increased from £1 million to over £8 million during the Conservative administration and, moreover, £8 million must be found under the defective standard spending assessment formula—expenditure that should go to other council services, especially education and social services? How has that come about, and why is it fair and successful?
    Mr. Gummer: The SSA is equitable, although I know the hon. Gentleman's complaint about Newham being outside the inner London area and I promise to consider that in specifics, so I believe that he will agree with that.
    The money is being provided through a system that takes into account the problems that Newham has. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are patterns of change in where people come to live, and that his borough is one of those that has had special pressures. However, he should be especially pleased that the present Government are providing the money to tackle those problems so generously.
    We are helping the homeless in a way that was previously inconceivable because of the meanness of previous Labour Governments. The hon. Gentleman is an honourable man and I know that he means well, but the fact is that Conservative Governments provide help for the homeless; Labour Governments talk about it.
    Sir David Madel: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) about receipts from the sale of council houses, does the White Paper allow local authorities to spend more of their receipts on modernising existing council houses?
    On the issue of housing association tenants being able to buy as a result of the new arrangements, are there any restrictions on their buying and then selling quickly?
    Mr. Gummer: In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, there will be a number of restrictions similar to those that were imposed in the past.
    On money for redoing council accommodation, there are two ways in which we shall help with that. First, we shall encourage large-scale voluntary transfers, which is much the most sensible way of using the capital to improve the stock, so that it is worth more. That is the way in which the LSVT works. It does so without increasing the pressure on the taxpayer, so it has an especially advantageous effect.
    Secondly, we are discussing with several boroughs, including Labour boroughs such as Manchester and Hackney, ways in which we can have local authority companies that will be able to do partial LSVTs specifically to improve the quality of stock.
    I also mentioned that we shall open up the opportunity to tenants, if they so wish, to vote for private companies taking over accommodation and improving it on terms that protect the tenants from excessive rent increases.
    Mr. Andrew Faulds: Was not that somewhat overheated presentation by the Secretary of

    699
    State simply the grunts and gasps of a Government in their death throes—and a rather poor performance, some of us thought?
    Should the populace and the House not be made aware that, during the jousting and the fun of Prime Minister's questions, the Press Gallery was packed, but when we come to this much more serious business of housing problems, all these chaps and the girlies go off to recover from their over-indulgence at lunchtime?
    Madam Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have a question on the Minister's statement?
    Mr. Faulds indicated assent.
    Madam Speaker: In that case, I should like to hear it right away.
    While I am on my feet, let me say this. This statement has been running for a long time. It is an important statement. I want to try to call all hon. Members who are standing. I can do so only with the co-operation of the House, and if I have brisk questions and brisk answers. I have the remainder of the House's business to safeguard, so I should like questions to be to the point and brief.
    Mr. Faulds: My questions will be brief and to the point, Madam Speaker. I just wanted the country to realise that we do a rather better job than the Press Gallery. Does the Secretary of State realise that figures for the west midlands over the past 15 years of Tory Government are not terribly satisfactory? In 1979, 64 times as many council houses were built as are built now. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that homelessness in the west midlands has risen two and a half times? Think of the suffering that involves for the people of the west midlands. Does the Secretary of State realise that the rise in council rents is five times what it was in 1979?
    Madam Speaker: Has the hon. Gentleman finished?
    Mr. Faulds: Yes, nearly finished. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that households in negative equity in the west midlands affect 63,000 people? Think of the agonies and tragedies that involves for the people of the west midlands—all due to the policies of the Conservative Government over 15 years.
    Madam Speaker: There was no question there, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was asking what the Secretary of State is going to do about it.
    Mr. Gummer: I would find it easier to believe the hon. Gentleman's concern if he had ever asked a question of me about housing in Question Time since I have been a Minister responsible for housing. If the hon. Gentleman had ever taken part in a housing debate and put points about housing, I would believe his concern. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the vast increase in housing association houses in the west midlands. He is so committed to municipalisation that he cannot do that. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that in the west midlands, large numbers of people are buying their own homes every day, instead of being tenants. He did not mention that the White Paper proclaims a whole range of new ways of helping people to buy or rent their own homes and for more money to be put into housing. The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework.
    Dr. Ian Twinn: Contrary to the whingeing and negative response of Opposition Members, does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement will be widely welcomed outside the House as well as on Conservative Benches? Does he further agree that the flowering of the housing association movement over the past 16 years has been a great credit to this Government, and that the introduction of the right to buy for new tenants will provide an element of fairness in housing allocation locally, as well as enabling housing associations to plan positively for the development of social housing in future?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. He may have noticed that the Labour party, instead of making sensible proposals for alternatives, has done nothing but barrack during these discussions. If there is any criticism of these discussions, it is that Labour does not want to hear the facts because it has no alternative.
    Ms Jean Corston: Is this not another case of the Government pursuing dogma in the face of the evidence? Is the Secretary of State aware of the scale of the housing crisis in Bristol, where 23,000 people are on the council waiting list? To afford the rent for a three-bedroomed housing association property, it would be necessary for the tenant to earn £300 a week. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his White Paper will encourage homeless people to be set against each other, provide in the rented sector only insecure tenancies and irresponsibly promote home ownership among people who evidently do not have the means to afford repairs and maintenance?
    Mr. Gummer: If we are going to talk about dogma, that was the most dogmatic statement. Home ownership is unacceptable because some people find that they made the choice wrongly? People who are homeless are bound to fight among each other if it is decided which of them should be given housing on the basis of need? The only kind of housebuilding that there ought to be is local authority housebuilding? That is where the dogma lies. The hon. Lady does not make her case.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his radical and comprehensive statement will be widely welcomed by housing professionals and people in housing need throughout the country? Is he particularly aware that his proposals for local housing companies—which I advocated in my maiden speech on 5 June 1992, which my right hon. Friend will remember—are particularly welcome because they will bring together the benefits of housing management skills in the private and public sectors for the benefit of tenants, for which Opposition Members have no thought?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. We should use every means in our power to help people have decent homes, and not stop a range of opportunities because we have the dogmatic predilections of the Labour party.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Secretary of State ever take time off to consider that he might be wrong in the solutions at which he has arrived? Has he ever pondered whether it was wrong in principle, many years ago under this Government, to channel money into housing through a housing benefit system that locked people into unemployment instead of funding bricks and

    701
    mortar? Can he not be honest with the House for just one moment and consider whether there may have been an error of judgment in that area?
    Mr. Gummer: The housing benefit system clearly does not lock people into unemployment, given that unemployment has been falling by 1,000 every working day for months. The hon. Gentleman's alternative is unacceptable. It would mean that, instead of channelling money to those who need it, it would be channelled into bricks and mortar. It was not only the Conservative party that thought that that was wrong. The Labour party saw also that there was a need to target. Targeting of taxpayers' money is essential.
    I often ask myself, "Is there a better way of doing it?" The hon. Gentleman should recognise that any sensible person will ask himself, "Can we do it better?" That is why there is a range of new ideas in the White Paper. That is why every year we must find new ways of trying to extend opportunities for the people. It would not help much to put large amounts of subsidy into bricks and mortar, irrespective of the needs of those who live in those houses.
    Mr. Michael Stephen: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his White Paper, which contains many constructive and practical ideas, in stark contrast to Opposition Members, who never have any constructive ideas and can only carp and criticise? Is my right hon. Friend aware that especially welcome in south-east England will be the part of the White Paper that relates to empty houses? At a time when there are 10 times as many empty houses and flats as there are homeless people, it makes no sense to cover our already scarce green spaces in urban and suburban areas with more and more housing. Does my right hon. Friend accept that if Labour Members had had their way during the past 16 years, there would have been no capital receipts to spend on new housing, because there would have been no sales of houses to the tenants of housing associations and local authorities?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. When the Labour party complains that not all capital receipts are spent on housing, it fails to mention that there would have been none under a Labour Government because they, Labour Members, were opposed to council house sales. My hon. Friend is also right to say that sustainable development demands that we build as much as we can on brown land, on land that has been used before. That will help us to reinvigorate our cities. It is an approach that fits in with the rest of our planning policies, which are designed to create vibrant towns and cities. My hon. Friend is right to say also that if we are to provide enough homes for the present population and if we take into account the fact that people live longer and families break up more often, we must use every opportunity and recognise that empty homes mean lost opportunities.
    Mr. Clive Betts: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his approach to the thousands of people waiting for improvement grants—most of them in my constituency are owner-occupiers—will not provide resources to enable them to improve their homes? They are now to be denied the right to a mandatory grant. That will remove the possibility of any effective area renewal.
    Will the Secretary of State confirm also that his promise to housing associations that they can use total receipts from sales to build new homes is exactly the same
    702
    promise that was given to local authorities in 1980? Why should we believe this promise any more than we should have believed the previous one?
    Mr. Gummer: On mandatory grants, the hon. Gentleman has got it right the wrong way round. Local authorities, no doubt including the one that he used to run, want to have the proposed change because with the mandatory grant system as it stands, a local authority cannot say that it wants to channel that grant into a particular scheme in a particular area. That is precisely contrary to the hon. Gentleman's approach, and the local authority world knows that. Perhaps that explains why Sheffield was run so badly when he was in charge of the local authority.
    The housing association movement builds houses in partnership with the Government, Government grant and the private sector. When a house is sold to the tenant in future, the full sum will be recycled so that that partnership may continue.
    Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme): How many empty homes are owned by Government Ministries, and what has been the cost of keeping them boarded up and empty for many years? If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the homeless, why has he suddenly decided that it is time to do something about them when he has not done anything before?
    Mr. Gummer: We did a great deal before and we have set targets that Departments have to meet. I am going further because there is a major opportunity, particularly with Ministry of Defence property, as a result of changes in the world situation. I know that the hon. Lady has recognised that those changes have meant a big alteration in our military establishment. Therefore, it is important that when those houses become vacant, we move them into the private sector as rapidly as possible. I have said that, in normal circumstances, if the houses have not been sold within six months, they will be put up to auction. That is a major change that Labour was unable to promise at any time when it was in power.
    Mr. Terry Lewis: In his new zeal to protect green-field sites, will the Secretary of State consider, when windfall sites occur, deducting unit for unit from identified green-field housing sites?
    Mr. Skinner: That was a good question.
    Mr. Gummer: It is a very good question. I do not believe that the Government should follow policies that would restrict the opportunity for land to be made available. Therefore, it is right strongly to protect the green belt and to encourage people to produce land for housing within the plan. That is the mix that we want and that is how we shall achieve it. The hon. Gentleman would be better advised to seek to encourage the putting forward of land rather than discouraging it by his attack on windfall land.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: Is the Secretary of State aware of the effect of his Government's policies over the past few years, of forcing people into dependency on benefits? People in housing association developments are unable to afford the rents without benefits and they fall into the poverty trap. Does he not understand that the long-term consequence of the sort of policies that he has again announced today is that social rented housing will

    703
    become a ghetto that is inhabited by people who are elderly or unemployed and dependent on benefits? Is that the sort of future that he wants for social rented housing? Does he think that that is in the long-term interests of this country?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is wrong for two reasons, one of which is that we are taking rent levels into the arrangements for housing association grants. That will help to deal with one part of the problem. Secondly, we have announced the right to buy for tenants who move into new houses in housing associations. There will not be a ghetto, as the hon. Gentleman says. People who own and people who rent their homes will be living side by side, and that is precisely what I want.
    Mr. John Austin-Walker: What is in the Secretary of State's White Paper for the thousands of tenants of the private development company, Thamesmead Town Ltd.? In that case, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor transferred council tenancies to private tenancies at unaffordable market rents without giving the tenants the right to choose a landlord. Will he give Thamesmead Town tenants the right to choose a landlord or does he intend to replicate the disaster that is Thamesmead by privatising council housing in the rest of the country?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to read at least some of the versions of the White Paper, and will have seen that there is no question of privatising council estates. The only offer is that if the council tenants themselves want to choose a new landlord to ensure that they get the improvement in their homes that is necessary, they may do so. Such improvement often takes the form of something new, because the rent policies of previous Labour-controlled authorities did not permit it.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the Secretary of State correct the impression given in his statement about disabled people and the adaptation of houses for their benefit? Such adaptations include extensions to houses-for-life into which people can move as they grow older and more infirm. That is not dealt with specifically in the White Paper, but page 39 refers to a future statement. Therefore, the Minister is making claims about the White Paper that have not yet been cashed in.
    Mr. Gummer: No; the hon. Gentleman is perhaps mixing two different things. What I said in my statement referred to the fact that the improvement grants for present houses will remain mandatory in relation to changes for disabled people. The other part to which he refers is what will come about as a result of our considering arrangements under our disablement programme in general.
    Mr. Cynog Dans: Will the Secretary of State withdraw or change the constraints that have been placed on the power of housing associations to purchase from existing housing stock—to buy houses off the shelf and that sort of thing—enabling houses to be let to people as rented property? Does he not agree that that was a useful and flexible approach to providing housing, and enabled people who otherwise
    704
    would not have been able to do so to obtain access to existing housing stock? Will he change those constraints now, because that development has been regressive?
    Mr. Gummer: In principle, it is always better if extra accommodation is found or built by a housing association in addition to that which is available anyway, so I start with a prejudice in that the housing association should extend opportunities rather than merely take over one form of tenancy or ownership from another. The position that especially pertains in Wales was meant to meet a real need and problem that had arisen. I do not think that there is any evidence that it is having the deleterious effects that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will consider any point that the hon. Gentleman would like to raise with me.
    Mr. Paul Boateng: Is the Secretary of State aware of the gravity of the crisis in the funding of repairs and refurbishment of rundown and deprived estates in many of our cities, and that, in the London borough of Brent, which is Tory-controlled, so desperate is the crisis of the lack of investment that the council proposes to tear down desperately needed homes on the Chalkhill estate to build a supermarket, which is not needed, to fund a new development on that estate? Is that not nonsense? Will he agree to consider the environmental and commercial impact of that decision and tell us how his White Paper deals with the current crisis, rather than pursue the vendetta against council housing and the obsession with owner-occupancy that it displays?
    Mr. Gummer: Obviously, I cannot comment on a particular planning application that may come to me for determination; that would be wrong, but I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I find his views odd, because one of the reasons why so much housing stock is not in the best of repair is that not enough has been spent on it, often by Labour councils that have failed to have a sensible rent policy, so that they have been unable to keep houses up. They have used rent as an electoral activity, which is a serious matter.
    We have tried. therefore, to find ways through and we have suggested—it would be possible to do this in a number of London boroughs, not least the hon. Gentleman's own—either going to local authority companies or considering LSVT. In that way, one could refurbish precisely the sort of blocks of housing of which he speaks and do it from the capital that is locked up in the region. I hope therefore that he will seek, with his local authority, with which I know he has extremely good relations, to work through that route, and I promise to help him.
    Mr. Dobson: The Secretary of State has confirmed that housing associations will be allowed—indeed they will be expected—to invest the takings from the sale of houses to sitting tenants in new housing. He has also said that the reason why that cannot apply to local authorities is that, in some cases, they have a large amount of capital receipts but no housing need, and, in other cases, they have few receipts but a lot of housing need. If that is the restraint, will he give a guarantee that, where councils have housing needs and capital receipts, he will allow them to start spending them?
    Mr. Gummer: What we do is something even better than that: we provide the capital authorisations and the

    705
    ability to spend money in connection with the need. The hon. Gentleman knows that, in his widely publicised demands and statements that the Labour party would allow local councils to spend their capital receipts, he never mentions that the only way that that could be done within the rules put forward by his hon.
    706
    Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer would be to remove the direct help for thepoorest councils. That is what would happen. He means that he would allow capital receipts to be spent where they are not needed, but would not provide extra help where it is needed.

Points of Order
4.39 pm
Mr. Michael Jopling: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would be helpful if you could clarify the comments you made, and, dare I say it, the impression you gave in reply to the point of order raised at the beginning of the statement by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). You told my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that he had deviated from the script of his statement with which you had been provided, which presumably was also provided for the Opposition spokesman.
It has always been my understanding that an hon. Member has to clear a personal statement with you beforehand, and is not then permitted to deviate from it. However, I was unaware of anything in "Erskine May" which suggests that a Minister making a statement such as that made by my right hon. Friend this afternoon is allowed only to stick to the script, which, as a matter of courtesy, is distributed to the Opposition and to others.
It would be unfortunate if it became a convention, or if the impression was given, that a Minister must not deviate from the precise terms of a statement that has been circulated as a matter of courtesy. You know, Madam Speaker, having been in the House for about the same amount of time as me, that, when the House is in a somewhat excited frame of mind during a statement, many highly politicised comments fly backwards and forwards across the Chamber. Given that, it would be most unfortunate if a Minister was not permitted to respond off the cuff to rather excited comments thrown at him by the Opposition in the middle of a statement.
Madam Speaker: During a statement, Ministers must of course be allowed to respond off the cuff, but only very briefly, to comments from both sides of the House. However, I do expect such responses to be brief, and not to be a great diversion from the statement that a Minister is making. In that respect, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to page 297 of "Erskine May", which says:
"Explanations are made in the House by Ministers on behalf of the Government regarding their domestic and foreign policy … announcing the legislative proposals they intend to submit to Parliament; or the course they intend to adopt in the transaction and arrangement of public business."
I have already said that Ministers often make quick responses in the excitement of the moment and that is perfectly acceptable. Equally, the Minister is making a statement of Government policy—that is what the Minister is doing at the Dispatch Box. Ministers should not at any time attempt to transform that statement into a speech or an attack upon the Opposition, minority parties, or anyone else for that matter. I repeat, statements are the enunciation of Government policy from the Dispatch Box. I hope that that clears the matter up.
Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your advice on an
708
important matter? At Prime Minister's Question Time last Tuesday, the Prime Minister made a specific reference to me which was not based on the truth, when he asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition whether he would
"publish the earlier, secret report held by the Labour party into Monklands council, which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has consistently refused to make public?"—[Official Report, 20 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 149–50.]
I raised a point of order last Wednesday, pointing out that that was not true, and that the Prime Minister had written to me later that day indicating that it was not true. He wrote to me saying:
"Although a report may have been published as a result of your party's internal inquiry".
The Prime Minister has not clarified that point in writing or orally, and he has not apologised to the House for it.
Given that, in that same Question Time, the Prime Minister said:
"Ministers who deliberately mislead Parliament should resign".— [Official Report, 20 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 149.],
I wonder if you can tell us what advice is contained in "Erskine May" for situations such as this, when a Prime Minister has said that I have not done something, when in fact the report to which he referred was published in March 1993; and, when he is asked on pain of his integrity if he will clarify the matter and apologise to the House, he still does nothing.
Surely there must be some protection for hon. Members, wherever they sit and whoever they are, from other right hon. or hon. Members making statements that are simply not true, and when that right hon. or hon. Member is unwilling to come back to the House, admit the truth and apologise.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman said, this is the second time that he has used a point of order to raise this matter. The hon. Gentleman may use the Order Paper and try to table questions about the matter. Also, I remind him that we have a local government debate later this week—I am sure that that has been noted by those on the Treasury Bench—and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to catch my eye during that debate, I shall do my best to call him so that he might obtain an answer from either the Prime Minister or a Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I recognise that one of your overriding concerns and wishes is always to protect the rights of Back Benchers. Given the fact that the Prime Minister was not available to answer questions today, I wonder whether you received an approach from the new Back Bencher, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), saying that, given the electoral contest within the Tory party, it might have been fair and more appropriate for him to answer questions at Prime Minister's Question Time.
Madam Speaker: A rather good try, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Environmental Investment (Accelerated Depreciation)
4.46 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the amount of depreciation allowable against tax for investments on certain innovative environmental technologies; to require the Secretary of State to compile a definitive list of such innovative environmental technologies; and for related purposes.
The Bill that I am seeking to introduce aims to accelerate the depreciation deductible from tax on investments in innovative environmental technologies. The Bill would ensure that 100 per cent. of the depreciation is allowable in the first year. The idea is to stimulate investment in environmental technologies.
Three groups of people would benefit if the Bill were passed. First, it would benefit the firms that make the environmental technology. Those are firms which produce goods and services capable of measuring, preventing, limiting or correcting environmental damage, such as pollution of water, air and soil as well as waste and noise-related problems, and which produce clean technologies where pollution and raw material use are minimised.
The Bill It would also benefit the firms that use the innovative environmental technology, since it makes it easier for them to compete in countries with strict environmental standards. When firms invest, it will initially increase the cost, but it will give them a competitive advantage in the long term. The Bill will benefit us as consumers of industry and citizens of a country that is already polluted. It means that we are likely to be healthier and have a higher quality of life if environmental improvements can be made. That is why I am introducing the Bill, and why it has all-party support.
This technology is big business. The 1994 meeting of experts at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development agreed that the world market is currently around $250 billion. It is predicted to reach $600 billion by the year 2000. If we compare that with the aerospace industry, which is currently worth $180 billion, and the chemical industry, which is worth $500 billion worldwide, the scale becomes apparent.
Much environmental technology is in its infancy; that has been well illustrated by the Brent Spar saga. We should be more advanced and more civilised in dealing with our waste products than simply dumping them at sea. The technology to dispose of disused oil platforms needs to be developed as a matter of urgency in a way that will minimise environmental damage and create jobs. This Bill would encourage that technological development. As well as technology to deal with the handling of solid waste, the other growth areas are expected to be the treatment of water and waste water, and air quality pollution control.
It is important that we give British industry the boost it needs to get involved in these growing sectors. At present, Germany, the United States and Japan clearly dominate the environmental industry technologically, with shares of 29 per cent., 22 per cent. and 12 per cent. of the world's patents. That compares with the United Kingdom's 6 per cent. share, and shows that we need to do more.
Yet we have some of the best scientists in the world. What we need is incentives for those scientists to work on environmental technology. That would satisfy the
710
criteria spelled out in the White Paper "Realising our Potential". That would create wealth and improve our quality of life, more so than many other areas.
Even the technology foresight steering group, which has recently reported, agreed. It felt that it was important to promote a cleaner world by concentrating our research on clean processing technology, on energy technology, on environmentally sustainable technology and on product and manufacturing life cycle analysis, so waste could be minimised at source.
The Bill is based on a scheme of accelerated depreciation on environmental investment which was introduced by the Government of the Netherlands in 1991. The scheme there is directed by the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, in close co-operation with the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Economic Affairs.
In the Netherlands, there is a very close link between Government-sponsored research and development and the accelerated depreciation scheme. About 60 per cent. of the technologies placed on the list were sponsored by the Dutch Government at an earlier phase of development, so it has proved a valuable link, ensuring that the early stages of research and development are truly effective in being converted to new manufacturing technology.
Several people have remarked to me that it is important that the decision makers are educated so that they appreciate what environmental technology is available. Firms report a surprising ignorance among the people who make the purchasing decisions. I hope that the publicity that surrounds the Bill, which has attracted a great deal of interest, will encourage the decision makers in industry, in local government and in central Government to be more aware of the innovation that is available and to take advantage of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has produced a new economic strategy paper, "Rebuilding the Economy", which asserts that the Opposition's
"commitment to raising the quality of our environment is paralleled by our determination to ensure that Britain seizes the enormous market opportunities for environmental technologies."
My hon. Friend has promised to pursue a three-point strategy to raise domestic output in environmental technologies as the base for our export drive. The Bill fits well with Opposition policy.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Anne Campbell, Sir Gerard Vaughan, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Nick Harvey and Mr. Paddy Tipping.

ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENT (ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION)
Mrs. Anne Campbell accordingly presented a Bill to increase the amount of depreciation allowable against tax for investments on certain innovative environmental technologies; to require the Secretary of State to compile a definitive list of such innovative environmental technologies; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July and to be printed. [Bill 151.]
Orders of the Day
  Environment Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New clause 20

  POWER OF SEPA TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT LAND
  '.—(1) Where, with a view to performing a function conferred on it by any enactment, SEPA considers that it ought to have information connected with any land, it may serve on one or more of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) below a notice—

  (a) specifying the land, the function and the enactment; and

  (b) requiring the recipient of the notice to furnish to SEPA, within such period of not less than 14 days from the date of service of the notice as is specified in the notice—

  (i) the nature of his interest in the land; and

  (ii) the name and address of each person whom he believes is, as respects the land, a person mentioned in subsection (2) below.

  (2) The persons referred to in subsection (I) above are—

  (a) the occupier of the land;

  (b) any person—

  (i) who has an interest in the land as owner, creditor in a heritable security or lessee; or

  (ii) who directly or indirectly receives rent for the land; and

  (c) any person who, in pursuance of an agreement between himself and a person interested in the land, is authorised to manage the land or to arrange for the letting of it.

  (3) A person who—

  (a) fails to comply with the requirements of a notice served on him in pursuance of subsection (1) above; or

  (b) in furnishing any information in compliance with such a notice makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular,

  shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 22

  DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
  '.—(1) Notwithstanding any prohibition or restriction imposed by or under any enactment or rule of law, information of any description may be disclosed—

  (a) by a new Agency to a Minister of the Crown, the other new Agency or a local enforcing authority,

  (b) by a Minister of the Crown to a new Agency, another Minister of the Crown or a local enforcing authority, or

  (c) by a local enforcing authority to a Minister of the Crown, a new Agency or another local enforcing authority,

  for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by either of the new Agencies of any of its functions, by any such Minister of any of his environmental functions or by any local enforcing authority of any of its relevant functions; and no person shall be subject to any civil or criminal liability in consequence of any disclosure made by virtue of this subsection.

  (2) Nothing in this section shall authorise the disclosure to a local enforcing authority by a new Agency or another local enforcing authority of information—

  (a) disclosure of which would, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, be contrary to the interests of national security; or

  (b) which was obtained under or by virtue of the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 and which was disclosed to a new Agency or any of its officers by the Secretary of State.

  712

  (3) No information disclosed to any person under or by virtue of this section shall be disclosed by that person to any other person otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this section, or any provision of any other enactment which authorises or requires the disclosure, if that information is information—

  (a) which relates to a trade secret of any person or which otherwise is or might be commercially confidential in relation to any person; or

  (b) whose disclosure otherwise than under or by virtue of this section would, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, be contrary to the interests of national security.

  (4) Any authorisation by or under this section of the disclosure of information by or to any person shall also be taken to authorise the disclosure of that information by or, as the case may be, to any officer of his who is authorised by him to make the disclosure or, as the case may be, to receive the information.

  (5) In this section—

  "new Agency" means the Agency or SEPA;
  "the environment" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;
  "environmental functions", in relation to a Minister of the Crown, means any function of that Minister, whether conferred or imposed under or by virtue of any enactment or otherwise, relating to the environment; and
  "local enforcing authority" means—

  (a) any local authority within the meaning of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the "relevant functions" of such an authority are its functions under or by virtue of that Part;

  (b) any local authority within the meaning of Part IV of this Act, and the "relevant functions" of such an authority are its functions under or by virtue of that Part;

  (c) in relation to England, any county council for an area for which there are district councils, and the "relevant functions" of such a county council are its functions under or by virtue of Part IV of this Act; or

  (d) in relation to England and Wales, any local enforcing authority within the meaning of section 1(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the "relevant functions" of such an authority are its functions under or by virtue of Part I of that Act.'—[Mr. Atkins.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.45 pm
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed clause, in subsection (3), after second 'section', insert
  `or for the purpose of any pollution control functions as defined in section 5'.
  Amendment (b) to the proposed clause, in subsection (3), leave out 'authorises or'.
  Government amendment No. 176.
  Amendment No. 20, in clause 107, page 133, line 35, at end add
  '(12A) Subject to the following provisions of this section, no information relating to any individual or business which has been obtained by virtue of this section or any pollution control functions, shall during the lifetime of that individual or so long as that business continues to be carried on, be disclosed without the consent of that individual or the person for the time being carrying on that business.
  (12B) Subsection (12A) does not apply to any disclosure of information which is made

  (a) for the purpose of fulfilling any statutory duty falling on the person disclosing it other than under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992; or

  713

  (b) between enforcing authorities for the purpose of their pollution control functions.'.

  Government amendments Nos. 88 and 98.
  Amendment No. 249, in schedule 22, page 321, line 15, at end insert—
  '(3A) Where the Agency is treated as having determined that information is commercially confidential by virtue of subsection (3) above and it subsequently appears to the Agency that the information is not commercially confidential for the purposes of this section then the Agency shall—

  (a) give to the person to whom or whose business it relates notice that that information is required to be included in a register kept or maintained by the Agency under any provisions of this Act, unless excluded under this section; and

  (b) give that person reasonable opportunity—

  (i) of objecting to the inclusion of the information on the grounds that it is commercially confidential; and

  (ii) of making representations to the Agency for the purpose of justifying any such objection:

  and the Agency shall, having taken any representations into account, determine whether the information is or is not commercially confidential.'.
  Amendment No. 248, in page 322, line 27, after `person', insert
  'by disclosing information about a trade secret'.
  Government amendments Nos. 99, 104 and 106.
  Mr. Atkins: The new clause puts beyond doubt the ability of Ministers, the new agencies and local enforcing authorities to exchange information that will help them in carrying out their environmental functions. They will be able to disclose such information to each other without risk of civil or criminal liability. Amendments Nos. 88, 98, 99, 104 and 106 are consequential to the new clause; they amend the disclosure of information provisions in other environmental legislation to ensure that they are consistent with the new clause.
  In Committee, we amended the provisions relating to the remediation registers and the contaminated land regime to exclude commercially confidential information. That brought the provisions into line with other environmental enforcement registers. Amendment No. 176 takes forward an undertaking that I gave at that time to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock). It remedies an omission in the copying of the standard provisions. Wherever information is excluded from the remediation register on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, a statement will be placed on the register recording that this has taken place.
  In due course, if the House allows me to do so, I shall respond to hon. Members who speak to other amendments in the group.
  Ms Joan Ruddock: I express my gratitude to the Minister for correcting the fault to which he alluded concerning the entry in the register. It is extremely important that, where information is kept from the public domain on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, there is a note, so that it is apparent that there is information that is not being disclosed.
  We can see the sense in making it absolutely clear, through the new clause, that the new agencies, Government Departments and so on can freely exchange information among themselves. However, I have a question for the Minister. The new clause uses the words "may be disclosed" rather than "shall be disclosed". Clearly, there is an element of discretion here.
  714
  I foresee the possibility that the new agencies, which will, we hope, betremendously dynamic in their concern for the environment, will seek to gain information from a Government Department, only to find that the Department is not willing to disclose it. I ask the Minister to give some assurance on this point, or to say that the word "may" has been used so that there can be discretion and therefore withholding of information.
  I also put on record the fact that, in Committee, the Opposition repeatedly asked the Government to make provision for true public disclosure. The new clause and the associated amendments in no way meet our demands for proper public disclosure and public accountability. They provide simply for exchanges of information between public bodies, which does not necessarily mean that information will be made available to the public.
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: This is an important new clause. Can the Minister tell us why it has been tabled at such a late stage? I should like to think that the reason is that the Minister listened to what we said in Committee. The new agencies will be important and powerful. I am extremely keen that the whole area is transparent. I suspect that there are fears among, for example, local authorities, that they will pass information to the agencies and to others, while not being allowed to have access to information themselves.
  The importance of the partnership for the way forward must be recognised. Any steps that the Minister can take to ensure that the new agencies, the discussions and the partnerships behind it are transparent, open and reassuring to people will be extremely welcome.
  5 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister will be aware that I have real concerns about the disclosure of information, which I raised in Committee. Amendments Nos. 247 and 248 relate in large measure to the concerns in my area and to the actions of South West Water.
  Water companies at the moment have to provide information to the National Rivers Authority when they apply for a consent to discharge. That information is then available to the public from the NRA, because it is incorporated in the pollution control register under the Water Resources Act 1991. Under that Act, there are very limited exceptions for commercial confidentiality, and a certificate must be obtained from a Minister to prevent such a release of information. The water companies have never sought such a certificate.
  As I explained in Committee, the changes made through the Environment Bill mean that the new agency must state within 14 days whether it accepts that the information submitted is commercially confidential.
  If there is an appeal, the information stays off the public register until the appeal is determined. That is important, because South West Water—this may occur also in other areas—never submits full environmental statements with its planning applications. Usually, the planning application is submitted at the same time as the application for a discharge consent. People currently have access to full environmental data because the NRA holds them during the period when the planning application is being dealt with. The proposed change would frustrate that.
  If the Bill remains as it is, there will be a clear loss in terms of available information on sewage pollution of

  715
  river estuaries and coastal waters, as much of the information derives from studies required to be carried out under consent to discharge applications.
  In Committee, the Minister argued that there was no intention to change the existing law, and added that the Government did not believe that they had made a change. The Minister—having agreed in Committee to consider the matter—has written to me. In his letter, he accepts, contrary to the assurances given in Committee, that there is an intention to make a major change in the law relating to access to information on discharges by sewerage undertakers.
  The Minister suggested that existing access to information on discharges to water cannot be justified. Yet Department of the Environment circular 13/85 says that the
  "guiding principle in the legislation is that, subject to specified safeguards, there should be free availability of information"
  except where there is a need to strike a balance between openness and limited but justified measures of confidentiality. That is why, until now, the Secretary of State has been given limited powers to waive the inclusion of information in registers where he is satisfied that the disclosure of information would prejudice to an unreasonable degree a private interest by disclosing information about trade secrets, or would be contrary to the public interest.
  A careful balance was struck when the original legislation was passed, but the Government were then satisfied that the balance in relation to information on discharges into water was right. Those discharges affect bathing waters, shellfish waters, wildlife habitats, drinking water and all sorts of uses of water that affect the public. Therefore, it is vital that the public have access to the relevant information when applications for a consent to discharge are being made.
  South West Water regularly claims commercial confidentiality without a ministerial certificate, and it has backed down only when it has been forced to do so. It is reasonable to assume that it will continue to make such applications while trying to deny public access to the information. The measure is fundamental to the principle of openness, and to coastal areas which will be heavily affected by such applications. I also believe that public access to information is required under existing EC environmental policy.
  In his letter, the Minister suggests that the new wording is needed to create consistency across the regulatory regime. He argues that the waste water industry should be treated in the same way as integrated pollution control, as it affects, for example, companies such as ICI. But the comparison with industrial discharges is not appropriate. Waste water companies are performing a public function of waste disposal as an emanation of the state. The Department of the Environment has accepted that they are the relevant persons for the purposes of the directive on freedom of access to information on the environment and the Environmental Information Regulations 1992.
  The waste water companies are discharging waste for which they themselves are the regulators under the Water Industry Act 1991. There will be a problem if they are able to decide on the prevention of the release of information when they are their own policemen.
  716
  The effluent of the waste water industry is not effluent from the creation of any commercial product, so I cannot see the relevance of commercial confidentiality. There can be no question of any competitor obtaining information about a waste water company's operation from the information lodged in a consent to discharge application. The technology for the processing of waste water is well known.
  The companies are also monopolies, as there is no competition in their respective areas. How is it justifiable to withhold information from the public about the effect of discharges from public sewerage works and the effect that those will have on the environment? Such discharges can affect every individual living in an area, and I cannot see the reasoning behind the Minister's explanation in his letter.
  Can the Minister explain how the protection of the commercial interests of the relevant bodies requires these provisions, and how the proposed changes can be justified in the context of decreasing public access to environmental information, to which directive 313 applies?
  This is a matter on which there is great public concern in my constituency. Only yesterday, South West Water revealed that, for its most recent discharge—in my constituency at St. Agnes—it was now interpreting its duty as meaning that it has to treat sewage only during the summer months when the bathing water directive applies, and not throughout the year. That is an entirely new interpretation, which could affect every coastal discharge, not only in the South West Water area but in the rest of the country.
  The NRA is currently uncertain about whether it can tackle South West Water's new interpretation, which, while providing a saving to South West Water, is extraordinarily damaging to the local environment and the community. I hope that the Minister will be able to present a good argument. Otherwise, people will interpret that as an extraordinary change of tack from a Government who say that they are committed both to the environment and to the principle of freedom of information.
  Mr. Atkins: I should have addressed my congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before speaking to the amendments today. I am tempted to ask you whether I should call you Sir Deputy Speaker, or merely Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whichever it is, it is most appropriate that the congratulations of the whole House be given to you.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman should still call me Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Atkins: I shall accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) asked me about the timings, and I was grateful for her earlier words about my fulfilling an obligation which I had agreed to earlier. The hon. Lady posed a question about whether there was somehow a point of difference between "may be" and "shall be" in the wording of the measure. She will understand that there may be occasions—for reasons of national security, for example—when "may be" ought not to be "shall be".
  It is not my understanding, nor is it the intention of the Bill, that people should withhold information except for the very best reasons. It will be up to other people to decide what those best reasons are, but it will happen in the minimum of cases.

  717
  The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor)—in a wide-ranging intervention on what I thought was a relatively uncontroversial area—raised a number of points relating to commercial confidentiality. It is worth repeating that the new section 191B in the Water Resources Act 1991 has been modelled on section 22 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In operating the EPA provisions, and in view of the 14-day time scale for determining whether information should be treated as commercially confidential, every effort should be made to reach a timely decision. These points, incidentally, relate to amendments Nos. 248 and 249.
  Consequently, we understand that there have been none of the difficulties that amendment No. 249 envisages. That shows that the 14-day period serves its purpose. I do not see any reason why the same should not be true for the agency, and, frankly, can see no need for further procedures as proposed in the amendment.
  Amendment No. 248 would limit the criteria for designating information as commercially confidential. As drafted, the Bill follows the precedent of the Environmental Protection Agency, in allowing any information to be classed as commercially confidential if its disclosure would prejudice to an unreasonable degree a business's commercial interests.
  The amendment would limit the criteria to disclosure of information about a trade secret. By inserting a new section 191B in the Water Resources Act 1991, we are bringing the provisions about commercially sensitive information in the context of water into line with those in respect of other mediums under which the agency would be operating.
  As the hon. Member for Truro said—indeed, as he knows—his amendment would frustrate that purpose. It is worth emphasising that, in general—a point that I have mentioned on numerous occasions and doubtless will as the agency is set up—there will be no room for unwarranted exclusion of information from the public. Information will be withheld under the provisions only if publication prejudices commercial interests to an unreasonable degree.
  We do not envisage any sudden increase in the number of applications for information to be treated as commercially confidential simply because we are moving away from a definition based on trade secrets to one of commercial confidentiality, which already operates in respect of other environmental mediums.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I understand, but I hope that the Minister understands that the water companies are not operating in a normal commercial environment. South West Water has increasingly claimed commercial confidentiality, and, although an appeal is allowed, it cannot be heard in time for the relevant planning processes to be scrutinised.
  The Minister is trying to be helpful, and I would ask him to reconsider that matter. I would find it helpful if he agreed to do so, as his colleague's letter misses that fundamental point.
  Mr. Atkins: In Committee, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that he also was a reasonable man as regards most of his amendments and new clauses, and I am not in the business of making life difficult at this late stage. I will consider the matter. As it is a constituency issue, he need only write to me about it for me to deal with it as a matter
  718
  of course. In that sense, I am prepared to listen to what he has to say, and if I can explain further I will be happy to do so.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

  RELEVANT AUTHORITIES TO DEFINE REQUIREMENTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
  `(1) It shall be the duty of each relevant authority to integrate requirements for environmental protection wherever applicable into its policies and plans and into the performance of its functions under any enactment.

  (2) For the purpose of this section "relevant authority" means—

  (a) any Minister of the Crown;

  (b) any public body,

  (c) any statutory undertaker; or

  (d) any person holding public office.'.—[Ms Ruddock]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Ms Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 19—Environmental integration—

  '(1) It shall be the duty of each relevant authority—

  (a) to prepare an environmental compliance assessment prior to adoption or approval of any policies or before legislation is introduced into or laid before either House of Parliament which is likely to have significant effects on the environment.

  (b) to take account of the information provided by the environmental compliance assessment prepared under paragraph (a) above in the formulation and implementation of policies and legislation so as to avoid, reduce or minimise any adverse effects on the environment and, where possible, to enhance the environment.

  (2) For the purpose of this section "relevant authority" means:

  (a) any Minister of the Crown,

  (b) any public body,

  (c) any statutory undertaker, or

  (d) any person holding public office.'.

  New clause 27—Integration of environmental considerations into discharge of functions—

  '.—(1) Each relevant authority may consider the need to protect and enhance the environment when:

  (a) determining any policy; and

  (b) discharging any functions pursuant to any enactment

  (2) For the purpose of this section "relevant authority" means:

  (a) any Minister of the Crown

  (b) any other public body to which the Secretary of State may by regulations apply this section

  (3) The Agency may issue such guidance as it considers appropriate to any relevant authority with respect to the ways in which they should discharge their functions pursuant to subsection (1) above'.

  Ms Ruddock: May I add my congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker? No discourtesy was intended by my not doing so initially. Also, I have not yet congratulated the Minister on his elevation, although I know that my colleagues did so at the most recent Environment questions.
  It is my pleasure to speak in support of the new clause and those grouped with it. We would be delighted if the Minister were minded to accept any new clause that gave force to the requirement that environmental considerations

  719
  be integrated, where appropriate, into every aspect of public policy. As with so many other issues that we have discussed during the passage of the Bill, however, the Government claim to be wholeheartedly in favour of a commonsense and environmentally friendly proposal, but never find themselves in a position to vote for it.
  The notion of sustainable development—development that meets the needs of present generations without jeopardising the ability of future generations to meet theirs—must lie at the heart of any debate on the environment. As the Government would be the first to acknowledge, no Environment Agency and no Department of State can begin to achieve sustainable development alone; it requires a systematic approach—the limiting of the use of finite resources, the reduction of pollutants from every source, the conservation of energy and the minimising of waste, for example.
  In short, such considerations ought to be at the heart of all policy making. The Secretary of State for the Environment claimed as much when he said that the Government
  "have put in place perhaps the most comprehensive machinery of government to manage the environment to be found anywhere in the world."—[0fficial Report, 18 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 35.]
  He does boast, does he not? We wish that that claim was justified, but it is our view and that of all the major conservation groups, especially the Council for the Protection of Rural England, that existing mechanisms for achieving environmental integration are weak and inadequate for the task.
  New clause 1 is not a programme in itself. It offers a statutory framework to stiffen the Government's commitment and to require those in public office to examine their policies and actions in the light of environmental considerations.
  5.15 pm
  In Committee, the Government resisted such notions being brought into statute, yet the Minister was at pains to tell us of their achievements in appointing green Ministers and in their report, "Green Housekeeping". I only wish that there were more hon. Members in the Chamber tonight because I suspect that, for most of them, the existence of the "Green Housekeeping" document will come as a great surprise. The Government did not trumpet it in the way that they do so many of their other publications. Sadly, as we heard in Committee, the green Ministers rarely meet and little is known of them.
  Since 1993, all Government Departments have produced and published cost compliance assessments, evaluating the cost of any of their proposals on the business sector. The Government demonstrate great enthusiasm for such tests. I trust that today we shall see some enthusiasm for an environmental compliance assessment, which we would very much support. Examining the environmental implications of any policy or draft legislation would undoubtedly ensure a higher priority for the environment.
  Labour Front-Bench Members intend to be brief when moving our new clauses because we understand hon. Members' interest in this debate. In conclusion, therefore, integration of environmental considerations into public policy ought to be a prerequisite in an Environment Bill that establishes environment agencies for the first time
  720
  and looks forward to the 21st century. Sustainable development cannot be achieved unless the integration of environmental considerations is at the heart of all public policy.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: Amendment No. 256 would have placed a duty on the Environment Agency to advise Ministers on matters that it considered relevant to environmental sustainability. As my amendment was not selected, I am pleased to support Labour's new clause 1 very strongly.
  The Bill's weakness is that it persists—as the Government persist—in regarding the environment as one issue among several, rather than as the basis of all life, improvement and development, so it does not put in place a mechanism for the integration of environmental issues into policy decisions in all Departments. No such mechanism exists.
  We gather that the Cabinet Environment Sub-Committee meets infrequently. As has been said, green Ministers in different Departments do not have the function of greening policy in their Departments, but of studying housekeeping within them. The round table and Sir Crispin Tickell's panel, excellent though they are, have the function only of developing ideas and offering advice to the Government, which does not carry the thing any further.
  It is apparent that the nature of policies developed in the Departments of Transport and of Trade and Industry and the Treasury has a huge influence on the extent to which our lives, our economy and our social systems are environmentally sustainable. The Department of the Environment has an influence, but others possibly have even more.
  It is clear, however, that the Treasury does not see itself as having anything to do with sustainability. I mentioned on Second Reading a letter that I received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he referred to the failure of his civil servants to attend a meeting of the House of Lords Committee on Sustainable Development. The letter says:
  "The Government's strategy for Sustainable Development is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I was therefore not persuaded that it would be appropriate for Treasury officials to give oral evidence on the subject as a whole to the Committee on 7 February".
  That attitude illustrates the need for mechanisms to ensure that all Departments address the issue each time that they develop any policy initiative. I am pleased to support new clause 1, which at least has the merit of putting a requirement on the statute book.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I support new clause 1, which has been tabled by the Labour party, but I shall address my comments to new clauses 19 and 27, which my hon. Friends and I tabled, and which have the same aim—to ensure that environmental considerations are integrated into the decision-making process of Departments, Ministers and public bodies.
  As it stands, the Bill misses an opportunity to promote the integration of environmental concerns in all areas of government, despite the Government's recognition of the importance of such integration, and despite the White Papers issued on the environment since 1990—the 1994 "Sustainable Development Strategy" and the 1995 UK annual report.

  721
  The Secretary of State claimed on Second Reading that the Government had put in place
  "perhaps the most comprehensive machinery of government to manage the environment to be found anywhere in the world."—[Official Report, 18 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 35.]
  Although the introduction of a Cabinet Sub-Committee on the Environment, the designation of green Ministers in each Department and the sustainable development round table are welcome initiatives, there is little evidence that they have had a significant impact on the integration of environmental considerations across government—certainly outside the Department of the Environment.
  Existing mechanisms for achieving environmental integration are inadequate. The Bill provides a chance to establish new procedures to ensure that the environment is put at the centre of the policy-making process. To that end, new clause 19 would require all public agencies to produce an environmental compliance assessment—an assessment that would scrutinise the environmental implications of draft legislation and ensure that information gathered was taken into account in final decision making. That would give the environment a higher priority in decision making, and highlight the environmental impact of decisions that might otherwise be overlooked, such as transport-related pollution resulting from hospital closures.
  Placing a duty on all public agencies to provide environmental compliance assessments is not a new concept. Since 1 April 1993, all Departments have produced cost compliance assessments that evaluate the costs of new proposals on the business sector. Such assessments are now routinely carried out. That system was introduced by the Government, and the new clause copies it, but in this case it would ensure that the costs to society from environmental impacts were assessed and addressed in policy formulation.
  Many in local government already follow that process in their decision taking, as do several pioneering businesses. I hope that the Government will do the same. I believe that the introduction of environmental compliance assessments would significantly aid the Government's stated aim of ensuring that the environment is considered consistently across government. By accepting the new clause, or at least the principle behind it, the Government could demonstrate that they take that idea seriously.
  New clause 27 simply aims to integrate matters in a watered-down manner. It stipulates:
  "Each relevant authority may consider the need to protect and enhance the environment"
  when making policy or carrying out its functions. If the Minister will not accept a requirement, surely he can at least allow the principle to be taken into account when organisations or the Government take decisions.
  Mr. Atkins: It will hardly come as a surprise to the Opposition that I must ask the House to reject new clauses 1, 19 and 27.
  I should be happy to cover our record in detail, but perhaps at this stage in our intended discussions hon. Members would not want me to, and it would probably be unwise to do so. However, our record amply demonstrates our commitment to make progress on environmental integration and assessment.
  Quite complex issues requiring careful judgments are often raised, and the new clauses would be of little practical value in improving on existing arrangements, but
  722
  we are not content to rest on our laurels—we intend to consider how we can give added vigour to current arrangements. Each Department already has a green Minister—
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State told the Environment Select Committee on 17 May that he hoped that the green Ministers would meet about four times a year, but then admitted that they had not met for seven months. Have they met since then? When does the Minister expect them to meet again?
  Mr. Atkins: We have met twice this year and we shall meet again in July. Unlike the Labour party, which has an obsession with meeting and planning behind closed doors, we meet daily as and when matters affect our respective Departments. It is nonsense to suggest that the fact that we have had only two meetings during the year demonstrates a lack of commitment. Whenever issues related to environmental activity arise in the course of various Departments' business, Ministers have a view to express, and they do so bilaterally and multilaterally. That is the sensible way to do things, rather than holding formal meetings.
  Ms Ruddock: Did the green Ministers discuss at their meeting the proposal to dump the Brent Spar in the Atlantic?
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady must not be mischievous.
  Ms Ruddock: The Minister accused the Labour party of meeting behind closed doors. Surely he would not want to be accused of doing the same.
  Mr. Atkins: Our meetings are held on a regular basis in the course of the process of government. That does not necessarily require a full turnout of every green Minister every time. The hon. Lady asked about Brent Spar. As she well knows, that is a matter for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the President of the Board of Trade. It is clear that they are the Departments whence the decisions emanated. When the matter was discussed, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade told the House exactly what he thought about the situation, and I have nothing to add to that.
  I remind the House that it is a long-established part of Government policy that the effects on the environment of existing and proposed policies need to be examined systematically. We committed ourselves formally to doing so in our White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", and we restated and carried forward our thinking in our 1994 sustainable development strategy. We have a green Minister in every Department, whose job it is to ensure that environmental considerations are integrated into the strategies and policies of Departments—a day-to-day responsibility, as opposed to the collective meetings of which I have already said a little.
  The hon. Lady made great play of the fact that we have not made a great song and dance about the documents that we have produced. I remind the House that they include "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" in 1990 and "Environmental Appraisal in Government Departments" in 1994, which added to the economic appraisal that has been available for some time in the Treasury Green Book.
  I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept that those documents are not everybody's bedtime reading, however important they may be to the process of government. It is

  723
  in the process of government and within the corridors of power that the booklets have been read, and their influence there has been substantial. To suggest that that is not important seems a little shortsighted to me.
  Ms Ruddock: The Minister misunderstands my point. The "Green Housekeeping" report, which I have read, did not seem to have the same Government publicity machine behind it on publication as many other documents. If the Government are serious about integrating environmental considerations into the whole of Government policy, surely they ought to take the public with them. That is the key. The Government should encourage public understanding, information and support for such strategies, and I suggest that they have not done so.
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady will recall that, when we discussed the matter in Committee, I made it clear that although we were pushing as hard as we could within the Government estate to be aware of all that should and can be done by various Departments, we did not always meet every objective. Being a reasonable person, she will understand that there are always pressures and difficulties that prevent our achieving some objectives. Some areas are better than others, and some are worse.
  A lot of work remains to be done, and my Department, the Secretary of State and I are doing it. The documents to which the hon. Lady refers have been given publicity. They might not have aroused the amount of interest in the tabloids that we might have wished for but, in practice, they have been circulated, there is a lot of interest in them and they have had a lot of effect. It is, therefore, unfair to suggest that they have not done what we anticipated.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The Minister will be aware that, last year, his Department published planning policy guidance No. 13 on out-of-town retail developments. One of the reasons for the change was environmental consideration—reducing the number of cars on our roads travelling out of town to shop. Although he claims that Departments co-operate and are integrated, that planning policy guidance document has not yet been published in Wales and does not yet apply there. How, then, can he claim that the Government have an integrated policy and that Departments co-operate and work closely together?
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Atkins: I said that nothing in this world is perfect. There might be areas of weakness that we need to deal with, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the House's attention to an area that might need more pressure than it has had to date. I shall convey that message to my colleagues who are responsible for planning matters in the Department, although I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), will have something to say on those matters—if he feels so inclined—later.
  I have tried to deal with the concerns that have been raised. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Deptford for the terms in which she moved the new clause and the speed with which she moved it. As I said, however, we cannot accept new clause 1 and I therefore ask the House to reject it.
  Ms Ruddock: I simply wish to put it on record that, yet again, the Government have said that they believe in, and seek to do all that is embodied in, the new clause, the requirement of which is extremely simple—to have on the statute book a responsibility to integrate environmental considerations into areas of public policy making.
  The Opposition can have no confidence that the Government follow, or intend to follow, that path if they are not prepared to have it enshrined in statute. We know from what has happened during the passage of the Bill—we suspect that it is why the Government will not accept the new clause—that, behind the scenes, much of the Government's commitment to environmental sustainability is challenged by commercial and private interests to which they subscribe and which they seek not to offend.
  We believe that environmental considerations must be at the heart of all Government policies. We regret that the Government, who are so keen on cost compliance assessments, do not believe that the same consideration that is given to private financial concerns should be given to the enhancement of the environment.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 262.

  Division No. 177]

  [5.33pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Corbett, Robin

  Ainger, Nick

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Corston, Jean

  Allen, Graham

  Cousins, Jim

  Alton, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dafis, Cynog

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Austin-Walker, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Barron, Kevin

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Battle, John

  Denham, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dewar, Donald

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dixon, Don

  Bell, Stuart

  Dobson, Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dowd, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Berry, Roger

  Eastham, Ken

  Betts, Clive

  Etherington, Bill

  Blunkett, David

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Boateng, Paul

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bradley, Keith

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Flynn, Paul

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

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fraser, John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Fyfe, Maria

  Cann, Jamie

  Galbraith, Sam

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Galloway, George

  Chidgey, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Garrett, John

  Church, Judith

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clapham, Michael

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clelland, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Coffey, Ann

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cohen, Harry

  Grocott, Bruce

  725

  Gunnell, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hain, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hanson, David

  Olner, Bill

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Henderson, Doug

  Parry, Robert

  Heppell, John

  Pearson, Ian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Hodge, Margaret

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pope, Greg

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hutton, John

  Radice, Giles

  Illsley, Eric

  Randall, Stuart

  Ingram, Adam

  Reid, Dr John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jamieson, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Janner, Greville

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jowell, Tessa

  Ruddock, Joan

  Keen, Alan

  Salmond, Alex

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

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Khabra, Piara S

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lewis, Terry

  Short, Clare

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Skinner, Dennis

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McAllion, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Macdonald, Calum

  McFall, John

  Stevenson, George

  McKelvey, William

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Straw, Jack

  McLeish, Henry

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Maclennan, Robert

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Timms, Stephen

  MacShane, Denis

  Tipping, Paddy

  Maddock, Diana

  Touhig, Don

  Mahon, Alice

  Trimble, David

  Marek, Dr John

  Turner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Tyler, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Wallace, James

  Martlew, Eric

  Walley, Joan

  Meacher, Michael

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Meale, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Michael, Alun

  Watson, Mike

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Milburn, Alan

  Welsh, Andrew

  Miller, Andrew

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Morley, Elliot

  Wilson, Brian

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wise, Audrey

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Mudie, George

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Mr. Stephen Byers and

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Mr. Joe Benton.

  726

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Evennett, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Faber, David

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Amess, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Ancram, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Arbuthnot, James

  Forth, Eric

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Ashby, David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  French, Douglas

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gale, Roger

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Gallie, Phil

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Baldry, Tony

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Garnier, Edward

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gill, Christopher

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Body, Sir Richard

  Grant,Sir A(SW Cambs)

  Booth, Hartley

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Boswell, Tim

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bowis, John

  Hague, William

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Brazier, Julian

  Hannam, Sir John

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Harris, David

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hayes, Jerry

  Burl, Alistair

  Heald, Oliver

  Butcher, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butler, Peter

  Hendry, Charles

  Butterfill, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Horam, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

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

  Churchill, Mr

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Clappison, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Jack, Michael

  Congdon, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Conway, Derek

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

  Kellett-Bowman, Darne Elaine

  Cran, James

  Key, Robert

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Knapman, Roger

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Devlin, Tim

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

  Dicks, Terry

  Knox, Sir David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dover, Den

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Duncan, Alan

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Dunn, Bob

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Dykes, Hugh

  Legg, Barry

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Elletson, Harold

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lightbown, David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  727

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lord, Michael

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Luff, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Sims, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Soames, Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Madel, Sir David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Malone, Gerald

  Spring, Richard

  Marland, Paul

  Sproat, Iain

  Marlow, Tony

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stephen, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stem, Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Stewart, Allan

  Merchant, Piers

  Streeter, Gary

  Mills, Iain

  Sumberg, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Sykes, John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Thomason, Roy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tredinnick, David

  Norris, Steve

  Trend, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Trotter, Neville

  Ottaway, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Page, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Walden, George

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Pawsey, James

  Waller, Gary

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Ward, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Watts, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Whitney, Ray

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Whittingdale, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Richards, Rod

  Wilkinson, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Willetts, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wood, Timothy

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Yeo, Tim

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Mr. Simon Burns and

  Sackville, Tom

  Mr. Michael Bates.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My office is located in Norman Shaw North. A number of colleagues and I encountered a problem on our way out of that building to attend the Division—the security sliding door connecting Norman Shaw North and Norman Shaw South to the Embankment was stuck closed. We could not get out. I am, unfortunately, slightly inhibited by another problem and I must say that I have done myself no good by trying to gallop to the House to attend the Division. Could something be done about that thoroughly unreliable and, I believe, now unnecessary security apparatus, which is
  728
  extremely inconvenient to hon. Members? The door might have caused members of all political parties to fail to get to the previous Division in time and they, therefore, might have demanded of you a fresh Division.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall arrange for the problem to be investigated. The hon. Gentleman's remarks make me realise how wise I was to allow an extra minute for the Division.

New clause 3

  GUIDANCE ON COSTS AND BENEFITS
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, upon the passing of this Act, prepare a Report (Costs and Benefits in the Environment Act 1995) to be laid before each House of Parliament which shall contain guidance on the role, definition and usages of the terms "costs" and "benefits" as they occur in this Act.

  (2) In preparing the Report, the Secretary of State shall consult with, and have regard to, the opinion and recommendations of—

  (a) the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution,

  (b) the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment,

  (c) the House of Lords Select Committee on Sustainable Development, and

  (d) The Prime Minister's Panel on Sustainable Development, as to the content and conclusions of the said Report.

  (3) No powers or duties conferred by this Act which entail any assessment of costs or benefits shall come into force until the Report required in subsection ( I ) above, has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Ms Ruddock.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Ms Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 29, in clause 38, page 33, line 13, leave out clause 38.
  No. 3, in clause 38, page 33, line 19, leave out from `account' to end of line 6 and insert
  `any ministerial guidance as to the likely costs and benefits of the exercise or non-exercise of the power or its exercise in the matter in question, where such guidance exists.'.
  No. 252, in clause 38, page 33, line 25, at end insert—
  '(3) Nothing is this section shall be construed as implying a requirement on the agencies to use cost-benefit analysis in order to arrive at any decision.'.
  Ms Ruddock: The new clause is an attempt to challenge the Government's repeated assertion that cost-benefit considerations in respect of the Environment Agency's functions can properly be enshrined in statute without detriment to environmental protection. It is grouped with alternative proposals relating to guidance and an amendment that would delete clause 38.
  I say at the outset that deletion of clause 38 would be our preferred course of action. Similar sentiments are clearly expressed in amendment No. 252, which we also support. That feeling unites not only the Opposition parties but every major conservation and green pressure group in the country. The issue has given cause for concern, which was publicly expressed by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, the Prime Minister's panel on sustainable development and the Environment Agency advisory committee.
  The crux of the matter is that the Environment Agency has been given a principal aim of protecting and enhancing the environment, yet, under both clause 4 and

  729
  clause 38, which was formerly clause 37, it has a duty to have regard to "costs" and "benefits". Indeed, in Committee, the Minister said that he believed that clause 37 applied to clause 4. Those debates have caused a great deal of uncertainty, a sense that the agency's principal aim could be subordinated to cost-benefit analysis and a feeling that the draft guidance and ministerial answers to date have only added to the confusion.
  New clause 38 would require the Government to face up to the problem that they have created. It requires the Secretary of State to consult his own experts—the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment, the House of Lords Select Committee on Sustainable Development and the Prime Minister's panel on sustainable development—and then to produce a report containing guidance on the role, definition and usages of costs and benefits. That is a wholly reasonable proposition. Surely the Government should not place a duty on the new Environment Agency unless they can explain how that duty should be put into effect.
  Our concern, and that of the Council for the Protection of Rural England and of Greenpeace, which have both taken counsel's opinion on the matter, is that a duty on the face of the Bill will expose the agency to legal challenge by way of judicial review. Costs to industry are easily calculated. Costs to the environment are not. Even if cases do not reach the courts, there is a real danger that the new agency will be constrained in seeking to impose requirements on polluters where considerable cost might be anticipated. The environment stands to be the loser.
  Many organisations have pressed briefings and questions on hon. Members for this debate. I trust that the Minister will answer them directly tonight, even if he will not accept the new clause. I wish to repeat only a couple of the questions posed by the World Wide Fund for Nature.
  Will the Minister assure us that environmental protection and enhancement will be at the heart of all the Environment Agency's functions? Will he assure the House that costs and benefits will not be the sole criteria by which the standards and targets to be achieved by the agencies will be set? [Interruption.]
  The Minister is replying in the affirmative from a sedentary position. I am delighted that he does so, but I would much prefer it if he put his answer more fully on the record. Does he agree that, while costs and benefits are appropriate in guidance, they should not be used as a decision-making process in their own right? They should be used instead to seek cost-effective means for achieving standards rather than determining what those standards should be.
  We believe that the fact that the overriding duty of the new agency is to be hedged around with cost-benefit considerations is another example of how commercial interests have been allowed to undermine the fundamental purpose of the Environment Agency. We press the Government, even at this late stage, to hear the force and weight of contrary opinion and to remove that constraint on the Environment Agency before it is too late.
  Sir Kenneth Carlisle: This subject was much debated in Standing Committee and I think that it is right that we should debate it again. However, that is in the context of a Bill that has very clear environmental aims and that, in my view and in that of all the members of the
  730
  Standing Committee regardless of party, contributes much to the environment. In considering this rather contentious subject, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that the thrust of the Bill is to give the agency duties to protect or enhance the environment. New clause 3 should be seen in that context.
  In Standing Committee, I said that I thought that it was absolutely right that an agency of this nature should have regard to proper cost-benefit analysis. After all, in coming to a conclusion about any difficult decision, it is perfectly reasonable and right to consider all the facts objectively and to try to understand them. That, of course, means considering the costs. It is quite wrong for a responsible body to take action without understanding the cost. However, benefits are also important and environmental benefits, especially for an agency such as this, are absolutely crucial.
  In Committee, we understood and debated the difficulty of costing benefits when they are intangible. How, for example, does one cost the destruction or creation of an ancient woodland? How does one cost the maintenance of an ancient water meadow which cannot be restored were it to be destroyed? Those are some of the difficult factors against which it is almost impossible to put facts and figures.
  In the Department of Transport, for example, there were huge efforts to try to work out the environmental costs of a road scheme. It was generally thought, after much study, that they could not be properly costed but that they had to be taken into account. Therefore, the Government have a clear duty to give guidance about things that are difficult to cost and of great environmental value so that they can be properly taken into account.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) that, to a certain extent, the Bill sends conflicting signals. It places a duty on the agency to protect and enhance the environment but it also contains a cost-benefit clause. I therefore have some sympathy with new clause 3, which provides that the Government should give guidance to the agency on how it is to deal with the cost-benefit analysis. I was struck by a briefing from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which regards a cost-benefit analysis as a useful tool but asks that it should be put in its proper context and for proper consideration to be given to the environment.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government are going to advise the agency to take environmental factors into account so that the proper purpose of the Bill can be achieved but the value of the cost-benefit analysis retained. We seek an objective understanding of any actions taken but want proper protection and improvement of the environment included in the equation.
  6 pm
  Mr. Tipping: Since we discussed the issue in Committee, I have received a document called "Plan It" which was produced by the Nottingham Youth Environmental Forum 1994. It is subtitled "The Essential Guide to Saving the Planet", and a third heading reads "Saving the World Starts Here". It was launched last month by a group of young people in Nottinghamshire, and I commend it to the Minister because it goes to the very heart of the matter.
  The young people in question focused on real examples, such as the cost of a new road and how that road affects the environment. They focused on the cost of

  731
  protecting an important wildlife site and have borne in mind the need to balance costs and benefits and the need to balance accountancy costs with the desire to save the planet. It is easy to account for the cost of a new road in financial terms but, as the hon. Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) pointed out, it is much more difficult to put a cost on the destruction of ancient woodland.
  I know that the Government are aware of the matter, but my anxiety is caused by the fact that the discussion has only just started. We are in the very early days of saving the planet and balancing the important arguments. I know that the Minister has issued guidance but I do not feel that he has taken the debate much further.
  We need to examine closely new techniques about the cost and value of lifting the landscape and environmental improvement. They are key issues, ones on which the young people of Nottinghamshire have focused. Again, I commend their document to the Minister because it goes right to the heart of the matter. As it is "The Essential Guide to Saving the Planet", I have no hesitation in sending it to him and asking him to consider the views set out in it.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: As the Minister will know, the new clause deals not with whether costs and benefits should be recognised by the Environment Agency as important considerations but with whether it is better to include them in ministerial guidelines to the agency or in the Bill. The new clause should be accepted because, if it is not, when there is a query about a pollution incident that needs remedial action, the tendency may be for the polluter to look to the accountant to draw up reasons why the company cannot afford the remedial action instead of looking to its policy development officer to work constructively with the agency to find ways to reduce or remove the pollution. Polluters have to take an important decision. A duty included in the Bill may mean that the agency rather than the polluter could end up in the dock in court.
  Since we discussed the matter in Committee, I have received parliamentary answers relating to the enforcement aspects of the existing agencies—Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the National Rivers Authority—and the frequency and success of the court actions that they have undertaken in the past three years. In a written parliamentary answer relating to HMIP, which undertook 38 court actions in the past three years, the Minister said:
  "When considering what level of enforcement action to take, HMIP considers not only the environmental consequences and operator culpability"
  but how to ensure that
  "remedial action to prevent a recurrence is carried out."—[Official Report, 23 May 1995; Vol. 260, c. 524.]
  That is good, but the cost-benefit clause means that when HMIP becomes part of the environmental agency, it will also have to take into account the potential costs or otherwise to the polluter before it considers whether to take enforcement action. That is an unreasonable burden to place on the new agency.
  If there is a problem for the HMIP side, there is much more of a problem for the NRA side. The NRA undertook not 38 court actions in the past three years but 830, from which the Treasury gained £3 million in fines. The
  732
  success rate was very high. Of the 830, 789 were successful; 100 were against water and sewerage undertakers and resulted in fines totalling £500,000.
  Are the Government really saying that the enforcement actions of their own agencies have been too successful? Are they saying that the NRA has been unfair to water companies such as Yorkshire Water, which was taken to court 11 times in 1993 and fined £100,000 from its several million pounds worth of pre-tax profits? Are they saying that that was unjust to the polluters?
  If that duty is included in the Bill, it will not only weaken the enforcement powers of the agency but will cause delays because of the extra time that the agency will have to take to consider the costs properly before it takes enforcement action. It will also increase the likelihood of the polluter going to litigation rather than taking remedial action on the basis of consensus with the agency, which is what I believe members of all parties on the Committee were driving at.
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), I stress that we are not opposed to a cost-benefit analysis being undertaken because it is appropriate. Our objection to the cost-benefit analysis being written into the Bill is, as the hon. Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) said, that it produces conflicting advice. On the one hand, the agency has a duty to protect and enhance the environment but, on the other, it has a duty to take into account the cost-benefit analysis.
  That conflicting advice is bad enough for the Environment Agency, but it creates an even greater problem for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Whereas the Environment Agency has a duty to protect and enhance the environment, according to clause 38, SEPA has only to "have regard to" the desirability of conserving and enhancing the environment. It has a rather vague duty under clause 38, but under clause 37 it must take into account the cost-benefit analysis. I think that that negates much of the Bill's impact. It sends out conflicting signals and the resulting conflicts will be tested in various ways, not least through the courts.
  The second reason why I do not think that the provision should be on the face of the Bill is that it is not yet a tested method of analysis. The Minister said in Committee that there had been on-going work in that subject and that perhaps properly worked out methods were around the corner. I am not so sure about that. It is clear that there are no good, hard-and-fast methods of assessing cost-benefit analyses. The methods will change from day to day and from year to year and, therefore, they should not be written into the Bill. We do not want to change the statute constantly, so the provision should remain in the form of ministerial guidance which can be altered.
  Let us return to the example of the black-throated divers, which became famous in Committee. As I see it, a cost-benefit analysis involves an assessment of cost to business or someone else on one side and benefit to the environment on the other. The black-throated diver is under threat from eutrophication and acidification, among other things. We can work out the cost of eliminating acidification, but if that is the cost of saving the black-throated diver, how could one then work out the benefit of saving the black-throated diver and, finally, arrive at a cost-benefit analysis? If the Minister can answer that question I may go some way towards agreeing with him.

  733
  I should like to know how to work out the cost-benefit analysis in the case of the black-throated diver. I think that that would be very difficult to do and, therefore, I think that the measure should remain in guidance form so that we may examine it again when the methodology develops further. For those reasons, I urge the Minister to adopt the new clauses.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Clause 38 has been a fundamental issue of concern from an environmental perspective throughout the consideration of the Environment Bill. On the face of it, the requirement to have regard to costs and benefits looks entirely reasonable. However, as hon. Members in all parts of the House have pointed out, the practicalities are another matter. I do not believe that Ministers have addressed the concerns successfully at any stage because there is no answer to the fundamental concerns about that issue.
  In Committee, the Minister admitted that many of the concerns raised about clause 38 would be unacceptable to the working of the agencies. He agreed
  "that it would be unreasonable to require the Agencies in every case to undertake vast examinations of all possible costs and benefits and that a requirement on the Agencies always to demonstrate that the benefits outweigh the costs before they could act would be both damaging and unworkable".
  He also agreed
  "that it is essential to avoid a position in which the Agencies are unable to exercise their judgment or are obliged to exercise it in ways that give undue weight to short term or financial cost for fear that they would be unreasonably exposed to challenge in the courts."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 May 1995; c. 283–84.]
  While agreeing on those points, the Minister failed to explain at any stage how to avoid that situation. It is the first time in legal history that statutory environmental agencies are being charged with a duty to place cost considerations ahead of the environment in the decision-making process. No other environmental agency—whether it is the National Rivers Authority, English Nature or the Countryside Commission—has that statutory requirement. The Minister has not produced any examples of where that has been a problem in practice and he has not given any examples of how the application of a cost-benefit analysis would have led to a different conclusion.
  6.15 pm
  I believe that the duty may open up the agencies to judicial review. Constant legal challenge to the agencies—whether from environmental or industrial interests—would undermine the possibility of their operating satisfactorily. In response to that concern, Ministers have argued that the likelihood of judicial review is slight given alternative appeal mechanisms. Frankly, being bogged down with alternative appeal mechanisms will not resolve the problem satisfactorily—particularly when that process could end in judicial review at enormous cost to the agencies.
  As many hon. Members have argued already, Ministers have not explained how environmental—as opposed to financial—benefits and costs can be measured properly. I will not elaborate on that argument because it has been well made today by many hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle). A cost-benefit analysis may be useful in circumstances where it is
  734
  possible to identify the costs and the benefits, but overwhelmingly the agencies will be dealing with matters where that is not the case.
  It goes even further than that. When it is possible to identify environmental costs and benefits, it is likely that the financial costs and benefits will be taken more seriously. The Government inquiry "Next Steps New Agencies" makes that point, and notes:
  "Financial targets are given a much higher priority. This appears when New Agencies wish to invest in order to improve quality. Chief Executives do not always feel allowed to make such investments. Furthermore, they believe they are only judged on the result of financial targets".
  The guidance issued by Ministers recognises that problem. It states:
  "it is not always possible to quantify the value of improvements or losses to the environment. Moreover, it is not always obvious what the environmental impact of a decision will be, even in physical terms".
  Having noted that problem, however, the guidance fails to set down any solutions. It does not set down factors which should be taken into account when setting agency criteria and objectives. The importance of using the best available science is mentioned in respect of risk assessment, but a clear and more widely applicable framework is not included in the guidance or the Bill as a duty of the agencies. As there is no accepted methodology, it remains more an art than a science. Therefore, I do not believe that it will work in practice and it certainly should not be applied as a statutory duty on the agencies.
  The costs and benefits which must be taken into account may also get bogged down in individual detailed decisions. Will they apply to individual cases or will they apply only to overall policies and strategies? The Minister, whose comments I quoted earlier, seemed to accept that it would be impractical for the agencies if they were to apply in every individual case. However, clause 38 refers to particular cases and the guidance refers to the impact on individual companies and industry sectors. That suggests that the Environment Agency will be expected to apply cost-benefit considerations case by case in exercising its powers.
  Does that mean that the Department of Trade and Industry will offer advice about how to cost the value of water for every possible use so that the agency can assess the costs and benefits to individual companies and industry sectors as required by the guidance? If the agency must rely on information that is provided by the company or the individual concerned, how will it assess the accuracy of the information supplied? I do not see how a statutory duty to take costs and benefits into account can realistically be placed upon the agency, especially if it requires that sort of detail.
  If the Government refuse to delete clause 38, they should at least place a duty upon the agency to take the "best practicable environmental option" in discharging its duties, using its powers or pursuing its objectives. While cost-benefit analysis has a role in the work of the agency, it should be used only to find cost-effective ways of implementing agreed standards and not for deciding what those standards should be. That distinction should be made clear in the Bill and the guidance.
  The Government should ensure that other criteria also play a part in setting the standards and targets to be achieved by the agency. Cost-benefit analysis can only

  735
  be part of a multiple-criterion system. Without that, the Minister and the Government remain guilty of seeking to apply cost-benefit analysis for the sake of looking good to their business sponsors, without having explained to the House the way in which it will work or considered the way in which it may affect those business sponsors.
  As I have argued previously, the environmental movement may have a greater interest than business in pursuing some of those issues. It wishes to test the effect—which may be detrimental—of cost-benefit analysis on the environment, whereas business hopes to benefit from it.
  Mr. Dafis: I wish to associate myself very strongly with the anxieties that have been expressed about clause 38. I wish to support the spirit of amendments Nos. 29 and 3—and amendments Nos. 13 and 14, which originated from the Liberal Democrat Benches, but which were not selected. I shall speak to my amendment, No. 252, which would provide a useful safeguard if the Government were to insist on retaining clause 38. It is obvious to me, as it is to other people, that the consideration of the costs and benefits of any action is simply a matter of common sense. Of course costs and benefits should be considered. Obviously, it would be absurd to go to enormous cost to achieve an insignificant environmental benefit.
  I welcome some of the statements that have been made by the Secretary of State about the issue of costs and benefits, because he has emphasised a new interpretation of them, different from the one with which we have become familiar. Rather than emphasising the need for environmental benefits to be justified in terms of economic cost, he has emphasised the other approach—the need to consider carefully whether any economic benefit can be justified in terms of the considerable environmental cost that it might entail. That is a useful interpretation of the idea of costs and benefits. It has contributed to a fuller understanding of the subject. However, I would strongly question, as others have done, the need to state on the face of the Bill what is a matter of common sense.
  I wish to go further, and consider the issue of cost-benefit analysis as distinct from merely considering costs and benefits, because it is not quite the same thing. I have grave reservations about the use of cost-benefit analysis for any purpose. I regard it as a spurious sub-discipline of conventional economics, attempting to encompass considerations that properly belong to the fields of natural science and ethics.
  Conventional economics is in deep trouble these days, and it has great difficulty coping with the revolution in understanding that environmental politics brings to us. So there it is, trying to encompass that difficulty, or to modernise itself, as it were, by inventing what I regard as a spurious sub-discipline. It does so by monetising considerations which cannot and should not be quantified in monetary terms, because to try to do so produces ridiculous distortions and wrong decisions.
  I shall mention a couple of examples. One is the way in which the Welsh Office highways directorate considers road schemes and uses cost-benefit analysis. The Welsh Office approach to that has been very effectively demolished in the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales document, "Wales Needs Transport not Traffic", which merits careful study. Specifically, that document says:
  736
  "The only way environmental costs enter the equation"—
  in the cost-benefit analysis—
  "such as the damage done to a site of special scientific interest or an area of outstanding natural beauty, is as a capital cost of land acquisition. Because such sites are often of poor agricultural quality, this cost is usually low, when it should be very high."
  Even worse, the cost of acquiring an SSSI is actually reduced because the designation as an SSSI imposes constraints on the possibility of development, so it reduces its development value, reduces its market price and, in a perverse way, creates an incentive to put a road through it. That is an extraordinary situation.
  It might be argued that the way to correct that is to place a monetary value on the scientific or aesthetic worth of the SSSI or the area of outstanding natural beauty. However, the question is how to do that, and the fact is that it cannot be done. Any attempt to do so will merely give spurious objectivity to an assessment that cannot be subject to objective measurement. The aesthetic or scientific value of an SSSI is not subject to objective measurement.
  Some time ago, I discussed a far worse example of the use of cost-benefit analysis—as I trust that one of the Ministers will remember—in the Adjournment debate that I initiated on climate change. I have had correspondence with his Department following that debate. Cost-benefit analysis is being used by economists in the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change to consider what actions might be appropriate to tackle global warming. That research is being given international credence and is partly funded by United Kingdom public moneys. In the process, it is being suggested that the cost to American gross domestic product caused by reducing automobile production in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is greater than the benefit of saving Bangladeshi farmland, on which many thousands of people depend for their subsistence.
  Even more serious, and scarcely credible, but nevertheless true, is the fact that the IPCC economists, some of whom are UK economists, are ascribing differential values to human lives and feeding calculations based on such valuations into the consideration of whether specific actions are cost-effective and therefore worth implementing. Typically, an American life is valued at 10 times a Bangladeshi life. That is in the documentation—that is the type of thing that is going on. The Secretary of State, to his credit, is on record as rejecting that opinion. He stated in a question session that he believed that all human lives were of equal value. It is nice to have that type of confirmation.
  The question is whether the clause requires the use of cost-benefit analysis. Unfortunately, the draft ministerial guidance to the Environment Agency gives its approval to the use of that spurious sub-discipline. It says:
  "The use of risk analysis techniques and formal cost benefit analysis may be a useful aid to such consideration in appropriate cases."
  I do not believe that it is, although the guidance goes on to qualify that in a way that I welcome. It says:
  "Costs and benefits which are unquantifiable or which cannot readily be given monetary valuations should also be considered".
  It therefore suggests that cost-benefit analysis is done first, and then one considers the environmental value separately from the cost-benefit analysis. In those circumstances, what validity does the cost-benefit analysis

  737
  have? In any case, it falls well short of discrediting cost-benefit analysis as a valid academic discipline, which is what is needed.
  The dangers of applying cost-benefit analysis to the duties of the agency are illustrated by an example provided today in a briefing document by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It mentioned that a cost-benefit analysis study was commissioned by the National Rivers Authority to consider options for tackling a loss of about £15,000 per year of winter wheat as a result of flooding in Kent. The cost-benefit analysis led to the conclusion that the installation of a land drainage pump at the outfall of the Capel Fleet—I assume that that is a river—should be carried out, at a cost of £250,000. The key is that that decision—to take action—was arrived at by including no costs to the environment and no benefit to the environment from pursuing the option of creating wildlife habitats.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider also the Brent Spar disposal. After careful consideration, Shell reached the conclusion that deep-water disposal would cost £12 million and that horizontal dismantling would cost £46 million. That did not take into account the environmental effects of having a structure such as the Brent Spar, full of toxic waste, in deep water. Does the hon. Gentleman regard that as another valid example of cost-benefit analysis not creating the right picture?
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Dafis: I am not sure that Shell carried out a cost-benefit analysis which included environmental considerations. Shell is now claiming that the environmental damage of bringing the Brent Spar to shore is likely to be greater than sinking it. That should all have been considered at the outset, to see whether the Brent Spar could be designed so that it might be brought ashore in an environmentally acceptable way. That raises the question of whether oil should be extracted from deep-sea sources, thereby ultimately creating an environmentally impossible situation.
  If the Bill must contain a reference to cost benefits, as the Government believe, new clause 3 should also protect the agency from the requirement to use that spurious discipline. I urge the Government to accept the amendment as an addition to the clause and not a requirement to be deleted.
  Mr. William O'Brien: The amendment seeks to improve the Bill, which grew each time it was debated in Committee in another place and in this House. More and more amendments were made and new clauses added, so that the Bill is now one of the largest that the House has enacted for some time. It devotes more pages to schedules than to clauses, and much of the information that it contains will have to be studied by the companies, industry, local government, commercial organisations and even individuals who will be affected by the Bill in some way. We want the Bill presented in such a way that the public will enjoy the full benefit of the legislation.
  We in the Opposition do not oppose the principle and spirit of the Bill. There is much merit in the agency arrangements, but we are concerned about the agency's duties and responsibilities. We are not against assessing the cost of schemes, but how are they to be decided? To
  738
  leave the Bill in its present form will not help the organisations which will have to analyse costs and compare benefits.
  The amendment requires that before any scheme is considered, the Secretary of State—after consulting the bodies involved—will present a report to Parliament so that it will have an opportunity to consider the costs and benefits. That constructive approach will assist everyone and allow the legislation to work properly, by making available information affecting communities.
  Reference was made to motorways and motorway construction. I have a particular interest in the diversion of the Al in my area. I would prefer the principle embodied in the Bill applied to that proposed road development because the public would then be able to understand the real implications, compare costs and analyse different schemes that will influence the environment and the health and destinies of individuals. The public would then be able to study the changes proposed by the agency in realigning the A 1 to Ferry Bridge.
  New clause 3 is significant and important. The Minister would do a service to the House and to the nation by carefully considering the new clause and the points made by hon. Members in all parts of the House, including the hon. Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), who expressed favour for it. All hon. Members who have spoken have offered new evidence for accepting new clause 3.
  Our personal experience and knowledge of work involving changes to the environment which have caused damage in many areas prompts us to enter the plea that new clause 3 is constructive, will help the Bill and will benefit the people who have to administer the legislation. I fear what might happen if a proper, sincere and constructive approach to analysing costs and environmental benefits in schemes such as the Al to Ferry Bridge is not taken. That would be doing a tremendous disservice to communities.
  There is merit and value in new clause 3. It is not a wrecking clause and it will strengthen the Bill. I ask the Minister to accept the new clause and to acknowledge its value to the Bill.
  Mr. Nick Ainger: It has been said that, because of the way in which clause 38 is worded, it is likely that we shall see a rash of judicial reviews. My constituency has not produced such a rash so far, but one of my constituents, Mr. Toby Chapman, has been given leave by the High Court to seek a judicial review of a decision made by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. We know that HMIP will shortly become part of the new Environment Agency.
  The issue on which Mr. Chapman is seeking judicial review touches on the benefits element of the cost-benefit analysis, which was so interestingly discussed and examined by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis). It bears on a decision following an application by National Power to convert Pembroke power station to burn emulsified fuels.
  The application was received by HMIP in August 1994. It took HMIP about five months to arrive at the best practical environmental option and BATNEEC—best available technology not entailing excessive cost. After about five months of deliberation and periodic review of recommendations within HMIP, the decision was made that flue gas desulphurisation was BATNEEC, but that

  739
  gasification was the best practical environmental option. However, as costs had to be taken into account, it was decided to proceed by reviewing the flue gas desulphurisation proposal and discounting gasification.
  My constituent, Mr. Chapman, believes that, because health issues were not taken into account, so he says, by HMIP, there should be judicial review of its decision.
  The details of the issue are quite complex, and it is interesting that HMIP has welcomed a judicial review. It will be the first time that its processes will have been tested. Unfortunately, the issue will be tested by a judge. I am not sure of his environmental background and his knowledge of cost-benefit analysis. Although we have judicial review, perhaps it is not the best method to review decisions made by HMIP or, in future, by the Environment Agency.
  The new clause refers to the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, the Select Committee on the Environment, the House of Lords Select Committee on Sustainable Development and the Prime Minister's panel on sustainable development. All these organisations represent experts in their own areas. They can give advice and make recommendations on cost-benefit analysis. The issue would not be left, as I fear it will be in Mr. Chapman's case, for determination by a judge.
  I take that view no matter how well versed the judge may be in law, and irrespective of what he may have been able to pick up on the side on environmental issues. I think that everyone would accept that a judge is not the best person to arrive at a judgment in this instance.
  I urge the Minister to accept that the new clause is sensible and should be inserted in the Bill. I fear that, in future, the new agency will be tied down by a rash of judicial reviews because of the way in which clause 38 is worded.
  Mr. Atkins: It became apparent during consideration of the Bill in Committee that two members of the Committee had made significant contributions to our debates. One of them was my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), who spoke with great authority on many issues. I listened most carefully, therefore, to his interventions in Committee. Secondly, the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) always spoke with sound common sense. I found myself, as I know did many of my colleagues, agreeing with almost everything he said this evening, until he reached his conclusion, which seemed to be an illogical turn-about bearing in mind what he had said previously.
  No clause has been so misrepresented as clause 38.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: By whom?
  Mr. Atkins: By Opposition Members as much as anyone else.
  Bearing in mind the comments that have been made, one might be forgiven for thinking that clause 38 represents a radical attack on environmental protection, including an attempt to replace environmental analysis and the precautionary principle as a basis for setting standards, with cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate that the short-term value, in terms of money, of benefits, will always outweigh the costs before action can be taken.
  Ms Ruddock: Will the Minister give way?
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Atkins: I shall always give way to the hon. Lady, but I would like to get a little way into my speech. If the hon. Lady insists, I shall give way.
  Ms Ruddock: I do insist. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. Before he goes any further, I want him to acknowledge that there is no precedent, and that HMIP does not work under the same conditions. Indeed, the National Rivers Authority never worked under the same conditions. English Heritage, English Nature and the Countryside Commission, all of which are key environmental bodies with which the Government have worked, have not worked under the same conditions. The conditions that we are discussing are unique.
  Mr. Atkins: We know that, in Committee, the hon. Lady quoted from briefs from various organisations, all respectable ones that had a great part to play in our proceedings, and made great play of their views. I shall deal with as many of the matters that she has raised as I can.
  It is suggested that clause 38 is a Pandora's box, in that any action taken by the agencies could be challenged for the first time in the courts if they, the agencies, could not demonstrate in each instance that the most comprehensive cost-benefit analysis showed beyond reasonable doubt that the action was justified in monetary terms. No doubt we could have an interesting debate about the consequences of adopting such an approach, but it would not be relevant to our consideration of the clause. As was repeatedly made clear in another place and in earlier consideration in this place, there is not that form of duty under clause 38.
  In essence, what clause 38 requires is simple. First, it imposes a duty on each agency to consider costs and benefits. Secondly, the clause is limited to those cases in which the agency properly has discretion. Thirdly, it requires the agency to use its discretion in a reasonable way.
  The clause gives the agencies considerable and necessary discretion in determining how consideration is best undertaken in the prevailing circumstances. It does not require them to undertake cost-benefit analysis in each case, or to demonstrate a particular balance before they act. It does not place cost-benefit analysis above or in place of environmental assessments. The Government recognise the importance of longer-term and difficult-to-quantify environmental effects.
  In short, far from weakening environmental protection, the new duty is an essential element in helping both the regulator and the regulated to focus on environmental priorities in the context of sustainable development, and to avoid misallocation of resources through inappropriate regulatory action.
  Ms Ruddock: Will the Minister clarify for me whether he thinks that what he has just said means that the agencies will set their corporate objectives bearing in mind the cost-benefit requirement?
  Mr. Atkins: I see no reason why the agencies should not set their corporate objectives in that way. Why does the hon. Lady think that that should not be the case?
  Ms Ruddock: I am seeking clarification from the Minister. It is his proposal that we are discussing. It seems possible that the corporate objectives of the agencies

  741
  could be set with regard to the cost-benefit requirement. In our view, the corporate objectives of the agencies should be about enhancing and serving the environment.
  Mr. Atkins: We have had long debates on Second Reading and in Committee on this issue. I have made it clear on every possible occasion that at the forefront of the Government's mind, and that of the Department of the Environment and eventually those of the agencies, will be environmental considerations. They cannot do that without taking account of costs and benefits. That is the crucial difference between the Government and the Opposition.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I have been approached by the Wildlife Trust for Cumbria, which has expressed some concern about this issue. It asked me to obtain assurances from the Minister that, in five, 10 or more years from now, the work of the agencies will bring about a better future for Cumbria's wildlife. My impression is that that will happen, but I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance that that is his view.
  Mr. Atkins: I can say yes on two counts, and not only because I would be in dereliction of my duty if I did not accede to my right hon. Friend's request and his continued representations on the lake district, one of the most lovely parts of England. Secondly, I can say yes because, as my right hon. Friend correctly concludes, the Bill sets out just that objective. I have no doubt that, when it becomes an Act, my right hon. Friend's concerns and those of his constituents will not be realised, because the Act will address the matter in strong terms.
  Sir Kenneth Carlisle: Perhaps my right hon. Friend can enlighten me further. If, next year or the year after, the agencies start to do a cost-benefit analysis which leaves out conservation issues and does not enhance the environment or follow the line that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has raised, will the Government be able to instruct the agencies to take far greater account of the desirability of conserving and enhancing natural environmental beauty; or will they not be able to influence the agencies at all?
  Mr. Atkins: My understanding is that we could accede to that request. The Government could certainly bring some pressure to bear, and would do so if we felt that my hon. Friend's concerns and mine were not being recognised.
  Mr. Dafis: I should like some clarification about the way that the cost-benefit process will be undertaken. The guidance mentions cost-benefit analysis. May I take it that, if the process is used at all, a formal analysis will consider matters that are quantifiable in money terms? If that analysis shows that a measure may not be justified in cost-benefit terms, will the less quantifiable or non-quantifiable considerations subsequently be brought to bear, so that they might overturn the consequence of the outcome of the cost-benefit analysis? The point that I am trying to make is that there is a difference between cost-benefit analysis and a consideration of costs and benefits.
  Mr. Atkins: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not agree with it. We consistently and continuously made it clear on Second Reading and in Committee that, while environmental considerations are at the forefront of what the agencies must do and what my Department is doing, we cannot proceed without considering costs and benefits.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Atkins: I should like to make some progress, because I have been stuck on the same paragraph for some time.
  Mrs. Campbell: My question is on the specific point that the Minister is dealing with.
  Mr. Atkins: I give way to the hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Campbell: Many Opposition Members are concerned about costs and benefits being weighed against environmental benefits in a way that we do not think will be fully beneficial. Is one of the reasons for the Minister's approach the fact that his Department is working on what it calls an integrated environmental index, which intends somehow to combine costs with some environmental factors? I do not find that reassuring, but perhaps the Minister could say how his Department or HMIP is thinking about this issue.
  Mr. Atkins: I intended to mention that matter, but as the hon. Lady has asked about it, I shall deal with it now. I said in Committee that, in 1991, my Department issued a guide called "Policy Appraisal and the Environment". There was a follow-up in 1994 illustrating its applications to specific cases, and it was entitled "Environmental Appraisal in Government Departments". Also relevant is a document entitled "A Guide to Risk Assessment and Risk Management for Environmental Protection", which we published earlier this month.
  As I said in Committee, the National Rivers Authority has developed a manual on the assessment of costs and benefits, which it currently applies when, for example, assessing proposals for water quality standards. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), have regularly pressed me for greater precision and specification in the requirements that are to be incorporated in the Bill. However, it is important to appreciate that, the more precise and detailed a requirement is, the greater the inevitable risk that it will prove inappropriate in a particular case. The risk that the agencies will be open to challenge for failing to pursue that procedure will follow.
  I have made it plain why the Government are not prepared to delete clause 38. Much as Opposition Members may deny it, it is hard to see amendment No. 3 and new clause 3 as anything other than delaying tactics to avoid the early introduction of the duty. They certainly show a lack of confidence in the ability of the new agencies to use their judgment and professional expertise in dealing with a reasonable requirement, and their wide discretion on discharging their duties.
  There is an erroneous belief among Opposition Members that somehow there is a generalised right way to take account of costs and benefits, and that it can be applied to all the circumstances that the agencies will face. They also think that it could be discovered if only there was sufficient prior effort and consultation. That is simply unrealistic.
  As I said earlier, considerable work has been done on this matter, and I do not think that any technique will be equally applicable in every circumstance. Clause 38 implicitly recognises that the agencies must be able to exercise their judgment on what sort of consideration is appropriate in any particular circumstance. That is likely

  743
  to lead to a modest and desirable evolution rather than a single sudden shift in the way that the agencies approach their tasks compared with their predecessor bodies.
  Ms Ruddock: Given what the Minister has just said, why does he not accept our view that these matters should be the subject of guidance? He has clearly stated that this so-called science is utterly imprecise, and he has given every reason why agency decisions should be subject to judicial review. He must agree that this is not a proper matter to put in the Bill. I repeat that it would be unique to do that.
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady is obsessed with judicial reviews. I have tried to explain that the agencies will be allowed wide discretion. If matters are made more precise and specific, there is a likelihood that more judicial reviews will be held than were conducted in the past. What I said in Committee bears repeating. I remind the hon. Lady that I said:
  "All challenges by way of judicial review require leave to be given by a judge. If they are unsuccessful they can result in orders for costs against the challengers. Frivolous or vexatious challenges are disallowed. There are significant protections against the bringing of borderline or exploratory cases for judicial review."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 May 1995; c. 285.]
  As I have said in this debate and in others, being precise and specific is likely to do more harm than good.
  Although there is a fundamental issue between the Government and the Opposition on this clause, I suspect that there is not much difference between us on the way that the matter is being addressed. Opposition Members have made it clear that they believe that the cost assessment of any action by the agencies should be of secondary importance. That is not our view. Despite the fact that we have debated this issue time and again, I cannot accept the amendment that proposes to replace clause 38 or the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis).
  In summary, at best the amendment of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North is confusing. The new clause, as I have sought to explain, is unnecessary, and its interpretation differs from that which we believe. If carried—I am sure that it will not be, because I shall urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to do so—it will result in precisely the field day for lawyers about which so much concern has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Ms Ruddock: The Minister has been utterly unconvincing. He has failed to answer the fundamental point: why should these matters be on the face of the Bill and not in guidance, their proper place, for which universal acclaim exists on the Opposition Benches and in all concerned bodies outside the House? The new clause must be pressed to a Division.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 263.

  Division No. 178]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Allen, Graham

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Alton, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'tryNE)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  744

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Garrett, John

  Austin-Walker, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Barnes, Harry

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Barron, Kevin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Battle, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Gordon, Mildred

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Graham, Thomas

  Beggs, Roy

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bell, Stuart

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Benton, Joe

  Gunnell, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hain, Peter

  Berry, Roger

  Hanson, David

  Betts, Clive

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Harvey, Nick

  Blunkett, David

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Boateng, Paul

  Henderson, Doug

  Bradley, Keith

  Heppell, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hill, Keith (Steatham)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hinchliffe, David

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

  Hodge, Margaret

  Burden, Richard

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Byers, Stephen

  Hood, Jimmy

  Caborn, Richard

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Chidgey, David

  Hutton, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Illsley, Eric

  Church, Judith

  Ingram, Adam

  Clapham, Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Jamieson, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Janner, Greville

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Coffey, Ann

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Keen, Alan

  Corbett, Robin

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

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Khabra, Piara S

  Corston, Jean

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cousins, Jim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Lewis, Terry

  Dafis, Cynog

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Livingstone, Ken

  Davidson, Ian

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Denham, John

  McAllion, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dixon, Don

  McFall, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McKelvey, William

  Dowd, Jim

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McLeish, Henry

  Eastham, Ken

  Maclennan, Robert

  Etherington, Bill

  McMaster, Gordon

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fatchett, Derek

  MacShane, Denis

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Maddock, Diana

  Flynn, Paul

  Mahon, Alice

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Marek, Dr John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Foulkes, George

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Fraser, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Fyfe, Maria

  Meacher, Michael

  Galbraith, Sam

  Meale, Alan

  Galloway, George

  Michael, Alun

  Gapes, Mike

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  745

  Milburn, Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Miller, Andrew

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Short, Clare

  Morley, Elliot

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

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

  Mudie, George

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mullin, Chris

  Spearing, Nigel

  Murphy, Paul

  Spellar, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Hara, Edward

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Olner, Bill

  Straw, Jack

  O'Neill, Martin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Parry, Robert

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pearson, Ian

  Timms, Stephen

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pike, Peter L

  Touhig, Don

  Pope, Greg

  Turner, Dennis

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Tyler, Paul

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wallace, James

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Walley, Joan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Purchase, Ken

  Wareing, Robert N

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Watson, Mike

  Radice, Giles

  Welsh, Andrew

  Randall, Stuart

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Reid, Dr John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rendel, David

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wilson, Brian

  Rooker, Jeff

  Winnick, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Wise, Audrey

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Salmond, Alex

  Mrs. Barbara Roche and

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Eric Clarke.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Amess, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Ancram, Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burns, Simon

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Butcher, John

  Ashby, David

  Butler, Peter

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baldry, Tony

  Carttiss, Michael

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cash, William

  Bates, Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bellingham, Henry

  Churchill, Mr

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clappison, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Booth, Hartley

  Coe, Sebastian

  Boswell, Tim

  Congdon, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Conway, Derek

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bowis, John

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Couchman, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Cran, James

  746

  Curry, David (Skipon & Ripon)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Knapman, Roger

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Devlin, Tim

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

  Dicks, Terry

  Knox, Sir David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dover, Den

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Duncan, Alan

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Legg, Barry

  Dunn, Bob

  Leigh, Edward

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Elletson, Harold

  Lidington, David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lord, Michael

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Luff, Peter

  Faber, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forman, Nigel

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forth, Eric

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Madel, Sir David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Marland, Paul

  French, Douglas

  Marlow, Tony

  Gale, Roger

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gallie, Phil

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Garnier, Edward

  Merchant, Piers

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mills, Iain

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hague, William

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hannan, Sir John

  Norris, Steve

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Harris, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Page, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hayes, Jerry

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Heald, Oliver

  Pattie, Fit Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Pawsey, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Pickles, Eric

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Horam, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Richards, Rod

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jack, Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rumbold, RI Hon Dame Angela

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sackville, Tom

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sainsbury, RI Hon Sir Timothy

  Key, Robert

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  747

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Thurnham, Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Tredinnick, David

  Sims, Roger

  Trend, Michael

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Trotter, Neville

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Walden, George

  Spring, Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Sproat, Iain

  Waller, Gary

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Ward, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Steen, Anthony

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stephen, Michael

  Watts, John

  Stem, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Stewart, Allan

  Whitney, Ray

  Streeter, Gary

  Whittingdale, John

  Sumberg, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sykes, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Yeo, Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thomason, Roy

  Mr. David Willetts and

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Dr. Liam Fox.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 4

  GREATER LONDON REGIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  '. It shall be the duty of the Agency in determining the regions for which environment protection advisory committees are established and maintained under Section 12 to establish a Greater London Regional Advisory Committee for a region which shall be so constructed as to cover all London Boroughs.'.—[Ms Ruddock.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Ms Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  This new clause has the distinction of being supported by the Association of London Government, the local authorities' associations, the London Waste Regulation Authority and the National Society for Clean Air. Perhaps since everyone else agrees, the Minister might be minded to accept the new clause.
  We understand—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that the shadow agency board, which has the responsibility because Ministers were not prepared to shoulder it, is still considering both river catchment boundaries for some operational functions and coterminous local government boundaries for representational and other functions.
  Mr. Atkins indicated assent.
  Ms Ruddock: I see that the Minister agrees. That is at the heart of why the new clause has to be tabled.
  7.15 pm
  We believe that London is a special case. The fact that it has no strategic authority and that that is coupled with a large river catchment area poses particular difficulties. We believe that Greater London should be given a specific regional function within the agency and that the best way of achieving that would be to establish a Greater London regional advisory committee.
  748
  At present, the National Rivers Authority, which is to be one of the constituent bodies of the Environment Agency, has a Thames region with three sub-regions dividing London into two along the line of the river. Not all of London is covered by the existing Thames region and large parts of counties outside London are included.
  I remind the House that London has over 7 million people. It creates 20 million tonnes of waste a year and, sadly, has the worst air pollution in the country. Currently, a great deal of environmental regulation and effort is carried out on a London-wide basis, particularly waste regulation and air pollution monitoring. The Government have appointed a Minister with responsibility for London, although we sometimes wonder why.
  Londoners identify with their capital city and desperately want a better environment. One small step towards achieving that would be to identify London as an entity and for the Government to ensure that, whatever other responsibilities are passed, we believe perhaps wrongly, to the agency, on this matter it will take its own decisions. London is unique and it needs a regional advisory committee. That can be established only if the Government acknowledge the need to establish a boundary that is coterminous with the totality of London boroughs.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The new clause has the support of all the agencies to which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) referred and my colleagues and I willingly support it. I shall not elaborate in great detail, except to say that the benefit of the way in which the new clause is drafted is that it allows the flexibility to which the hon. Member for Deptford alluded in her speech. It is drafted to suggest that the advisory committee should cover all London boroughs. It does not say that it should be coterminous with the boundaries of the 32 boroughs and the City of London, the outside of the current Greater London area. It is drafted to include those areas, but may go beyond that.
  This is not an argument that we must always have a structure that is exactly coterminous with the old Greater London council boundary. However, it is important that all the London authorities are included because, for all sorts of reasons of which you, Madam Deputy Speaker and the House are well aware, London boroughs have a particular status and have powers and responsibilities that are not the same as those at county or district level or even, pursuant to future local government changes, at unitary level outside London. The London boroughs are all of a type in terms of their powers and functions and they should all, therefore, be included within this agency.
  Secondly, it is clear that Greater London is not only the most important region for many environmental reasons, to which the hon. Member for Deptford referred, such as the amount of waste created, the incidence of pollution and the density of population, but the weightiest region in terms of population, which causes particular concerns and problems. The recent installation of the Thames ring main was a huge enterprise because of the volume for which it needed to cater. We are talking about an area that, in population terms, is hugely greater than Scotland, Wales or any other economic region.
  Thirdly, it is logical—I understand this position—that we begin by working on the basis of river boundaries and river catchment areas. It seems that the shadow agency is thinking in those terms already. If that is the case, it

  749
  presumably understands that the illogicality of the present arrangement is that some of Greater London, for historical reasons, does not come within that catchment area. Again, the advisory groups tell us that that problem would be corrected by bringing all of Greater London within the area. The logic of having river catchment areas is not broken by including the whole of Greater London, even though one might also go beyond Greater London.
  Fourthly, whatever the ultimate structure, it is important for this geographical area to be able to express its voice. The Minister may say that we should not get into a debate about where advisory committees should exist. We are not arguing for the proposition as a precedent for Greater London authorities in other areas. The Government have always taken the view—I dissent from them in this respect—that one should judge the need for bodies to deal with Greater London on an issue-by-issue basis. This matter is being judged on that basis. All the local authority associations and all the other advisory bodies have said that in terms of the environmental advice that should be given, it is important that London is seen as a whole—in its natural context. It is important that advice can be given on that basis.
  Fifthly, the problems and the issues are more complex in London, so the work that needs to be done by the agency would benefit from having an independent standing advisory committee. Clearly, it is useful when dealing with such complicated issues to be able to bring in a body that is the equivalent, at a local, regional level, of a royal commission. It is useful for it to be there permanently, giving advice and so on.
  I ask the Minister to be positive, not to rule out the proposition and to respond in a way that leaves the matter open. I hope that he accepts that ours is not a dogmatic proposition, but one that accepts the geography, the practicality and the importance of London as a metropolitan area, huge in population and needing special consideration. I hope that hon. Members will support the new clause.
  Mr. Atkins: The new clause would require the agency to establish a Greater London regional advisory committee for a region covering all the London boroughs. I agree that the agency will need to be mindful of particular issues relating to London, but I do not think that a region based on London alone is necessarily the best way forward. The Environment Agency advisory committee has now submitted recommendations to Ministers on the agency's boundaries, a copy of which was placed in the Library on 26 June. It proposes committees with political boundaries, drawn as close to river catchment boundaries as possible and using district council boundaries where that provides a better fit.
  The EAAC considered the case for a London-only region, but it felt that a region encompassing all the Thames catchment area, including all of Greater London, would deliver better integration across the agency's functions, especially water management. The House will be delighted to know that we are still considering the EAAC's recommendations and that we shall announce the Government's decisions shortly. We shall reflect carefully on the views expressed by London Opposition Members today. I do not think, however, that those matters would be appropriately included on the face of the Bill and I do not think that a Greater London region is, necessarily, the right way forward.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: So that there is no misunderstanding, I hope that the Minister will clarify this point. He suggested that the proposition was that the region should comprise Greater London only. I think that he heard both me and the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) say that it was not a Greater London-only proposition. It appears, therefore, to coincide with an option that has been suggested to him and which he is considering. Will he clarify that he understands that this is not a Greater London-only proposition?
  Mr. Atkins: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I am saying that the proposition is part of the considerations on which I and my colleagues will have to decide. We have made no decision and we shall be careful in terms of listening to and reading again the views that have been expressed by Opposition Members. I hope accordingly that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) will withdraw the new clause.
  Ms Ruddock: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he addressed our concerns. The very fact that the Association of London Government has been formed, bringing together boroughs of different political persuasions, shows the common purpose that people find in London. Nowhere is that more significant than in the environment. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will, as he has suggested, take seriously the concerns and wishes that we have expressed.
  Mr. Atkins indicated assent.
  Ms Ruddock: The Minister nods in assent and I am grateful for that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 7

  EMISSIONS FROM FURNACES
  'After subsection (3) of section 47 of the Clean Air Act 1993 (application to fumes and gases of certain provisions as to grit, dust and smoke) there shall be inserted—
  "(3A) Without prejudice to the generality of his powers under this section, the Secretary of State shall exercise those powers so as to.ensure that where any fuel derived from waste material is used for the purpose of any industrial process, the emissions from the burning of that fuel are subject to requirements no less stringent than those which would apply under any enactment to the incineration of that material as waste.".'.—[Ms Ruddock.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Ms Ruddock.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 17—Definition of waste—
  '.—For the avoidance of doubt, any waste material shall continue to be deemed to be waste notwithstanding that it is used or intended to be used in an industrial process, and any enactment relating to the storage, handling, transport, disposal and incineration of waste shall be construed accordingly.'.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: The new clause deals with the fuel derived from waste material. Its purpose is to try to ensure that emissions from the burning of such fuels, sometimes known as substitute liquid fuel or secondary

  751
  liquid fuel, are subject to requirements that are no less stringent than those which apply when that material is incinerated as waste.
  Hazardous materials, such as paint solvents, have traditionally been disposed of in hazardous waste incinerators. A whole industry has grown up around the incineration process. The disposal of hazardous waste has to be paid for. It is carried out in specially constructed incinerators which are subject to planning controls and to rigorous emission limits. I am not saying that the local population entirely accept hazardous waste incinerators, but I believe that much has been done to dispel the disquiet that arises when an incinerator is constructed.
  Cement manufacturers have now been given permission to conduct trials into burning the waste in cement kilns. Secondary liquid fuels are being used as a substitute fuel rather than disposed of as waste. A little while ago, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), who is one of my neighbours, initiated an Adjournment debate on the subject at which I and many other hon. Members were present. The Minister said that because the conditions in the cement kilns were different—that is, they were operating at a much higher temperature—it was not necessary to have the same limits for emissions. That was plainly nonsense. The British Cement Association, represented by Mr. McKenzie, repeated that view to the Select Committee on the Environment when it discussed the subject recently.
  What matters to my constituents is what comes out of the kiln in the way of emissions, not what goes on inside the kiln. I gather from what Ministers have said more recently that they have changed their mind on the issue. During this debate, I am anxious to explore the extent to which the Minister has changed his mind and to ascertain how far he is prepared to go towards accepting that secondary liquid fuels should continue to be classified as hazardous waste and treated in exactly the same way as hazardous waste.
  There are plenty of economic benefits at stake for cement manufacturers. The new fuel is cheap and companies may even be paid for burning it, but from the point of view of local residents the cement kilns were not constructed for that purpose. They are not subject to a BATNEEC, or best available technology not entailing excessive cost, assessment.
  My constituents are concerned that, when fuel is burnt, the cement kilns suffer from frequent stoppages, or what during the Select Committee's inquiry into the matter were called carbon monoxide trips. The problem is that there is little monitoring of emissions during those frequent breakdowns. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has not been able to satisfy residents that, when the kilns break down, emissions that could be damaging are not produced because high temperatures are not maintained. There is considerable concern among local residents that less stringent conditions will apply to the emission limit for kilns than would apply to hazardous waste incinerators.
  The other thing that concerns residents is that there appears to be no change in status when a kiln becomes what is called a co-incinerator when it begins to burn fuel. Residents are not consulted, and they do not have an opportunity to object. There is no new plan or process, and local people do not have the right to see all of the
  752
  information and data from the trial because it is said to be commercially confidential. That is giving rise to a great deal of concern, and local people are neither happy nor satisfied with what has been said either by HMIP or by the Minister in Committee.
  7.30 pm
  In Committee, the Minister assured me that fuel would be classified as waste. We are also discussing new clause 17, which states:
  '.—For the avoidance of doubt, any waste material shall continue to be deemed to be waste notwithstanding that it is used or intended to be used in an industrial process, and any enactment relating to the storage, handling, transport, disposal and incineration of waste shall be construed accordingly.'.
  We are concerned not only with the terminology but with the way in which waste is treated as a result of being classified as waste, and not as fuel.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) conducted an extremely worthwhile inquiry in his role as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment. The Committee came up with a number of recommendations, three of which are worth mentioning here. The Committee recommended that the Government formally classify secondary liquid fuel as waste—if necessary by amending the law—thus applying a duty of care to all shipments of secondary liquid fuel to kilns. The Committee also recommended that the Government formally bring the burning of secondary liquid fuel in kilns within the scope of the EU's hazardous waste incineration directive.
  The Committee proposed that the adaptation of kilns for the burning of SLF would constitute a substantial change under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, thus ensuring that a change could not happen without informing the local population or without going through a proper planning process.
  The Committee also recommended that trials should be limited in duration. Trials have, been taking place at Barrington near my constituency for several years. Trials should not be used as a way of bypassing legislation. A trial should take place over a limited period; it should not be allowed to continue until it becomes a commercial process.
  The Minister has discretionary powers to treat cement kilns or co-incinerators in exactly the same way as incinerators. I hope that he will tell us tonight that he will apply that power rigorously. In Committee, I sought to remove the Minister's discretion and to ensure that the same conditions applied, but he rejected my proposal. It would be of enormous assurance to the House, and to my constituents, if the Minister would accept the new clause. That would mean that he will apply rigorously the same conditions to co-incinerators as are applied to incinerators, and that is what we are seeking.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the chance to draw to the attention of the House the important issue of the burning of secondary liquid fuel. In Ketton in my constituency, Castle Cement has been conducting trials of the burning of secondary liquid fuel.
  There is a lot of confusion about the issue, and the House should be aware that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has come to the issue rather late. [Interruption.] If I am wrong, she is welcome to inform me, but those of us who have been following the

  753
  trials in our constituencies for a number of years have felt that it is only recently that the hon. Lady has got to grips with the issue. I suggest that she has not yet got to grips with the facts.
  The purpose of the process is to recycle a fuel that has many constituent parts which are put into cement kilns according to a strictly regulated formula and specification. One cannot predict the mix of products that go into incinerators, which therefore must cope with great extremes and strange combinations of waste. Waste is put together according to a specification, and then fed into the cement kilns.
  The regime under which the cement companies must now work came about as a result of pressure put on my right hon. Friend the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and me. The regime was much enhanced a few months ago in co-operation with HMIP, which has been punctilious to the extreme in following this issue.
  Monitoring has been taking place throughout the trials. The specification of the fuel has been monitored, as has the environment in and around the cement kilns before, during and after the trials. To suggest that those who live near a cement kiln that is burning secondary liquid fuel are in greater danger than those who live around an ordinary incinerator is wrong.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that satisfactory monitoring has not taken place when there has been an interruption of production? Has there not been public concern in the hon. Member's constituency—and other areas—that monitoring is not taking place during interruptions and the start-ups following them?
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Lady's intervention identifies exactly where she and her colleagues are mistaken. The temperature in a cement kiln remains very high for many hours—even when it has been switched off—and the trips last only for seconds. The fuel is destroyed in the kiln, which reverts to coal burning within a matter of moments. The concern that the hon. Lady is levelling against the process is misplaced.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is important that local residents are reassured that monitoring will continue during a breakdown, even if that breakdown lasts for only a few seconds? What is important to residents is not the high temperatures in the cement kilns, but what comes out of the kilns. If monitoring is not done during a breakdown, it is impossible for local residents to know whether what is coming out of a kiln is damaging.
  Mr. Duncan: I repeat that the heat retained in the cement kiln is such that, even though there has been a slight breakdown, the fuel is destroyed and rendered inert. The hon. Lady should be aware that the regime involves constant monitoring. As a result of the improvements that my right hon. Friend the Minister and HMIP have put in place, my constituents' concerns have been allayed and they are happy to accept HMIP's explanation. About 700 constituents came to an initial public meeting. All of them have learnt what has been put in place to deal with their concerns.
  Mrs. Campbell indicated dissent
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Lady may well shake her head, but I know what my constituents think. HMIP and many
  754
  other experts have addressed them directly. I must advise her that her concern is misplaced. HMIP and the Minister deserve great credit for what they have done to improve the monitoring regime for cement kilns.
  Mr. Bennett: I support the new clauses, particularly new clause 17.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) suggested a certain measure of complacency. The Select Committee on the Environment was lobbied very hard by the various interest groups concerned about the burning of secondary liquid fuels and the House wants to be clear exactly who is involved.
  There are the traditional companies that have built incinerators at considerable expense and are burning a great deal of waste material to the highest standards. To make the incinerators work as efficiently as possible, they are keen to get waste solvents, which improve the combustion process. They are obviously extremely worried that they might lose the solvents to the cement industry. Those companies—especially Shanks McEwan and Cleanaway—are concerned that they might lose some of the best fuel for their incinerators. The traditional companies thus have a clear and substantial financial interest.
  The cement companies clearly believe that, if they can use the fuel, they can dramatically reduce their costs. They suggested to the Select Committee that they might be able to reduce their fuel costs by as much as 35 per cent. They did not totally convince me because they were very coy about how much that would mean on the price of a bag of cement. My inquiries suggest that marketing seems to have more influence on the price of a bag of cement than does the possibility of using such fuels. I understand the problem that they face, however. They do not want to find that they have competition from Europe, where it might be possible to use such fuel and, therefore, to produce cement more cheaply. Two big commercial interests are involved.
  There are also the people who live close to cement kilns, for whom I have every sympathy. I am afraid that the cement industry has not had a particularly good record. On many occasions, kilns have broken down and people suffer because of the dust particles that are emitted, so I have a great deal of sympathy for them.
  Finally, all people who are concerned about the environment must judge whether, if the fuel is not available to the companies that use it in their incinerators, some of the material that is being incinerated might well have to go to landfill sites, which might be far less satisfactory than getting rid of it in incinerators.
  There is also the question of emissions from cement kilns. It was difficult for the Select Committee to get an accurate picture. It certainly seemed that nothing like enough monitoring was done during breakdowns, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) explained. It appears that, for safety reasons in the plant, trips take place when gas reaches a certain level in the kiln. There is considerable doubt about the effectiveness of combustion at that point.
  The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton implied that the kilns stay very hot for a long time, which is true, but they must stay at the highest temperatures to guarantee that no dioxins are emitted, so some questions remain.
  We must also remember that, at the moment, these are only experiments. It is easy to get a specification for the fuel when doing an experiment and using relatively small

  755
  quantities, but it is quite another matter in large-scale production to ensure that the wastes are in just the right quantities to guarantee that the material reaches the same standard. That is another important area for concern.
  The Select Committee wanted the Minister to say that the fuel would be treated as a waste and that, when burnt in cement kilns, exactly the same standards would apply as if it were being burnt in incinerators. That seemed a fair proposal. It would also have meant that, when the material was transported by road, it would have to be treated according to the highest standards—as a waste—rather than the lower ones required for a fuel.
  7.45 pm
  I hope that the Minister for the Environment and Countryside can clear up the doubt about how long the material will be treated as waste. He seems to be saying that the Government are happy to classify it as waste to start with, but that as soon as it is to be used as a fuel they will change the classification. It would be to the satisfaction of a large number of people who live close to the kilns if the Government were to make it clear beyond all doubt that the material is to be treated as waste throughout its use in the kilns and that it is to be treated in exactly the same way as it would be if it was burnt in an incinerator.
  I know that it is a corny phrase, but that would give us a level playing field. It would be fair to all involved—the big incinerator companies, the cement companies and the people who live close to the plant. It would also be the best way forward for an environmental policy.
  I hope that the Minister will either accept new clause 17 or make it clear beyond all doubt that the material is seen as a waste rather than a fuel.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Hon. Members who start by saying that they will make a short speech invariably speak at length, so I will not do that, but just get on with it.
  I have made many representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister on this subject. He was delighted to see me on the train from Preston on Monday and knew exactly what I wanted to talk to him about. Castle Cement in my constituency is burning a substitute fuel, called cemfuel, in its kiln. While I am extremely pleased to have the kiln in my constituency, as it employs a lot of people, if the economics of it had to be weighed against the health of my constituents, I would always go for the latter. It would be ridiculous to do otherwise. That is why I have made representations on the subject to my right hon. Friend.
  It would be great if we could reduce the amount of waste that is produced. Incineration is probably one of the most environmentally friendly ways of getting rid of it—it is preferable to landfill or dumping—but it has to be done in the right way.
  There is no doubt that when Castle Cement started to burn cemfuel in Clitheroe, it made several mistakes. It did not consult people in the area properly. They were not given the right amount of information. Because of that lack of knowledge, the public were immediately concerned. They did not know what was being done and their questions were not answered properly. They also got very suspicious when they discovered that Castle Cement
  756
  was being paid to burn the fuel, as opposed to paying for it in the traditional manner. They had many concerns, therefore.
  Some residents living around the cement kiln formed the Residents Against Toxic Substances action group.
  Mr. Atkins: That spells rats.
  Mr. Evans: Yes, RATS. The group has held two public meetings on the issue in my constituency and both were well attended, which shows the amount of concern felt by members of the public who live around the kiln.
  Several people have complained that they have felt ill since the burning of the substitute fuel, cemfuel, began. I am not an expert or a doctor, and although the doctor in the area has been consulted about whether there has been an increase in asthma or other such complaints since the burning of cemfuel started, it is difficult to get any precise answers one way or the other. I am certain that, as doubt exists, some people are so concerned that illness can be caused by the stress of worrying about the burning of the substitute fuel. That problem, too, must be addressed.
  That is why I wrote to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) to ask whether the Select Committee would investigate the burning of secondary fuels in cement kilns. I am delighted to say that he agreed, and my only reservation is that there was only one sitting on the subject, although I am sure that, because of all the representations that were made and all the people who wanted their voices to be heard, there could have been three or four.
  Nevertheless, a good report resulted. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister has read it, so I shall not read out any of its recommendations now. I have already said that I accept its main thrust, and I hope that HMIP will take it on board when it makes its recommendations, which I hope it will do soon.
  My right hon. Friend also knows that I have another problem connected with the cement kiln.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend accept that perhaps the greatest reassurance that his constituents could have is the fact that all the evidence submitted to the Select Committee inquiry suggested that there was no significant difference between what came out of the cement kiln when it was burning secondary liquid fuel and when it was burning conventional fuel? Would my hon. Friend's constituents be further reassured if the constituent components of that secondary liquid fuel could be further redefined? Surely what goes in at the beginning determines what comes out at the end.
  Mr. Evans: I understand that, because of commercial confidentiality, the composition of the fuel is not made known to the wider public. I know that HMIP will examine the matter. If it was known what constituted the secondary liquid fuel—in this case, cemfuel—I am sure that people would be delighted to know. That would reassure them, so I hope the investigation will be made.
  Mr. Ainger: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Evans: No, my speech is coming to an end. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his own speech.

  757
  The plume grounding in Clitheroe is a problem, but it would exist even if cemfuel were not burnt. It must be addressed as a separate issue. Coal, for example, is a dirty fuel, and if the plume were grounding early that, too, would cause its own distinct problems.
  May I, through my right hon. Friend, express my thanks to HMIP for the way in which it has treated my constituents' representations? Every time I have asked the inspectorate to come to my constituency, its staff have done so. They have been present at two of the public meetings, and met separately the residents who formed the pressure group. I am grateful for the time that they have given, and I appreciate the pressure to which they are subjected when the residents continually ask questions. I hope that the response is coming through.
  A precedent is being established here. People are worried, and ask who is to say what other wastes will go into cement kilns in future if nothing is said about the present problem. We want to be certain that we get it absolutely right this time, so I hope that HMIP will take on board the Select Committee report and the representations that have been made to it by my constituents and by me. I hope that the inspectorate will soon make its own recommendations and that they will reassure not only me but the people who live in Clitheroe.
  Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), especially the latter, because he is my next-door neighbour and the other hon. Member for Ribble. There is a danger that, with the constant mention of rats at the Dispatch Box, I may begin to get a bit of a complex—but I know that this time RATS is an organisation that has addressed itself both to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley and to me.
  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton about Opposition Members. My hon. Friends have been concerned about the issue for a considerable time and have pressed me and come to see me. I have also been to visit the kiln in my hon. Friend's constituency, so I am fully aware of what has been going on.
  I want to reassure the House that it can be confident that part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is well able to control pollution from the burning of secondary liquid fuel—SLF—in cement kilns. The Environment Select Committee, of which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is Chairman, produced a good, albeit briefly investigated, report on the subject, which I mentioned in Committee and on which I congratulated the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Select Committee. I said that we would act on the recommendations of the report and consider carefully the implications of what it suggested.
  Several points have been raised in the debate. Although the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has been told certain facts many times, she continues to reiterate her charges in the face of the reassurances that I offer on behalf of HMIP. Monitoring continues during upsets. The hon. Lady says that it does not, but it does.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley rightly raised the question of health. The Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are now seeking views on questions related to health and to agriculture—the latter must involve food, I suppose—and HMIP and the Government will take into account anything that might be said there.
  758
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish asked about the definition of waste. It is the view of the Government and of HMIP that SLF is a waste, so the duty of care requirements in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 wil apply to it. As I said, all the Select Committee's recommendations will be carefully considered.
  I repeat briefly that the existing legislation allows HMIP to regulate and monitor the SLF trials closely. That is being carried out to HMIP's usual high standards. I am grateful to both my hon. Friends for putting on the record their thanks to the inspectorate not only for its work on the evaluation of the trials but for the way in which it has assisted my hon. Friends' constituents. All the results of the trials will be placed on HMIP's public registers, and I know that the House in general will accept that that body is carrying out its regulatory responsibilities in a highly professional way.
  Permanent burning of SLF in cement kilns will not be authorised if there is a net adverse environmental effect. New clause 17 would amend the definition of waste to provide that
  "waste material shall continue to be deemed to be waste notwithstanding that it is used or intended to be used in an industrial process".
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister be a little more specific about the precise meaning of "net adverse environmental effect"? Is the situation when secondary liquid fuel is burnt in cement kilns being compared with the situation when the same fuel is burnt in hazardous waste incinerators, or is the Minister instead drawing a comparison between secondary liquid fuel in cement kilns and the solid waste—coal and other fuels—that is also burnt in cement kilns? I am not clear which of the options is being used as a comparison.
  Mr. Atkins: I have made it clear on this occasion and on previous occasions, and I shall continue to do so, that HMIP operates trials to standards that would suggest that if something were not at least as, good as what we have now, the trials would be stopped. That is the meaning of the phrase "net adverse environmental effect". If the hon. Lady cannot understand that, there is not much point in pursuing the explanation. I have made it crystal clear many times, and she persists in deliberately misunderstanding. or ignoring what I say. I cannot spell it out any more clearly. Before we are much older we shall be entitled to conclude that the hon. Lady is being mischievous and does not really care about the issue.
  HMIP is a renowned international organisation operating to the highest possible standards, regardless of anything other than environmental criteria. For anyone on either side of the House, or outside the House, to suggest that it is not doing the job properly is mischievous, and I will not have it.
  Mr. Bennett: Before the Minister gets too excited about this matter, and while he might be right to praise HMIP, will he explain whether it will consider whether some of the components of that secondary fuel could be better used by being recycled as solvents, which could continue to be used by companies that use solvents, rather than bought to bring fuel up to the standard necessary for it to be burnt in kilns?
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The economic background is what provoked the cement companies to look into this matter. Equally, however, the

  759
  fuel's make-up, how and whether it should be used, and all the other issues, including the fair question the hon. Gentleman asked, must be considered. HMIP will look independently at a wide range of environmental improvements that could follow if it decides that SLF is acceptable or, if not, what should replace it. All those issues will be taken into consideration, which is why the Select Committee report was so important.
  8 pm
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Surely all the issues that have been raised on both sides of the House tonight could be addressed if either HMIP or the Minister's Department were to designate the change from burning coal in cement kilns to burning SLF as a "substantial change". That would trigger a full environmental impact assessment of all the issues and the concerns of people who live around the kilns would be addressed because it would all be on the public register. Why does not the Minister take that road and resolve many of the problems that have been presented to him tonight?
  Mr. Atkins: There is no great difference across the Floor of the House about the appreciation of the importance of this issue. That is why I said that the Select Committee—an all-party Committee—has done wise work in examining this issue. However, the point which I get slightly aerated about is the implication that HMIP is not doing its job properly.
  Mr. Jones indicated dissent.
  Mr. Atkins: I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman said that, but it has been implied. If I am being obtuse, I may have misunderstood that to be the case. In any case, HMIP carries out its task to the best of its ability, which is a pretty high ability. As a non-scientific person in this regard, I am content to take its advice, as I must as the Minister responsible.
  All the considerations that have been discussed across the Floor of the House in this brief debate tonight, with the considerations discussed in Committee, will be considered carefully as a result of what HMIP may decide to do. As the hon. Member for Cambridge knows, and as I have said on other occasions, we do not think that new clause 17 is the way to proceed. In the circumstances, I hope that she will consider withdrawing it.
  Ms Ruddock: I am grateful to the Minister for the considered way in which he has replied to the debate, although his remarks contained some implied criticism of some of my hon. Friends. When an hon. Member begins to raise an issue in the House, it often means that it is the first occasion on which that hon. Member, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), has had to do so and it does not mean that she has not been interested in the issue for some time, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) suggested at the opening of his remarks.
  The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton may have an advantage over my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. After all, he owns Harcourt Consultants, which trades as an oil broker and adviser on energy matters. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman declare an interest when he began his speech, but those interests might relate to the secondary liquid fuels that we are discussing.
  Mr. Duncan: I assure the hon. Lady and the House that they do not and it is scurrilous of her to suggest that they do.
  Ms Ruddock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. He will know, as I know, of connections between secondary liquid fuels, the oil industry and energy matters and I thought that it was reasonable to ask him to clarify that for the House. We all have access to the Register of Members' Interests, and the matter is important. The hon. Gentleman made some unpleasant remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and it is reasonable that we should redress the balance—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman deserved that.
  On the new clause and the Minister's questions to us, what I take most seriously is my understanding that the Minister has an open mind on these matters. That is absolutely essential. The Opposition believe that some of the materials that go into secondary liquid fuels should be more properly recycled. We heard him say that economics drove companies to burn what we consider to be a noxious material.
  In the circumstances and in the light of the Minister's remarks tonight—the Opposition will follow through those remarks in due course—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 8

  COAL AUTHORITY RESPONSIBILITY IN RELATION TO WATER FROM ABANDONED MINES
  '.(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Coal Authority to prevent water from abandoned coal mines by means of the control and/or treatment of such water from causing significant harm or from polluting controlled waters.

  (2) "Harm" has the same meaning as in Part II of this Act.

  (3) It shall be determined in accordance with guidance issued for the purpose by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection

  (4) below as to—

  (a) what harm is to be regarded as "significant",

  (b) whether the possibility of harm being caused is "significant", and

  (c) whether pollution of controlled waters is being or is likely to be caused.

  (4) Any power of the Secretary of State to issue guidance under this Part shall only be exercisable after consultation with the appropriate Agency and such other bodies or persons as he may consider it appropriate to consult in relation to the guidance in question.

  (5) A draft of any guidance proposed to be issued under subsection (1) above shall be laid before each House of Parliament and the guidance shall not be issued until after the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft was so laid or, if the draft is laid on different days, the later of the two days.

  (6) If, within the period mentioned in subsection (2) above, either House resolves that the guidance, the draft of which was laid before it, should not be issued, the Secretary of State shall not issue that guidance.

  (7) In reckoning any period of 40 days for the purposes of subsection (2) or (3) above, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

  (8) The Secretary of State shall arrange for any guidance issued by him under this section to be published in such manner as he considers appropriate.'.— [Ms Ruddock.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Ms Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 9—Review of minewater pollution from abandoned mines—

  '.—(1) The Agency shall, from time to time, prepare a report to the Secretary of State on the environmental effects of pollution of controlled waters from an abandoned mine.

  (2) In any report under subsection (1) above the Agency shall make a recommendation as to whether subsections 59(1) and 59(2) should be brought into force.

  (3) The Agency shall publish any report produced under subsection (1) above.

  (4) Not more than three months after publication of a report under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall consider whether to exercise his power to specify a date under sections 59(1) and 59(2) above and shall publish his decision.'.

  Amendment No. 4, in clause 59, page 80, line 24, after `1999', insert
  `or such earlier date as may be specified by order of the Secretary of State'.
  Amendment No. 5, in clause 59, page 81, line 14, after `1999', insert
  `or such earlier date as may be specified by order of the Secretary of State'.
  Ms Ruddock: The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that the responsibilities of the Coal Authority in relation to polluting minewater are laid down in statute.
  Under the privatisation proposals, the Coal Authority acquired some restoration obligations and, arguably, over time we may see some of our beautiful landscapes and areas that have been ravaged by mining activities restored to their proper splendour. Yet no statutory mechanism is in place to deal with an often less obvious and more insidious legacy: polluting minewater emanating from closed mines.
  The Coalfield Communities Campaign has won the respect of many hon. Members on both sides of the House for its persistent and imaginative campaigns highlighting the disaster of polluting minewater in its communities. It leads an extremely impressive list of organisations that back the new clause. The scale of the problem is considerable. The serious pollution of 340 km of rivers and streams was reported in 1994 as a result of minewater escapes.
  Since nationalisation, almost 1,000 mines have been abandoned. The Coal Authority is the successor body to the National Coal Board and British Coal and, as such, owns all those abandoned mines. Ministers have sought to reassure the Coalfield Communities Campaign and many hon. Members. The noble Lord Strathclyde said that the Government expected the Coal Authority
  "to go beyond the minimum standards of environmental responsibility which are set out by its legal duties in these areas".— [Official Report, House of Lords, 26 April 1994; Vol. 554, c. 541.]
  That is a fine promise and it was quoted again in Committee.
  Mr. Atkins: I shall probably quote it again.
  Ms Ruddock: It will still be but an opinion. It is not the same as legislation and it has failed to satisfy all those to whom it was addressed.
  The new clause requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance. Such guidance could remove any ambiguity about the action which the Government expect of the Coal Authority and could define precisely how the Coal Authority is to go beyond the minimum standards of
  762
  environmental responsibility set out by its legal duties. No one knows what the noble Lord Strathclyde's comment means and we shall know no more if the Minister repeats it again tonight, and again and again.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: He will have to do better than that.
  Ms Ruddock: Indeed.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: As someone who represents the Taff and Merthyr valleys, which have suffered industrial vandalism with the closure of all our pits, but are seeing the revival of our rivers to good clean water where trout and other life can exist, may I tell my hon. Friend that the passion with which she presents this new clause is very much supported by those Labour Back Benchers who are not willing to accept just promises? I represent a community that has suffered enough from disasters in the mining industry, and we are no longer willing to accept mere assurances; we want legislative certainty.
  Ms Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. As someone who was born and bred in the south Wales valleys, I can pay testimony to everything that he said and to the passion which the people of those valleys and other abandoned coalfield communities feel about the issue.
  No one knows what the promises mean. Lest the Minister thinks that I exaggerate, let me give him proof, chapter and verse. Neville Washington, the chief executive of the Coal Authority, was reported in the Newcastle Evening Chronicle of 26 April as saying:
  "The Coal Authority is not responsible for water that emerges from pits".
  On 8 May, Albert Schofield, the director of contracts at the Coal Authority, was interviewed on the "Report Back" programme broadcast on BBC Radio Nottingham, when he said that the Bill was not clear in assigning responsibility for minewater pollution from abandoned coal mines to the Coal Authority. We concur; we have made that point again and again to the Minister in Committee—the Bill does not provide for that.
  Clarification is absolutely essential. Our new clause provides an opportunity for that. If the Minister is not minded to accept it, I can assure him that behind me, and probably in front of me as well, there are hon. Members who will press him with further questions, because many hon. Members represent mining communities. Those communities have seen pits abandoned and they now live with their legacy. Those local communities want to have a better environment, but they continue to feel great anxiety about the ever-present threat of pollution from minewater. Unless the Government act more decisively, among those communities the suspicion will remain that the Coal Authority cannot be relied upon to continue pumping the mines and to continue to take responsibility for minewater and the pollution that it causes.
  I made a much longer speech about this matter in Committee, but I promised to be brief tonight because I am sure that many hon. Members want to make their own speeches. The Minister had better produce some more satisfactory answers than he has done hitherto, or he will suffer a further barrage of questions. Nothing that he has said to date satisfies us or the coalfield communities, which are so oppressed by the problem of minewater pollution.
  Mr. Jopling: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the Opposition spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock).
  I have been aware of the problem of minewater for some time through various correspondence that I have received from various bodies. I can remember years ago, when many hon. Members now in the House were perhaps a twinkle in their mothers' eyes, that I was made aware of the problem when I stood for Parliament in Wakefield in 1959. I do not need to remind hon. Members that I was unsuccessful on that occasion.
  I have been particularly struck by the correspondence that I have received in the past few days from the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union—let me declare an interest in that I am a member of both—about the problem.
  I am a farmer, but I do not suffer from the problem of minewater on my farm, and, as far as I know, I do not have that problem anywhere in my constituency in the lake district. It is, however, a most important matter and it is vital that the Minister should give us the assurances for which the hon. Lady asked.
  I am struck particularly to be told by the Country Landowners Association that it hopes that the Minister will be pressed to give detailed assurances to the House on how the Bill and the guidance will ensure that the costs of remediation required of individuals, while not responsible for contamination, will be contained. I am told that that concern is shared not only by the CLA and the NFU but by the British Property Federation, the Association of British Insurers, Lloyd's of London—I again declare an interest, although I stopped underwriting some time ago—and the Scottish Landowners Federation. I am told that those bodies are keen that there should be a full and positive response from the Minister, which would help to allay the genuine concerns of those who fear that they may discover that their property is on contaminated land.
  I know from experience how sympathetic is the Minister to such problems. I wanted to intervene briefly in the debate to press upon him how important it is that we are able to allay those quite understandable fears.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I shall try to be brief. I am in favour of new clauses 8 and 9.
  Unlike the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), my constituency, which is an ex-mining one, with an abundance of closed mines, is badly affected by minewater and the consequences of it. The problem is as bad there as it is in any other constituency.
  The River Wear runs right through the middle of my city, which as many hon. Members will know, is one of the most beautiful cities in the country. With minewater draining directly into the River Wear, it could become heavily polluted. Those who are familiar with my constituency will know that the River Wear forms a horseshoe around the cathedral and the castle. The thought of a yellow and red scarf of pollution flowing around them is absolutely horrendous. It is one of the most famous beauty spots in the country and that pollution must not be allowed to happen. Only direct action by the Government will ensure that it does not.
  764
  I know that the Minister has a great interest in cricket and he might be interested to know that the River Wear also runs right by the new County Durham cricket ground at Chester-le-Street. That section of the river is also in danger of pollution. Can one imagine playing the West Indies in four years' time in a test match at Durham, with the River Wear running red right through Chester-le-Street? That is an appalling thought.
  According to the National Rivers Authority, about 200 km of rivers in England and Wales are affected, or could be affected by minewater pollution. The problem of minewater pollution poses a tremendous risk not only to the River Wear but to many farms in my constituency. Last Friday, I visited, at his request, the farm of Mr. Wade at New Brancepeth in my constituency. I saw at first hand the appalling problems his land suffers as a result of minewater. I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw the huge amounts of water flowing not just off his fields, but underneath them as well. There was literally an underground river flowing right through his land. That land was opencasted many years ago and he has had tremendous drainage problems ever since. He is constantly having to repair drains or add new ones but he cannot stop the water flooding into his fields—and that is with the pumps still going.
  He tells me that a few weeks ago—I saw the result—he had a contractor in to put more drains into his fields. A day later, after the contractor had left, the water reappeared 5 yd away from where the new drain had been put in. The fields were sown with corn. Acres of corn have been ruined, not only this year but every year since the land was reclaimed after opencasting.
  About 8,000 million gallons of water are pumped each year from the Durham coalfield, where there are no longer any working pits. To be honest, it seemed to me that the whole 8,000 million gallons of water were coming through Mr. Wade's field when I was looking at it. It was unbelievable. It does not matter what Mr. Wade does, the water continues to flow. For the, sake of people in the same position as Mr. Wade, the Government have got to take some action.
  To make matters worse for Mr. Wade, and for many of the farmers in my constituency who are in a similar position, they have been tenants of British Coal for many years. Shortly, they are going to have to make a decision about whether to buy their farms. They will be given 28 days to make their minds up and then they will have to make a decision. How can the men and women who have worked those farms for many years as tenants of British Coal suddenly make a decision about whether to buy the land when there are such horrendous problems? Should they take a chance or will they be given some guarantee by the Government tonight that they will at least have their problems considered and be helped?
  The new Coal Authority must be made legally responsible for protecting the environment from minewater and for protecting farmers such as Mr. Wade who have to decide whether they should buy their farms. The Coal Authority, which is supposed to be the coal industry regulator, does not have adequate legal responsibility for environmental protection. Under existing legislation, it is envisaged that it will seek where reasonably practical to enhance and to protect the environment. There needs to be a clear duty to protect farmland and water courses against flooding and against pollution from the water that emerges from abandoned mines.

  765
  If the new clauses were accepted, the Bill would ensure that the problems were solved. If they are not accepted, there will be the most appalling consequences because the Coal Authority clearly has no intention of taking responsibility for the situation. The Minister may look surprised, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) quoted Neville Washington, the chief executive of the Coal Authority. In an interview in the Newcastle Evening Chronicle on 26 April he said that the
  "Coal Authority is not responsible for water that emerges from pits".
  If that is not making a categoric statement, I do not know what is.
  The fact is that if the Government do not take responsibility tonight and do not provide us with legislation, the Coal Authority will not take that responsibility. The consequence for farmers and other people who have the pleasure of living in my constituency will be that they are going to be blighted for the rest of time. I plead with the Minister, for goodness sake, to take action to ensure that the Coal Authority takes legal responsibility.
  Sir Kenneth Carlisle: This issue requires clarity. Many of us have been deeply impressed by the passion and commitment of the Coalfield Communities Campaign. It has spoken with enormous sincerity for its communities and expressed the wish that they should live free from the threat of pollution. That is not easy because abandoned coal mines present us with one of our greatest pollution challenges.
  The problem has existed for many years. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling)—who was almost the Member for Wakefield—said, it was an issue way back in 1959. Since then—especially in the 1960s—hundreds of coal mines have been closed, adding to the potential problem. We all recognise that should mines be abandoned willy-nilly and pumping cease, the pollution threat would be extraordinary and unacceptable.
  We have to create a framework that recognises the problem and proposes a solution. I think that we all admit that in the long term, we have to find some mechanical, scientific way of resolving the matter but in the meantime we can take precautionary measures that will diminish the threat of pollution.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: In respect of the precautions that the hon. Gentleman was going on to, does he think that pumping should continue? Later on, if the Minister does not accept the new clause, will the hon. Gentleman join us in the Lobby?
  Sir Kenneth Carlisle: The hon. Member should listen to what I have to say. Clearly, each mine has to be treated according to its circumstances—he knows that. Each pollution problem must be tackled specifically according to the circumstances.
  The problem has existed for 30 years. There has been some action to prevent pollution, but the Coal Authority is now the body that has to carry that burden forward. What we want from the Coal Authority is a clear guarantee that action will be taken. If it is true that the chief executive of the Coal Authority, Neville Washington, said that the Coal Authority is not responsible for water that emerges from pits, it is unacceptable. It is quite clear that Albert Schofield, the director of contracts for the Coal Authority, is uncertain about what his responsibilities are.
  766
  I believe that we need from the Government a clear understanding of what is the responsibility of the Coal Authority and the certainty that it will conduct itself effectively. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, that argument is supported by the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union.
  In Committee, I gave the example of a horticultural nursery that had been severely affected when polluted minewater started to interfere with its irrigation. Many local farmers in those areas are anxious that their livestock should have unpolluted water. I do not necessarily agree—perhaps this will help the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell)—that legislation is always a panacea. I believe that instruction, guarantee and guidance can also be effective.
  I want to learn from my right hon. Friend the Minister that the Coal Authority's uncertainty will not be accepted, that there will be very clear instructions to the Coal Authority, which is the responsible body, and that there will be sufficient funds to enable it to reduce pollution to a minimum and to allow the continuance of research to find a long-term solution to the problem. The whole House and the coalfield communities require a clear statement and guarantee in the Bill that this major pollution threat—one of the greatest pollution threats that the country faces—is being tackled with the certainty and seriousness that is required.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Tipping: I, too, support and congratulate the Coalfield Communities Campaign. It now has 99 members, and I look forward to it gaining its centenary member fairly soon. I mention especially Barbara Edwards, the deputy director of the campaign, who has tirelessly followed through the demise of British Coal, which was a thankless task. She has brought real commitment to that task, as have a number of local authorities involved in the campaign.
  My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) mentioned the problems in his area where pollution from minewater is a pressing and immediate issue. It is not yet a live issue in Nottinghamshire because, thankfully, we still have a deep coal industry, so pumping will have to continue. However, we could face major pollution problems in 30 years. According to the National Rivers Authority and British Coal, the water discharge will appear not in the countryside but in the middle of Radford and Lenton which, as hon. Members who are familiar with the area will know, are inner-city areas. The consequences will be devastating, but there will be practical difficulties in taking remedial action.
  It is important that we have provisions on the statute book to deal with the problems 30 years hence. Ministers gave commitments during the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1994 and of this Bill—in another place and in this House—but, as we have seen from the events of the past few days, things can change, and change quickly. I should like some security for the people who live in the coalfield communities.
  There has been talk about the responsibilities of the Coal Authority. Again, assurances were given in another place during the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1994 and the passage of this Bill that the Coal Authority would pick up the mantle and meet all existing obligations.

  767
  I went to see Neville Washington, the chief executive of the Coal Authority, and Albert Schofield, the director of contracts, at the end of last month. My discussion with them was not free and frank. I have to say that the comments made by the chief executive, Mr. Washington, were very guarded. I was dismayed to hear subsequently that my visit to the Coal Authority's headquarters was described as a fishing trip. The authority believed that I was trying to find out what its responsibilities were. Of course I have a clear responsibility to the people and communities I represent to find out what the authority's responsibilities are.
  I should point out to the Minister that, during my discussion with him, Mr. Washington made it clear to me that commitments given by Ministers during the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1994 would not now be given by Ministers in similar circumstances—[Interruption.] I said, in similar circumstances. I am therefore concerned and want protection to be written into the Bill.
  I am concerned because we are talking about large sums of money. I suspect that the Coal Authority is worried about its budget. We need to remember that trying to clear up the problems at Wheal Jane has cost the NRA something like £7 million in grant aid. I suspect that there are 100 difficult sites where there is a possibility of minewater discharge.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: On that very point, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that the cost is £7 million so far. There is still no permanent solution, only a pilot project. The hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the amount involved.
  Mr. Tipping: That is a good point. The figure of £100 million has been quoted, although I think that the true figure will be far in excess of that. We should consider capital schemes rather than revenue schemes, but engineering solutions are preferable to capital schemes.
  New clause 8 places a duty on the Coal Authority to clear up the problem. New clause 9 approaches the problem from a slightly different angle. It provides for an annual report on, or review of, the problem. It is important that not only Members of Parliament but local authorities and the coalfield communities have a clear idea of what the problem is and what is being done to resolve it so that we can all keep track of what is happening.
  We should also consider carefully amendments Nos. 4 and 5. In Committee, I pressed the Minister about the responsibility of the new private owners. Will they, for example, keep up the pumping? Will Coal Investments at Annesley Bentinck in Nottinghamshire continue to pump at a cost of £1.4 million a year? Will R. J. Budge pick up the bill for continued pumping? I suspect that there is a question mark over that, which is why amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are important.
  Under the Bill, it will not be a criminal offence to cause minewater discharge until 31 December 1999. The new coal contracts come into operation in 1998, which will be a year of challenge for the coal industry and could well be a year of change. It could be a year in which further pits are closed. That is why it is important that we accept amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which give the Secretary of State the power to bring the date forward if necessary.
  768
  The people of the coalfield communities accept that much of the deep coal industry has been buried. The Government have tried to walk away. Those people now want a better future, a landscape that is lifted and an environment that is enhanced. New clauses 8 and 9 and amendments Nos. 4 and 5 give us the opportunity to make it clear where we stand.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I shall not speak for long, because I do not have a direct constituency interest in the coalfields and I know that a number of hon. Members here do. However, I have direct constituency experience of the Wheal Jane tin mine to which reference has been made. In that respect, I think that the Government are being foolish with the long-term finances of this country as well as with the environment.
  There is no question but that pollution from abandoned mines can have a dramatic environmental impact. We saw that with Wheal Jane, which hit the headlines, partly because it was colourful to see the pollution flowing out across the Fal estuary and partly because of its serious environmental impact on livelihoods. It also meant that some people had to get water to their homes by tanker, whereas they had relied on natural water supplies. In the long run, it has been notable for the enormous costs involved. Some £7 million has already been spent, but much more is needed to find a solution.
  When I visited the pilot project recently, it appeared that the reed bed solution might not succeed or be cost-effective, and that we might have to return to long-term chemical treatment of the effluent and long-term pumping to manage that process. That could extend to having to build up the mica dam, at considerable expense. It might ultimately mean a new dam area as the original area fills up. The costs are potentially huge.
  Had pumping continued from the word go, it would not have provided a solution, but it would have managed the situation, and would certainly have reduced the early costs and the pollution. In other words, it would have been cheaper for the Government. Cheapest of all would have been to allow the investment programme in the mine to go ahead, thereby keeping the jobs. That, however, is another story.
  I urge the Minister to consider whether it is not short-sighted and foolhardy to put back the date of action on the financial and environmental consequences that have been highlighted extremely well by the Coalfield Communities Campaign. It has done an extraordinarily good job in bringing the matter to the attention of Ministers and of the wider public and I hope that an effective solution will be found.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: I ask the Minister to accept the new clauses and amendments, for four reasons. First, the Government's responses in Committee—I suspect that they will be the same today, although we have yet to hear from the Minister—have failed to recognise the scale of the problem. Every day, 440,000 gallons of polluted water flow into the rivers and water courses in Yorkshire alone. It affects virtually every water course in south Yorkshire, and certainly most in my constituency.
  Secondly, the Coal Authority's responsibility is crucial. People in mining areas know that every pit is linked with every other pit. Minewater that gathers in one place may surface in another. At the end of the day, the Coal Authority has responsibility for dealing with that problem.

  769
  Thirdly, minewater pollution is not a new problem, but it is likely to accelerate very quickly because of the level of pit closures. The problem at Sheephouse Wood in my constituency originates from a pit closure in the latter part of the 19th century, but the polluted water is there now.
  I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be brief. Fourthly, it is not simply a matter of clarity; it is also a matter of resources. We must recognise that the emission of polluted water, which kills fish and every other living creature in the water courses, can be resolved by proper investment. The Government must decide now—not in 1999—how the Coal Authority and the new Environment Agency will have the resources to deal with that problem in our mining areas, which threatens the wildlife and the livelihood of the local people.
  I ask the Minister to take on board the views of the National Rivers Authority in the Northumbria and Yorkshire region about resources. It made it clear to me in a letter that the moneys it required to undertake pilot studies to treat the polluted water
  "have not been specifically allocated by DoE and consequently have to be squeezed out of normal operating costs. We would prefer to see a specific allocation of funds on top of our normal budget to take account of the minewater problems."
  I invite the Minister to confirm today that next year the Department of the Environment will make a specific budget allocation to the Environment Agency for minewater pollution. I invite him to make that commitment, as it will go some way toward alleviating the fears of many hon. Members who are in the Chamber tonight.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: I rise to speak in favour of new clauses 8 and 9 and amendments Nos. 4 and 5. New clause 8 is particularly important, because it identifies the responsible authority and puts a duty on that authority. That is extremely important, because, as the Minister is aware, we were given certain assurances about the Coal Authority's responsibilities when the Coal Industry Bill passed through Parliament. Many of those assurances have not materialised.
  My constituency is a former mining region with a history of two to three centuries of mining. Many old mine shafts have been kept dry by the pumping operations conducted by British Coal when it operated collieries in my constituency. Since the end of the pumping operations at Dodworth, Woolley and Barrow collieries, for example, my constituency has experienced considerable problems.
  8.45 pm
  Four rivers—the Dearn, the Don, the Little Don and the Dove—run through my constituency, and all of them, especially the three primary rivers, are badly polluted with minewater. Minewater pollution in my constituency has been around for many years, but not in the same volume as we have experienced in recent years. When pumping stopped at Dodworth in 1989, all the mine shafts along the Silkstone valley began to fill up and to weep.
  The beck that meanders from Silkstone to Barugh to join the Dearn is now so polluted that nurseries along the river—particularly the nursery at Silkstone—can no longer use the water for irrigation. Farmers along the beck have fenced off the banks, so that their cattle cannot drink the polluted water.
  770
  At Worsborough, the reservoir—which is used for leisure pursuits and is particularly popular with anglers—is almost impossible to use in the summer time. Last year, the water authority was forced to fit aeration equipment in order to put oxygen into the water and keep the fish alive. Problems on the west side of my constituency relate to older mines. We must learn from the experience of what has happened with those older mines and include provisions in the Bill to deal with the problems.
  In 1964, Bull House colliery on the west side of my constituency closed. Following its closure, the ochre water from that mine polluted the River Don, which is now an orange colour for six miles down the river from the point of entry of the Bull House water, past Penistone and towards Barnsley. Sheephouse mine, an old mine in the west of my constituency, closed in 1898, but we still have an enormous problem with minewater. Water drains from Sheephouse and flows under the road at Stocksbridge and into the Little Don. The drainage system has operated for almost 100 years, and each day it must be swept in order to stop the ochre deposits from collecting and causing the road to flood.
  Minewater is clearly an enormous problem, which requires legislative action. The assurances that we were given during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill have not materialised. Having said that, I pay tribute to the Coal Authority so far as its endeavours at Woolley are concerned. Woolley colliery is at the core of a project joining eight or nine other collieries.
  The tremendous build-up of water pressure at Woolley colliery has resulted in a break-out of water that has severely polluted the Dearn. The National Rivers Authority helped to put pressure on the Coal Authority, which has now decided that it will spend £360,000 to develop a reed bed filtration process on the banks of the Dearn.
  In my constituency, there are at least another six places where water courses are badly polluted. We require moneys to be spent by the responsible authority to clean up those waterways. It is essential, therefore, that the new clause is accepted.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: My hon. Friend mentioned Worsborough reservoir, which is in his constituency. It would be appropriate for him to give another dimension to the debate by saying that the Worsborough reservoir is fished by the Barnsley angling team, which makes up the bulk of the country's international angling team. The team is represented abroad, it fishes throughout Europe, and the majority of its members, including its captain, are based in Barnsley.
  The team fishes in the Worsborough reservoir and invites international competitors to that reservoir. Unfortunately, as a result of the problem of minewater pollution, that reservoir was no longer usable, until the installation of the aeration equipment referred to by my hon. Friend. Perhaps he will add that dimension to the debate.
  Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for prompting my memory. The position at Worsborough is the reverse of the position that we normally meet. The problem has been caused as a result of pumping being stopped and the reservoir not having the added volume of water. That has helped to create circumstances in which, in hot weather, algae develops in the reservoir and the fish cannot breathe. Consequently, aeration equipment is needed.

  771
  The Minister must he aware that the country has enjoyed the great wealth that was extracted from the ground, and it is unfair that mining communities and former mining communities are to be left to pick up the tab. If the Minister would assure us that he is prepared to accept those new clauses, especially new clause 8, it would give a great deal of satisfaction to the Opposition and to many Conservative Members.
  Mr. George Stevenson: I shall make three brief arguments in support of the new clauses.
  First, I too represent a region that has had a mine tradition for many years and has suffered from industrial pollution and damage as a result of mining activity. Were it not for clear legislation, a district such as the Potteries would not have the clean air that it has today. The position regarding minewater is similar.
  My constituents, who have witnessed their collieries closing, especially in the past few years, leaving a small fraction of the mines that used to exist, are extremely worried that the transition from British Coal to the Coal Authority leaves them vulnerable to further pollution as a result of the inability or refusal of the Coal Authority to tackle the potential pollution and damage from water from abandoned mines.
  My first argument to the Minister is that I know that it is difficult to strike a balance between the Coal Authority and people but, in my opinion, we have got that balance wrong. It is far too much in favour of the authorities. It was far too much in favour of British Coal, and continues to be far too much in favour of the Coal Authority.
  Secondly, it simply is not good enough for the Minister, in resisting those new clauses, to give us assurances about the Coal Authority giving undertakings about its attitude to that important issue. We have only to consider the record—there is a good example in my constituency—of what happens when there are gaps or ambiguity in the legislation that places responsibility on the Coal Authority/British Coal.
  We have many abandoned mine shafts in my constituency. Some are very small. They go back a long time, but they are the responsibility of the Coal Authority. As the present legislation refers to the Coal Authority having responsibility only if those abandoned mines cause damage, when the Coal Authority has been challenged it has walked away. It has said that, as no apparent damage is being caused to land and property, it has no responsibility. However, I can tell the Minister that hundreds of homes in my constituency are blighted as a result of the discovery of those mine shafts.
  Although pollution of rivers and streams from abandoned mines, which affects people's property, may not damage that property physically, it will blight that property, that district and that land. If the Minister suggests that the present legislation be carried forward and those responsibilities placed on the Coal Authority, unless actual physical damage is done to land and property, the Coal Authority will deny responsibility and fight every case tooth and nail, as it is fighting that other issue in my constituency. We do not have to wait for the film: we can read the book. The evidence is there for the Minister to see.
  772
  My last argument is as follows. The experience in my constituency, and the constituencies of hon. Friends throughout the country, shows that we must not allow ambiguity to determine our decisions. We must not allow gaps to continue in the legislation. We must seek to place a clear responsibility on the Coal Authority for that extremely important issue. That is why new clause 8 is especially important. I can guarantee the Minister that, unless there is a clear responsibility, the Coal Authority will fight tooth and nail to avoid any responsibility unless it is placed on the statute book.
  Mr. Atkins: I have been impressed by the quality of the debate. I know, as does any Member of the House, when people speak for effect and when they speak from the heart. I understand that hon. Members with mining constituencies feel strongly about that issue. I assure them that I and other Ministers and Conservative Members—as expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle)—feel just as strongly, and have the same worries.
  I have also been impressed on several occasions by the Coalfield Communities Campaign. The Opposition Chief Whip, the name of whose constituency temporarily escapes me—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Bishop Auckland."] Bishop Auckland, of course. I should know, I have been there. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) has several times made representations to me, by way of inveigling me into accompanying him to Durham county cricket club, which he and I together, in another capacity, sought to get into the county cricket championship. Therefore, I understand and appreciate the anxieties especially of Durham, but also of other places, such as Nottingham.
  There is a clear agenda behind the new clause, so I must address it at the outset. As to coal mines, it is proposed that the public purse, in the shape of the Coal Authority, should be under a duty to prevent minewater causing pollution. I cannot forbear from mentioning the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) demanding—albeit not from the Opposition Front Bench—the commitment that more money be spent. Is that another commitment on top of all those already made by Labour, and has it been cleared?
  Mrs. Helen Jackson rose—
  9 pm
  Mr. Atkins: I will not give way, because I want to proceed, but that point should be considered in the context of this debate.
  It will not come as a surprise that the Government do not accept the potentially sweeping proposition that they should be under a duty to prevent minewater causing pollution. I recognise that that would have great attractions for parties actually or potentially affected by an abandoned coal mine, but we do not believe that it would be a responsible use of public funds.
  Ms Ruddock: I appreciate that the Minister is trying to make progress, but this is an important point. He suggested that he is concerned about the public purse. What other purses are available to the Government to deal with the problem of abandoned mines, where pumping is required?
  Mr. Atkins: Later, I will be reiterating commitments already made. The Coal Authority has the necessary

  773
  resources to meet what is required. I was merely posing a question to the hon. Member for Hillsborough, who was demanding more money on top of other demands for money.
  Mrs. Jackson rose—
  Mr. Atkins: I will not give way. Let us try to make progress with the facts; then the hon. Lady can respond. I am conscious of time, and I understand that Opposition Members are keen to hear my response to their genuine concerns.
  New clause 8 would place an absolute duty on the Coal Authority to prevent water from abandoned coal mines polluting controlled waters or causing significant harm, irrespective of how long ago they were abandoned. That duty would be more onerous than the regulation applied to all other types of discharge.
  Such an absolute duty would also be impossible to meet in practice. The Coal Authority would be under a duty to prevent all pollution from all minewaters discharging from all abandoned coal mines, irrespective of the seriousness of the water pollution. Such a duty would also apply in respect of coal mines that were abandoned before nationalisation. There would be no practical way for the Coal Authority to comply for all such mines at the same time, as is required in the amendment.
  As to new clause 9 and amendments Nos. 4 and 5, the provisions of clause 59 have been carefully considered—in particular, the effective date for the removal of the existing, long-standing defence and exemption that apply to polluting discharges from abandoned mines that a person permits to enter controlled waters. The Government have repeatedly argued that the removal of those protections is necessary, but must be carefully handled to avoid potentially serious consequences.
  Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, together with new clause 9, would simply allow the Secretary of State, on the advice of the agency, to specify any earlier date for the removal of the defence and the exemption. As the amendments are worded, there is no limit to how far back the change could reach—in theory, we could imagine mines abandoned 30 or even 100 years ago suddenly coming under the agency's regulation.
  Mr. William O'Brien: I want to impress on the Minister the significance of old mine workings. In my constituency, because an old mine shaft was on charter, 13 miners lost their lives in the Lofthouse disaster. Does the Minister accept that auditing old mines and old mine workings under the Bill is important to avoid such a disaster occurring again?
  Mr. Atkins: Of course I understand the importance of such an incident. I made it clear in Committee, and I do so again, that any such incident must be investigated, and that the conclusions drawn from such an accident must influence future policy. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman in that regard.
  We all accept that minewater pollution is a long-standing and difficult problem. In this Bill, the Government have for the first time proposed a considered approach that will allow the agency to address the issue. It is simply not practicable to solve the problem at a stroke, as hon. Members imply.
  The Government of course recognised the real and acute concerns about the continuation of British Coal pollution containment measures. I do not want to delay
  774
  the House, but my noble Friend Lord Ullswater made a specific commitment in the other place, which has been met to date and will continue to be met in relation to British Coal, that is worth putting on record.
  The Government made it clear during the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1994 that we would not expect the Coal Authority, when it assumed its responsibilities, to limit itself to the minimum standards of environmental responsibility that were set by its legal duties in respect of water pollution. We would expect the authority to seek the best environmental result that could be secured from the use of the resources available to it for those purposes. When the authority was in due course established, it accepted that task.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) referred to Neville Washington, so I refer to a statement issued by Durham county council in the name of Councillor Len James, chairman of its environment committee.
  Ms Ruddock indicated dissent.
  Mr. Atkins: I am sorry, but the statement is also dated 20 April. It states:
  "Sir David White, chairman of the …Coal Authority"—
  in the company of Mr. Neville Washington—
  "told members of Durham County Council that pumping would continue until an environmentally acceptable alternative is found."
  As a result of the meeting, Councillor James said:
  "We were pleased to hear that the Coal Authority has made provision to ensure that adequate pumping cover is maintained and is drawing up a costed programme of action in priority areas. In all, it was a very productive meeting which has reassured us that some of the pressing issues which the County Council has long been campaigning to be resolved will be treated seriously and in a spirit of co-operation."
  It is specific. Councillor James has said—
  Ms Ruddock: The Minister does not help the House by quoting a press release yet again. He quoted it in Committee, and I had to tell him-L—I tell him again—that it was a proper courtesy for Durham county council to issue such a statement. It was a useful meeting, and the council was satisfied on some counts.
  I can assure the Minister, as I have done in the past, that I have received a letter from Durham county council in which it raises many of the questions that he is now failing to answer. The council may have had some confidence, but there is clearly a great deal of confusion now. We have quoted to the Minister remarks from the chief executive of the Coal Authority to the effect that it, the authority, does not have responsibility.
  Why should the county council feel thoroughly satisfied? That is not its feeling today, and I fear that it will not be in future. The Minister is failing to tell the House how, in the light of the Bill, the Coal Authority will have responsibility in future.
  Mr. Atkins: I understand that the hon. Lady feels strongly about these matters. A perfectly legitimate response by a courteous county council seems to conflict with what she is saying. I assure her that I shall check with the Coal Authority to ascertain what the chief executive has said. As I have said, I have sought to do so. As I have also said, the dates appear to be the same, and there appears to be a conflict of information. That is something that I cannot resolve now. I shall return to the issue in due course.
  Mr. Steinberg: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Atkins: I am conscious of the time and—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am being told to get on with it, but I am trying to respond to an important debate in which some hon. Members have spoken at length. I resent suggestions that I should get on with it when I am trying to answer questions.
  Mr. Steinberg: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Atkins: No, I will not.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) asked me specific questions, and I must give him the assurances that he seeks. Liability is changing only under the abandoned mines provisions for the owners and operators of mines abandoned after the end of 1999. They are liable for mines abandoned before then only if they cause pollution. Farmers and other landowners in the area with no connection with the operation of the mine cannot be liable for causing pollution. I hope that that reassures my right hon. Friend.
  I am conscious that Members wish to move on and make progress. I have tried to spell out the situation, but I have not been able to do so as well as I would wish, because of lack of time. I want to emphasise that we, the Government, care just as deeply about these issues as do the Opposition. We have stated in another place—we have been supported by the money that has already been spent—our commitment to future pumping, and continuing it for as long as is necessary.
  I repeat that it is unnecessary to add the new clause to the Bill. I ask the House to reject it.
  Ms Ruddock: I shall not detain the House. I expect that the Minister will be writing to me to clarify the statement of the chief executive of the Coal Authority, when he said, in effect, that the authority would not be responsible for water that emerged from pits.
  Mr. Steinberg: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Ms Ruddock: Yes, indeed.
  Mr. Steinberg: To take up the point on which the Minister would not give way, he said that Councillor Lennie James, whom I know personally as an honourable man, made a press statement on 20 April. He apparently left the meeting on the understanding that the Coal Authority would take responsibility. On 26 April, Neville Washington issued his response to the Newcastle Evening Chronicle, in which he said that the Coal Authority was not responsible for water emerging from pits. It seems that Councillor Lennie James may have been misled by what was said at the meeting. It is disgraceful that the Minister should seek to draw comparisons.
  Ms Ruddock: My hon. Friend has provided the House with extremely useful information, which will be read by many hon. Members. I am sure that the Minister will need to take account of my hon. Friend's intervention when he writes on the subject.
  There can be no doubt that the Minister has yet again failed to give any satisfaction to those who took part in the Coalfield Communities Campaign for a better deal for the protection of their environment, and for assurances for the future that responsibility will be taken for this terrible legacy. I have no doubt that the House needs to divide on this issue.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 268.

  Division No. 179]

  [9.10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Flynn, Paul

  Ainger, Nick

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Allen, Graham

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Foulkes, George

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fraser, John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Fyfe, Maria

  Barnes, Harry

  Galbraith, Sam

  Barron, Kevin

  Galloway, George

  Battle, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Bayley, Hugh

  Garrett, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Gerrard, Neil

  Beggs, Roy

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bell, Stuart

  Godsiff, Roger

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Gordon, Mildred

  Benton, Joe

  Graham, Thomas

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Berry, Roger

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Betts, Clive

  Grocott, Bruce

  Boateng, Paul

  Gunnell, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Hain, Peter

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hanson, David

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

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

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Burden, Richard

  Henderson, Doug

  Caborn, Richard

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hood, Jimmy

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Chidgey, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Church, Judith

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands WVIO

  Hutton, John

  Clelland, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ingram, Adam

  Coffey, Ann

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jamieson, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cousins, Jim

  Keen, Alan

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

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

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dafis, Cynog

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davidson, Ian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Denham, John

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dewar, Donald

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dixon, Don

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dowd, Jim

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McAllion, John

  Eastham, Ken

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Etherington, Bill

  Macdonald, Calum

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McFall, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  777

  McLeish, Henry

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McMaster, Gordon

  Rooker, Jeff

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rooney, Terry

  MacShane, Denis

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Maddock, Diana

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Mahon, Alice

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marek, Dr John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Salmond, Alex

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Martlew, Eric

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meacher, Michael

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Short, Clare

  Michael, Alun

  Simpson, Alan

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Milburn, Alan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Miller, Andrew

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

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mctyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Snape, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morley, Elliot

  Spellar, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mudie, George

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mullin, Chris

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Paul

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Straw, Jack

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Timms, Stephen

  Olner, Bill

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Touhig, Don

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Turner, Dennis

  Parry, Robert

  Tyler, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Wallace, James

  Pendry, Tom

  Walley, Joan

  Pickthall, Colin

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Pike, Peter L

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pope, Greg

  Watson, Mike

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wilson, Brian

  Purchase, Ken

  Winnick, David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wise, Audrey

  Radice, Giles

  Worthington, Tony

  Randall, Stuart

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Raynsford, Nick

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Reid, Dr John

  Rendel, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Mr. Stephen Byers and

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Ms Estelle Morris.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Booth, Hartley

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Boswell, Tim

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Ancram, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowis, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grove)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Ashby, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Baldry, Tony

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Bates, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Batiste, Spencer

  Burt, Alistair

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butcher, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Butler, Peter

  778

  Butterfill, John

  Hendry, Charles

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Horam, John

  Cash, William

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

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

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow, W)

  Clappison, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Jack, Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Congdon, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Conway, Derek

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Couchman, James

  Key, Robert

  Cran, James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Knapman, Roger

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

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

  Devlin, Tim

  Knox, Sir David

  Dicks, Terry

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Dover, Den

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Duncan, Alan

  Legg, Barry

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Leigh, Edward

  Dunn, Bob

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Lidington, David

  Elletson, Harold

  Lightbown, David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lord, Michael

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Luff, Peter

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Faber, David

  MacKay, Andrew

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Forman, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Forth, Eric

  Madel, Sir David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Marland, Paul

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Marlow, Tony

  French, Douglas

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gale, Roger

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gallie, Phil

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Merchant, Piers

  Garnier, Edward

  Mills, Iain

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodlad.Rt Hon Alastair

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hague, William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Norris, Steve

  Hannam, Sir John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Harris, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Page, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Patrick, Sir Irvine

  Hawksley, Warren

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Heald, Oliver

  Pawsey, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  779

  Pickles, Eric

  Sweeney, Walter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Sykes, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Richards, Rod

  Thomason, Roy

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Tracey, Richard

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Trend, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Trotter, Neville

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sackville, Tom

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Walden, George

  Scott Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waller, Gary

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Ward, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Watts, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wells, Bowen

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Whitney, Ray

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Whittingdale, John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wilkinson, John

  Spring, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wood, Timothy

  Steen, Anthony

  Yeo, Tim

  Stephen, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stern, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. David Willetts and

  Sumberg, David

  Dr. Liam Fox.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 10

  COUNCIL DIRECTIVE ON THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA
  '. It shall be the duty of the Agency in the exercise of any of its functions to secure compliance with the requirements of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.'.—[Mr. Morley.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 12—Restoration orders for areas of specific scientific interest (No. 2)—
  '.—In section 31 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for subsection (1) substitute—
  "(1) Where—

  (a) the operation in respect of which an owner or occupier of land is convicted of a second offence within five years under section 28;

  (b) the operation in respect of which a person is convicted of a second offence under section 29; or

  (c) the behaviour in respect of which a person is convicted of a second offence under any byelaw made under section 20 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (as it applies by virtue of any enactment)

  780
  has destroyed or damaged any of the geological or physiographical features by reason of which the land on which it was carried out was of special interest, the court by which he is convicted, in addition to dealing with him in any other way, may make an order requiring him to carry out, within such period as may be specified in the order, such operations for the purpose of restoring the land to its former condition as may be so specified.".'.
  Mr. Morley: New clause 10 deals with the functions of the new agency in complying with the European Union habitats directive and would write the duty to comply into the Bill.
  In Committee, the Minister acknowledged that the Government accept their responsibilities and duties under international treaties and obligations such as the European habitats directive. The new clause would consolidate all the general duties that the various components of the new agency currently have under the Conservation (Natural Habitat etc.) Regulations 1994.
  At present, the agency will have some functions operating under different general duties, according to whether they apply to land or tidal waters. Compliance with the requirements of the habitats directive will apply consistent standards of nature conservation above and below the high tide mark, applying both to special protection areas and to special areas of conservation. In that sense, the new clause will help the new agency to meet its duties.
  New clause 12 deals with the protection and restoration of sites of special scientific interest and areas of special scientific interest. SSSIs were introduced under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Sadly, however, the operation of the Act has been flawed in certain areas and there have been difficulties in protecting SSSIs. The report by Wildlife and Countryside Link, "SSSIs—A Health Check", showed that 200 to 300 SSSIs were destroyed or damaged every year. Here I should declare an interest as a vice-president of Wildlife and Countryside Link. A more recent report, the 1994 National Audit Office report "Protecting and Managing Sites of Special Scientific Interest", showed that more than 800 SSSIs had been damaged since 1987.
  In this respect, the low fines available to magistrates are a problem in deterring people from damage. The National Audit Office noted that despite more than 800 sites being reported as damaged, only nine prosecutions under section 28 of the 1981 Act had been brought. In many ways, I have a great deal of sympathy with the difficulties of the various countryside agencies in implementing section 28 of the 1981 Act. It can be expensive to bring to court someone who has damaged a site of special scientific interest. It must be galling for the agencies to incur that expense and then to see the people concerned getting off with low and derisory fines.
  Most damage done to SSSIs is linked to planning applications and to perceived planning gain. The restoration of those sites, for which new clause 12 calls, is fair and a much more effective deterrent. Some owners of sites have deliberately damaged them because they think that it is in their interests to do so; there have been many such cases. I can recall cases of landowners spraying important meadows with herbicides to kill the plants of particular interest in them, hoping that it would make it easier to get planning permission for the site.
  Ensuring that such people had to reinstate sites of special scientific interest would make them think twice about damaging them. Such a requirement would be more

  781
  effective than the present level of fines. New clause 12 has widespread support from all conservation bodies and, indeed, from English Nature which would welcome this more effective power. I very much hope that the Minister will support the new clauses because they will give the agency a strength that it currently lacks.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We believe that the new clause is unnecessary because regulation 3(4) of the Conservation (Natural Habitat etc.) Regulations already places obligations on the proposed agency and on other similar public bodies to have regard to the requirements of the EC habitats directive in the exercise of any of their functions. Hon. Members had the opportunity to debate the regulations in July last year. In addition, any specific duties placed on the National Rivers Authority by the habitat regulations will automatically become duties of the Environment Agency as a result of the transitional provisions in paragraph 218 of schedule 22.
  As the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) would expect, I have considerable sympathy with the intentions behind new clause 12. As my letter to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, we have put some flesh on the bones of that sympathy. New clause 12, however, would restrict the existing powers of the courts under section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. As the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will agree, that is not acceptable. New clause 12 would enable the court to make a restoration order only when a person had been convicted of a second offence under section 29. At present, a restoration order is possible in relation to a first offence.
  Under new clause 12, restoration orders would be available only where the geological or physiographical features of the land were destroyed or damaged, with no equivalent provision for the flora and fauna. I hope that with that understanding and in view of the intentions that I have already set out in my letter to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will feel that he can seek leave to withdraw the new clause.
  Mr. Morley: I welcome the fact that the Minister recognises the importance of the subject and sympathises with our intention. It is a little strange that the Government are prepared to include on the face of the Bill subjects which could have been included in guidance, such as costs and benefits, but not such matters as the protection of SSSIs.
  However, as the Minister has given certain assurances and recognises the thrust of our arguments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 13

  FOOTPATHS IN NATIONAL PARKS
  '.—(1) Each National Park shall include in their annual report for each year after 1995 a list of all footpaths and bridleways which—

  (i) are obstructed within their area, and

  (ii) are not correctly sign-posted.

  (2) The annual report shall also contain details of footpaths of which the legal status is currently under dispute, and of the progress of any discussions being held with the relevant highway authority in attempts to settle any such disputes.'.—[Mr. Bennett.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I should make it clear to the House that I am a member of the Ramblers Association, and I suspect that the association would support the views that I am expressing on this occasion. We ought to recognise that footpaths and rights of way are a historic record. In many parts of the country, they are the best way to identify how people used to live, and how they moved about the countryside and carried out their activities.
  Footpaths are also an important part of many people's daily lives. Footpaths are often used by individuals going to work, the shops, church or chapel, or to visit friends. It is important to remember that rights of way and footpaths are an important part of everyday life. They are also important for people who go to the countryside for recreation. Sadly, footpaths are often neglected and, in some cases, obstructed, and obstructions are sometimes caused not by neglect but by deliberate action.
  The law requires that the landowner should keep all footpaths clear of obstructions and that the local authority should sign the footpath where it leaves the metal road. I welcome the fact that the Countryside Commission set targets for ensuring that those two requirements were achieved. The targets were the end of this year for all footpaths within national parks and the year 2000 for the rest of the network of footpaths. I am delighted that the Government have endorsed those targets, and in many cases they will be met.
  The new clause deals particularly with what happens in national parks. Seven of the national parks have agreed with the highway authority—the local authority in the area—that the park should be the agent for the right of way and footpath network. In other parks, however, the highway authority continues to carry out that activity. We argued in Committee that it would be more sensible for the responsibility in the national parks to be handed over to the national parks themselves. Sadly, the Government resisted, and the new clause is an attempt to get back to the issue.
  I hope to hear the Minister say that he believes that it would be to the benefit of the national parks and those who use footpaths if the agency agreement were to be worked out in all national parks—particularly in view of the extra powers that they will have—so that all rights of way will be clear of obstructions and will be properly signed by the end of this year.
  The last part of the new clause deals with a rather difficult matter. There are one or two rights of way whose legal status is still somewhat blurred, and the authority in the national park will have a duty to get those legal issues sorted out as quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister can confirm the Countryside Commission's target and that the Government are keen to see that target achieved throughout the country, but particularly within national parks. I hope that the Minister will also agree that it would be sensible for national parks to take over the right of way provision.
  Mr. Atkins: While I understand the intention underlying new clause 13, it is not one with which we can agree. We have endorsed the target set by the Countryside Commission in 1987, in that all rights of way should be

  783
  legally defined, properly maintained and well publicised, by 1995 in the national parks and by 2000 in the wider countryside.
  The response to that target has been extremely positive. Much has been achieved by the national park boards and committees working in co-operation with the relevant highway authorities. In this year's functional strategies, the English parks have reported that 90 per cent. of the network in the parks is already in an acceptable condition. Work on defining the network has been less satisfactory; nevertheless, progress has been and will continue to be made. I am sure that the remarks of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) will provoke the parks even further.
  We accept the importance of reporting on all aspects of the stewardship of the parks in the national park authorities' annual reports. I see no reason, however, for departing from the general principle that the precise contents of local authority reports are not a matter for primary legislation. We already made it clear in the draft circular published in January that we expect the new authorities to include in their reports information on their stewardship of the parks, with particular reference to matters of interest to their constituent local authorities. As well as information on more general issues of importance to those local authorities, we would expect the reports to include information on their co-operation in giving effect to the duty to foster the economic and social well-being of their local communities, and on their partnerships on rights of way.
  In view of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman may feel constrained to seek leave to withdraw the new clause.
  Mr. Bennett: I am rather disappointed that the Minister did not give a little more encouragement to those national parks and local authorities which have not entered into agreements to carry out the footpath provision to get on and do so. As we want to spend time debating rather than going through the Lobby, and in view of some of the Minister's message, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 14

  EXTENSION OF NATIONAL PARKS TO SCOTLAND (No. 1)
  '. The Secretary of State for Scotland shall, within one year of this Act coming into force, make provision for the extension to Scotland of Parts I, II, V and VI of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.'.[Mrs. Fyfe.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Mrs. Fyfe.]
  Mr. John McFall: I shall be brief because the Minister is aware of the concern of the Opposition and the public in Scotland about national parks. My colleague the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned national parks, but, sadly, we do not have any in Scotland, despite the fact that a number of Secretaries of State for the Environment have referred to those in England and Wales as the jewel in the crown.
  784
  When we are in government, we shall establish a national park in Scotland. That is in the Labour party's manifesto, and we shall commence with Loch Lomond. We shall do so not merely because that is our view, but because we have consulted widely with the public in Scotland, who want national park status for the Loch Lomond area as a first step.
  We have been trying for national park status since 1946, when the Government set up an inquiry to consider national parks in Scotland. Here we are 50 years later and nothing else has happened. The Government asked their body, the Countryside Commission for Scotland, to consider the mountain areas of Scotland and it reported in the late 1980s with the unambiguous view that national parks should be initiated in Scotland. The Government rejected that view.
  Since then, the Government have prevaricated to the extent that they set up the Hutchison committee to consider Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. Hutchison did not have the remit to ask for national parks but, within his tight remit, it was obvious that he was looking for a more global solution to the problem of the management of that area.
  The Government's response to the Hutchison committee report was disappointing. The day after publication, the headline in The Herald read, "Trumpet of disbelief for the voluntary solution". The voluntary aspect is at the core of the issue. Very little is happening as a result of the Government's stricture that everything is voluntary.
  Conservationists and environmentalists are telling us that there has been a deterioration in the Loch Lomond area and that we must have an adequate mechanism for managing it not in five or 10 years' time, but now.
  The Countryside Commission's report, "The Mountain Areas of Scotland", stated that it would take £2 million for the Loch Lomond area to be granted national park status. I do not think that that is a big sum. I say that confidently, because when the Minister went to the launch of the Hutchison committee report in Drymen, the words came out of his mouth, "This could be £1 million," and apparently he did not think that that amounted to much financially. If £1 million is not very much, £2 million for the proper management and planning structure for Loch Lomond is not very much either.
  I have already mentioned the voluntary principle. The Minister knows that we have been trying for years to have byelaws introduced in the Loch Lomond area. The idea has been taken up by the Loch Lomond park authority, and the byelaws have been suggested for three reasons, the first of which is that they would enhance public safety. The Minister knows that two years ago there was a fatal accident on Loch Lomond, and that the need to enhance public safety is paramount.
  The second reason for the byelaws would be to reduce disturbance to especially valuable and vulnerable wildlife interests—the Minister knows our obligations under European Community directives in that respect. The third reason would be to reduce disturbance to local residents, especially those living permanently in the area. My postbag contains regular communications from people on the loch complaining to me about the disturbances. The quality of life in that area is most important, yet it is degenerating because of the Government's intransigence and inaction.

  785
  The byelaw proposals have had the strong support of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs working party under Sir Peter Hutchison, of the sheriff principal of North Strathclyde, Sheriff Hay, when he examined the report of the fatal accident inquiry in 1994, and of the procurator fiscal service.
  Despite that, the Loch Lomond park authority now finds that objections have been made and a delay requested by the Scottish Sports Council. I shall not go into detail about the altercation between the Scottish Sports Council and the Loch Lomond park authority, save to say that the byelaws have been under consideration for years, yet there are now further delays because of the objections that have been raised.
  Will the Minister ask the Scottish Sports Council whether the objections are genuine? If they are, can the Sports Council get together with the park authority so that the byelaws can be introduced as quickly as possible, for the sake of public safety, if for no other reason?
  Following confirmation in March 1995 of Scottish Office and Scottish Natural Heritage agency funding of £345,000 over three years, the Loch Lomond park authority has recruited a small team of loch rangers, the patrol boat is due this week and the power boat registration scheme is ready to go. The authority will be able to print the byelaws and the accompanying advisory material as soon as notice of confirmation is received. But the Scottish Sports Council has caused a delay. In the interest of public safety, will the Minister contact that body and ensure that there is no further delay?
  The delay has been caused by prevarication, and is due to the fundamental voluntary principle that the Government insist on preserving in relation to Loch Lomond. That is getting us nowhere fast.
  For the Opposition, this is a long-standing issue, and the plan has massive public support. In September I shall call another meeting to consider progress on Loch Lomond. I shall write to the Minister and ask him to address that meeting and to consider in a positive and constructive way the planning for a way forward for the loch. If he cannot do that, can the Scottish Natural Heritage agency send a representative in connection with an environmental audit and financial planning for Loch Lomond? The situation is extremely urgent, and a management plan is needed.
  Sadly, we do not have that today, but the new clause would meet the need completely. If there is to be a negative response from the Government now, please may we have a constructive approach to a management set-up for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs area? By agreeing to the request in the new clause for a national park, we would indeed be looking after the jewels in Scotland's environmental crown.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Galbraith: We debated these matters extensively in Committee, and the Bill greatly strengthens the powers and functions of national parks in England and Wales, which has been welcomed on both sides of the House. The Government have been complimented on the changes that they have made.
  None the less, Scotland still has no national parks. Although two committees set up to look into that matter produced two reports—the Balfour report for England
  786
  and Wales and the Ramsay report for Scotland in 1945—the recommendations of the report for England and Wales were implemented, but those for Scotland were not, partly because there was less pressure from Scotland, where the areas concerned are much more vast. In 1952, the Scottish Health Department, which was responsible for that matter, introduced plans for national parks but, again, they fell by the wayside.
  In 1970, the Scottish Select Committee asked that plans be brought forward for national parks but those, too, fell by the wayside. In 1988, however, the Scottish Office Minister, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), asked the Countryside Commission to introduce plans to manage Scotland's mountainous areas. That resulted in the Countryside Commission's 1990 report on Scottish mountain areas, which proposed national parks for the Cairngorms, Loch Lomond, Ben Nevis, Glencoe, the Black Mount and probably Wester Ross. It said nothing about Knoydart, probably because nobody knows where it is. As we do not want people to know where it is, we do not want it to be made into a national park. Perhaps Skye should have been included. Wester Ross probably does not need a national park at this stage, but other areas clearly do and the most pressing of those are Loch Lomond and the Cairngorms, which the Government should deal with.
  The plans were not the standard plans proposed for England and Wales, but were to be based on an amalgam of local communities and conservationists, to try to get rid of that conflict. The areas were also to be organised differently. There was to be a core mountain zone, which would be protected from any development and used only for recreation; a countryside management zone, where recreation could be developed close to the roadside; and a community zone, where visitors would be housed. Those useful plans were put out to consultation and agreed by everyone apart from the Government who, once again, introduced the voluntary principle, which has punched huge roads through Glen Feshie.
  Even the Government's organisation, Scottish Natural Heritage, no longer believes in the voluntary principle. Point 38 on page 9 of its corporate plan states:
  "The financial consequences of the voluntary principle are substantial and increasing … if it is sustained, it seems likely that it will become increasingly unaffordable, and an alternative approach may have to be sought."
  Thus Scottish Natural Heritage is telling the Government that their voluntary principle is unsustainable and must be dropped.
  In response to a plan for the Cairngorms, in 1992 the Government introduced a world heritage site idea. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what has happened about that. Have the Government applied for that designation yet? If not, why not? A joint board was set up for the Cairngorms, which was a step forward. I recognised in Committee that that was an improvement. People were on that board who never expected to be on it and it was a fine victory for conservation. The problem is that the board had no powers.
  Loch Lomond is the area that is under the most pressure and once again the Government propose a joint

  787
  committee, which no one, not even Scottish Natural Heritage, wants. Its response to the report of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs working party states:
  "SNH appreciates the effort the Park Authority and its staff have made, and it continues to support it in its work. However, we recognise the constraints under which it has acted, and the very real problems it continues to face in trying to achieve the ideal of geographically and functionally integrated management within the present system … The failure to achieve a satisfactory level of integration is an indication that the present system"—
  which the Government are imposing—
  "is inadequate to meet the needs of Loch Lomond.
  The Joint Committee … would depend on the voluntary delegation of powers and functions by the Local Authorities involved. We are concerned that, on present indications, this may not materialise".
  That is the response of SNH, the Government's own body. We might like to ask whether SNH approves of national parks. It is often rumoured that its chairman, Magnus Magnusson, approves of them, although he is not on record as saying so. It might be helpful if he clarified his position at this stage.
  I believe that the debate on Scotland's national parks is moving forward and has moved forward still further tonight. The proposal for Scotland's national parks is one whose time has come and the sooner it comes, the better.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) for moving the new clause. I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) are particularly interested in Scotland and its heritage. I am aware of their particular desire for national parks.
  I am sad that I do not have much time to answer the debate in detail; I can merely respond in note form. The hon. Member for Dumbarton is not quite fair to the Scottish Office about its efforts to deal with the Loch Lomond project, because a great deal is going on. If it had not been for the Government introducing a change to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 to enable a change in circumstances relative to byelaws, no such development would have been possible. We have now received recommendations from the local authorities. We are going through the large number of objections—far more than just those from the Scottish Sports Council—as quickly as we can. I hope that we shall be able to do something about them in the not too distant future.
  I agree that speed limits for motor boats, jet skis and so on should be considered as soon as possible, but at the same time, we should allow for certain water recreation, as others have requested. There has been no delay, because it is only right that we should consider the consultations carefully, and that is exactly what we are doing.
  In response to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, I should like to consider all the issues associated with the national parks in much greater detail. Of course, he is not really right to say that SNH believes in national parks and not in the voluntary partnership, because, after all, the architect of the Cairngorms partnership was no less than Magnus Magnusson, the chairman of SNH, who is a keen enthusiast for the voluntary system. There is no doubt that that system is
  788
  settling down extremely well under Mr. David Laird. We are pleased at how the developments are coming along in the Cairngorms. What has been important has been the tremendous co-operation between those who have been appointed to the partnership, who have had a general welcome, and the new local authorities. They are all beginning to work together extremely well towards the objectives that we want to see achieved.
  That is what will happen at Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. I do not know why Opposition Members keep on running down that partnership scheme, because they believe, as I do, in giving local authorities as much responsibility as possible. The local authority of the hon. Member for Dumbarton and Stirling authority have an enormous chance to work together on that project to develop just what we want, a voluntary partnership. That will offer the chance of immense development in the Loch Lomond area.
  Bearing in mind the fact that the Countryside Commission has recommended that the special areas of Scotland should be subject to special procedures to govern their future, we have offered exactly that in the Cairngorms, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. I am confident that that will work out well in the future.
  Mr. Brian Wilson rose—
  Sir Hector Monro: I would have liked to debate this issue at much length, but unfortunately that is not possible tonight. The voluntary partnership is working well and will work well with the new local authorities, so I ask the hon. Member for Dumbarton to withdraw the new clause.
  Mr. Wilson: I shall be brief, even though the Minister would not give way to me.
  The Minister's response was disgraceful, because it did not begin to address the philosophical question of why Scotland, which gave national parks to the world, should be the only part of Britain that does not benefit from national parks. The truth of the matter is that it is because of the landowning lobby in Scotland and the Government's refusal to interfere in the free market of land and the untrammelled rights of landlords. That is the problem. Until the day when the Scottish Landowners Federation does not have the ear of the Government, Scotland will be denied national parks and Scottish land and Scottish natural heritage will be denied the protection that comes from national parks. Fortunately, the day when such things can be changed is not very far away.
  There is wide consensus in favour of national parks and a clear-cut need for them. The fact that the Scottish Office has continued to find every excuse available for avoiding the implementation of national parks in Scotland is a standing disgrace to the Government and also a standing memorial to the fact that they are in the pocket of the landowning lobby in Scotland.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I share the annoyance of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) at the Minister's answer because however brief the time may be—we know that it is pressing—I think that at least sympathetic consideration could have been given to something so obviously desirable and long wanted. As we are not going to make any progress tonight, we must hope for better times in future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 16

  GUIDANCE ON OLD MINERAL PLANNING PERMISSIONS
  ' —(1)When issuing guidance under paragraph 10 of Schedule 13 the Secretary of State shall have regard to whether a mineral planning authority would reasonably be expected to impose similar restrictions if the permission had been issued following a new application after 21st February 1982;

  (2) Where he feels similar restrictions would have been imposed following a new application after 21st February 1982 his assumption shall be that their provisions are reasonable.'.—[Ms Ruddock.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Ms Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 75 to 77.
  Ms Ruddock: As perhaps befits this time of night, new clause 16 is moved in a spirit of co-operation. The Opposition, like the local authority associations and numerous countryside and conservation organisations, welcomed the Government's promise in the other place to bring forward new provisions to enable mineral planning authorities to review pre-1982 permissions. However, when those proposals came before the Standing Committee, they were a grave disappointment. Once again, the Bill's promise had been blighted, undoubtedly by the exercise of commercial interests in the drafting room.
  Schedule 13 establishes a mechanism for the provision of compensation to mineral operators when new conditions are imposed by the mineral planning authorities on old mineral permissions at active sites. Schedule 13 is the problem for the simple reason that the eligibility and compensation arrangements have led to widespread alarm among local authority associations, and especially at the Council for the Protection of Rural England, whose representations and expertise on the matter are well known to the Minister.
  The compensation arrangements are a major departure from the tried and tested practice in respect of pre-1948 permissions dealt with under interim development orders. IDOs have avoided unnecessary confrontation with industry and unnecessary compensation payments. Our preference would have been for the Bill to introduce a regime based on IDOs, but given the Government's chosen course, our new clause seeks to protect local communities from suffering from poor and outdated standards in respect of old mineral permissions, or from compensation payments to companies that are often vastly profitable.
  Mineral extraction, even to modern environmental standards, imposes considerable unwelcome burdens on local communities. They suffer from dust, dirt, frequent and constant noise, and from heavy lorries with heavy loads which are sometimes driven without due care through narrow streets. Those rural communities especially need and deserve the upgrading of old mineral planning permissions. That is a simple matter of progress and justice, and a recognition that the world has changed.
  Reasonableness is supposed to be the yardstick by which the requirements of change are to be imposed in schedule 13. If it is, the Government should accept our new clause.
  790
  If the conditions to be imposed on old mineral planning permissions are similar to those currently expected for new planning permissions, they should be deemed reasonable. New clause 16 provides for that. Neither the Minister nor industry should have anything to fear, and I look forward to the Minister's constructive response.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his letter, which clearly set out the answers to all the questions raised in Committee? It was extremely helpful, and gave some very useful information.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that the starting point for considering compensation should be that, in common with all other forms of development, planning permissions can be revoked or modified only if subject to the payment of compensation? Will he confirm that the industry has been constructive in acknowledging that the environmental standards of operations and of subsequent restoration of sites should continually improve—
  It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Environment Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Question agreed to.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I start that paragraph again?
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Tedious repetition is not acceptable at this time of night.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: It would be greatly amiss if I were tedious, let alone repetitious, so I shall be neither.
  Mr. Piers Merchant: My hon. Friend will be expeditious.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Indeed, I shall be expeditious, as I was trying to be before the Ten o'clock motion was moved.
  I should be grateful if the Minister will confirm that the industry has been constructive in acknowledging that the environmental standards of operations and of subsequent restoration of sites should continually improve, and that the industry is already making great strides towards achieving higher environmental standards. As the industry has accepted that it should bear the cost of upgrading planning permissions with regard to "sensory" conditions—those relating to noise and dust—will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's intention that the Government amendments should provide only a backstop to ensure that the industry's fundamental working rights cannot be severely restricted as a result of the new review?
  Is it not the case that new clause 16 seeks to nullify compensation safeguards contained in the Bill? Does my hon. Friend agree that, were it to be accepted, it would secure the effective confiscation of assets, retrospectively and without compensation? Will he confirm that the guidance notes to be issued by the Secretary of State will carefully reflect the contents of the Bill, and will not be

  791
  allowed effectively to introduce new requirements with which the industry will be required to comply but which have not been considered first by the House?
  I am concerned that the guidance notes, of which I have seen a draft copy and which extend to 45 pages, include references to the use of prohibition notices and the circumstances in which they can be used. They are defined in the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981. However, the draft notes extend the criteria significantly by introducing new material considerations, and I should like my hon. Friend's assurance that he will bring anything that effectively changes the current legislation back to the House for consideration.
  Mr. Tipping: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) raised some interesting points about compensation. This aspect of the Bill will prove to be a lawyers' charter. As the hon. Gentleman recognised, the strength of the new clause is that it rules out compensation and removes local authorities from the invidious position in which they would find themselves.
  Local authorities clearly want to make environmental improvements, but if they are challenged, they face potential costs which they cannot afford. The new clause is an important way for them to avoid those costs. I support it strongly, because the issue of compensation will prove to be a quagmire.
  Dr. John Marek: I shall make a brief contribution in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). We could debate new clause 16 for a long time. Suffice it to say that the Government are again on the side of the landlords and the people with assets who want to stuff even more money into their pockets. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who has just spoken, proved that point very well.
  Government Members care not a fig about the community. In my constituency of Wrexham and the surrounding area of about 50 miles in each direction, there is more concern about applications for quarrying for various minerals, the dismissal of the community's concerns and desires, and environmental matters than almost any other issue. I think that new clause 16 is very important, and Labour Front-Bench Members were correct to table it.
  I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) will confirm in her winding-up speech that, when the next Labour Government take office—Conservative Members may do themselves in over the next 10 days—she will insist that the Labour Government's environment Bill is the equivalent of new clause 16.
  That is what the public of this country demand. They are fed up with Conservative Members pleading for money for their own supporters, without worrying about the environment, people or communities. I look forward to seeing new clause 16 take effect, not as a result of this Bill, but in the next Parliament.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Government amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 77 are technical amendments, so I shall concentrate my remarks on new clause 16. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) is correct when he says that it is an important clause.
  792
  As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) said, the system of regulations under the interim development order approach is working. That is our model in this instance. As she knows, there will be no compensation for conditions which do not restrict working rights. Compensation will arise only if working rights restrictions prejudice to an unreasonable degree either the economic viability of the operation or the asset value of the site. There is little difference from the test that the mineral planning authorities should be, and are, applying to the imposition of conditions on active IDO sites.
  Ms Ruddock: I am anxious not to intervene upon the Minister too soon, but I know that he is trying to rush, so he may pass over this point. He referred to "prejudice to an unreasonable degree" and that is on the face of the Bill. Will he define that statement? Otherwise, he must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) that the legislation could be a lawyers' charter.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I do not agree with the hon. Lady. The word "unreasonable" is used quite commonly in legislation. As she knows already—it has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown)—we are undertaking preliminary consultation on the draft guidance. That guidance makes it clear that we intend that the industry and mineral planning authorities should follow the same principles for updating the pre-1982 sites as were followed for the interim development orders. That will ensure that there is equal treatment between the sites and the operators. It is a fair and equitable approach.
  I am a little astonished—but perhaps I am not so astonished upon reflection—at the reaction of the hon. Member for Wrexham. If that is the kind of approach that we are to expect from the Labour party in future, God help industry and the economy in this country. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her new clause.
  Ms Ruddock: I must invite the Minister to respond again, as I failed to intervene during his speech. He has not explained to the House—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) has the Floor.
  Ms Ruddock: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has not given the House an explanation as to why the legislation is different from the interim development orders. He said that they are working effectively, but he has given no account of why the test of reasonableness in relation to the economic viability of working a site or its asset value should have been placed in the schedule. It is very difficult for us to understand why that proposal has come forward when the Government already acknowledge that they have a perfectly good working arrangement in respect of older mineral planning permission.
  I wonder whether the Minister will be kind enough to tell the House why that change is necessary—why that new duty is imposed. He has not said why our new clause is unreasonable. All that our new clause seeks to do is acknowledge that, where the standards that are to be imposed are equivalent to those that would be imposed on a new planning permission sought today, by definition that must be reasonable. Why is it not reasonable?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Surely the reason why it is in that schedule is that, although the interim development orders

  793
  have worked well so far, we have dealt with the easiest cases, and the more difficult cases remain to be resolved. That is why it is necessary to put those later permissions in that schedule.
  Ms Ruddock: I do not believe that that remark was at all helpful. The hon. Gentleman has not in any way explained why what is being dealt with at the moment is more difficult than what was dealt with in the past. We must accept that people are sitting on assets that are in the ground, and they have old planning permissions, which are not appropriate to modern standards, modern considerations and the needs of modern societies.
  Is the Minister prepared to speak?
  Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has touched on it. We are convinced that there is no difference between the IDO and the method that we are moving now. We are consulting industry, mineral planning authorities and environmental groups on draft guidance in relation to putting it into action.
  We feel that it would be only fair for compensation to be paid to the industry if there were an effective change in the economic viability of those sites. However, we recognise, as does the industry, the importance of introducing conditions—and the industry is accepting those conditions for the sites—for environmental reasons. I hope that the hon. Lady will consider the matter carefully and will accept that, in those circumstances, it is only fair that compensation should be paid if, beyond that, there is an effect on the economic viability of a specific site.
  Ms Ruddock: The Minister may believe that he is being helpful, but I fear that he is not. The economic viability is not an objective measure. It will be for the local authority, the mineral planning authority, to make some judgment about the way in which the new conditions would affect economic viability.
  I suggest to the Minister that, if a cash-strapped local authority has to take that into account, it may feel that it is unable to demand that conditions at that site are raised to modern standards, because of fears that it might be subject to challenge under the legislation, as it could be held that there was an economic impact on that company that was unacceptable under the legislation that the Minister proposes.
  We believe that very many of those companies are well able to pay for the slight changes—or, in some circumstances, considerable changes—that might result from bringing those permissions up to modern standards. We believe that those companies are better placed to absorb those costs, and to behave responsibly and in an environmentally friendly way, than are local authorities and local communities.
  I am afraid that, if the Minister cannot accept what is a very simple new clause, which only defines effectively what is reasonable action and prevents the continuance of ambiguity and worry for local planning authorities which would have to make those considerations—if he intends to sit there and allow local authorities and local communities to bear the brunt of bringing those old planning permissions up to modern standards—we must divide the House.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 269.

  Division No. 180]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Allen, Graham

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Fraser, John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fyfe, Maria

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Galbraith, Sam

  Austin-Walker, John

  Galloway, George

  Barnes, Harry

  Gapes, Mike

  Barton, Kevin

  Garrett, John

  Battle, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bayley, Hugh

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Godsiff, Roger

  Beggs, Roy

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bell, Stuart

  Gordon, Mildred

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Graham, Thomas

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

  Benton, Joe

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Grocott, Bruce

  Berry, Roger

  Gunnell, John

  Betts, Clive

  Hain, Peter

  Blunkett, David

  Hanson, David

  Boateng, Paul

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bradley, Keith

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Heppell, John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

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

  Hinchliffe, David

  Burden, Richard

  Hodge, Margaret

  Byers, Stephen

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cann, Jamie

  Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Chidgey, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hutton, John

  Church, Judith

  Illsley, Eric

  Clapham, Michael

  Ingram, Adam

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

  Clarke, Tom (MonMands W)

  Jamieson, David

  Clelland, David

  Janner, Greville

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Coffey, Ann

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Corbett, Robin

  Keen, Alan

  Corbyn, Jeremy

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

  Corston, Jean

  Khabra, Piara S

  Cousins, Jim

  Mlfoyle, Peter

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Lestor, Joan (Ecdes)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Lewis, Terry

  Davidson, Ian

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Denham, John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dewar, Donald

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dixon, Don

  McAllion, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dowd, Jim

  Macdonald, Calum

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McFall, John

  Eastham, Ken

  McKelvey, William

  Etherington, Bill

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Fatchett, Derek

  McMaster, Gordon

  Faulds, Andrew

  McNamara, Kevin

  Reid, Frank (Birkenhead)

  MacShane, Denis

  Flynn, Paul

  Maddock, Diana

  795

  Mahon, Alice

  Rooney, Terry

  Marek, Dr John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Martlew, Eric

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Meacher, Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Meale, Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Michael, Alun

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Short, Clare

  Milburn, Alan

  Simpson, Alan

  Miller, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Snape, Peter

  Motley, Elliot

  Soley, Clive

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yaidley)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Spellar, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Murphy, Paul

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Stevenson, George

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Straw, Jack

  O'Hara, Edward

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Timms, Stephen

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Tipping, Paddy

  Parry, Robert

  Touhig, Don

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Dennis

  Pendry, Tom

  Tyler, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wallace, James

  Pike, Peter L

  Walley, Joan

  Pope, Greg

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prentice, Bridget (Lewisham

  Watson, Mike

  E)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Purchase, Ken

  Wilson, Brian

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Winnick, David

  Radice, Giles

  Wise, Audrey

  Randall, Stuart

  Worthington, Tony

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wright, DrTony

  Reid, Dr John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rendel, David

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mr. Eric Clarke and

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mr. George Mudie.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bowis, John

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Ancram, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gnavesham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv')

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Ashby, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Butcher, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Butler, Peter

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Butterfill, John

  Bates, Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carttiss, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cash, William

  Booth, Hartley

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Boswell, Tim

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Churchill, Mr

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Clapplson, James

  796

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Congdon, David

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jack, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Couchman, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cran, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, QuentJn (Stamford)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Day, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Devlin, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

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

  Dover, Den

  Knox, Sir David

  Duncan, Alan

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dunn, Bob

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Legg, Barry

  Elletson, Harold

  Leigh, Edward

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  LJghtbown, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Lioyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Reid, Bany (fete of W9M;

  Lord, Michael

  Fishbum, Dudley

  Luff, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Eric

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Madel, Sir David

  French, Douglas

  MartJand, Lady Olga

  Gale, Roger

  Martand, Paul

  Gallie, Phil

  Mariow, Tony

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gill, Christopher

  Merchant, Piers

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mills, Iain

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charies

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Grant,SirAfSlYCamte;

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hague, William

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Norris, Steve

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Harris, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Page, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hayes, Jerry

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Heald, Oliver

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Pawsey, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Pickles, Eric

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Porter, Barry (Winal S)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Horam, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howarth, Alan (Stratrd-on-A)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  797

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Richards, Rod

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Riddick, Graham

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Thumham, Peter

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Tracey, Richard

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Sackville, Tom

  Trend, Michael

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Trotter, Neville

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Walden, George

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Sims, Roger

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Watts, John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Whitney, Ray

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Whittingdale, John

  Spring, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sproat, Iain

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wilkinson, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilshire, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stephen, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Stem, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, Allan

  Yeo, Tim

  Streeter, Gary

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sumberg, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Sykes, John

  Mr. David Willetts.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

  FAMILY HOMES AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6), That the Bill be read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  ESTIMATES
  Resolved,
  That this House agrees with the Report [20th June] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

  DANGEROUS DRUGS
  That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved.

  FEES AND CHARGES
  That the draft Department of Transport (Fees) (Amendment) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

  PETITIONS

    Food Science Laboratory
    10.30 pm
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I am grateful for this opportunity to present a petition of more than 10,500 names in conjunction with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). It has been signed by people of the city of Aberdeen and north-east Scotland who disagree strongly with the decision to relocate the Food Science Laboratory at Torry in my constituency to the Central Science Laboratory at York. The petition states:
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do urge the Right Honourable William Waldegrave, M.P., Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Food to intervene in the proposal to relocate Food Science Laboratory, Torry, 135 Abbey Road, Aberdeen.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray &c.
    To lie upon the Table.
    10.31 pm
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I too have a petition from Aberdeen in north-east Scotland. It has been signed by 10,500 people to add to that presented already by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), making 21,023 people in total. They are deeply concerned at, and protesting against, the possible relocation of the Food Science Laboratory in Torry, Aberdeen to the Central Science Laboratory in York. Those signatures were collected in a short space of time, showing that the scientific facilities and skilled staff will be sorely missed.
    Wherefore your petitioners pay that your honourable House do urge the Right Honourable William Waldegrave, M.P., Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Food to intervene in the proposal to relocate Food Science Laboratory, Torry, 135 Abbey Road, Aberdeen.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Paisley Floods
    10.32 pm
    Mr. Gordon McMaster: I present a petition on behalf of my constituents who were affected by the floods in December 1994 and whose lives have been devastated since that time. Many of them have not yet been able to return to their homes. The petition
    Declares that the floods which affected the South End of Paisley during December 1994, brought misery to hundreds of families and that Her Majesty's Government have so far taken no action to prevent such flooding occurring again.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urgently put in place measures to impose powers and duties on national and local bodies to establish adequate flood prevention measures where these are required.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Glaxo-Wellcome Site, Beckenham
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  10.33 pm
  Mr. Piers Merchant: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter that is of considerable importance to my constituency, but that also affects other constituencies in the south London region. I am pleased, and appreciate, that my hon. Friends the Members for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who are also affected, are present. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford wishes, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to add a few words when I finish.
  Exactly a week ago, Glaxo announced the closure of the Wellcome research site at Beckenham. A total of 1,550 jobs will be lost at that location. There will be a long-term impact on the local economy and a premier research and development facility will be abandoned. This is obviously a matter of great concern to my constituents and to all connected with the local economy.
  The closure will also impact heavily across the entire London borough of Bromley, affecting the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Chislehurst, for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt) and for Orpington (Mr. Horam). It will also be felt elsewhere in the south-east. As an indication of that, I believe that about 400 or just over of the employees at Beckenham live in the Dartford area. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be interested to know that some 120 of them have ME postcodes and a further 140 have TN postcodes.
  Restructuring of the former Wellcome sites was widely expected after the takeover of Wellcome plc by Glaxo. I regret the fact that Wellcome was not able to continue as an independent company and that the Beckenham site was chosen for closure. However, I do not blame Glaxo-Wellcome for rationalising. The management have a responsibility to run their company as efficiently as possible. Glaxo-Wellcome is a great British company, operating in one of Britain's leading industries. It contributes enormously to our economy as a whole; to exports, employment, wealth creation, discovery and healing. I wish it nothing but well. However, I also care deeply about the future of the former Wellcome employees and their site.
  I have been in touch with Wellcome and Glaxo-Wellcome about this matter for some months. Last Tuesday, the chief executive of Glaxo-Wellcome, Sir Richard Sykes, invited me to a meeting immediately after the announcement was made. I had a long talk to him and I know that he has agonised over this decision. He also went out of his way to stress that his company will do all that it can to fulfil its social responsibilities and to look after the Wellcome employees it inherited. In a letter to me he said:
  "I can assure you that those who are made redundant will be offered generous severance terms, and the company will also provide extensive support by way of counselling, retraining and outplacement through an on-site Resource Centre. We shall, of course, be consulting trade union representatives about the implications of the closure.
  My colleagues and I well recognise the scientific contribution and reputation of Beckenham over the past 70 years. We are also very conscious of the impact which the decision to end Wellcome's long-standing presence will have on the local community. We shall be discussing … what we can do to help to alleviate this impact."

  801
  Even in the few days since then, Glaxo-Wellcome has said that it will commission a full study of the impact of the changes and that it will produce a package of measures to help the local community.
  Over the past few months, I have also worked closely with the leader of the London borough of Bromley, Councillor Dennis Barkway. Councillor Barkway was swift to set up a council working party to help tackle the problems in the wake of restructuring. His response, has I believe, been laudable, indeed impeccable.
  We would all like this to be a copybook example of how to minimise the impact of a major jobs blow such as this. However, I believe that the time has now come for wider involvement. I am raising this matter because I believe that there needs to be some Government input. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assist by ensuring that her Department, the Employment Service and perhaps also the Department for Education and the Department of Trade and Industry will help with the expertise that they can offer.
  I am not holding out a begging bowl. Although unemployment is now above its usual level in my constituency—I mean the level before this announcement—we could hardly make a case for being a deprived area. We see this not as a problem but as an opportunity, looking to the future, not the past. Nevertheless, no community can take so big and sudden a loss of jobs without some shock. I believe that Government expertise is needed in three areas. It is needed, first, to help those made unemployed. The position is not as bad as it looks. Although 1,550 jobs are going, Glaxo has approached the matter in the most sensitive way possible. The jobs will go over three years—not all at once—in gradual stages. Many of the existing employees will be offered transfers to other Glaxo locations. Some will want to take an attractive package of early retirement. Others will, no doubt, accept generous redundancy arrangements to pursue alternative opportunities elsewhere.
  Many of the people about whom we are talking are highly qualified, highly skilled professionals. They are unlikely, for the most part, to have a great problem in finding other opportunities. There will, however, remain a hard core of former employees who will lose their jobs and who will have no immediate alternative job on offer. Glaxo has already promised those people help, as have the borough and the South London training and enterprise council, SOLOTEC. Further Employment Service support is, however, essential.
  Secondly, there is the impact on the economy. This is more severe because it is likely to be more long-lasting. There will be a loss of 1,550 employees, some 1,300 of them working in research, with an average annual income of about £23,500—well above the national average—which will leave a big hole in local spending power. I am always wary about economic theories and figures so I am particularly wary about predicting how big the hole in local spending power will be. However, it is obvious that the loss of about £29 million per year in wages will have an impact on spending power in the area and will probably have a knock-on impact as well, whatever one believes about the theory of the economic multiplier.
  The loss of the employing company itself, which clearly spends a large sum on locally produced services, will have a further impact. Help is needed in overcoming this problem in the short term and in seeking a
  802
  replacement in the longer term. In other words, my constituency needs, for the sake of the local economy and for a balanced economic structure, a business or businesses to replace Wellcome.
  Thirdly—this next point could be linked with the point that I have just made—there is the future of the site itself. Here is a ready-made research and development facility, fully equipped, purpose-built and stand-alone, in spacious, well-laid-out grounds. I do not mean this to sound like an estate agent's brochure, but I know that anyone who visited the site would realise that it was extremely attractive—indeed, a beautiful site. That adds an extra dimension to the very specific services there for research and development.
  The site is also very well located. It is 30 minutes from central London and it is just a few miles from Croydon, which is itself a big centre. It has easy access to the M25 and to Gatwick airport. It is also on the edge of London so employees can easily live, as many have chosen to do, in the Kent and Sussex countryside. The site would best be used for its present purpose and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will lend her Department's weight to that ideal. I appreciate that there is not exactly a long waiting list for research sites, but I know that an off-the-shelf site is not often ready and available.
  Britain's research and development base is vital and it is a vital part of the overall economy of the south-east. It would seem a great waste to allow part of it to slip away, especially when the site has so many advantages and when so many of the facilities are state of the art and very recently constructed. If possible, I hope that the route of reusing the site will be taken. If that proves impossible, I trust that the Department of Employment, the Department of Trade of Industry and others will work with the London borough of Bromley to find an alternative but, I hope, similar use for the site.
  One idea worth examining is to transfer the ownership and running of the site, apart from the biotechnology section which is likely to be the last to move, to a separate development company or something similar. Such a company would have a remit to market the site and to make sure that its availability was known and its strengths championed. It would involve Glaxo, which would probably be willing to take part, the council, which is keen on the idea, SOLOTEC and perhaps other elements from Government Departments. Once a future was found, the company could either pass over its ownership to the new operators or could continue to run the infrastructure of the site, which has its own roads, if that were necessary. That would be useful if a number of different operators shared the site in some form of science park.
  The loss of jobs in the locality is part of the general outward drift of jobs from central London. It is important to try to stop that process, as it is potentially very damaging to the capital and to the people who live in the capital. The Wellcome site would best serve the area by continuing to be used for employment, rather than for some other purpose.
  I hope that Glaxo-Wellcome will help in the endeavour to attract new jobs to the site. It could assist by giving financial incentives to attract a new employer, such as soft loans, guarantees or possibly a rent-free period. I know that all of those avenues will be explored, and the Government could assist in encouraging that process.
  The site cannot be developed for major industry because it is located in the middle of a high-quality

  803
  residential estate, and it would be an affront to the planning process if inappropriate major industry were sited there. We do not want any more retail parks or high-density housing, as they would not fit in well with the existing structure of the area.
  The Langley court site is part of the history of Beckenham. Since 1922, its laboratories have been of great service to all mankind and local people are proud of its achievements. It is a part of the community and contributes to the diversity and balance of the area. It has provided employment for seven decades, and has put a lot into the local economy. I strongly encourage a co-operative spirit to overcome the present difficulties, to find a future for the site, to encourage new job creation and to alleviate the personal trauma that inevitably arises when industrial change comes.
  10.46 pm
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) for giving me the opportunity to say a few brief words in support of the case that he has put forward so ably tonight. He pointed out that the decision to close the Wellcome research site over the next three years has implications not just for the London borough of Bromley, but for all communities in west Kent, north-west Kent, Surrey and south London.
  The histories of the Wellcome Foundation, or Burroughs Wellcome as it is known locally, and north-west Kent over the last 100 years have been one and the same. The contribution that the company has made to the levelling-up of standards in employment, the creation of employment and assistance to the town of Dartford and to other towns in which the company has been based has grown and grown.
  Like my hon. Friend, I was somewhat concerned when the anticipated announcement was made a few days ago. The affect of the announcement was that the manufacturing site at Dartford is to be maintained and retained. That is good news, not just for Dartford but for all communities in the area, given the mobility of labour. Alongside the decision to retain the Dartford manufacturing site was the decision to close the Beckenham site.
  As my hon. Friend said, more than 400 persons employed at the Beckenham site live at an address with a DA post code, which includes the London borough of Bexley, Dartford and Gravesham. Across that scattering of communities in north Kent and south London, there are implications of retraining, relocation and redundancy for many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members from our region. I know that Glaxo-Wellcome will do all that it can to ensure that the impact of those moves bears down as lightly as possible on the individuals and families affected. In particular, I commend some of the ideas that my hon. Friend put before the House this evening.
  I, too, regret the probable loss of the expertise that has been built up over the years at the Beckenham site. To craft up and build over generations a team with real expertise in the pharmaceutical world and to see it broken up is something I regret, and I am sure that most hon. Members would feel the same.
  I must also pay tribute to the work of Councillor Kenneth Leadbeater, the leader of the Conservative group on Dartford borough council, who has done so much to
  804
  assist the formation of policy between town and company and who has made a special journey to be here for this debate tonight.
  I am impressed with the way in which the new Glaxo-Wellcome formation has dealt with me, as a Member of Parliament. I too have seen Sir Richard Sykes and I have the opportunity of another meeting in the near future. I want to place on record, however, my great concern about the decision. There are implications for my constituents and I know that the Minister, who is a Kentish Member, will do all that she can to assist those of our constituents who will be affected by the closure of the site.
  10.50 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) on obtaining this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker—Sir Geoffrey—and on the way in which he put his case. It would also be right to record that, in addition to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), my hon. Friends the Members for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) have all shown an interest in this important subject. Regrettably, no Opposition Members have shown an interest in this debate.
  By responding so quickly to last week's announcement, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham is seeking to ensure that the impact of this closure on employees and the local community is addressed and, furthermore, that the maximum amount of opportunities are made available to those affected. I certainly share his concern for the area and for the people involved and I thank him for reminding me of my constituency concerns in this issue. The relocation of an area's major employer is always a matter of regret and concern, not only for its employees, but for associated suppliers, contractors and the local community at large. I hope that those affected by last week's announcement will be reassured by the importance that my hon. Friends have attached to this issue.
  The proposed closure of the research and development centre and the whole Beckenham site is part of a broader announcement on rationalisation, which follows the merger of the Glaxo and Wellcome companies after Glaxo's takeover in March. While Glaxo-Wellcome recognises the major scientific contribution made by Wellcome's Beckenham laboratories and the high reputation that they have gained, the company has decided that it must now refocus its research and development activities to remain the world leader in an industry which is changing at an unprecedented rate.
  The Beckenham site employs 1,500 people and contains some outstanding skills in leading edge technologies such as biotechnology, for example. It is important that those skills are developed and that full advantage is taken of them. The activities of the research and development centre, which employs some 1,300 staff, will move to the company's brand new, state-of-the-art research centre in Stevenage—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) will be delighted to welcome them—confirming the company's continuing commitment to research and development in the United Kingdom. It is also maintaining its manufacturing sites in this country.
  Glaxo-Wellcome currently expects a significant number of the 1,300 research and development staff to be offered relocation to the Stevenage centre, but cannot

  805
  offer any specific numbers at this stage. Therefore, it is still unclear what proportion will be made redundant as a result of the Beckenham site closure, and until offers have been made individuals will not be able to assess their acceptability. We know, however, that the centre will be run down over three years, so the impact on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham will be phased.
  In raising the matter in the House at the earliest opportunity my hon. Friend has highlighted its importance to his constituency. As he said, it is never too early to plan for the consequences of such a closure. Glaxo-Wellcome has already consulted key partners to discuss how support and assistance can be provided to those affected. The company has stated that it recognises that the closure will have an impact on the Beckenham and Bromley communities, and it has already held discussions with Bromley council, the local training and enterprise council and the Employment Service to work out ways of alleviating the effects of the closure.
  Only yesterday John Howell, chief executive of SOLOTEC, the local training and enterprise council, met the company chairman of Glaxo-Wellcome and representatives from Bromley council to discuss the support that can be provided to staff who either are not offered, or do not wish to accept, a transfer to the Stevenage site. I am informed that at that meeting a decision was taken to establish a task force with an immediate remit to undertake a detailed audit to identify the skills, current jobs and experience of individual employees. When the detailed information has been collected and assessed, an action plan will be drawn up to address the impact of the closure, taking into account the skills and experience of individuals.
  The south London district of the Employment Service has agreed to collaborate formally with SOLOTEC to provide the most effective service possible to Glaxo-Wellcome employees and others affected by the closure. I am sure that by working in partnership and pooling skills, resources and information, the Employment Service can provide an even more efficient response to the situation. I understand that at yesterday's meeting an immediate start was made to specify the support that should be provided. In broad terms, the Employment Service will offer interviews to redundant employees to provide advice and guidance on the options available. Interviews can take place either on company premises or in local Employment Service or TEC offices.
  The matters for discussion are likely to be wide ranging, but outcomes could include a reference to SOLOTEC, signposting to other agencies for specialist assistance, and arrangements for a follow-up interview with the same counsellor to monitor progress. The TEC will help individual employees to identify job requirements and to define appropriate training needs, and will discuss ways in which these can be met. The TEC will also advise on the possibilities for self-employment and business start-up.
  The wide variety of programmes and services offered by both the TEC and the Employment Service will be available, as appropriate, to Glaxo-Wellcome employees and others affected by the site closure. The aim will be to offer targeted, practical and relevant advice to all who need it. I am well aware that the closure of the Glaxo-Wellcome site in Beckenham could result in the redundancy of some highly skilled individuals and I am confident that the Employment Service and SOLOTEC
  806
  will work together to ensure that every possible effort is made to provide suitable advice and guidance to those individuals. I also understand that the executive job club in Bromley will enhance its existing provision to address the specific needs of that particular client group. Glaxo-Wellcome has promised support and assistance to its employees throughout this difficult period.
  My hon. Friend also asked about the future of the Beckenham site. He will be interested to know that the Government office for London has been in touch with the London First centre, which receives funding from the Department of Trade and Industry to act as the inward investment agency for London. One of the London First centre's priorities is to develop a portfolio of sites which will contribute to the overall marketing of London to potential investors. It works in close collaboration with English Partnerships and the Government office for London in that respect. The London First centre will meet Glaxo in the next few weeks to discuss a range of issues, including what action might be taken over the Beckenham site.
  As my hon. Friend may be aware, this is not the first time that a London TEC has had to respond to the closure of one of its major employers. Following the closure of the British Aerospace site in Kingston, the local TEC—AZTEC—was instrumental in drawing together the local authority and other key partners to make recommendations for dealing with the effects of such a closure. I am certain that SOLOTEC, Bromley council and the Employment Service, in conjunction with Glaxo-Wellcome, will respond in an equally positive way.
  I emphasise to my hon. Friend that, although any addition to unemployment is deeply unwelcome, in his constituency unemployment has fallen by almost 12 per cent. in the past year—faster than in the London region as a whole.
  It is important for us all that Glaxo-Wellcome should continue to thrive in the ever more challenging world of the international pharmaceutical industry. The company has made the commercial judgment that rationalisation of its sites is unavoidable. I am sure that Glaxo-Wellcome will wish to conduct the Beckenham site closure in a professional manner and will continue to be actively involved in alleviating the impact on its employees and the local community. I know that SOLOTEC and the Employment Service will ensure that appropriate counselling, guidance and retraining are made available. I shall keep in touch with developments and ask SOLOTEC and the Employment Service to keep me fully informed. I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham, for Chislehurst and for Dartford, and all other hon. Friends with an interest in the subject, will feel free at any time to bring to my attention any further concerns that they may have.
  Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham on securing this debate. The interest of other hon. Members clearly shows the importance that should be attached to it. Moreover, the running commentary that was kept up throughout the debate shows the excitement that it has occasioned.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Majority Shareholdings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those companies in which the holder of his office is a majority shareholder which(a) are currently in existence and (b) have been wound up in the past five years. [25716]

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: None.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which European directives he has requested the Government of Gibraltar to give effect to in the last 12 months; in which cases they have failed to do so; what have been the consequences of these failures and what sanctions are available to him in the case of these failures. [30457]

  Mr. David Davis
  As in any other part of the EU, the Government of Gibraltar must implement all applicable EU legislation. I welcome the Chief Minister of Gibraltar's recent public undertakings to implement by the end of this year the backlog of legislation which as arisen. We are providing help with that process.

  European Parliament
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the costs at current prices of the European Parliament for each of the last 10 years. [30500]

  Mr. David Davis
  The costs at current prices of the European Parliament for each of the last 10 years were:

  Sterling £ million

  ECU million

  ECU Exchange rate

  1994

  515

  666

  1.2924

  1993

  497

  638

  1.2845

  1992

  450

  614

  1.3620

  1991

  380

  545

  1.4284

  1990

  358

  497

  1.4000

  1989

  319

  465

  1.4886

  1988

  337

  486

  1.5051

  1987

  338

  449

  1.4190

  1986

  296

  409

  1.4946

  1985

  210

  336

  1.6981

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received in respect of war crimes committed 544
  against the Serb population in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. [31138]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There have been allegations of war crimes committed against all sides in the conflict in former Yugoslavia. We regularly pass information on possible war crimes to the international tribunal in the Hague.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June. [29364]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June 1995. [29366]

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently in Cannes attending the European Council.

  Prisoners of War
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what was his response to the delegation which met him on 21 June concerning former British prisoners of war held by the Japanese; and if he will make a statement. [31135]

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expressed his very great sympathy for all that the former prisoners had endured. While recalling the Government's view of legal position, he said that he had discussed the matter with successive Japanese Prime Ministers and would continue to pursue it. He agreed to ask his Japanese counterpart if he would meet representatives of the former prisoners when they visit Japan next month.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister, what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the peace process; and if he will make a statement. [31140]

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Prime Minister has frequent discussions about all aspects of the situation in Northern Ireland with my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration was given during the G7 summit in Halifax, Canada to raising with the French President the matter of public concern over nuclear testing.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed nuclear testing with President Chirac on other occasions. It was not considered necessary to do so at Halifax.

TRANSPORT

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he proposes to develop the options for additional Thames crossings in east London identified in the Thames gateway planning framework. [31492]

  Mr. Norris
  A Consultation Document, "River Crossings to the East of Tower Bridge", was published today by the Government office for London. This seeks the widest possible views on the form and priorities for crossings, with the aim of identifying buildable schemes which have a broad degree of consensus.

  I will place a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what was the result of the Transport Council in Luxembourg on 19th and 20th June. [31493]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Transport Council met in Luxembourg on 19 and 20 June. My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Wales and I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council adopted conclusions on aviation relations with the USA. At my insistence, these require the Commission to carry out a thorough analysis to show whether a better result for all member states could realistically be produced by negotiations at Community level and to define the common interest.

  The Council reached a common position on guidelines on trans-European networks in transport and on a draft directive on interoperability of the high-speed train network. In the case of the guidelines on trans-European networks, a unanimous decision was required in the face of objections by the Commission.

  The Council reached a common position on a regulation on implementation of the international safety management code on the safety and management of vessels. The regulation provides for early mandatory application of the code from 1 July 1996 to all roll-on roll-off passenger ferries using EU ports.

  The Council adopted a directive on the collection of harmonised statistics on the carriage of passengers and goods by sea and on vessel movements.

  The Council held an orientation debate on alternative proposals for more effective recording equipment in road vehicles, in the light of member states' commitment to improve the enforcement of legislation on drivers' hours. At the end of an inconclusive debate the presidency called for further work to be carried out to assess the relative costs and benefits of the alternatives.

  The Council discussed Commission proposals to relax the constraints on the hire of road haulage vehicles for international operations. Most member states saw substantial difficulties in the proposals as they stand. The Committee of Permanent Representatives was invited to carry out further work on them in the light of the Council's discussion.
  546
  The Transport Commissioner, Mr. Kinnock, made an interim progress report on the Commission's exploratory talks with Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria on possible road transport agreements with the Community.

  The Council discussed proposals by the Commission for liberalisation of ground handling services at Community airports. It agreed that the Committee of Permanent Representatives should continue work on the proposal in the light of the debate.

  The Council also agreed conclusions on research in the transport sector, on the mutual acceptance of aviation products and on maritime relations with third countries. A resolution was adopted calling for further work on the development of telematics and automatic tolling systems for use in road transport.

  Marine Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 June,Official Report, column 618, what is the estimated time necessary for full evacuation in a real emergency from The Viking. [30301]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 27 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the estimated time to carry out a full evacuation in a real emergency from the roll on-roll off passenger ferry "The Viking".
  The vessel, now understood to be named "Peder Olsen", is not on the United Kingdom Register; the information requested is not, therefore, available. I can confirm, however, that agreed international provisions require the evacuation of all personnel to be accomplished within 30 minutes.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated time for evacuation from a roll-on roll-off ferry with carrying(a) 600, (b) 650 and (c) 700 passengers. [30233]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 27 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the estimated time for evacuation from a roll on-roll off ferry carrying 600, 650 and 700 passengers.
  I would refer you to the answer given on 9 May in a written reply to your Question reference PQ 1649/94/95. It is a requirement that all persons onboard a vessel could be evacuated within 30 minutes.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated time for evacuation from the CONDOR 11 catamaran when at full capacity; and what is the evacuation procedure. [30234]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  547
  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 27 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about evacuation from the catamaran CONDOR 11.
  The CONDOR 11 is provided with marine evacuation systems. Following a decision to abandon ship, passengers will be directed to use these to enter the life-rafts. The estimated time for evacuation of all personnel is 12 minutes.

  Motorway Congestion
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is his Department's policy on restricting access to any motorway during episodes of traffic congestion; to which motorways this policy has been applied in practice in the last six months; and whether it is his intention to extend such a policy to the M25; [30657]

  (2) what is his Department's policy on restricting access to the M5 during episodes of traffic congestion; on how many occasions restrictions have been necessary in the last six months; and if he will list the junction numbers of the entry points which have been closed on each of the last three occasions. [30658]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Michael Meacher, dated 27 June 1995:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions asking about policy on

  Grade

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  CSO

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  DCSO

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  3

  3

  4

  4

  SPSO

  11

  11

  14

  12

  11

  14

  16

  15

  17

  20

  22

  20

  18

  PSO

  45

  40

  41

  41

  44

  31

  28

  31

  53

  82

  86

  87

  93

  SSO

  56

  59

  59

  62

  66

  53

  52

  57

  71

  81

  80

  69

  70

  HSO

  60

  55

  57

  50

  47

  50

  49

  53

  60

  65

  61

  53

  50

  SO

  40

  32

  28

  28

  26

  31

  25

  25

  38

  35

  29

  26

  27

  ASO

  21

  20

  19

  19

  15

  17

  10

  13

  19

  19

  22

  18

  15

  G5

  7

  9

  9

  8

  9

  9

  9

  9

  9

  9

  9

  10

  8

  G6

  36

  44

  41

  41

  39

  40

  42

  42

  45

  48

  45

  49

  50

  G7

  35

  34

  34

  32

  32

  32

  36

  36

  36

  33

  35

  36

  32

  SEO

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Total

  315

  308

  306

  296

  293

  282

  271

  285

  352

  395

  392

  373

  368

  Note:

  CSO Chief Scientific Officer (now Home Civil Service (HCS) Grade 4).

  DCSO Deputy Chief Scientific Officer (now HCS Grade 5).

  SPSO Senior Principal Scientific Officer (now HCS Grade 6).

  PSO Principal Scientific Officer (now HCS Grade 7).

  SSO Senior Scientific Officer.

  HSO Higher Scientific Officer.

  SO Scientific Officer.

  ASO Assistant Scientific Officer.

  G5 Home Civil Service Grade 5.

  G6 Home Civil Service Grade 6.

  G7 Home Civil Service Grade 7.

  SEO Senior Executive Officer.
  548
  restricting access to motorways during episodes of traffic congestion.
  My Department has no general policy of restricting access to motorways during episodes of traffic congestion. The police, who are responsible for the day to day operation of motorways, may control access from time to time, particularly to enable them to deal more effectively with the aftermath of accidents and incidents.
  A system of "ramp metering" as introduced on the southbound entry slip road to the M6 at junction 10 in 1986, and has since been extended to cover the northbound entry slips at junction 10, both entry slips at junction 9, and the southbound entry slips at junctions 5 and 7. Traffic signals control the rate at which traffic enters the motorway to smooth flows at peak periods.
  The southbound entry slip road at junction 16 on the M5 has been closed since mid-April because of major maintenance. It is due to reopen within the next two weeks. Appropriate diversion routes are in place.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Scientists
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many scientists were directly employed by the ODA in each year since 1983; [29864]

  (2) how many qualified scientists there are in each grade in the Overseas Development Administration. [30217]

  Mr. Baldry
  The number of ODA posts, including those in the Natural Resources Institute, requiring a natural science or social science qualification, by grade, since 1983 are:
  549
  In addition, ODA employs other scientists on short-term contracts to work on the overseas aid programme, figures for which are not collected centrally.

TREASURY

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the value of the £30,000 mortgage tax relief if it had been increased in line with inflation from the time of its inception. [29638]

  Sir George Young
  As a result of lower mortgage interest rates the average mortgage holder is over £130 a month better off than five years ago. The £30,000 limit on mortgage interest relief was introduced in 1983–84. If this limit had been indexed in line with the change in the retail prices index, the limit for 1995–96 would be £53,000.

  Inflation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has decided to drop the Government's previous commitment to aim for a long-term rate of inflation of 2 per cent. or less. [30003]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government's commitment to permanently low inflation is unchanged. In his Mansion House speech on 14 June my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor laid down precise guidelines for the day to day operation of policy. Interest rates will be set consistently to achieve inflation of 21/2 per cent. or less, which should ensure that inflation will remain within the range 1 to 4 per cent. This would put us on course to achieve one of the best performances in Europe.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what prior information he was given about the appeal by the Inland Revenue on the separate assessment for council tax purposes of annexes of houses set aside for elderly relatives; if the appeal was undertaken with his approval; what action he proposes to take as a result; and if he will make a statement. [30021]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: Officials of the Valuation Office Agency briefed me on this issue earlier in the year. It is for the VOA and its legal advisers to consider whether to appeal to the High Court in council tax cases and the chief executive decided to do so in these cases.

  The Government will study the full text of the judgment as soon as it is available, in order to decide what action may be necessary. Our current understanding is that it affects only a small number of cases where there is an unresolved dispute as to whether a property contains one dwelling or more than one dwelling for council tax purposes. The ruling, as we understand it pending full examination of the transcript, does not mean that thousands of families caring for elderly relatives are likely to face additional back-dated council tax bills. The High Court has not said that either annexes generally or the particular annexes which were the subject of these cases are liable to separate council tax. It has merely said that
  550
  the valuation tribunals concerned took irrelevant factors into account in taking their decisions and has remitted the cases to the tribunals for reconsideration.

  The Government do not believe, and the judgment does not appear to suggest, that families should be penalised for sharing their home with an elderly relative or relatives.

  Housing Market and Retail Sales
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies his Department has carried out on the effect on retail sales of(a) an upturn, (b) a standstill and (c) a fall in the housing market. [30417]

  Mr. Nelson
  Treasury officials frequently review evidence on the relationship between consumer spending and real house prices. Most studies show a positive association, not least because factors such as actual and expected income and interest rates tend to drive both in the same direction.

  Gilt-edged Stock
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider extending the consultation period for the recent proposals to change the taxation of gilt-edged stock. [31248]

  Sir George Young
  We considered the timetable for consultation very carefully before announcing the proposals in the Revenue's consultative document, as my foreword makes clear. We concluded that the period proposed struck the best available balance between the need to allow scope for consultation and to minimise uncertainly. That remains our view.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to bring proposals to the House in relation to the reform of taxation of gilt-edged stock. [31247]

  Sir George Young
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State announced the publication of an Inland Revenue consultative document in reply to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on 25 May 1995 Official Report, column 712. Copies were placed in the Library of the House. We will announce our decision whether to proceed shortly after the period for consultation closes at the end of this month. Any consequent legislative proposals will come before the House in the normal way.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he will take to protect personal investors in gilt-edged stocks from the retrospective tax consequences of the recent proposals to reform the taxation of gilt-edged stock; and if he will make a statement. [31249]

  Sir George Young
  The proposals would not have retrospective effect: they would apply only to gains or losses building up in the future.

  The consultative document on the possible reform of the taxation of gilts and bonds suggests that there should be a sizeable threshold for private investors below which only interest would be taxable. It seeks views on the size and form of this threshold. The Government envisage that the threshold would be set at a level high enough to ensure that the overwhelming majority of personal investors were below it.
  551
  Most current personal holders of gilts would, if anything, be likely to benefit from the reform: the accrued income scheme which taxes accrued interest on disposals of gilts, would be abolished; and in addition, for those above the threshold, losses on disposals of gilts would attract tax relief. We will, though, be carefully considering representations on how the transition to the new regime might best be handled if the reform goes ahead.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service Pension Fund
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the proposed privatisation of the administration of the civil service pension fund will require secondary legislation. [31265]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government propose, following an efficiency scrutiny of administration of the PCSPS, to permit Departments to market test administration of the scheme. Parliamentary approval for this intended course of action will be sought. I expect shortly to make a statement on the matter. Occupational pension arrangements for civil servants will continue to be provided through the PCSPS.

  Civil Service College
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what key targets have been set for the Civil Service College for the current year. [31155]

  Mr. Horam
  I have set the following targets for the Civil Service College in 1995–96:

  1. to break even in accrual accounting terms without a central payment from Cabinet Office (OPSS);

  2. to earn £700,000 from consultancy;

  3. to attract 8,000 students at grade 7 and above;

  4. to attract 1,000 students from the private sector;

  5. to earn 80 per cent. of course evaluations in the two highest of six categories.

EMPLOYMENT

  Consultants
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money has been spent by the Health and Safety Executive in employing private sector consultants in support of its market testing and contracting out programme; and for what purposes. [29214]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In the period from 1992 to 1993, the Health and Safety Executive has spent a total of £386,759 on private sector consultancy in support of its market testing and contracting out programme.

  These consultants have been used to support in-house teams in constructing their bids, and to advise the HSE on the various aspects of particular procurements.

  To date, the gross saving for market testing and contracting out is £2.68 million.

  Safety Regulations
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions for infringement of safety regulations have been brought before the courts over the last five years in each region. [29358]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The number of prosecutions—measured by the number of informations laid—by the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division for infringement of safety regulations in each of the last five years in each HSE region is shown in the following table:

  Proceedings instituted by HSE's Field Operations Division Inspectorates for breaches of health and safety legislation

  Informations laid

  HSE Region

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Wales and South West

  266

  214

  193

  157

  113

  Home Counties

  315

  216

  265

  257

  223

  London and South East

  305

  256

  278

  235

  179

  Midlands

  571

  552

  635

  626

  531

  Yorkshire and North East

  458

  486

  526

  383

  326

  North West

  272

  301

  319

  234

  240

  Scotland

  360

  253

  191

  226

  158

  Total

  2,547

  2,278

  2,407

  2,118

  1,770

  A breakdown by region is not available in respect of other HSE inspectorates or local authorities.

  Food Industry
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions for infringement of health and safety regulations related to the food manufacturing industry have taken place in each region in each of the last five years. [29918]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The number of prosecutions—measured by the number of informations laid—by the Health and Safety Executive for infringement of health and safety legislation by the food manufacturing industry as defined by standard industrial classification in each region in each of the last five years is shown in the following table:

  Informations laid

  HSE Region

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Wales and South West

  14

  6

  12

  3

  12

  Home Counties

  38

  1

  16

  17

  8

  London and South East

  16

  3

  11

  12

  21

  Midlands

  19

  12

  17

  16

  15

  Yorkshire and North East

  8

  32

  21

  14

  28

  North West

  12

  22

  10

  16

  15

  Scotland

  9

  9

  6

  16

  15

  Total

  116

  85

  93

  94

  114

  Youth Training
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people attended and left the YT programme in each year of its operation including those who left before the completion of the programme. [30034]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is given in the following table. Information on leavers is available only from 1992–93.

  Number of youth training programme starts and leavers

  Great Britain Financial year

  Starts

  Leavers

  1990–91

  347,800

  —

  1991–92

  290,400

  —

  1992–93

  286,700

  278,000

  1993–94

  290,300

  284,300

  1994–95

  303,700

  298,500

  Notes:

  1. Numbers include youth credits starts and leavers.

  2. Leavers information is not available for 1990–91 or 1991–92.

  Source:

  Employment Department, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office.

  RJB Mining
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the sums paid by Barnsley/Doncaster TEC to RJB Mining for miners that have been re-employed for retraining purposes. [30471]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested relates to a contract between a training and enterprise council and one of its providers and is therefore commercial in confidence. TECs are private companies limited by guarantee, funded by the Government to provide training which best meets the needs of the local community. TECs are free to decide with whom they contract, taking into account the needs of the local labour market.

  Redundancy Notifications
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of total notifications to his Department of impending redundancies under section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 did not fully meet the requirements of that section in each of the last five years. [30705]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: The information is as follows:

  Year

  Per cent.

  1990

  27

  1991

  27

  1992

  31

  1993

  23

  1994

  22

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what inquiries are considered to be appropriate for his Department to make when an employer 554
  is alleged to have failed to notify impending redundancies to the Department under the terms of section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. [30703]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: The Department seeks details of proposals from an employer who is alleged to have failed to notify and, if appropriate, an explanation of the reasons for such failure.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many instances there have been of an employer failing on more than one occasion to comply with, or fully comply with, the notice requirements of section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in the last five years. [30706]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: This information is not available.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the six most common kinds of failure by employers to meet fully the requirements of section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 concerning notification of impending redundancies to his Department in each of the last five years. [30704]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: Reasons for non-compliance are not separately recorded. The most common reason would be failure to give the minimum notice required by section 193(1) or (2) of the Act.

  Sick Building Syndrome
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the annual cost to the British economy of sick building syndrome. [29238]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Sick building syndrome is not a diagnosable disease. There is no reliable information on the numbers who might be affected by it and it is not possible, therefore, to estimate the annual cost to the British economy.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research his Department is currently funding into the cause of sick building syndrome; and what will be the cost to public funds of that research. [29239]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive published a full review of sick building syndrome research in August 1992 and issued guidance for employers on 23 May 1995.

  Remploy
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what targets Remploy has been set in its 1995–96 annual performance agreement. [31483]
  555
  Miss Widdecombe
  I have written to the chairman of Remploy approving the 1995–96 annual performance agreement between the Department and the company. This agreement covers the year from 1 April 1995. It has been negotiated by the chief executive of the Employment Service on behalf of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State. The targets are:the average number of disabled people employed by Remploy Ltd. will be at least 9,200;
  556
  of which more than 7,200 on average must be employed in factories;
  at least 125 disabled employees will move from Remploy factories to Interwork having been employed there for at least one year, or from Interwork or factories to open employment;
  the unit cost of Interwork should be no more than £4,500;
  Remploy Ltd. will keep within a unit cost target (operating deficit per disabled worker) of £10,400;
  Choices programme to be in place in every factory.

  I have today arranged for the text of the annual performance agreement to be placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of parliamentary questions, which would have been answered directly by her or her Ministers prior to the establishment of executive agencies, are now referred to the chief executive of such an agency. [28486]

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

  Residential Care
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 19 April 1995,Official Report, column 131, what is the information for England for 1993–94 for both income and expenditure in respect of the placement of old people in residential care and nursing homes. [28941]

  Mr. Bowis
  The data with which to update my answer of 19 April to 1993–94 have recently become available. I shall place an updated table in the Library shortly.

  Hypertension
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department carried out into hypertension intervention in high risk patients; what have been the findings; and if she will make a statement. [30002]

  Mr. Sackville
  The available research is summarised in the "Health of the Nation" publications. "Assessing the Options: CHD and Stroke" and "Key Area Handbook: Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke" and the publication "Health Care Needs Assessment" which contain information on hypertension and which have been placed in the Library.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The MRC is an independent body deciding what research to support on its own expert judgment.

  Soya Milk
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans her Department has to make(a) soya milk infant formula feeds and (b) other foods with high oestrogen and phytoestrogen contents designed for under five-year-olds available by prescription only. [29991]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been(a) started and (b) completed on
  558
  phytoestrogen in soya milk following the 1992 recommendations of the committee on toxicity of foodstuffs. [29992]

  Mr. Sackville
  Since 1992, when the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment last considered phytoestrogens, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has commissioned two studies which include analysis of soya milk and infant formula. These have not been completed. In addition, a surveillance project measuring levels of oestrogens in the diets of infants, toddlers and young children will start shortly.

  Private Nursery Schools
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has received from Coventry's education department regarding the safety of children at private nursery schools with fewer than five pupils; and what action will be taken on those proposals. [30205]

  Mr. Bowis
  The chairman of Coventry's education and training committee and other councillors have recently jointly written to the Secretaries of State for Education and for Health about the registration of independent nursery schools. Registration of independent schools which have five or more pupils of school age is a matter for the Department for Education. The Department of Health is responsible for the framework for the registration with local authorities of other day care services for young children. The Secretaries of State for Education and for Health keep the arrangements for ensuring appropriate standards of child care and education in all settings under regular review.

  Peri-operative Deaths
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the paediatric cardiac unit doctors in Bristol have taken part in the National Confidential Inquiry into Peri-operative Deaths audit in each of the last 10 years. [30005]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available. The National Confidential Inquiry into Peri-operative Deaths is an independent organisation.

  Blood Transfusions
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to develop a service of autologous blood transfusion. [30419]

  Mr. Sackville
  We recognise the value of autologous transfusion for those patients where the procedures are applicable. In appropriate cases it can provide a useful supplement to the supply of blood from voluntary donors which the National Blood Service supplies to our hospitals. The medical profession is aware of autologous transfusion and advice is available from medical staff of
  559
  the National Blood Service and hospital consultant haematologists. Selection of patients for this procedure has to be undertaken with extreme care to avoid any possible clinical risk to that patient.

  Heart Defect HCM
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been recorded as dying of the heart defect HCM. [30422]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 20 December 1994,Official Report, column 1149.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which European countries have screening programmes for the heart defect HCM. [30423]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Hospital Treatment Statistics
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many finished consultant episodes there were in each of the last five years. [30426]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information for the years 1989–90 to 1993–94 is available in Department of Health statistical bulletin 12/94, "NHS hospital activity statistics: England 1983 to 1993–94", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Infection in Hospitals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has carried out in respect of a national prevalence survey of infection in hospitals; and if she will make a statement. [30473]

  Mr. Sackville
  A national prevalence survey of infection in hospitals was carried out in 1993–94. The detailed results are expected later this year.

  The Department continues to fund a number of research and audit studies aimed at providing a basis for improving practice. Within the next three months we shall be placing a contract to set up a national surveillance system for hospital-acquired infection.

  Solihull Hospital
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will release funds to allow Solihull hospital to continue as a separate hospital with full facilities including children's wards and an accident and emergency unit. [30638]

  Mr. Sackville
  Allocation of funds to health authorities is a matter for the appropriate regional health authority. It is then the responsibility of health authorities to use this funding to purchase relevant and efficient local health services. Solihull health authority is responsible for ensuring effective provision of services for the people of Solihull. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr. Robert Fordham, chairman of Solihull health authority, for further information.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will discuss with the regional health authority the possibility of restoring Solihull hospital to full trust status in the near future; and if she will make a statement. [30637]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no such plans.

  Male Reproductive Health
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being undertaken on male reproductive health and environmental chemicals with oestrogenic effects. [30539.]

  Mr. Sackville
  No research is being undertaken in this area by the Department.

  Health Promotion in Schools
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in setting up a pilot network of health-promoting schools as described in "The Health of the Nation;" and what her Department's budget has been for this project in the current year. [30545]

  Mr. Sackville
  England formally entered a European network of health-promoting schools in September 1993. The 16 pilot schools which make up the English network are currently involved in a wide variety of health education and health promotion activities, involving not only the school community but also external agencies. A number of schools have established European links with the wider European network of schools.

  The Department of Health will contribute approximately £400,000 to the project for the current year.

  Consultant Numbers
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the percentage change in full-time equivalent consultant numbers by region in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94. [30454]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table. Data for 1993–94 are not yet available.
  561

  Consultants by region: annual percentage change (whole-time equivalent); England as at 30 September 1990–93

  Percentage

  Percentage change

  Annual average

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1990–93

  Northern

  3.3

  5.7

  -7.8

  0.2

  Yorkshire

  3.3

  12.7

  5.8

  7.2

  Trent

  1.9

  6.2

  1.9

  3.3

  East Anglia

  3.3

  -2.4

  4.6

  1.8

  North West Thames

  1.5

  -8.9

  -4.1

  -3.9

  North East Thames

  -0.3

  8.8

  -2.3

  1.9

  South East Thames

  2.7

  0.4

  2.0

  1.7

  South West Thames

  3.1

  -3.7

  9.4

  2.8

  Wessex

  4.1

  3.6

  4.4

  4.0

  Oxford

  1.8

  3.5

  6.8

  4.0

  South Western

  2.8

  3.1

  3.2

  3.0

  West Midlands

  2.9

  2.3

  1.2

  2.1

  Mersey

  1.6

  2.6

  7.9

  4.0

  North Western

  1.5

  -1.2

  4.3

  1.5

  Special health authorities and special hospitals

  5.4

  -6.9

  11.5

  3.0

  England

  2.4

  2.2

  2.5

  2.3

  Note:

  1. All percentages are rounded to the nearest decimal place.

  Junior Doctors' Hours
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has on whether any junior doctors are working such long hours for damage to their health to be foreseen. [30465]

  Mr. Malone
  None. The new deal on junior doctors' hours, a copy of which is available in the Library, sets limits on the maximum average weekly hours junior doctors can be both on duty and actually working.

  Significant progress has been made through the new deal to reduce hours. Latest returns from regional task forces show that 96 per cent. of all junior doctors are within the contracted hours limits.

  Hepatitis C
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when each EEC country brought in blood test screening for hepatitis C. [30467]

  Mr. Sackville
  European Community countries introduced testing for the hepatitis C virus at various times. We do not have information on the details. Screening was introduced in the United Kingdom in September 1991 when satisfactory kits became available, together with confirmatory tests.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children who have been abused have been helped in each of the last five years. [30766]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information available centrally relates to children subject to initial stage child protection conferences and to children at risk placed on a child protection register. It does not give an indication of numbers abused. Available figures are published annually in "Children and young people on child protection registers, year ending 31 March 19XX, England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mental Health
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the review by the clinical standards advisory group of standards of care for people with schizophrenia will be published. [30191]

  Mr. Bowis
  Shortly.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients fell within the remit of the Mental Health Act Commission for each year since 1990. [30179]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is not available in the form requested. The number of formal admissions to national health service facilities, private mental nursing homes and the three special hospitals is published in the bulletin "In-Patients Formally Detained in Hospitals under The Mental Health Act 1983 and Other Legislation, England: 1987–88 to 1992–93", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, for the last five years, the total numbers of medical practitioners in England currently approved under section 12(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 as having special skill and experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder, listing them, in England, by regional health authority area and distinguishing between general medical practitioners who are approved and specialist medical practitioners who are approved. [30181]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 19 June at column 45.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the total number of patients admitted to hospital under sections 3, 37 and 37 to 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983, distinguishing between each of those sections and the classification of mental disorder from which the patient was judged to be suffering in each of the last five years. [30183]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on the number of patients is not available centrally. Information on the number of formal admissions under sections 3 and 37, with section 41 restrictions, and section 37 without section 41 restrictions, of the Mental Health Act 1983, distinguishing between each of those sections and the classification of mental disorder for the years 1990–91 to 1992–93 is shown in the table. Figures for the last two years are not yet available.

  Formal admissions to NHS facilities, private homes and special hospitals under the mental health act 1988 and other legislation by legal status, England 1990–91 to 1992–93

  Mental Category1

  MI

  PD

  MIMP

  SMIMP

  NS

  1990–91

  Section 3

  4,074

  32

  41

  15

  39

  Section 37 (with section 41 restriction)

  228

  23

  24

  0

  6

  Section 37 (without section 41 restriction)

  612

  17

  26

  5

  13

  1991–92

  Section 3

  5,505

  35

  51

  18

  44

  Section 37 (with section 41 restriction)

  270

  26

  23

  1

  1

  Section 37 (without section 41 restriction)

  574

  13

  46

  3

  6

  563

  Formal admissions to NHS facilities, private homes and special hospitals under the mental health act 1988 and other legislation by legal status, England 1990–91 to 1992–93

  Mental Category1

  MI

  PD

  MIMP

  MIMP

  NS

  1992–93

  Section 3

  6,148

  39

  78

  24

  41

  Section 37 (with section 41 restriction)

  300

  27

  11

  0

  5

  Section 37 (without section 41 restriction)

  580

  12

  31

  2

  0

  1 MI—Mental Illness

  MI—Mental Illness

  PD—Psychopathic disorder

  MIMP—Mental impairment

  SMIMP—Severe mental impairment

  NS—Not specified

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what comments have been received by her Department on its draft "Guide to Arrangements for Inter-Agency Working for the Care and Protection of Severely Mentally Ill People" with particular reference to the after-care form contained in it; and when the guide will be published. [30185]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have received a number of comments in response to our wide consultation on the draft "Guide to Arrangements for Inter-Agency Working for the Care and Protection of Severely Mentally Ill People". The guide will be published later this year.

  We consulted separately on the after-care form before its introduction in February. More than 100 agencies and individuals responded and the form was broadly welcomed.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of the Mental Health Act Commission for each of the last five financial years; and what is its projected cost for 1995–96 and 1996–97. [30187]

  Mr. Bowis
  Past and projected expenditure on commissioners' fees and expenses and staffing and administration is as follows:

  Financial year

  £000

  1990–91

  1,264

  1991–92

  1,485

  1992–93

  1,546

  1993–94

  1,730

  1994–95

  11,728

  1995–96

  21,960

  1996–97

  21,988

  1 Provisional.

  2 Projected.

  Equivalent information about expenditure on fees, expenses, and training of those appointed by the commission under sections 57 and 58 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to give second opinions about treatment is as follows:

  Financial Year

  £000

  1990–91

  424

  1991–92

  490

  1992–93

  598

  1993–94

  587

  564

  Financial Year

  £000

  1994–95

  1724

  1995–96

  2725

  1996–97

  2749

  1 Provisional.

  2 Projected.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to consider the contents and recommendations of the Law Commission's report No. 231 on mental incapacity; and if she will make a statement. [30189]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department is represented on the inter-departmental working group, chaired by the Lord Chancellor's Department, which is considering the Law Commission's report.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements her Department has made since August 1993 to provide better training for key workers under the care programme approach, including on the revised Mental Health Act code of practice and on new guidance on discharge from hospital, including what additional resources it has made available for such training, and an estimate of the numbers of staff trained as a result. [30193]

  Mr. Bowis
  Training for key workers on all appropriate issues under the care programme approach is primarily a matter for national health service provider units and social services departments and a wide range of local training is under way or planned. To support this process we have arranged a number of national conferences to improve training with further national and regional conferences planned; commissioned the Open university to develop an open learning pack for social services staff; and commissioned a development pack for local health and social services authorities which incorporates the outcome of a national key worker training conference.

  Information on the number of staff trained is not available centrally.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for the last five years the total number of patients who have been received into guardianship under sections 7 or 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 listing them by social services authority and distinguishing between different classifications of mental disorder and between sections 7 and 37. [30190]

  Mr. Bowis
  The centrally available information on the number of new cases by local authority, classification of mental disorder and section for the years 1989–90 to 1993–94 will be placed in the Library. An England summary of the data was published in "Guardianship under the Mental Health Act (1983) Year Ending 31 March 1994, England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements her Department has made to provide improved training to doctors approved under section 12(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 including on the revised Mental Health code of practice, on the new guidance on discharge from hospital and on supervision registers, including the additional resources it has made available for such training; and what is her estimate of the numbers of doctors trained as a result. [30192]
  565
  Mr. Bowis
  Regional directors of public health are responsible, in association with professional and other bodies, for ensuring that suitable training is provided to doctors approved under section 12 of the Act. We have already recognised the potential value of a common core of training which would include the matters identified by the hon. Member and have been discussing with the Royal College of Psychiatrists the preparation of a training pack for this purpose. We expect to receive the college's detailed proposals shortly.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what arrangements exist to monitor and evaluate strict compliance by district health authorities, NHS trusts and local social services authorities with the requirements of HC(90)23/LASSL(90)11; how many district health authority areas she has assessed being fully complied with this guidance; and what steps her Department is taking to ensure compliance with the necessary arrangements in those remaining. [30178]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have been closely monitoring the introduction of the care programme approach in a survey of district health authorities earlier this year. From those responding it was clear that many districts were making rapid progress towards full implementation and over one third had already achieved this. We identified implementation of the care programme approach as a priority for the national health service in the priorities and planning guidance for 1995–96 and we have issued a revised "The Health of the Nation" mental illness key area handbook which contains further advice on implementing it. We have also commissioned an audit tool from the Royal College of Psychiatrists' research unit to enable district health authorities and trusts to monitor their performance. We are continuing to monitor the position closely to ensure that all districts achieve full implementation.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department is undertaking or funding into the impact and effectiveness of the Mental Health Act code of practice on decision making by those with powers under the Mental Health Act 1983, with particular reference to the effect of the revisions made to the code in November 1993 on the use of those powers to admit and detain patients in hospital for assessment or for treatment. [30180]

  Mr. Bowis
  None at present. We have given wide publicity to the 1993 revisions to the code clarifying the grounds on which a patient may be admitted to hospital under the Act, and have no reason to believe that they are not properly understood.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions she has been requested by the Mental Health Act Commission in accordance with section 121(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983 to direct it to keep under review the care and treatment of any patients other than those detained under the Act to which patients the requests related; and how she responded. [30182]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Commission made a request in 1986 for its remit to be extended to hospital patients other than those detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. Similar requests have been made with regard to patients subject to guardianship and those who would be receiving after-care under supervision. We have told the commission that we 566
  consider its overriding priority to be the protection of patients detained under the 1983 Act. This remains our view and we do not consider that an extension of its remit would be justified at this stage. We shall however keep this matter under review.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to amend the Mental Health Act code of practice; and when draft revisions will be published for consultation. [30184]

  Mr. Bowis
  We shall be proposing amendments to the code to cover the provisions of the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill, if this receives parliamentary approval. They will be published for consultation after Royal Assent and when the necessary regulations have been laid.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what theoretical and practical training is received by general medical practitioners as part of their general syllabus in assessing the risk of harm which a person's mental disorder may pose to that person's health or safety or to the safety of others. [30186]

  Mr. Malone
  Training in psychiatry is an important part of the basic medical education common to all doctors. The body responsible for general practice vocational training—the joint committee on postgraduate training for general practice—expects general practitioners to be knowledgeable about the impact of psychological factors upon illness and of illness upon patients and their families and skilled in recognising and making appropriate decisions about all problems presented by their patients. The specific curricular arrangements are the responsibility of regional postgraduate organisations. Further training and experience are provided as part of the continuing education of practitioners.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the organisations and individuals which have made representations to her Department during the last two years requesting her to establish a review of the Mental Health Act 1983. [30188]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Mental Health Act Commission submitted proposals for a review of the Mental Health Act 1983 to my right hon. Friend in September 1993. This was followed by a joint representation by the commission, the Law Society and the Institute of Psychiatry. In her response, my right hon. Friend said that while the Act as a whole would need to be reviewed at some stage this would have to take account of the impact of the Government's proposals for supervised discharge and related initiatives in the field of mental health.

  Arguments for a review of the Act have been put forward by a number of other organisations and individuals including some of those who responded to our consultation on legal powers on the care of mentally ill people in the community and on Mental Health Act guardianship.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what arrangements exist to monitor and evaluate compliance by district health authorities and NHS trusts with the requirements of HSG(94)5; how many district health authority areas she has assessed as having fully and sufficiently implemented this guidance; and what steps her Department is taking to ensure that those remaining introduce the necessary arrangements. [30194]
  567
  Mr. Bowis
  The introduction of supervision registers has been closely monitored by the national health service executive. Registers have been established in all districts. We are continuing to monitor the position to ensure that the registers are operating effectively.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners there are in each region approved under section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983; and what steps are taken to ensure that a section 12 approved doctor can be contacted in an emergency. [31050]

  Mr. Bowis
  Regional directors of public health are responsible for ensuring that there are sufficient suitably trained and experienced doctors approved under the Act, and that the necessary out-of-hours cover is available. We are satisfied that these requirements are being properly met.

  Protection of Young People at Work
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which groups and bodies she is consulting over her proposal to implement the EC directive on the protection of young people at work; when this consultation is due to end; what documents pertaining to this process have already been issued and to whom; what discussions she or her Department had with the Department of Employment over this issue; and if she will make a statement. [31023]

  Mr. Bowis
  We shall be consulting a wide range of groups and bodies in due course. We are in touch with all other Government Departments with an interest.

  Liverpool Blood Transfusion Centre
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received opposing proposed changes to the Liverpool blood transfusion centre. [31137]

  Mr. Sackville
  Ministers have received 88 letters about the National Blood Authority's proposals for the Liverpool blood transfusion centre since August 1994. In addition, there have been two early-day motions and one parliamentary question relating to the proposals for the Liverpool centre. This is in addition to other representations covering wider areas which include Liverpool.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the proposed changes to, and the future of, the Liverpool blood transfusion centre. [31139]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the National Blood Authority. We expect it to make its revised recommendations for the organisation to the National Blood Service shortly.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the capital expenditure on(a) new hospitals, (b) other new medical centres or units and (c) repairing existing NHS building in each of the last 16 years, excluding private capital. [28641]
  568
  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: Information is not available in the form requested. Total capital expenditure in each of the last 16 years is shown in the table. The definition of capital has changed during the 16-year period; therefore comparisons between years cannot readily be made. For 1993–94, the threshold value for the definition of capital expenditure was increased from £1,000 to £5,000. This technical change to accounting policy reduced capital expenditure as money spent on tangible assets which was formerly classed as capital was in 1993–94 recorded as revenue. In 1993–94, over £100 million was transferred from capital to revenue to take account of the increase to the capital threshold.

  Year

  Total capital expenditure (£000)

  1993–94

  1,719,271

  1992–93

  1,809,021

  1991–92

  1,713,116

  1990–91

  1,485,404

  1989–90

  1,292,212

  1988–89

  1,087,936

  1987–88

  1,001,444

  1986–87

  936,291

  1985–86

  891,947

  1984–85

  795,404

  1983–84

  713,947

  1982–83

  686,386

  1981–82

  671,386

  1980–81

  563,174

  1979–80

  416,387

  1978–79

  367,352

  Note:

  1. The table shows figures for regional health authorities, district health authorities and the London Postgraduate Teaching Hospitals (SHAs). Figures post-1991–92 include NHS trusts.

  2. Figures for 1993–94 are provisional.

  3. The figures for 1991–92 to 1993–94 represent capital additions.

  4. The figures pre-1991–92 represent capital expenditure.

  Source:

  NHS (England) Summarised Accounts.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all areas within(a) her Department (b) agencies under her Department's control and (c) organisations for which she has ministerial responsibility to which Crown immunity applies; what consideration she has given to removing this; and if she will make a statement. [28648]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: The detail requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost, but the general position is as follows.

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

  Crown immunity was removed from those national health service bodies which had until then enjoyed it, by section 60 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 with effect from 1 April 1991, subject to certain exemptions provided for in schedule 8 to that Act.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Brent Spar
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much public money has been spent to date on Shell's activities with regard to the proposed sinking of the Brent Spar oil platform. [30816]

  Mr. Eggar
  Consideration of Shell's proposals for disposal of the Brent Spar has taken three years and has involved a number of Government Departments and agencies. It is not practicable to quantify the cost in terms of public expenditure.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what requests for additional information about future options for the Brent Spar were made to Shell UK by Ministers or officials in his Department subsequent to the Department receiving the Brent Spar abandonment best possible environmental option analysis in early 1994; what date, and by whom and what method, such requests were made; what was the response of Shell UK; and if he will make a statement. [31082]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: The decision to dispose of the Brent Spar at a deep-sea site was the best practicable environmental option. That decision was arrived at after three years of detailed work. Regular discussions with Shell throughout that time ensured that the Government were able to carry out a full assessment of the various alternatives. From 13 possible options, six were studied in detail and two exhaustively. It was concluded that deep-sea disposal was preferable to onshore dismantling. Any proposals that Shell now puts forward relating to land disposal will need to address the problems which led to the identification of deep-sea disposal at the best practicable environmental option.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he is currently making about the viability of relocating the Brent Spar oil rig to Brixham to form the northern arm of the harbour protection scheme; and if he will make a statement. [30990]

  Mr. Eggar
  None—it is for Shell UK Ltd. and Esso Exploration and Production UK Ltd. as owners of the installation, to come forward with proposals for its future.

  Iraq (Export Credit Guarantees)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 30 March,Official Report, column 777, if he will identify which categories of military list goods were supported by the Export Credits Guarantee Department; and which companies were involved. [30868]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: The defence-related equipment supported by ECGD over the period 1985 to 1990 did not include armaments of any sort. It ranged from radio communications equipment to power supplies, video recording systems and diesel test equipment.

  It has been the policy of successive Administrations not to disclose details of exporters' Contracts unless the parties agree.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 183, if he will list all those occasions on which he did not give prior warning to hon. Members. [30752]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: As far I am aware, I always let hon. Members know when I visit their constituencies in an official capacity. If the hon. Member knows of occasions where this has not occurred, perhaps he could write to me.

  Car Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the relative effect of(a) the reduction in the tariff, (b) the removal of tariff protection against EEC countries and (c) the monetary and exchange rate policies of successive United Kingdom Governments on the increase in car imports since 1970; and if he will show the share of the United Kingdom market taken by the EEC, the other eight EEC countries and the rest of the world in 1968, 1972, 1979, 1990 and in the latest 12 months for which figures are available. [29948]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department does not make such estimates, which would be very imprecise because of the large number of other factors affecting car production and trade.

  UK car production is at its highest for 20 years, with the number of cars exported running at over three times that of a decade ago, while the number imported has fallen by almost 20 per cent. in the last five years.

  Figures of UK registration by country of final assembly are in the table; comparable data for 1968 are not available.

  UK new car registrations by country of final assembly

  Per cent.

  1972

  1979

  1990

  1994

  Belgium

  0.0

  6.3

  5.5

  7.9

  Luxembourg

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  France

  7.5

  11.5

  11.1

  14.4

  Germany

  5.9

  13.5

  17.5

  10.8

  Italy

  3.0

  5.4

  3.0

  2.6

  Netherlands

  0.9

  0.6

  2.0

  1.3

  Ireland

  0.0

  0.7

  0.0

  0.0

  Denmark

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Total above

  17.3

  38.1

  39.1

  36.9

  Rest of world

  6.2

  18.2

  17.7

  20.1

  Total imported

  23.5

  56.3

  56.7

  57.0

  United Kingdom

  76.5

  43.7

  43.3

  43.0

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  BMARC
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library copies of all board minutes and reports to the board of BMARC which were obtained to enable inspectors to carry out their report into the reasons for the collapse of the company and retained by his Department. [31008]
  571
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: No. Documents obtained by inspectors under statutory compulsory powers should in principle be used only for the purposes envisaged by the legislation. While I will always consider whether to release such documents for particular purposes where it is in the public interest to do so, it would not be appropriate for me to make information obtained during the course of an inspection generally available.

  Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will publish for the industries which correspond most closely with those listed in table

  Per cent.

  Ratio 1

  Ratio 3

  Import penetration

  Export/sales

  Industry

  1971

  1979

  1988

  1993

  1971

  1979

  1988

  1993

  Leather and leather goods

  23

  40

  49

  62

  24

  29

  38

  42

  Non-metallic mineral products

  5

  10

  16

  18

  11

  14

  16

  18

  Medical, precision and optical instruments, watches and clocks

  37

  56

  58

  63

  46

  57

  53

  63

  Motor vehicles

  12

  41

  50

  55

  33

  38

  25

  42

  Source: Central Statistical Office Business Monitor MQ10.

  Industrial Output
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish output figures for the latest possible three months for the industries listed in table 15.10 of the monthly digest of statistics, c50 (95) 109 first release together with the change since 1988 and 1990 in the volume of output, imports and exports. [29448]

  Table 1: Index of production: seasonally adjusted 1990=100

  Percentage change since

  SIC 92 sub-section

  SIC 92 division

  Description

  IOP Q1 1995

  1988

  1990

  CB

  13, 14

  Other mining and quarrying

  71.7

  -34.3

  -28.3

  DA

  15, 16

  Food drink and tobacco

  103.9

  5.7

  3.9

  DB

  17, 18

  Textile and textile products

  90.4

  -14.6

  -9.6

  DC

  19

  Leather and leather products

  81.9

  -28.1

  -18.1

  DD

  20

  Wood and wood products

  85.8

  -16.0

  -14.2

  DE

  21,22

  Pulp, paper and paper products; printing and publishing

  101.9

  9.6

  1.9

  DF

  23

  Solid fuels and nuclear fuels; oil refining

  116.5

  17.3

  16.5

  DG

  24

  Chemicals and man-made fibres

  116.4

  21.8

  16.4

  DH

  25

  Rubber and plastic products

  113.9

  23.1

  13.9

  DI

  26

  Non-metallic mineral products

  95.5

  -6.9

  -4.5

  DJ

  27,28

  Basic metals and metal products

  86.6

  -14.1

  -13.4

  DK

  29

  Machinery and equipment

  87.1

  -7.2

  -12.9

  DL

  30, 31, 32, 33

  Electrical and optical equipment

  115.8

  24.4

  15.8

  DM

  34,35

  Transport equipment

  92.1

  3.5

  -7.9

  DN

  36,37

  Manufacturing nes

  86.3

  -7.5

  -13.7

  Source:

  CSDB Detailed Index of Production.
  572
  15.10 of the monthly digest statistics, figures for ratio 1 import penetration on the United Kingdom market for manufactures for the years (a) 1968, (b) 1971, (c) 1979, (d) 1988 and (e) 1993; [29945]

  (2) whether he will publish, for the industries which correspond most closely to those listed in table 15.10 of the monthly digest of statistics, figures for ratio 3 United Kingdom exports, United Kingdom sales of manufacturers for the years (a) 1968, (b) 1971, (c) 1979, (d) 1988 and (e) 1993. [29950]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The information is not available for 1968. Comparable data for all four remaining years are available for only four industries, as given in the table. Data for other industries are not available on a comparable basis and could be produced only in a limited number of cases, at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The index of production for the level of detail required is not yet available. Table 1 gives the most detailed information available for Q1 1995.

  Import and export figures by SIC(92) division are not available prior to 1990. Available figures at constant prices are given in table 2.
  573

  Table 2: Exports and Imports

  Percentage change since

  Quarter 1 1995

  Quarter 1 1990

  SIC 92 Division

  Description

  Exports £ million

  Imports £ million

  Exports

  Imports

  13

  Mining of metal ores

  4.0

  191.6

  -8.8

  13.6

  14

  Other mining and quarrying

  736.2

  673.0

  24.1

  -17.2

  15

  Manufacture of food products and beverages

  1,695.1

  2,186.5

  32.8

  -0.9

  16

  Manufacture of tobacco products

  268.5

  40.2

  86.8

  19.7

  17

  Manufacture of textiles

  641.1

  1,091.7

  2.8

  4.6

  18

  Manufacture wearing apparel; dressing fur

  401.7

  1,239.9

  29.8

  39.7

  19

  Leather tanning; manufacture luggages, etc.

  166.7

  451.4

  9.6

  2.9

  20

  Manufacture of wood and wood, cork, etc. goods

  44.2

  454.5

  13.1

  -21.8

  21

  Manufacture of pulp, paper and paper products

  546.4

  1,308.5

  44.1

  8.0

  22

  Publishing, printing and record media

  439.4

  314.7

  21.7

  12.8

  23

  Manufacture coke, petroleum, products and nuclear

  886.1

  418.1

  23.8

  -36.6

  24

  Manufacture chemicals and chemical products

  4,353.6

  3,461.9

  22.6

  23.7

  25

  Manufacture of rubber and plastic products

  710.3

  829.8

  17.7

  8.9

  26

  Manufacture other non-metal mineral products

  415.6

  352.2

  31.9

  -13.0

  27

  Manufacture Of basic metals

  1,934.1

  1,988.7

  35.8

  25.0

  28

  Manufacture fabricated metal, not machines

  547.3

  636.3

  3.8

  -0.8

  29

  Manufacture of machinery and equipment nec

  2,706.2

  2,218.8

  -8.5

  -23.3

  30

  Manufacture Of office machinery and computers

  2,774.8

  2,654.2

  73.7

  30.4

  31

  Manufacture of electrical machinery etc. Nec

  914.8

  1,051.5

  10.1

  20.9

  32

  Manufacture of Radio, Tv and equipment

  2,287.0

  1,959.1

  115.5

  42.3

  33

  Manufacture medical and precision instruments

  915.9

  807.6

  1.6

  -11.4

  34

  Manufacture Of motor vehicles, trailers etc.

  2,540.4

  3,006.9

  32.3

  -11.7

  35

  Manufacture of other transport equipment

  1,225.7

  775.1

  -20.6

  -52.1

  36

  Manufacture of furniture; manufacturing Nec

  561.5

  720.7

  32.2

  -5.3

  Plant-derived Fuel
  Mr. Spearinig
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support is being given by his Department to research or development into internal combustion engines whose main source of fuel is from vegetable or cereal-based oils. [30809]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: The Department of Trade and Industry is part funding, through its renewable energy programme, a European Community project, led by Ormrod Diesels of Skelmersdale, to establish whether pyrolysis oils derived from wood and cereal straw have the prospect of providing an economically attractive and environmentally acceptable fuel for internal combustion engines.

  Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list(a) the bids that were successful under non-fossil fuel obligations 1 and 2, (b) those projects that are now operational and (c) those projects that are currently under construction. [29907]

  Mr. Page
  The status of individual contracts is a commercial matter for the parties to the contracts—the Non-fossil Purchasing Agency Ltd. as agent of the 12 regional electricity companies, and the generators. The Department does not hold information on projects under construction. Aggregate information on projects that were awarded contracts under the first and second renewables orders—SI 1990/1859 and SI 1991/2490 respectively—and on projects that were operational as at 31 March 1995, is as follows:
  574

  Contracted Projects

  Operational Projects

  Technology

  Number

  Capacity MW (DNC)

  Number

  Capacity MW (DNC)

  NFFO-1(1990)

  Hydro

  26

  11.851

  21

  10.001

  Landfill Gas

  25

  35.496

  20

  31.676

  MIW

  4

  40.63

  4

  40.63

  Other

  4

  45.48

  4

  45.48

  Sewage Gas

  7

  6.445

  7

  6.445

  Wind

  9

  12.211

  8

  11.703

  Total:

  75

  152.113

  64

  145,935

  NFFO-2(1991)

  Hydro

  12

  10.857

  7

  10.052

  Landfill Gas

  28

  48.449

  26

  46.393

  MIW

  10

  271.48

  2

  31.5

  Other

  4

  30.15

  1

  12.5

  Sewage Gas

  19

  26.859

  19

  26.859

  Wind

  49

  84.431

  25

  51.909

  Total:

  122

  472.226

  80

  179.213

  Total (NFFO-1+2):

  197

  624.339

  144

  325.148

  Source: Energy Technology Support Unit.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Firearms
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now received the report from Messrs Ernst and Young on the design of a recording and reporting system which would allow income and expenditure on the administration of firearms licensing to be monitored more closely; and if he will publish it. [29303]
  575
  Mr. Maclean
  The report was received by the Home Office in July 1992 and is publicly available on request to the Home Office. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available the full report into firearms fees, including all supporting tables, provided to his Department in 1992 by Messrs Ernst and Young. [29310]

  Mr. Maclean
  A copy of the Ernst and Young report was placed in the Library on 20 July 1994.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces are currently processing firearms licensing at a cost below the level of fees charged; and if he will estimate the amount of excess contribution thereby made by firearms users to general police funds in these police areas. [29311]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which police forces now have in place a mechanism for taking into account the views of the shooting public in respect of their administration of firearms licensing as recommended by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary; [29312]

  (2) if he will list for each police force in England and Wales the average time taken from the receipt of an application for (a) a shotgun certificate and (b) a firearm certificate to the issue of that certificate; [29313]

  (3) if he will list for each police force in England and Wales how long before the due date for the renewal of a shotgun or firearm certificate a reminder is sent to the certificate holder. [29314]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Prostitution
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers he has to prosecute British subjects who procure child prostitutes in other countries. [28738]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: The Government deplore the sexual exploitation of children, wherever it may occur. Our own law against such abuse is rightly severe. However, our courts' jurisdiction is territorially based rather than nationality based, and we therefore have no power to prosecute British nationals who commit offences against children in other countries.

  The United Kingdom is, however, willing to extradite its nationals to stand trial in the places where they are alleged to have offended, subject to the usual safeguards. We are also willing to provide legal assistance to foreign authorities who wish to prosecute British nationals, under the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. In addition, we are currently considering ways in which it may be possible to improve liaison between our police and foreign enforcement agencies, and whether
  576
  there is any scope for further Government action to tackle the dreadful problem of child prostitution and sex tourism.

  Police Pensions
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the estimated cost to each police authority in the south-east of England of funding from revenue police pensions in the years 1995–96 and 1996–97; and what proportion these sums represent of each police authority's budget. [30260]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: The table sets out the budgeted net expenditure on police pensions in 1995–96, as estimated by police forces in the south-east of England.

  £ million

  Force

  Total revenue budget

  Budgeted net pensions expenditure

  Percentage of budget

  Metropolitan Police

  1,628.68

  133.74

  8.2

  City of London

  61.33

  4.68

  7.6

  Kent

  158.10

  16.63

  10.5

  Surrey

  84.10

  7.79

  9.3

  Sussex

  145.78

  14.44

  9.9

  Essex

  147.80

  13.68

  9.3

  Hertfordshire

  87.04

  6.06

  7.0

  Thames Valley

  194.41

  16.85

  8.7

  Equivalent budget information for 1996–97 is not available. It will be for the individual police authorities, in setting their budget requirements for 1996–97, to decide the appropriate provision to set aside to meet pension costs.

  Police Funding
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available in the Vote Office copies of the report, "The Critical Analysis of the Police Funding Formula", prepared by Price Waterhouse, which was commissioned by his Department. [30261]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the losses to police authorities in the south-east of England that would arise from the removal of the area cost adjustment in police authorities' funding in the year 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [30262]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 June I995]: The table shows the effect, in 1995–96, of ceasing to pay the area cost adjustment to police authorities. The 1996–97 quantum will not be determined until later this year.

  The area cost adjustment reflects the extra costs incurred in providing a service in the more expensive areas of the south-east, and we have no plans to abolish it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will, however, consider the views of the police and local authority associations about any

  577
  refinements to the calculation of the area cost adjustment which may be put forward.

  Effect of removing area cost adjustment factor

  £ million

  With ACA

  Without ACA

  Percentage change

  Avon and Somerset

  147

  154

  5

  Bedfordshire

  55

  55

  -1

  Cambridgeshire

  62

  66

  5

  Cheshire

  93

  98

  5

  Cleveland

  70

  74

  5

  Cumbria

  54

  57

  5

  Derbyshire

  88

  92

  5

  Devon and Cornwall

  146

  153

  5

  Dorset

  62

  65

  5

  Durham

  68

  71

  5

  Dyfed-Powys

  46

  48

  5

  Essex

  146

  142

  -3

  Gloucestershire

  56

  59

  5

  Greater Manchester

  326

  343

  5

  Gwent

  49

  52

  5

  Hampshire

  168

  167

  -1

  Hertfordshire

  87

  81

  -6

  Humberside

  98

  103

  5

  Kent

  158

  155

  -2

  Lancashire

  155

  163

  5

  Leicestershire

  89

  94

  5

  Lincolnshire

  55

  58

  5

  Merseyside

  214

  225

  5

  Metropolitan Police

  1,529

  1,383

  -10

  Norfolk

  71

  75

  5

  North Wales

  66

  69

  5

  North Yorkshire

  66

  70

  5

  Northamptonshire

  55

  58

  5

  Northumbria

  178

  187

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  109

  115

  5

  South Wales

  152

  160

  5

  South Yorkshire

  146

  154

  5

  Staffordshire

  101

  106

  5

  Suffolk

  58

  61

  5

  Surrey

  80

  75

  -7

  Sussex

  145

  143

  -1

  Thames Valley

  192

  187

  -3

  Warwickshire

  47

  50

  5

  West Mercia

  97

  102

  5

  West Midlands

  327

  345

  5

  West Yorkshire

  248

  261

  5

  Wiltshire

  58

  61

  5

  City of London

  54

  35

  -35

  Total (including City)

  6,270

  6,270

  0

  Notes:

  1. The above estimates the effect of removing the area cost adjustment on distribution of the 1995–96 quantum.

  2. Allocations shown are the total of police SSA and grant i.e. without capital financing and other SSAs and SSA reduction grant.

  3. A special payment of £130 million to the Metropolitan police has been assumed, to cover their national and capital city functions.

  Border Controls
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have so far been taken by the European Commission in respect of its intention to bring forward a directive relating to the free movement of persons and possible abolition of internal border controls. [30054]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  In March this year, Commissioner Monti indicated his intention to bring forward proposals for Community legislation on the free 578
  movement of persons crossing the internal frontiers of the European Union. These proposals have not yet been published by the Commission. As we have frequently made clear, the Government will take whatever steps are necessary to maintain our frontier controls.

  Money Laundering
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the countries with which the United Kingdom has signed(a) bilateral agreements to supplement the 1990 Council of Europe convention on laundering, search, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime and (b) other bilateral agreements to facilitate mutual assistance in respect of money laundering and confiscation. [30052]

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom has concluded one bilateral agreement under article 39(2) of the 1990 convention, with the Netherlands. It entered into force on 2 June 1994. Other bilateral confiscation agreements have been concluded as follows:

  All crime agreements in force

  Country

  Date in Force

  1. Sweden

  1 April 1992

  2. Canada

  17 September 1993

  3. Nigeria

  30 October 1993

  4. Italy

  8 May 1994

  5. India

  1 May 1995

  All crime agreements to enter into force

  Country

  Date of signature

  1. United States of America

  6 January 1994

  2. Thailand

  12 September 1994

  Drug agreements in force

  Country

  Date in force

  1. United States of America

  11 April 1989

  2. Switzerland

  21 June 1990

  3. Australia

  12 September 1990

  4. Mexico

  1 October 1990

  5. The Bahamas

  24 October 1990

  6. Spain

  15 December 1990

  7. Saudi Arabia

  20 September 1991

  8. Bahrain

  1 January 1992

  9. Ecuador

  1 March 1993

  10. Barbados

  1 June 1993

  11. Colombia

  25 November 1993

  12. Uruguay

  19 January 1994

  13. Argentina

  1 June 1994

  14. Panama

  1 September 1994

  15. Malaysia

  1 January 1995

  Drug agreements to enter into force

  Country

  Date of signature

  1. Guyana

  17 July 1991

  2. South Africa

  2 September 1992

  3. Paraguay

  6 July 1994

  4. Bolivia

  25 August 1994

  5. Grenada

  6 February 1995

  Organised Crime
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have taken place in the arrangements for co-ordination of the work of United Kingdom Government bodies concerned with fighting organised crime from those set out in paragraphs 40 to 43 of his Department's November 1993 memorandum to the Home Affairs Committee on organised crime, HC 18-II if this Session. [30055]

  Mr. Howard
  None.

  Drug-related Crimes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children and

  Table A Total number of persons aged 10 to under 14 years cautioned and prosecuted for indictable drug offences by region 1984–1993

  Region

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  North West

  3

  2

  5

  7

  4

  15

  26

  33

  46

  55

  North East

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  7

  11

  14

  23

  27

  Midlands

  1

  1

  1

  —

  3

  3

  14

  14

  12

  12

  Eastern

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  4

  3

  10

  22

  South East

  13

  11

  5

  6

  26

  38

  56

  44

  54

  73

  Metropolitan Police

  11

  7

  5

  5

  21

  35

  44

  27

  32

  44

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  2

  4

  —

  1

  5

  3

  11

  17

  22

  29

  South West

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  10

  10

  18

  Wales

  —

  —

  4

  1

  3

  —

  4

  10

  7

  17

  England and Wales

  20

  16

  16

  17

  37

  65

  118

  128

  162

  224

  Table B Total number of persons aged 10 to under 14 years cautioned and prosecuted for indictable drug offences by police force area, 1984–1993

  Police Force Area

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  5

  4

  3

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  3

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  2

  8

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  3

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  5

  7

  Dorset

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Essex

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  4

  5

  5

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  3

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  5

  13

  13

  27

  22

  Hampshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  4

  10

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  3

  4

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  5

  Kent

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  1

  2

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  8

  16

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  3

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Mersey side

  3

  2

  3

  2

  2

  8

  10

  9

  5

  6

  Metropolitan Police

  11

  7

  5

  5

  21

  35

  44

  27

  32

  44

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  2

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  5

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  4

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  1

  6

  2

  5

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Suffolk

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  3

  Surrey

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Sussex

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  3

  1

  2

  580
  young people under the age of 14 years were arrested in connection with drug-related crimes for each of the last 10 years; how many were subsequently charged; and what is the breakdown of these figures (a) by local authority, (b) region and (c) police authority area. [30741]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: As detailed information on arrests and on the number of people charged is not collected centrally, cautioning and court data is given in the tables.

  It is possible to distinguish centrally only offenders who have committed drug offences as opposed to drug related offences. It is also not possible to identify the date by local authority area.
  581

  Table B Total number of persons aged 10 to under 14 years cautioned and prosecuted for indictable drug offences by police force area, 198–1993

  Police Force Area

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  6

  1

  6

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  West Mercia

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  1

  —

  3

  3

  12

  14

  8

  8

  West Yorkshire

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  6

  7

  9

  7

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  4

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  5

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  4

  5

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1

  4

  2

  7

  England and Wales

  20

  16

  16

  17

  37

  65

  118

  128

  162

  224

  Secure Units
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the criteria for applications for secure units; and if he will make a statement. [29986]

  Mr. Maclean
  The documents which made up the invitations to tender for the design, construction/refurbishment, management and finance of secure training centres at Cookham Wood and Gringley set out the requirements and the criteria that bidders are to meet.

  Copies of schedules 2, design and build specification; 2A, note to tenderers on design and build; 2B, maintenance specification; 3, operational specification; 3A staff selection, training, qualifications and certification; appendix 1, administrative paper on secure training centre rules; and guidance by the Department of Health and the Department for Education have been placed in the Library.

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications he has received for the establishment of secure units; and if he will list the areas concerned. [29987]

  Mr. Maclean
  Invitations to tender for the design, construction/refurbishment, management and finance of secure training centres at Cookham Wood, Kent and Gringley, Nottinghamshire were issued on 31 March to nine companies/consortia:

  Group 4 Rebound ecd Ltd./Tarmac Construction

  Ltd./Panton Sargent

  Shepherd Construction Ltd./Greystone House School

  Henry Boot Management Ltd./Secure Training Centres Ltd.

  UK Detention Services Ltd./John Mowlam/Correction

  Corporation of America

  Premier Prison Services Ltd./Serco/Wackenhut Ltd.

  MANcare Ltd.

  Castle Homes/Taylor Woodrow

  Higgs and Hill Construction Ltd./Rebound!

  Team Management Services (UK) Ltd.

  Bids were submitted by 12 June and are currently being assessed. Contracts will be awarded as soon as possible on completion of the tender process.

  Invitations to tender will be issued as soon as the necessary planning consents have been granted for the three remaining sites serving the midlands, south-west and
  582
  central England plus south Wales, and north-west and north-east England plus north Wales.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables were on establishment in(a) England and Wales and (b) each constabulary in England and Wales in 1994. [30010]

  Mr. Maclean
  Special constables are volunteers and as such are not included as part of the permanent police establishment but are members of the special constabulary.

  The number of special constables as at 31 December 1994 is given in the table.

  Special constabulary strength as at 31 December 1994

  Force

  Total strength

  Avon and Somerset

  678

  Bedfordshire

  198

  Cambridgeshire

  289

  Cheshire

  320

  City of London

  92

  Cleveland

  230

  Cumbria

  259

  Derbyshire

  445

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,113

  Dorset

  234

  Durham

  220

  Dyfed-Powys

  306

  Essex

  690

  Gloucestershire

  307

  Greater Manchester

  741

  Gwent

  124

  Hampshire

  620

  Hertfordshire

  306

  Humberside

  406

  Kent

  575

  Lancashire

  578

  Leicestershire

  365

  Lincolnshire

  328

  Merseyside

  395

  Metropolitan

  1,520

  Norfolk

  349

  Northamptonshire

  318

  Northumbria

  507

  North Wales

  315

  North Yorkshire

  403

  Nottinghamshire

  564

  South Wales

  488

  South Yorkshire

  458

  Staffordshire

  720

  Suffolk

  409

  583

  Special constabulary strength as at 31 December 1994

  Force

  Total strength

  Surrey

  233

  Sussex

  531

  Thames Valley

  669

  Warwickshire

  354

  West Mercia

  582

  West Midlands

  845

  West Yorkshire

  731

  Wiltshire

  281

  Total

  20,096

  Parks and Market Police
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which local authorities are legally empowered to establish and operate(a) parks police and (b) market police; and what is the statutory basis for each force. [30094]

  Mr. Maclean
  A full list of all such authorities is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of parliamentary questions which would have been answered directly by him or his Ministers prior to the establishment of executive agencies, are now referred to the chief executive of such an agency. [28496]

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

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Market Testing
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [29423]

  Mr. Hague
  The following areas of work have been contracted out without an in-house bid:

  Benefit Agency:
  Accommodation and Office services at the Quarry House site in Leeds;
  Travel services;

  Information Technology Services Agency:
  Service Delivery.
  584
  An in-house bid was not invited for travel services or IT service delivery because it was considered that the private sector was better equipped to deliver these services, had a better understanding of the market needs and a capacity to invest in new technological support. In the case of accommodation and office services at Quarry house, Leeds, too few staff were prepared to re-locate with the work transferred from London to Leeds to be able to mount an in-house bid.

  The Benefits Agency has decided to contract out quantity surveying work, in which four staff are currently employed.

  The Contributions Agency has decided to contract out elements of estates work in which some 24 staff are currently employed. The CA considers that staff do not have the necessary technical, professional estates management expertise to compete with the private sector.

  Incomes
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the real terms cash value of the 62 per cent. increase in income between 1987 and 1993 for the top 10 per cent. of earners shown in appendix 10 of the latest Households Below Average Income statistics. [30381]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table. The 62 per cent. increase in income is between 1979 and 1992–93 for the top 10 per cent. of incomes after housing costs.

  Median equivalised income of the top 10 per cent. of the UK income distribution after housing costs in March 1995 prices

  1979

  1992–93

  Increase from 1979 to 1992–93

  Equivalised income (£ per week)

  321

  520

  199

  Notes:

  1. Income is equivalised to allow meaningful comparisons between the incomes of households of different sizes and composition. The income values here represent the cash amounts (adjusted only for inflation) for a couple with no children. Appendix 4 of HBAI contains further information.

  2. 1992–93 is the amalgamation of the calendar years 1992 and 1993.

  3. Income after housing costs is defined in appendix 2 of HBAI.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the figures for real income changes referred to in table A2 of the latest Households Below Average Incomes statistics, including self-employed earners both before and after housing costs. [30383]

  Mr. Burt
  The real income changes in table A2 of the latest households below average income are presented as percentage changes in table A1 of HBAI. Absolute income changes can be obtained by subtracting the 1979 income values from the 1992–93 values in table A2.

  Mortgage Interest
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what support with mortgage interest payments will be available to existing borrowers after October 1995 if they are presently receiving income support help with mortgage interest payments and they accept a job on a short-term contract that will return them to unemployment after October 1995; and what type of insurance policy he
  585
  expects people in these circumstances to take out to cover their mortgage interest repayments. [30515]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Under our proposals for changes to the rules on income support help with mortgage interest payments, an existing borrower who is currently receiving help with his mortgage interest payments and who takes a short-term contract before October this year will be treated as if his claim for income support had been continuous if, when he re-claims income support after 1 October, his break in entitlement had been for 12 weeks or less.

  If the break in their entitlement was for more than 12 weeks and a new claim is made after 1 October, existing borrowers will get no help with interest payments for two months—eight weeks—and 50 per cent. for the next four months-18 weeks. The full amount, calculated using the standard interest rate, will be payable thereafter.

  It is a matter for the individuals concerned to decide how best to meet their mortgage commitments in the initial period of an income support claim. The Association of British Insurers is addressing many of the issues of concern about the interface between benefit and insurance, including the treatment of contract workers, in its forthcoming guidelines to best practice.

  Students
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of restoring university student benefit entitlement to income support and housing benefit. [30313]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Motability
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what powers his Department has to prevent the transfer of funds by way of gift aid from Motability Finance Ltd. into Motability's charitable funds; and if he will make a statement. [31051]

  Mr. Hague
  The transfer of funds from Motability Finance Ltd. to Motability, an independent charity, is a matter of discussion between the two organisations. The Department is consulted about such donations.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 19 June 1995,Official Report, columns 98–100 on Motability, if he will make available in the Library the financial memorandum to which he refers. [31052]

  Mr. Hague
  I will place a copy in the Library shortly.

  Pensioners' Organisations
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral answer of 19 June 1995,Official Report, column 616 if he will list the organisations seen by a Minister; and if he will give a breakdown of the correspondence referred to. [31134]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Ministers have held many meetings, both formal and informal, with parties interested in the 586
  Pensions Bill. They have met hon. Members, noble Lords, pressure groups and employers.

  In the past eight months, Ministers have met and discussed pensions' issues with the following organisations:
  The Law Society, The Pension Trustees Forum, The ABI, British Airways, The Association of Pensioner Trustees, The Fawcett Society, The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, The Captains of Industry, The PMI, The CBI, The National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners, The Pensions Ombudsman, The EOC, Royal Insurance, OPAS, The Campaign for Pension Fund Democracy, The Consumers Association, Bacon and Woodrow, The Prudential Corporation, The Society of Pension Consultants, The TUC, Pensioners Voice, The National Association of Pension Funds, Scottish Widows, Hill Samuel, Greig Middleton and Co and The Occupational Pensions Board.

  A breakdown of the 900 items of ministerial correspondence dealt with since the beginning of the year is given in the table. Some covered more than one topic and therefore the total is more than 900.

  Description of Subject

  Number

  Christmas Bonus

  13

  Pension Age

  198

  Over 80's Pension/Age Addition

  40

  Earnings Rule/Retirement Condition

  1

  Concessions

  14

  Benefit Levels

  203

  Uprating

  145

  RPI

  23

  Restoration of link with earnings

  19

  Means Test/Abolish RP

  7

  EC Comparison

  24

  VAT on Fuel

  84

  Delays

  3

  Individual Benefit Position

  122

  Home Responsibilities Protection

  4

  Increments

  1

  Graduated Pension

  4

  Dual Title/Topping Up

  20

  SERPS

  22

  Additional Pension Queries

  10

  Public Service Pension Queries

  4

  Pension Paydays

  34

  ACT Invitation Exercise

  2

  Divorce

  9

  Widower's Benefit

  8

  Method of Payment

  2

  Procedures

  2

  Publications

  2

  Forms

  2

  Ax Stat Awards

  1

  Alleged Misdirection

  3

  Compensation

  7

  Bank Charges

  1

  Miscellaneous

  151

  Income Support
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 21 June, 1995,Official Report, column 253, how much was recovered by claimants by way of arrears of supplementary benefit in the area covered by the Wrexham and North Wales Coast Benefits Agency office in June 1994. [31154]
  587
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support live load(a) E cases, (b) P cases, (c) A cases and (d) total cases there were in each quarter since January 1991 by (i) district and (ii) area directorate. [29329]

  Mr. Evans
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 26 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about Income Support live load statistics since January 1991.
  Complete information is available only from May 1991 which was the first quarter in which the Benefits Agency collected information by District Office and Area Directorate. Information in table 1 is for each Area Directorate and in table 2 for the District offices. Copies of these tables have been placed in the Library.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 1994,Official Report, column 625, if he will update the table given in his answer to give the latest available information on the operation of the compensation recovery unit for the financial year 1994–95. [29262]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Frank Field, dated 26 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for information relating to the operation of the Compensation Recovery Unit during the 1994/95 financial year.

  The information is provided in the table below:

  Period

  Number of cases

  Total amount recovered £ million

  Operating costs £ million

  1 April 1994–31 March 1995

  39,915

  1110.1

  2.8

  1 This figure includes monies recovered from both final and interim settlements.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Education and Library Boards
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what savings on administration costs he estimates will be achieved by reducing the number of education and library boards; and if he will itemise these savings. [29495]

  Mr. Ancram
  The initial estimate of savings in administrative costs arising from the proposals for change is £2 million. This is of necessity an overall estimate 588
  since, with the exception of the Western board, the education and library boards declined to take part in the appraisal of options for change. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to attempt to itemise any savings.

  Economic Development
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total expenditure by the Department of Economic Development in each of the parliamentary constituencies of Northern Ireland for each of the last 10 years. [29971]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is not held in the form requested. The total expenditure by the Department of Economic Development for the last 10 years was as follows:

  Financial year

  Expenditure (rounded to nearest £ million)

  1985–86

  437

  1986–87

  454

  1987–88

  441

  1988–89

  1742

  1989–90

  1723

  1990–91

  477

  1991–92

  454

  1992–93

  438

  1993–94

  431

  1994–95

  434

  1 Includes expenditure incurred on privatisations of Shorts and Harland Wolff.

  Small and Medium-size Businesses
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) small businesses and (b) medium-size businesses were started up in each of the last 10 years; and if he will break these figures down by gender of the entrepreneur. [29579]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding reply 21 June 1995]: There is no fully comprehensive means of counting the number of business start-ups in Northern Ireland. However, VAT registrations give a useful indication of the number of new businesses created in any period. The figures set out in the table show the number of VAT registrations during the period 1985–93. Data for 1994 are not yet available. It is not possible to break this information down by gender.

  Table 1: Number of VAT registrations in Northern Ireland

  Thousands

  Year

  Number of registrations

  1985

  3.8

  1986

  3.4

  1987

  3.5

  1988

  3.7

  1989

  4.0

  1990

  4.3

  1991

  3.7

  1992

  3.7

  1993

  4.0

  Notes:

  Details of Northern Ireland VAT figures are included in VAT Registration and Deregistrations, County and District Analyses 1980–91 and VAT Registrations and Deregistrations, County and District Analyses 1992–93, copies of which are available in the Library.
  589
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what initiatives his Department has to assist and encourage women who want to start their own business; and how the success of any initiative is monitored and assessed. [29582]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer reply 21 June 1995]: The local enterprise development unit funds a series of business start programmes aimed specifically at women throughout Northern Ireland and a women's enterprise programme in the Greater Belfast area. These initiatives are monitored through periodical reviews and the overall success is assessed by the number of participants, the number of business plans which result from the programmes, the percentage of participants starting their own businesses and the number who enter other employment.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the cost in the current year of restoring the value of the student maintenance grant to its real 1979 level. [30371]

  Mr. Ancram
  In view of the major changes made to the student support system in the intervening period, including the introduction of student loans in 1990, the cost would very much depend on whether the changes were to be reversed.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the university or polytechnic total student population for each year from 1974–75; and what it will be in each year to 1998–99.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is available in the form requested only from the year 1975–76 and is as follows:

  Year

  Total student population

  1975–76

  13,060

  1976–77

  13,939

  1977–78

  14,416

  1978–79

  14,786

  1979–80

  15,377

  1980–81

  15,759

  1981–82

  16,258

  1982–83

  17,005

  1983–84

  17,566

  1984–85

  19,163

  1985–86

  19,571

  1986–87

  20,089

  1987–88

  20,871

  1988–89

  21,526

  1989–90

  22,403

  1990–91

  24,340

  1991–92

  26,645

  1992–93

  28,873

  1993–94

  31,272

  1994–95

  35,965

  Note:

  Projected Northern Ireland student numbers are published in "Northern Ireland Expenditure Plans and Priorities", a copy of which is available in the Library. Figures are not presently available for 1998–99.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list the changes to university and polytechnic student maintenance grant entitlement since 1974; [30368]
  590
  (2) what has been the value of the full university student grant for each year since 1974–75 in 1994 prices. [30366]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Value of the standard maintenance grant and loan in Northern Ireland

  £

  Year

  Standard maintenance grant 1(cash terms)

  Standard maintenance grant plus loan 2(cash terms)

  Standard maintenance grant 3(real terms)

  Standard maintenance grant plus loan 3(real terms)

  1974–75

  605

  —

  3,056

  —

  1975–76

  740

  —

  2,945

  —

  1976–77

  875

  —

  3,041

  —

  1977–78

  1,010

  —

  3,033

  —

  1978–79

  1,100

  —

  3,062

  —

  1979–80

  1,245

  —

  2,996

  —

  1980–81

  1,430

  —

  2,997

  —

  1981–82

  1,535

  —

  2,875

  —

  1982–83

  1,595

  —

  2,783

  —

  1983–84

  1,660

  —

  2,753

  —

  1984–85

  1,775

  —

  2,832

  —

  1985–86

  1,830

  —

  2,766

  —

  1986–87

  1,901

  —

  2,778

  —

  1987–88

  1,972

  —

  2,784

  —

  1988–89

  2,050

  —

  2,752

  —

  1989–90

  2,155

  —

  2,733

  —

  1990–91

  2,265

  2,685

  2,624

  3,111

  1991–92

  2,265

  2,845

  2,483

  3,119

  1992–93

  2,265

  2,980

  2,387

  3,141

  1993–94

  2,265

  3,065

  2,311

  3,128

  1994–95

  2,040

  3,190

  2,040

  3,190

  1 The standard maintenance grant rate is that applicable to students living away from home and studying outside London.

  2 Since 1990–91 student support has included grant and loan: the grant was frozen at the 1990–91 level (ie £2,265) until 1994–95 when it was reduced to £2,040. Figures for 1990–91 and subsequent years include grant plus full year loan for students living away from home.

  3 Based on the retail price index (excluding mortgage interest payments) in September of each academic year.

  4 Up to and including 1983–84 students claimed and were individually reimbursed, full travelling expenses; from 1984–85 most students had to meet their travel costs from within their main rate of grant.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the staff to student ratio at universities and their forerunners in each year from 1974–75 to 1997–98. [30364]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is available for Northern Ireland universities only from 1981–82 to 1993–94 and is as follows:

  Year

  Staff: student ratio

  1981–82

  8.7

  1982–83

  9.1

  1983–84

  9.5

  1984–85

  12.0

  1985–86

  12.1

  1986–87

  12.2

  1987–88

  13.0

  1988–89

  13.9

  1989–90

  13.8

  591

  Year

  Staff: student ratio

  1990–91

  14.4

  1991–92

  15.5

  1992–93

  15.5

  1993–94

  16.5

  Expenditure and funding in higher education in Northern Ireland

  Mandatory award holders

  Recipients (academic years)

  Expenditure (financial years)

  Thousands

  Fees£ million

  Maintenance£ million

  Average student loan per (academic years)4£

  Recurrent average grant and income from tuition fees per student (financial years)5£

  1984–85

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  3,400

  1985–86

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  4,000

  1986–87

  17.6

  10.1

  21.8

  —

  4,100

  1987–88

  18.9

  11.3

  23.6

  —

  4,300

  1988–89

  19.7

  12.0

  25.4

  —

  4,500

  1989–90

  21.0

  13.6

  28.5

  —

  4,800

  1990–91

  22.6

  124.7

  31.8

  370

  4,900

  1991–92

  228.5

  2253.0

  238.2

  500

  4,900

  1992–93

  30.5

  67.7

  43.2

  610

  4,900

  1993–94

  33.9

  369.9

  47.3

  690

  4,800

  1994–95

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  4,600

  1 Shift in institutional funding towards the fee introduced from September 1990.

  2 Includes teacher training and EC students from September 1991.

  3 Shift of fees towards institutional funding from September 1993.

  4 Based on Loan Holders studying in Northern Ireland.

  5 Figures have been rounded to the nearest £100.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the drop-out rate for university and polytechnic courses in each year since 1979. [30303]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is his estimate of the annual cost of providing the full maintenance grant to all university students. [30307]

  (2) what would be the annual cost of paying (a) all fees for, and (b) the full maintenance grant to, all part-time university students. [30306]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is not possible to provide an estimate of these costs since it would depend upon such factors as the eligibility of courses, their duration, the maximum payable fee and maintenance grant, and the account to be taken of the personal circumstances of potentially eligible students.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what would be the cost of restoring university student benefit entitlement to income support and housing benefit. [30305]

  Mr. Malcolm Moss
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what would be the cost of reducing the level of university fees paid by non-European Community country students to the fee levels paid by students from European Community countries. [30309]
  592
  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average cost to the Exchequer of each student in university education for each year from 1984–85, broken down by(a) maintenance grant; (b) fees; and (c) other.[30372]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is not available in the form requested. The available information is as follows:

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on fees for overseas students, which are set separately by each university, is not available.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the percentage of university or polytechnic students entitled to(a) full maintenance grant and (b) no maintenance grant in each year since 1979. [20369]

  Mr. Ancram
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the backlog of building repair and maintenance work at universities. [30365]

  Mr. Ancram
  The current backlog of building repair and maintenance work for academic buildings in the two Northern Ireland universities is estimated to cost £76 million. This figure is derived from an accommodation condition survey conducted in early 1992.

  The Department of Education in Northern Ireland has spent £7 million during the past three years on grants for backlog maintenance, and universities themselves have spent £8 million during the same period. It is planned to continue to provide support towards £18 million of further work over the next three years. The remaining less urgent work will need to be funded by institutions themselves.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the(a) average cost and (b) marginal cost, of university students in 1995–96. [30373]

  Mr. Ancram
  The average recurrent grant and income from tuition fees per university student in Northern
  593
  Ireland for the financial year 1995–96 is estimated to be approximately £4,570. No information is available on the marginal costs.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of students in higher education in 2000. [30304]

  Mr. Ancram
  Figures for students in Northern Ireland institutions of higher education are not available for academic years beyond 1997–98.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average level of student loan for university students in 1994–95. [30308]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education earlier today.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total Government expenditure on university and polytechnic maintenance grants, for each year since 1974–75 in 1994 prices. [30367]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is not available in the form requested. The available information is as follows:

  Government expenditure on maintenance grants to mandatory award holders and on student loans in Northern Ireland

  £ million (real terms)1

  Student Maintenance Grant2 (Financial Year)

  Student Loans3(Academic Year)

  1986–87

  31.9

  —

  1987–88

  33.3

  —

  1988–89

  34.1

  —

  1989–90

  36.1

  —

  1990–91

  36.8

  1.5

  1991–92

  41.8

  3.0

  1992–93

  45.5

  4.5

  1993–94

  48.3

  6.2

  1 In 1994–95 prices based on the retail price index (excluding mortgage interest payments) in September of each academic year.

  2 Expenditure in grants to mandatory award holders normally domiciled in Northern Ireland.

  3 Expenditure on loans to higher education students studying in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the total number of university students with a student loan, in each year from 1987–88 to 1997–98. [30310]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education earlier today.

ENVIRONMENT

  Negative Equity
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in each local authority area in England are estimated to have had negative equity as of(a) the end of September 1994 and (b) the end of March. [28713]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: Estimates of negative equity are not calculated by local authority area. For the latest national estimates, I refer the
  594
  hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), Official Report, column 138.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of providing accommodation for the homeless in Kirklees in(a) bed and breakfast hotels and (b) hostels in each of the last five years. [29092]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The net costs of housing homeless households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, as reported by Kirklees on its revenue outturn returns, for the years 1990–91—the first year in which this information was collected on the revenue outturn return—to 1993–94 were as follows:

  £000s

  1990–91

  464

  1991–92

  248

  1992–93

  177

  1993–94

  126

  Data on local authorities' expenditure on bed and breakfast and on hostel accommodation are also published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy in its annual "Homelessness Statistics Actuals" publication. Copies of these publications, which are available for all years since 1989–90 are in the Library

  Microlight Aircraft
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the proposal by Aylesbury Vale district council to give permission for microlight aircraft to operate from Merrymead farm, College road, Aston Clinton. [30415]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State has received a number of letters concerning this proposal and on 15 June 1995 served an article 14 direction on Aylesbury Vale district council which prevents it from granting planning permission without his consent.

  This action provides the Secretary of State with the opportunity to look at the proposal and to judge whether or not he would be justified in using his powers of call-in in this case.

  As this matter is under consideration, I am sure that the hon. Member will understand that I cannot comment upon the merits, or otherwise, of the proposal.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how long the inquiry into the Birmingham northern relief road has now lasted; and what is the average time taken for major road inquiries. [30606]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Since 21 June 1994, when it opened in Walsall. It is not possible to give an average time for major road inquires. Each is dependent on the complexity of the issues involved and the level of representations received.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what request Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has made of Nirex UK Ltd. to make public HMIP's safety assessment of Nirex's capability to prepare a full safety case for the proposed nuclear waste disposal facility at Sellafield; with what result; and if he will make a statement. [30606]

  Mr. Atkins
  HMIP has made no assessment of Nirex's capability to prepare a full case for the post-closure safety of an underground repository. Nirex has not submitted an application for such a facility.

  Under an agreement with Nirex, HMIP has reviewed information which that company has provided voluntarily and has classified as commercial in confidence. Nirex has a right of confidentiality regarding such material. HMIP continues to press Nirex to review its position concerning the restrictions the company has placed on the release of such reports.

  Montreal Protocol
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to ratify the Copenhagen amendments to the Montreal protocol. [31034]

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom ratified the Copenhagen amendment to the Montreal protocol on 4 January 1995.

  Water
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the responses to his consultation paper "Using Water Wisely". [30457]

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's response to "Using Water Wisely" will be published within the next week or so.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider extending additional safeguards to protect low-income households, large families and people with disabilities requiring high use of water, who live in properties which are compulsorily metered. [30460]

  Mr. Atkins
  Such customers are safeguarded by a code a practice for customer and a code of practice and procedure on disconnections which are part of every water company's instrument of appointment.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider setting up a special body in conjunction with the industry and other interested parties to promote the installation of water-saving devices in domestic homes. [30459]

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have tabled an amendment to the Environment Bill that places a duty on water companies to promote the efficient use of water by its customers, and provides the Director General of Water Services with powers to determine and publish standards of performance.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from the industry or other interested parties with regard to the installation of water-saving devices in domestic homes. [30458]
  596
  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations. My officials have from time to time received suggestions about the installation of water-saving devices in the home.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organisations that have submitted responses to his consultation paper "Using Water Wisely". [30456]

  Mr. Atkins
  I have today deposited a list of the organisations that submitted responses to the consultation paper "Using Water Wisely" in the House Library.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that people in new homes may choose whether to pay for their water and sewerage by metered charge. [30504]

  Mr. Atkins
  It is for water companies to decide the most appropriate method of charging in their areas.

  Security Services
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reason the final regulations laying down the compulsory competitive tendering by local authorities for security services have not yet been published; and what advice he gives to local authorities in the interim. [31136]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I explained to the House on the 2 November,Official Report, column 1608–609, that we intend to exclude from security work CCT work entailing the enforcement of byelaws which cannot be undertaken by private contractor staff. It is important to get the scope of the exemption right, and to that end we have consulted the local authority associations in framing a suitable draft. We intend to lay the order shortly.

  Local authorities have been aware of our intention to bring forward an exemption since guidance was published last December, over a year in advance of the contract start date for security work CCT of 1 January 1996. Authorities ought therefore to have been preparing, and to continue to prepare, for CCT on that basis.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the current key performance targets for the Building Research Establishment. [31480]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Building Research Establishment is working to the following key targets for 1995–96:
  £90,000 net contribution to the Exchequer
  income to cover full economic costs on a trading basis gross non-Exchequer income of £3.5 million
  the average daily cost of commissions to be at 1994–95 levels,
  with costs of major management initiatives met through efficiency savings.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the application of compulsory competitive tendering to those authorities he has selected for a further review by the Local Government Commission. [31481]
  597
  Mr. Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on Thursday 22 June 1995,Official Report, column 353, that the Local Government Commission has been asked to carry out further reviews of 21 shire districts in 12 separate counties. Their selection for a further review should not of itself affect the continued operation of CCT, and I would urge all to continue to operate contracts for blue collar services already subject to CCT, and to continue with preparations for the extension of CCT to housing management and white collar services.

  In the event of Ministers accepting a recommendation made by the Commission for a change in an authority's structure or function, I intend that our existing policy for authorities changed following review should apply to both the district and county council concerned. In summary this means that:
  the "except window" which suspends the re-tendering of blue collar work and the implementation of housing management CCT will apply to both the district and county council from the date at which the Order providing for reorganisation comes into force until 18 months—or, in some cases, 24 months-after the changes have taken effect;
  the timetable for the extension of CCT to white collar services in the district and county councils concerned will be determined by the date on which changes take effect. I anticipate that this will be 1 April 1997. On this basis, CCT for the first of the new white collar services will bite from 1 April 1999; and
  the extension of CCT to the further manual services—security work, management of vehicles and management of on-street parking—will take effect from 1 October 1998, again on the basis of changes in structure or function taking effect from 1 April 1997.

  Authorities which remain unchanged following the further review will be expected to follow the timetable I announced on 29 March of this year, Official Report, column 644.

  These exemptions are designed to provide space for reorganised authorities to rethink the way in which they deliver local services, and to adopt the model of an enabling authority. This will provide new opportunities in due course for external contractors to make an effective contribution to local services, and offset the short-term disadvantages which the temporary suspension of CCT brings.

  Volatile Organic Compounds
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government will issue its response to the first report of 1994–1995 from the Environment Committee on volatile organic compounds, House of Commons paper No. 39. [31494]

  Mr. Atkins
  I have now sent a memorandum to the Select Committee setting out the Government's response to their report on volatile organic compounds.

  The Government have welcomed the Committee's report as a thorough and thoughtful analysis of a complex subject. The report makes a valuable contribution to the development of policy and to influencing the further development of the strategy which the Government have in place for tackling the adverse health and economic effects of these substances.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Royal Opera House
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what sum has been made available from public funds directly or indirectly to the Royal Opera House since 1980 in 1994 prices; what was the amount per seat; and what research he has carried out as to the beneficiaries of this expenditure. [29998]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Details in the form requested of annual grants from the Arts Council to the three Royal Opera House companies—the Royal Opera, the Royal Ballet and Birmingham Royal Ballet—are set out in the table. In addition, the Royal Opera House has received £259,000 under the national heritage arts sponsorship scheme—formerly the business sponsorship incentive scheme—since 1984. Neither my Department nor the Arts Council has carried out audience research, although the Royal Opera House itself undertakes such research on a regular basis.

  Grants to Royal Opera House Year

  Grant total £ million

  Grants at 1994 prices £ million

  Attendances Thousands

  Grants attendances 1994 £ million

  1980–81

  7.711

  17.92

  724

  24.75

  1981–82

  9.535

  19.02

  678

  28.06

  1982–83

  10.578

  19.00

  706

  26.91

  1983–84

  11.527

  19.24

  686

  28.05

  1984–85

  11.505

  18.34

  734

  24.69

  1985–86

  13.475

  20.41

  621

  32.86

  1986–87

  13.097

  18.76

  674

  27.83

  1987–88

  13.227

  18.22

  601

  30.32

  1988–89

  13.991

  18.18

  580

  31.35

  1989–90

  14.382

  17.34

  658

  26.35

  1990–91

  16.397

  18.02

  565

  31.89

  1991–92

  18.702

  19.62

  606

  32.38

  1992–93

  19.88

  20.22

  706

  28.64

  1993–94

  20.396

  20.40

  644

  31.67

  1994–95

  20.421

  19.83

  699

  28.37

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy that money provided by the national lottery will not be used directly or indirectly to subsidise the Royal Opera House. [29999]

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is for the distributing bodies to decide on the allocation of the proceeds of the national lottery.

  National Lottery
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if grants made under the auspices of the national lottery can be used for matching purposes for grants made to organisations and projects by government departments. [30998]

  Mr. Iain Sproat
  Grants from national lottery proceeds are made by 11 independent distributing bodies in response to individual applications. Applicants are required to provide an element of partnership funding which can come from a variety of sources, including public funding.
  599
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the total cost of the establishment and administration of the national lottery and the related scratch card competition to date; and what proportion of the income this represents. [30026]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 22 June 1995]: Total costs associated with the establishment of the national lottery fall (a) to Camelot Group plc, (b) to the Office of the National Lottery, (c) to my Department and (d) to lottery distributors.

  Details of costs incurred by Camelot Group plc are a matter for Camelot. I have asked the Director General of the National Lottery to write to the hon. Gentleman with information about the costs of establishing and administering Oflot and to place copies of his response in the Library of the House.

  The cost of setting up and administration of the national lottery distribution branch, within the Department of National Heritage, was £247,000 to 31 March 1995. This cost was met from the national lottery distribution fund. Other costs of national lottery division were met from the Department's administration vote. For the year ending 31 March 1995, these come to approximately £251,000.

  Funds drawn down from the NLDF by the 11 lottery distributors to cover administration costs totalled £5.049 million for the period to 31 March 1995.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of the revenues collected from ticket sales for the national lottery came from outlets in Wales. [28123]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Figures are not currently available for the individual countries of the United Kingdom. I have asked the Director General of the National Lottery to write to the hon. Gentleman to explain the position more fully.

  Dramatic Arts, Manchester
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last visited the Greater Manchester area to discuss funding for the dramatic arts. [30979]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: On Friday 23 June 1995.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how he intends to meet the need for the repair and refurbishment of museums and art galleries. [30978]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: The museums and galleries sponsored by the Department of National Heritage have now all submitted their corporate plans to my Department. The information in these plans, including any information on proposed repair and refurbishment, will be considered in the course of the current public expenditure round. The Government's spending plans will be announced on Budget day.

  Leicestershire Museums, Arts and Records Service
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will ensure that the Leicestershire museums, arts and records service will be maintained as an integrated operation after the coming into effect of local government reorganisation in Leicester. [30672]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The decision on how best to provide services for arts, museums and records is for the authorities concerned. However, my Department will shortly be issuing guidance to all authorities involved in reorganisation on the provision of suitable services in all these fields.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps his Department is taking to ensure that the future on a country-wide basis of the Leicestershire museums, arts and records service is not adversely affected by any orders presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Environment concerning the reform of local government in Leicestershire and the city of Leicester. [30668]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My officials are in close contact with the Department of the Environment about issues affecting services in which my Department has an interest. My Department is issuing guidance to all authorities involved in the reorganisation.

  Women's Football
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what new proposals he has to promote women's association football. [30033]

  Mr. Sproat
  Responsibility for the development of women's football rests with the Football Association. The FA is committed to the development of female football and has recently produced a strategy document which sets out its aim to"increase the involvement of women in football at all levels, and in all functions and roles".

  The England women's football team is to be congratulated on reaching the quarter-final stage for the second women's world cup which took place recently in Sweden.

  Leeds Parish Church
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assistance his Department is giving to restore the parish church of Leeds, West Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement. [30475]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Government funding for repairs to historic buildings is channelled through English Heritage, which is currently considering an application for grant aid to assist with repairs to the roof of Leeds parish church.

  Welsh Fourth Channel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the subsidies made available annually from public funds to S4C by source and amount. [30522]

  Mr. Dorrell
  S4C receives an annual payment from my Department. The level of the payment is fixed by a formula set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990 guaranteeing S4C an annual payment equivalent to 3.2 per cent. of the
  601
  total terrestrial television revenues from advertising, sponsorship and subscription in the previous year. The amount paid for 1995 was £63.8 million.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what representations he has received from residents of St. Tydfil Court, Merthyr Tydfil, regarding concessionary television licences; and if he will make a statement; [30779]

  (2) if he will review the regulations governing concessionary television licences to cover cases in which the warden does not live on the same floor as the residents. [30780]

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no plans for any changes to the regulations governing the concessionary television licence scheme. The regulations require qualifying accommodation to have a person whose function is to care for the needs of the residents and who either lives in one of the dwellings within the group or works on site for at least 30 hours per week. There is no requirement for this person to live on the same floor as the residents. Details of representations from members of the public about specific sheltered housing schemes are not recorded separately.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the policy of his Department towards the export of missiles which have a nuclear version; and when the guidelines were introduced. [30114]

  Mr. Freeman
  Our policy is to control the export of missiles which are capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The missile technology control regime, of which the UK is a founding member, has established guidelines covering the transfer of nuclear capable missiles, and related equipment and technology. The guidelines were agreed by MTCR partners in 1987.

  Faldingworth Range
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what grants or other assistance were provided to the Faldingworth range and storage area by his Department between 1986 and 1992. [30112]

  Mr. Soames
  We can find no trace of any grants or other assistance being provided to the Faldingworth range and storage area between 1986 and 1992.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those countries which had personnel trained at the Faldingworth range of Astra/BMARC between 1980 and 1992; and if he will give the dates of the residency of the trainees within the United Kingdom in each case. [30395]

  Mr. Soames
  Since the range was a purely commercial one, this is not a matter for my Department.

  RAF Donna Nook
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those countries which used the Donna Nook 602
  range between 1980 and 1992; and for what purpose in each case. [30396]

  Mr. Soames
  There are two separate range facilities at RAF Donna Nook, the air weapons range which is operated by my Department to provide training for aircrews of the Royal Air Force and other NATO nations, and the ammunition and test range. Since 1975, my Department has licensed BMARC and its successor companies to carry out trials of their weapon systems at the ammunition and test range at Donna Nook. Although my Department does not hold records relating to range use prior to 1990, from the company records made available to us for the period in question, representatives from the following countries visited the site to observe and record the performance of ammunition firings:

  Abu Dhabi

  Argentina

  Bahrain

  Belgium

  Chile

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  Finland

  Republic of Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Kuwait

  Malaysia

  Nigeria

  Pakistan

  Saudi Arabia

  Singapore

  Spain

  Switzerland

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  United States

  Cambridge Military Hospital
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify the element of total running costs at the Cambridge military hospital proportionate to the percentage of patients treated on behalf of the NHS in each of the last five years. [30552]

  Mr. Soames
  The figures are as follows:

  1990–91: £7,800,000

  1991–92: £7,800,000

  1992–93: £12,000,000

  1993–94: £15,400,000

  1994–95: £15,000,000.

  These figures include fixed costs which would in any case have been incurred in the treatment of service patients. In addition, because of changes in budgetary responsibility and accounting procedures during the period, the costs are not entirely comparable year on year.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Derek Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will agree to the release of relevant individual
  603
  medical records directly to the Porton Down Volunteers Association, in those cases where individuals have given their consent; and if he will make a statement. [30498]

  Mr. Soames
  Service medical records could be released to the Porton Down Volunteers Association where there is a right of individual access to those records under the Access to Health Records Act 1990 and the individual concerned has given his or her written authorisation. Such right of individual access applies only to medical records compiled after 1 November 1991. With regard to service medical records not covered by the provisions of the Act and for which there is no right of individual access, release can be made to an individual's doctor or solicitor only when required for the management of a particular case.

  IMS Iran Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which dates data relating to IMS Iran Ltd. were placed before Ministers. [30091]

  Mr. Freeman
  The accounts of IMS Iran Ltd. were consolidated with those of International Military Services Ltd. which are submitted to the Secretary of State for Defence each year for approval.

  Sir John Bourn
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the period of service with, and nature of duties performed for, his Department by Sir John Bourn. [30062]

  Mr. Freeman
  Sir John Bourn joined the Air Ministry in 1956. He held a variety of posts in the Ministry of Defence and on loan to other Government Departments culminating in his appointment as deputy under-secretary of state for defence procurement from 1985 until 1988.

  RAF Institute of Pathology and Tropical Medicine
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary for Defence what assessment has been made in the consideration of possible co-location of the RAF Institute of Pathology and Tropical Medicine with the School of Aviation Medicine of the implications of co-location for support services, appropriate levels of financial resourcing and the need for appropriately trained and qualified personnel. [31025]

  Mr. Soames
  The Institution of Pathology and Tropical Medicine is planned to close as a separate establishment on 31 March next year, when the bulk of its functions will transfer to the new core service hospital at Haslar. The future location of the institute's aviation pathology and toxicology department is at present the subject of an investment appraisal which will, as a matter of course, take account of all relevant factors.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 June,Official Report, column 234, on employees at the RAF Institute of Pathology and Tropical Medicine, how many of those employed are pathologists with a specific responsibility for aircraft investigation; and how many of the others are support staff engaged in aviation pathology. [31024]
  604
  Mr. Soames
  At present, the Institute of Pathology and Tropical Medicine employs one full-time civilian pathologist with a specific responsibility for aircraft accident investigation. He is assisted, as circumstances require, by four RAF pathologists and six support staff, two of whom are civilians.

  Royal Naval Stores Depot, Portsmouth
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what area of storage facilities at MOD Portsmouth remains unused; and if he will make a statement as to its future use. [30039]

  Mr. Soames
  The storage facilities of the royal naval stores depot at Portsmouth comprise of some 123,000 cubic metres. Of this, an estimated 51,000 cubic metres is currently unused, while the various transfers and refurbishments involved in the "Front Line First" rationalisations are taking place. When this process is completed in 1997, all the depot's storage capacity, except that in the heritage area, will comprise of modern efficient facilities which will be fully utilised. Details of the unused area of storage facilities in the whole of MOD Portsmouth are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Astra plc
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those occasions on which his officials met with directors of Astra plc; [30106]

  (2) if he will list those occasions on which representatives of Astra plc or its subsidiaries met with officials of his Department in connection with PRB of Belgium; [30110]

  (3) if he will list those occasions on which representatives of Astra plc or its subsidiaries met with officials of his Department in connection with Mr. Gerald Bull. [30111]

  Mr. Freeman
  Aside from the meetings between MOD officials and representatives of Astra plc about which evidence was given to the Trade and Industry Select Committee in February 1992, MOD officials would have had routine contacts with directors of Astra. It is not possible to list all these routine contacts.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Treasury Counsel Fees
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Attorney-General pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 451, how much each Treasury counsel retained for civil work received in fees from public funds in 1994–95; of the Treasury counsel based at the central criminal court, how many received between (i) £250,000 to £300,000, (ii) £300,000 to £350,000, (iii) £350,000 to £400,000, (iv) £400,000 to £500,000, (v) in excess of £500,000 from the Crown Prosecution Service for financial year 1994–95.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 June 1995, c. 260] Official Report, The figures given for fees paid to Treasury Counsel based at the central criminal court by the Crown Prosecution Service are being checked

  605
  and a revised table will be made available as soon as possible. However, contrary to the original information provided by the Crown Prosecution Service as set out in the table of 21 June, it is clear from information that has since been made available to me that no Treasury counsel based at the central criminal court received more than £400,000 in payments from the Crown Prosecution Service during the financial year 1994–95.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to lay before Parliament and to publish an annual report of the Crown Prosecution Service for the year 1994–95. [31083]

  The Attorney-General
  The annual report for the Crown Prosecution Service was laid before Parliament at 11 am today and then published.

  Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Colin Cockram (Sentence)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Attorney-General when representations were received alleging leniency in the sentence passed against Colin Cockram following his conviction in Bristol crown court for wounding Mr. Barry Warne; and by whom, and on what date, a decision to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal was first made public. [31133]

  The Attorney-General
  On 10 March 1995, following his conviction for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, Colin Cockram was sentenced to perform 80 hours community service. The Crown Prosecution Service, after taking the advice of trial counsel, decided to forward the papers to me so that I could consider applying for leave to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. The papers were received in this Department from the Crown Prosecution Service on 30 March. Treasury Counsel's advice was received on 3 April.

  The victim, Mr. Warne, wrote to the Home Secretary on 13 March, complaining about the sentence. The Home Office replied on 30 March and sent a copy of the correspondence to this Department, drawing the sentence to my attention. The correspondence was received here on 31 March. Both the Solicitor-General and I considered the papers and on 6 April, in my absence abroad, the Solicitor-General signed the reference applying for leave to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.

  On the same day, officials from my Department lodged the reference with the criminal appeals office and notified the Crown Prosecution Service and the solicitors acting for Mr. Cockram of the Solicitor-General's decision. On the same day, an official of my Department attempted to speak to Mr. Warne at his place of work and a message was left. Mr. Warne later returned the call and was told of the decision. He was also later written to.
  606
  By a letter dated 31 May, which arrived at this Department on 7 June, the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) wrote to me enclosing a copy of the Home Office reply to Mr. Warne's original letter of 13 March. The Solicitor-General replied to her on 9 June.

  I understand that the Bristol branch of the Crown Prosecution Service received written representations from the local police on the 24 March, after the decision to refer the papers to Crown Prosecution Service headquarters had already been made, and that one other item of correspondence has also been received by another Government Department and is in the process of being transferred to my office.

SCOTLAND

  Prisoners (HIV)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many prisoners have been infected with HIV while in prison in Scotland; [28462]

  (2) how many cases of HIV and AIDS have been reported in Scottish prisons for each year since 1986; [28463]

  (3) how many inmates in prisons in Scotland are currently HIV-positive or have AIDS. [28464]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 June 1995]: The subject of the questions relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 27 June 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your questions about the number of prisoners who have been infected with HIV whilst in prison in Scotland; how many cases of HIV and AIDS have been reported in Scottish prisons for each year since 1986; and how many inmates are currently HIV positive or have AIDS in prisons in Scotland.
  The only known incidence of HIV transmission inside a Scottish prison occurred at Glenochil in 1993. A group of prisoners. including a number who were HIV positive, shared syringes and needles to inject drugs. Evidence gathered during the medical response to an outbreak of acute, clinical Hepatitis B and HIV, which resulted from this reckless behaviour, indicated that 8 prisoners had become infected with the HIV virus whilst in Glenochil.
  Information is not available centrally on how many prisoners had HIV or AIDS in each year since 1986. In 1989, however, the number of prisoners identified as being HIV positive averaged 90. In December 1994, 56 prisoners were known to be HIV positive but not all prisoners will be aware of their HIV status or will choose to disclose it.
  Voluntary anonymous saliva tests were carried out in a number of prisons between 1991 and 1995 in order to assess the extent of HIV infection. The results are given in the enclosed table.
  607

  Screening prisoners for HIV +: Results of voluntary anonymous saliva tests

  Year

  1991

  1992

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1994

  1994

  1995

  1995

  Prison

  Edinburgh

  Edinburgh

  Polmont YOI

  Glenochil

  Glenochil

  Glenochil YOI

  Barlinnie

  Perth

  Cornton Vale

  Prisoners taking part

  363

  236

  421

  227

  296

  162

  978

  304

  136

  HIV +

  17

  8

  0

  12

  7

  0

  10

  6

  2

  Percentage HIV +

  5

  3

  0

  3

  2

  0

  1

  2

  1

  Stornoway Sheriff Court
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent on renovation and refurbishment of Stornoway sheriff court since 1990.

  [29316]

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

  Letter from Michael Ewart to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 27 June 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question about how much was spent on renovation and refurbishment at Stornoway Sheriff Court since 1990.
  Work on the complete restoration and refurbishment of the B Listed, 19th Century Courthouse began in the autumn of 1993. The cost to date is £668,000. This includes £130,000 which is the subject of a claim following the liquidation of the original principal contractor.

  Environmentally Sensitive Area
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the total land area of Scotland 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 Scotland 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. [29324]

  Sir Hector Monro
  About 20 per cent. of Scotland's land area has been designated under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme and there are no plans to designate any further areas. The table sets out the financial provision for the schemes for 1993–94,1994–95 and 1995–96.

  The supply estimate provision for 1996–97 will be decided later this year in the light of forecast demand under the scheme.

  £ million

  1993–94 Supply estimate provision

  1994–95 Supply estimate provision

  1995–96 Supply estimate provision

  5.283

  4.5

  5.5

  Mink
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those islands in Argyll and Bute which contain a wild mink population. [29622]

  Sir Hector Monro
  It is known that there are wild mink populations on Mull and Iona.

  Sonic Repellants
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what protection there is for marine animals in United Kingdom coastal waters against the adverse effects of underwater sonic repellants employed by fish farmers in Scotland. [29842]

  Sir Hector Monro
  Sonic repellants have been brought into use as a non-lethal means of preventing predation of farmed fish. I am not aware of any evidence that they pose a threat to marine mammals which approach, but which then can retreat from, fish cages where such devices are in operation.

  Women in Business
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives his Department has to assist and encourage women who want to start their own businesses; and how the success of any initiative is monitored and assessed. [29568]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: The Scottish Office Industry Department and its associated economic development agencies, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, have in place a wide range of measures to assist men or women who wish to start up businesses. The impact of these measures is monitored and periodically evaluated against the objectives set for them.

  With regard to the specific needs of women who wish to start their own businesses, Scottish Enterprise published a report in 1994 "Women Starting Businesses—Making It Happen" which summarised its research into the problems and issues in this area. This was followed in December 1994 by the publication of an action plan to implement the recommendations of that report. This action plan, which is in the process of being implemented, sets out a number of specific tasks related to each of the following strategic issues, as set out in the plan:
  "Releasing potential-encouraging more women to embrace the notion of becoming entrepreneurs and persuading more of them to 'have a go'.
  Education and training—improving the contribution that schools and universities make to nurturing entrepreneurship among women.
  The media—using TV, radio and the press to provide more positive encouragement, including promoting realistic role models, for women thinking about setting up in business.
  Encouraging more growth companies—addressing the weakness highlighted in research whereby women seem to set up businesses with low aspirations and low growth prospects.
  Access to finance—finding ways of improving access to loan and equity finance for women business founders, and improving the encouragement given to women business founders by banks and equity funders.

  609
  Informal networking—encouraging women entrepreneurs to make more effective use of their business, social and family networks to develop their businesses.
  Support from formal networks-improving the support given to women business founders by local enterprise companies, enterprise trusts and other business advisers in both the private and public sectors."

  A range of programmes aimed specifically at promoting business creation by women in their areas has already been put in place by individual local enterprise companies.

  I will send the hon. Member copies of both publications referred to and have arranged for them to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue guidance to general practitioners in Scotland relating to the issuing of private prescriptions to NHS patients in line with guidance FHSL (94) 26 issued by the Department of Health; and for what reasons the Scottish Office has not previously done so. [29597]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: My officials are considering the nature and content of guidance to be issued to general practitioners in Scotland.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 29 March 1995,Official Report, column 702, which further NHS trusts have approached his Department regarding the involvement of private finance in the provision of facilities within their trust; what specific provision within each of these NHS trusts is being considered for private financed initiatives; what companies have been consulted on the possible provision of these facilities in each of the trusts; and what is the value of the services being considered under the private finance initiative for each trust and the current position as regards the formal conclusion of contracts between the NHS trust and the potential investor in the facilities in the case of each NHS trust. [29679]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1995]: An exploration of the opportunities under the private finance initiative must be undertaken in relation to all capital projects currently being proposed in the NHS in Scotland. The following is a list of schemes currently in the process of exploration. Within each trust the schemes proposed consist of new clinical facilities and/or equipment. Under the private finance initiative, the trusts will be exploring possibilities for the provision of non-clinical support services in addition to the capital element of the schemes. The value of these services will not be known until proposals come forward from potential private sector partners. Consultation between trusts and private sector companies takes place following the placement of an advertisement in the Official Journal of the European Community. At present, no further trusts have reached the stage of consultation, although many are in the process of preparing and placing advertisements. At present, no contracts have been concluded between the trusts listed and potential private sector partners. The
  610
  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Hairmyres Hospital and Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health trusts have all drawn up shortlists of consortia with which a final tendering procedure will be undertaken.

  Health Survey
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent research his Department has commissioned in respect of a health survey in Scotland. [30477]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As foreshadowed in our policy statement "Scotland's Health—A Challenge to Us All", a Scottish health survey, commissioned and funded by the Scottish Office, is now under way. The survey focuses particularly on cardiovascular disease and the associated risk factors such as smoking, diet, drinking and exercise. The results, which will be published, will inform the development of policy and action in this priority area of health in Scotland.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are employed(a) full-time and (b) part-time in each enterprise zone. [30702]

  Mr. Kynoch
  There are currently 2,138 full-time and 52 part-time employees working in the Inverclyde enterprise zone and 1,974 full-time and 226 part-time employees working in the Lanarkshire zone.

  Rights of Audience
  Mr. Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session on the implementation of section 25 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990; and what considerations underlie the timing of the consultation. [30479]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I will consult the Lord President shortly. We undertook not to implement section 25 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 until the provisions of section 24 had time to become established.

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what services in the proposed new Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh will be operated by the private sector. [30813]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: The Royal Infirmary trust has yet to finalise details of services to be provided. In the information provided by the trust to prospective private sector partners, the following services are indicated as being those in which proposals for operation are sought:

  Catering services

  Estates Management

  Buildings and equipment maintenance, equipment replacement

  Domestic and housekeeping services

  Management of residential accommodation

  611

  Portering and security services, car parking

  Transport services

  Supplies services

  Grounds and gardens

  Laundry and linen services

  Switchboard and reception services and other administration

  Sterile services

  Medical records and information technology

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the revenue consequences of annual charges to a private sector owner of the proposed new Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. [30812]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: The Royal Infirmary trust has yet to proceed to final tender stage and thus on-going revenue consequences are unknown. Charges specified by the private sector consortia will be compared against those arising from a publicly funded option so that best value for money can be achieved.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which organisations concerned with the needs of citizens with mental illness, or their families, have made representations voicing(a) support for and (b) opposition to those clauses in the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [Lords] which relate to Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [30708]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office consulted widely in December 1993 about limiting long-term leave of absence from detention in hospital. A further consultation took place in December 1994 on the basis of detailed proposals for community care orders. A consultation was carried out in March 1994 about the proposals for the return of patients absent without leave. The organisations consulted were as follows:

  Age Concern

  Alzheimers Scotland

  Association of Directors of Social Work

  Association of Scottish Local Health Councils

  British Association of Social Workers

  British Medical Association (Scottish office)

  British Psychological Society

  Central Legal Office, Common Services Agency

  Committee of Users Representatives, Glasgow1

  Community Psychiatric Nurses Association

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Dementia Services Development Centre

  Directors of Social Work—Regional and Island Councils

  Enable (Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped)

  Faculty of Advocates

  Health Boards

  Law Society of Scotland

  Link (Glasgow Association for Mental Health)1

  Manic Depressive Society

  Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland

  612

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship (Scotland)

  NHS Trusts

  Penumbra

  Psychiatric Nurses Association

  Richmond Fellowship

  Royal College of General Practitioners

  Royal College of Nursing

  Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh

  Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow

  Royal College of Psychiatrists (Scottish Division)

  Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh

  Scottish Action on Dementia

  Scottish Association for Mental Health

  Scottish Council for Civil Liberties

  Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations

  Scottish Hospital Advisory Service (now Scottish Health Advisory Service)

  Scottish Law Commission

  Scottish Users Network

  Sheriffs' Association2

  United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (UKCC)

  Notes:

  1 Consulted only about the return of patients absent without leave.

  2 Consulted only about the detailed proposals for community care orders.

  Except where there was a request for confidentiality, copies of the responses are being placed in the Library. A variety of views were expressed. Some of the organisations consulted did not make a response.

WALES

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to send the embargoed letter to the chief executives of Welsh health authorities, family health service authorities, national health service trusts and the unit general managers relating to the publication of the NHS patients charter performance tables, ready for Charter Week. [29235]

  Mr. Rod Richards
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: There are no plans to issue such a letter. Chief executives and general managers have been notified by Welsh Office officials.

  School Funding
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received from school governors in(a) Swansea, (b) West Glamorgan and (c) Wales about (i) school funding for 1995–96 and (ii) further funding. [29510]

  Mr. Richards
  The Department has received many representations concerning school funding in 1995–96, and future funding, from many parties, including school governors.

  Health Authority Appointments
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when and by whom authorisation was given for advertisements to be placed for appointments to the proposed new health authorities in Wales. [29435]

  Mr. Richards
  The then Secretary of State decided in December 1994 to ask officials to arrange advertisements concerning appointments to the proposed authorities.

  Fatal accidents in Wales occurring in the workplace as reported to the Health and Safety executive's field operations division inspectorates and local authorities, 1988–89–1993–941

  County

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Clwyd

  7

  9

  6

  7

  2

  1

  Dyfed

  3

  3

  5

  5

  6

  2

  Gwent

  3

  8

  5

  1

  8

  5

  Gwynedd

  3

  8

  3

  1

  5

  5

  Mid Glamorgan

  6

  4

  6

  5

  6

  5

  Powys

  2

  1

  6

  3

  2

  3

  South Glamorgan

  1

  3

  4

  3

  4

  3

  West Glamorgan

  3

  4

  2

  1

  4

  3

  Total

  34

  40

  37

  26

  37

  27

  Source:

  HSE.

  1 Year commencing 1 April. Geographical location is determined by the employment base of the injured person which is not necessarily the geographical location of the injury. The figures exclude the small number of injuries reported to other relevant enforcing authorities, chiefly mines, railways and explosives inspectorates, for which a regional breakdown is not readily available. Data shown in the table prior to 1990–91 exclude reports made to the quarries inspectorate.

  Regional Emergency Committee
  Mr. Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the names and designation of the members of the Regional Emergency Committee in Wales, together with the dates on which the committee has met in each of the past three years. [29988]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Regional Emergency Committee is convened in the event of a serious emergency. This has not happened in the last three years. Members meet informally from time to time to keep in contact. The committee is chaired by the Welsh Office and the organisations represented on it include appropriate Welsh Office divisions, the police, the fire service, the Army, other Government Departments, the Post Office and the telecommunications industry. Other organisations are represented should circumstance require.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his latest estimate of the number of homes repossessed in Wales in the last five years. [30162]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In the first quarter of 1995, county courts in Wales made 444 mortgage possession orders together with 647 suspended orders, whereby the mortgagees are given an opportunity to clear their debts. Information is not recorded centrally on the number of cases in which mortgage possession orders led to warrants to have the defendants evicted.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to help people who suffer

  Fatal Accidents
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many fatal accidents have occurred in workplaces in Wales in each of the last six years giving the figures by Welsh county. [29632]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  from Alzheimer's disease; and if he will make a statement. [30166]

  Mr. Richards
  Local and health authorities have responsibility for assessing the needs of their residents and to plan services with the resources available to them. This includes individuals who have Alzheimer's disease.

  Grant Payments
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision for compensation in respect of the late payment of grants is available to farmers. [29994]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Claims for compensation are dealt with on their merit in the light of the circumstances of each case.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many apprenticeships exist in Wales. [30163]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Estimates from the labour force survey for winter 1994–95 indicate that in Wales some 321,000 people have completed apprenticeships and 13,000 are still doing apprenticeships.

  Noise Nuisance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to deal with(a) noise nuisance and (b) other forms of anti-social behaviour by neighbours. [30165]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Proposals to help tackle neighbour noise nuisance were included in the Government's recent consultation document "Review of the Effectiveness of
  615
  Neighbour Noise Controls". The comments received on these proposals will be considered before deciding whether to proceed with legislation. As for anti-social behaviour by neighbours, local authorities already have a number of powers to help them deal with the problem. In terms of anti-social council tenants, the Welsh Office recently consulted interested parties on the possibility of giving councils a new discretionary power to introduce probationary tenancies.

  Negative Equity
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of homes deemed to suffer negative equity in Wales. [30161]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  An estimated 11,000 households in Wales, representing 1.3 per cent. of the owner-occupied stock, were affected by negative equity in the first quarter in 1995. These estimates are prepared by the Department of the Environment on the basis of a house price index. The estimates are sensitive to the assumptions made and are intended only to provide a broad indication of the level of negative equity.

  Welsh Health Survey
  Mr. Redmond
  To as the Secretary of State for Wales what recent research his Department has commissioned in respect of a health survey for Wales, and if he will make a statement. [30478]

  Mr. Richard
  The Welsh health survey was launched at the end of April 1995. It is a postal survey using a sample of 50,000 of the adult population drawn from the electoral register, and is designed to provide an accurate picture of the health of the people of Wales, the way the NHS is used, and areas where services could be improved.

  The main aim of the survey is to collect information on representative samples of the population with a range of illnesses and disabilities and information on comparable groups of healthy people, without using any medical records. The information will help those responsible for the NHS in Wales to develop services more finely attuned to the needs of the general population, to carry out further improvements in services, and to inform the development of the patients charter for Wales.

  The results of the survey will be published towards the end of this year. Copies of the questionnaire have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the ratio of unemployed persons for each vacant job for each county in Wales. [30604]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is shown in the following table. The figures relate to the numbers of claimant unemployed and the number of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres. The vacancy figures do not represent the total number of vacancies in the economy. Latest estimates suggest that nationally about one third of all vacancies are notified to jobcentres.
  616

  Number of claimant unemployed persons for each unfilled vacancy, May 19951

  County

  Number

  Clwyd

  6.6

  Dyfed

  6.6

  Gwent

  8.7

  Gwynedd

  6.2

  Mid Glamorgan

  9.4

  Powys

  6.0

  South Glamorgan

  10.5

  West Glamorgan

  5.9

  Source

  NOMIS.

  1 Claimant unemployed divided by number of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres.

  Mentally Ill (Accommodation)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each of the health authorities in Wales and for Wales as a whole the number of places available in accommodation schemes for people with severe mental illness; what proposals he has to promote high level support accommodation schemes for the severely mentally ill; and if he will make a statement. [28728]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: The required information is not available on a health authority basis nor is it possible to isolate information in respect of severe mental illness.

  A large proportion of accommodation schemes for people with mental illness are the responsibility of local authorities. Places available in residential care homes—private, voluntary and local authority—as at 31 March 1994 are as follows:

  Local authority

  Places

  Clwyd

  117

  Dyfed

  134

  Gwent

  50

  Gwynedd

  82

  Mid Glamorgan

  69

  Powys

  51

  South Glamorgan

  83

  West Glamorgan

  144

  Wales

  730

  Notes:

  These figures exclude small homes—ie less than four residents.

  The assessment of need, provision of appropriate accommodation and the monitoring of the quality of care is a matter for local determination.

  Regional Enterprise Grant
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the companies awarded regional enterprise grant, investment project in the counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd for each year since 1988. [30256]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: Since 1988, 29 companies in Gwynedd and 328 companies in Clwyd have received offers of regional enterprise grant, investment. A complete list of these companies has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Private Prescriptions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the use of private prescription forms by(a) general practitioners and (b) pharmacists at the request of patients for those prescription items whose cost of production and distribution is lower than the standard prescription charge; and if he will make a statement. [30666]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 26 June 19951: None.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to notify the Millennium Commission of the priority rating for the projects shortlisted by the Commission for Wales. [31007]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer Monday 26 June 1995]: Decisions on the selection of projects for funding are entirely a matter for the millennium commissioners, who are independent of Government. We have been invited by the Secretary of State for National Heritage to let us have any comments on the short list of major projects to help him inform his contribution to the deliberations of the commission.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many young people in Wales who reached the school leaving age in 1994(a) stayed at school to seek qualifications higher than GCSEs or equivalent, (b) stayed at school to take further GCSEs (c) left school to take courses of further or higher education and (d) are not in training, education or employment. [31019]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: The available information is contained in the following table. The figures relate to pupils on school rolls in LEA-maintained, grant-maintained and independent schools at the time of the January 1994 census, who would have attained school leaving age by 31 August 1994. The available information does not distinguish, in relation to those staying at school, between those proposing to do further GCSEs and those undertaking higher qualifications.

  Intended destinations of pupils of school leaving age

  Pupils continuing full time education at:

  School

  13,535

  Further or Higher Education College

  9,850

  Pupils entering into full time employment or Youth Training

  4,720

  Other (including part time education, part time employment, unemployment or unknown)

  3,915

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many young people in Wales reached the school leaving age in 1994. [31017]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: Some 32,339 pupils on school rolls at the time of the January 1994 schools census would have attained school leaving age by 31 August 1994.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was Welsh Office expenditure on TEC programmes for each of the years since their inception. [30965]

  Mr. Richards
  As the information requested will take some time to collate, I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Suicides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many suicides there have been in Wales in each of the last 10 years. [30984]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: The latest available information for Welsh residents is in the following table:

  Year

  Suicides ICD E950–E959

  1984

  249

  1985

  194

  1986

  234

  1987

  232

  1988

  241

  1989

  190

  1990

  221

  1991

  245

  1992

  262

  19931

  224

  Source:

  OPCS.

  1 In 1993 OPCS made changes to the coding and data collection system which may have affected the numbers of deaths for many causes (including suicides).

  Higher Education
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, (1) what has been the total Government expenditure on university and polytechnic maintenance grants, for each year since 1974–75 in 1994 prices; [30338]

  (2) what has been the value of the full universities student grant for each year since 1974–75 in 1994 prices; [30337]

  (3) if he will list the changes to university and polytechnic student maintenance grant entitlement since 1974; [30339]

  (4) what is his estimate of the annual cost of providing the full maintenance grant to all university students; [30323]

  (5) what would be the cost of reducing the level of university fees paid by non-European Community Country students to the fee levels paid by students from European Community countries; [30325]

  (6) what was the percentage of university or polytechnic students entitled to (a) a full maintenance grant and (b) no maintenance grant for each year since 1979; [30340]

  (7) what is his estimate of the number of students in higher education in the year 2000; [30320]

  (8) what was the average level of student loan for university students in 1994–95; [30324]
  619
  (9) what is his estimate of the cost in the current year of restoring the value of the student maintenance grant to its real 1979 level; [30342]

  (10) what would be the annual cost of paying (a) all fees for and (b) the full maintenance grant to all part-time university students. [30322]

  (11) what is his estimate of the total number of university students with a student loan, in each year from 1987–88 to 1997–98. [30326]

  Mr. Richards
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the staff to student ratio at universities, and their forerunners, for each year from 1974–75 to 1997–98. [30335]

  Mr. Richards
  Information available on the staff/student ratio in the constituent colleges of the university of Wales and at other institutions providing higher education in Wales from 1986–87 to 1993–94 can be found in the following table. Comparable information for years prior to 1986–87 is not available for both sectors. Data for the year 1994–95 have not yet been collected. There are no projected figures.

  Ratio of full-time equivalent student numbers to full-time equivalent academic and academic related staff numbers in Wales.

  Academic year

  University of Wales1

  Other institutions2

  1986–87

  6:4

  10:4

  1987–88

  6:4

  10:2

  1988–89

  6:7

  10:1

  1989–90

  7:0

  11:4

  1990–91

  7:1

  12:5

  1991–92

  7:7

  13:9

  1992–93

  8:4

  15:7

  1993–94

  9:0

  316:7

  Notes:

  1 As at December of each year.

  2 Full academic year. Includes higher education provision at further education institutions.

  3 Provisional data pending publication.

  Sources:

  Universities Statistical Record and the Welsh Office Annual Monitoring Survey.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average cost to the Exchequer of each student in university education for each year since 1984–85 broken down by(a) maintenance grant, (b) fees and (c) other. [30343]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is not available in the form requested. The average maintenance grants received by mandatory award holders domiciled in England and Wales in the academic years 1984–85 to 1993–94 are shown in the table set out in the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for further and Higher Education.

  In Wales, the estimated income from tuition fees and average recurrent grant from the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales since its inception in 1992 per student is around £4,500 in each of the financial years 1993–94 to 1995–96.
  620
  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the drop-out rate for university and polytechnic courses in each year since 1979. [30319]

  Mr. Richards
  Information relating to drop-out rates for Welsh institutions is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his estimates of the university or polytechnic total student population for each year from 1974–75 to 1998–99. [30341]

  Mr. Richards
  Information on the number of student enrolments on higher education courses at publicly funded institutions in Wales from 1974–75 to 1997–98 can be found in the following table. Comparable 1998–99 figures will be available later in the year as a direct consequence of this years public expenditure survey.

  Enrolments on higher education courses at publicly funded institutions in Wales1

  Year

  University of Wales2

  Other publicly funded institutions3

  1974–75

  16,681

  7,569

  1975–76

  17,762

  9,345

  1976–77

  18,784

  10,643

  1977–78

  19,692

  12,885

  1978–79

  20,508

  12,959

  1979–80

  20,879

  13,142

  1980–81

  21,667

  13,890

  1981–82

  21,300

  15,135

  1982–83

  20,888

  15,824

  1983–84

  20,050

  17,617

  1984–85

  20,486

  18,181

  1985–86

  21,520

  19,240

  1986–87

  22,674

  19,861

  1987–88

  22,886

  20,331

  1988–89

  23,167

  21,393

  1989–90

  24,577

  22,579

  1990–91

  26,170

  24,076

  1991–92

  29,487

  27,949

  1992–93

  33,112

  33,085

  1993–944

  36,390

  37,133

  1994–955

  35,500

  38,300

  1995–965

  35,800

  38,800

  1996–975

  35,800

  38,700

  1997–985

  36,100

  38,900

  Notes:

  1 Excludes Open University students.

  2 At December. Excludes institutions gaining university status in 1992–93.

  3 At November. Includes institutions gaining university status in 1992–93.

  4 Provisional data pending publication.

  5 Projected figures, based on 1994 student counts. Overseas students, other than EC, are excluded.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the backlog of building repair and maintenance work at universities. [30336]

  Mr. Richards
  Surveys undertaken in the early 1990s of the higher education estate in Wales showed a backlog of maintenance and repair which would cost just over £90 million to correct. Work to the value of £30 million has already been undertaken, including all work necessary to meet health and safety requirements. The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales has a target to eliminate the remaining backlog of work by 1999 at the latest.
  621
  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the(a) average cost and (b) marginal cost of university students in 1995–96. [30344]

  Mr. Richards
  The average funding council grant and income from fees per higher education student in Wales for the financial year 1995–96 is estimated at around £4,500. No information is available for marginal costs.

  Local Government and Housing Act 1989
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what responsibilities his Department has for ensuring that local authorities in Wales comply with the regulations of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989; and if he will make a statement on the steps he has taken during the past two years with regard to such compliance. [30867]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A large number of powers are vested in the Secretary of State under provisions in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. They cover a number of different subject areas, including local authority membership, economic development, local government finance, local authority companies, housing and housing finance. If the hon. Member would indicate those parts of the 1989 Act that he is particularly interested in, or has concerns about, I will write to him.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the number of pupils who currently attend grant-maintained schools in the United Kingdom. [29122]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We estimate that about 670,000 pupils are currently being educated in grant-maintained schools throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she last met the National Union of Teachers to discuss grant-maintained schools. [29124]

  Mr. Squire
  My right hon. Friend has not had a meeting with the NUT at which grant-maintained schools were the principal subject for discussion.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will a make a statement about the progress and performance of grant-maintained schools. [29135]

  Mr. Squire
  For three successive years, GM comprehensive schools have, on average, achieved better GCSE results than their local education authority counterparts. Similarly, in 1994—the first year for which adequate data are available—GM primary schools achieved better key stage 1 results than LEA primary schools. These comparisons remain true even if account is taken of socio-economic differences in the schools' intakes.

  Mature Students
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what forms of public maintenance support are available to mature students in higher education. [29123]
  622
  Mr. Boswell
  Mature students, like other students, are generally eligible for a variety of forms of public support. These include mandatory awards and student loans for most full-time first higher education courses, discretionary awards from local authorities, and various postgraduate bursaries.

  Religious and Minority Schools, Harrow
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent representations she has received for new religious and minority schools in the London borough of Harrow. [29125]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received no formal representations recently. The Department is in contact with representatives of the United Synagogue Board of Education about its proposals to establish a new Jewish voluntary-aided primary school in Harrow.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate she has made of the cost of outstanding repairs to schools. [29126]

  Mr. Squire
  Estimates based on a 1991 National Audit Office report suggested that the cost of structural repairs and maintenance to local authority school buildings was around £1.4 billion at current prices, but since 1990–91, some £3.5 billion has been made available from all sources for capital work in schools.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the standards of school buildings. [29127]

  Mr. Squire
  The main standards for school buildings are set out in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981. Building work at schools is covered by the Department's construction standards.

  School Discipline
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures she is taking to help schools enforce firm discipline. [29128]

  Mr. Forth
  In May 1994, guidance on pupil behaviour and discipline was sent to all schools, as part of the "Pupils with Problems" pack. The guidance aims to help schools maintain and improve discipline. In September 1994, the Department published an anti-bullying pack to help schools combat bullying. We are now considering what more might be done to support schools on discipline and behaviour, building on previous guidance.

  Higher Education
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate she has made of how many students will he entering higher education this autumn. [29129]

  Mr. Boswell
  Our spending plans have allowed for overall funded student numbers in England to rise by 22,000 between the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years. This should enable approaching one in three young people to enter full-time higher education this autumn.
  623
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her estimate of the backlog of building repair and maintenance work at universities. [30346]

  Mr. Boswell
  The current backlog of building repair and maintenance work for academic buildings is estimated to cost £900 million. This figure is derived from accommodation condition surveys conducted in the early 1990s.

  The Higher Education Funding Council for England, and its predecessor bodies, have spent £386 million over the past five years on grants for backlog maintenance, and HE institutions themselves have spent £216 million during the same period. The HEFCE plans to spend a further £100 million on grant aid for projects over the next three years to which it expects institutions to contribute an additional £300 million. The remaining less urgent work will need to be funded by institutions themselves.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her estimate of the(a) average cost and (b) marginal cost of university students in 1995–96. [30354]

  Mr. Boswell
  The average funding council grant and income from tuition fees per higher education student for the financial year 1995–96 is estimated as around £4,500. No information is available on the marginal cost.

  Expenditure and funding on higher education in England and Wales: 1984–85 to 1994–95

  £ (cash terms)

  England and Wales Academic Years

  England only Financial Years

  Average maintenance grant per mandatory award holder1

  Average fees per mandatory award holder1 2

  Average student loan per loan holder3

  Estimated average funding council grant and income from tuition fees per student2 4 5

  1984–85

  1,240

  580

  —

  4,000

  1985–86

  1,170

  610

  —

  4,100

  1986–87

  1,220

  620

  —

  4,200

  1987–88

  1,240

  640

  —

  4,400

  1988–89

  1,320

  670

  —

  4,700

  1989–90

  1,390

  710

  —

  4,900

  1990–91

  1,480

  1,700

  390

  4,800

  1991–92

  1,550

  2,250

  540

  4,800

  1992–93

  1,610

  2,310

  660

  4,600

  1993–94

  1,670

  2,100

  740

  4,600

  1994–95

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4,600

  n/a = Not available.

  1 Based on award holders normally domiciled in England and Wales.

  2 The fee element per student of the funding council grant plus tuition fee income is not directly comparable with the average fee per mandatory award holder.

  3 Based on loan holders studying in England and Wales.

  4 Based on higher education students studying in England.

  5 Figures estimated using the real terms unit public funding index published in successive DM departmental reports, copies of which are available in the Library. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £100.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are her estimates of the university or polytechnic total student population for each year from 1974–75 to 1998–99. [30351]

  Mr. Boswell
  Projections of the student population for home full-time and sandwich students in GB institutions are presently not available for years beyond 1997–98. However, comparable 1998–99 projections will be
  624
  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her estimate of the staff-student ratio at universities and their forerunners for each year from 1974–75 to 1997–98. [30345]

  Mr. Boswell
  Information on the student-staff ratios in former English UFC and PCFC funded institutions was presented in table G of the Department's annual report, Cm 2810, published in March this year, a copy of which is in the Library. This table provides information for both sectors for the academic years 1990–91 to 1992–93. Information for earlier years, calculated on a different basis, is available in previous departmental reports.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average cost to the Exchequer of each student in university education for each year from 1984–85 to 1994–95, broken down by(a) maintenance grant, (b) fees and (c) other. [30353]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information is not available in the form requested. The average maintenance grants received by mandatory award holders domiciled in England and Wales in the academic years 1984–85 to 1993–94 are shown in the table. Since 1990–91, most students in full-time education up to first degree level have had access to student loans. The average loan to students studying in England and Wales in the academic years 1990–91 to 1993–94 are also shown.

  In England, the estimated average funding council grant and income from tuition fees per student for the financial years in question are also provided.

  available later in the year as a direct consequence of this years public expenditure survey.

  Outturn data for the years 1974–75 to 1993–94, provisional data for 1994–95 and projections for 1995–96 to 1997–98 are shown in the table, which shows figures underlying the 1994 budget settlement.

  In addition, the number of students in English institutions is published in the Department for Education and Office for Standards in Education departmental

  625
  report, copies of which are held in the Library. Following is table G: Higher Education student and staff numbers, England 1989–90 to 1997–98, from the March 95 edition.

  Table: 1994 Budget Settlement. Home full-time and sandwich higher education student numbers in Great Britain

  Thousands

  Academic year

  Total

  1974–75

  447

  1975–76

  456

  1976–77

  459

  1977–78

  451

  1978–79

  448

  1979–80

  455

  1980–81

  467

  1981–82

  492

  1982–83

  507

  1983–84

  515

  Table G: Higher education student and staff numbers, England 1989–90 to 1997–98

  Academic year

  1989–90 actual

  1990–91 actual

  1991–92 actual

  1992–93 actual

  1993–94 provisional

  1994–95 projected

  1995–96 projected

  1996–97 projected

  1997–98 projected

  Home full-time and part-time students (thousands)

  Full-time and sandwich students

  484

  527

  599

  686

  749

  798

  800

  793

  792

  Part time students3

  339

  359

  380

  402

  407

  423

  434

  442

  452

  Total full and part-time

  823

  887

  980

  1,088

  1,157

  1,220

  1,234

  1,235

  1,244

  Total full-time equivalent students of which students funded by TTA

  603

  653

  732

  826

  892

  945

  952(61)

  948(60)

  950(59)

  Age Participation Index (GB)per cent.4 5

  17

  19

  23

  28

  30

  30–31

  30–31

  30–31

  30–31

  EC Students' (thousands)

  Total full—time equivalent students

  16

  20

  24

  27

  33

  33

  34

  35

  36

  Other Overseas Students

  Total full-time equivalent students

  46

  48

  51

  53

  59

  60

  60

  61

  61

  Total full-time equivalent students (FTEs)

  664

  721

  807

  907

  984

  1,038

  1,047

  1,044

  1,047

  Academic Staff (thousand FTEs) Universities7

  24.9

  24.9

  25.6

  26.1

  26.6

  Former PCFC funded institutions

  n/a

  22.8

  23.6

  24.9

  n/a

  Student: Staff Ratio8

  Universities7

  11.1

  11.7

  12.4

  13.2

  14.0

  Former PCFC funded institutions

  n/a

  15.3

  17.1

  18.7

  n/a

  Notes:

  Totals based on unrounded figures, therefore may not always equal sum of the omponents

  1 Covers undergraduates and postgraduates.

  2 Higher education students in higher education institutions and further education colleges

  3 Includes a small number of OU full-time postgraduate students.

  4 The Age Participation Index (API) is defined as the number of initial home entrants to HE aged under 21 expressed as a percentage of the average number of 18 and 19 years olds in the population.

  5 The Age Participation Index (API) over the protection period will depend upon universities recruitment policies to maintain total numbers within DFE 'guidelines': depending upon these factors, the API may fall outside the forecast range.

  6 Includes Finland, Austria and Sweden from 1995–96.

  7 Excludes OU Covers former UFC funded institutions.

  8 Student numbers used in the calculation of SSRs are on a different basis to those appearing in the table.

  n/a Not available.

  Sources:

  DFE surveys Further Educatin Statistical Record, Form 618G and Annual Monitoring Survey, Universities' Statistical Record, Open University, PCFC Surveys PARISS and Staff Record.
  626

  Table: 1994 Budget Settlement. Home full-time and sandwich higher education student numbers in Great Britain

  Thousands

  Academic year

  Total

  1984–85

  521

  1985–86

  530

  1986–87

  540

  1987–88

  549

  1988–89

  565

  1989–90

  600

  1990–91

  650

  Actual

  1992–93

  841

  Provisional

  1993–94

  930

  Projected

  1994–95

  990

  1995–96

  995

  1996–97

  984

  1997–98

  983

  627
  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what is her estimate of the annual cost of providing the full maintenance grant to all university students; [30331]

  (2) what would be the annual cost of paying (a) all fees for, and (b) the full maintenance grant to, all part-time university students. [30330]

  Mr. Boswell
  The cost in either case would depend upon the decisions taken about eligible courses, their duration, the maximum payable fee and maintenance grant, and the account to be taken of the personal circumstances of potentially eligible students.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what has been the value of the full university student grant for each year since 1974–75 in 1994 prices; [30347]

  (2) if she will list the change to university and polytechnic student maintenance grant entitlement since 1974. [30349]

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

  Value of the standard maintenance grant and grant plus loan in England and Wales: 1974–75 to 1994–95

  Standard maintenance grant (cash terms) £1

  Standard maintenance grant plus loan (cash terms) £2

  Standard maintenance grant (real terms) £3

  Standard maintenance grant plus loan (real terms) £3

  1974–754

  605

  —

  3056

  —

  1975–764

  740

  —

  2,945

  —

  1976–774

  875

  —

  3,041

  —

  1977–784

  1,010

  —

  3,033

  —

  1978–794

  1,100

  —

  3,062

  —

  1979–804

  1,245

  —

  2,996

  —

  1980–814

  1,430

  —

  2,997

  —

  1981–824

  1,535

  —

  2,875

  —

  1982–834

  1,595

  —

  2,783

  —

  1983–844

  1,660

  —

  2,753

  —

  1984–85

  1,775

  —

  2,832

  —

  1985–86

  1,830

  —

  2,766

  —

  1986–87

  1,901

  —

  2,778

  —

  1987–88

  1,972

  —

  2,784

  —

  1988–89

  2,050

  —

  2,752

  —

  1989–90

  2,155

  —

  2,733

  —

  1990–91

  2,265

  2,685

  2,624

  3,111

  1991–92

  2,265

  2,845

  2,483

  3,119

  1992–93

  2,265

  2,980

  2,387

  3,141

  1993–94

  2,265

  3,065

  2,311

  3,128

  1994–95

  2,040

  3,190

  2,040

  3,190

  1 The standard maintenance grant rate is that applicable to students living away from home and studying outside London.

  2 Since 1990–91 student support has included grant and loan; the grant was frozen at the 1990–91 level (ie: £2,265) until 1994–95 when it was reduced to £2,040. Figures for 1990–91 and subsequent years include grant plus full year loan for students living away from home.

  3 Based on the Retail Price Index (excluding mortgage interest payments) in September at the beginning of each academic year.

  4 Upto and including 1983–84 students claimed, and were individually reimbursed, full travelling expenses; form 1984–85 most students had to meet travel costs from within their main rate of grant.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the drop-out rate for university and polytechnic courses in each year since 1979. [30327]
  628
  Mr. Boswell
  Full-time and sandwich first degree drop-out rates for each year from 1982–1983 to 1992–1993 are shown in the table. The figures are published in the 1995 and 1994 departmental annual reports.

  Academic year

  Percentage drop-out rate

  1982–83

  13

  1983–84

  14

  1984–85

  15

  1985–86

  14

  1986–87

  16

  1987–88

  17

  1988–89

  14

  1989–90

  16

  1990–91

  15

  1991–92

  17

  1992–93

  17

  Sources:

  Universities' Statistical Record leavers and enrolment records

  CNAA enrolment records England and Wales (1982–83 to 1990–91)

  DFE Further Education Statistical Record (1991–92 to 1992–93)

  The figures show that drop-out rates have fluctuated but they appear low by international standards.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what would be the cost of reducing the level of university fees paid by non-European Community country students to the fee levels paid by students from European Community Countries. [30333]

  Mr. Boswell
  Information on fees for overseas students, which are set separately by each university and college, is not available.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her estimate of the cost in the current year of restoring the value of the student maintenance grant to its real 1979 level. [30352]

  Mr. Boswell
  The cost would depend on whether or not the changes made to the student support system since 1979, including the major changes made in 1990 when loans were introduced, were to be reversed.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what was the average level of student loan for university students in 1994–95. [30332]

  Mr. Boswell
  The average level of loan for all borrowers in the academic year 1993–94, the latest year for which data are available, was £736. Separate figures for university students are not available.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what has been the total Government expenditure on university and polytechnic maintenance grants, for each year since 1974–75 in 1994 prices. [30348]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested for England and Wales is shown in the table.
  629

  Government expenditure on maintenance grants to mandatory award holders and on student loans in England and Wales: Academic years 1974–75 to 1993–94

  £ million (real terms)1

  Student maintenance grants2

  Student loans3

  Total expenditure

  1974–75

  n/a4

  —

  n/a

  1975–76

  631

  —

  631

  1976–77

  653

  —

  653

  1977–78

  700

  —

  700

  1978–79

  757

  —

  757

  1979–80

  799

  —

  799

  1980–81

  834

  —

  834

  1981–82

  830

  —

  830

  1982–83

  824

  —

  824

  1983–84

  833

  —

  833

  1984–85

  766

  —

  766

  1985–86

  692

  —

  692

  1986–87

  701

  —

  701

  1987–88

  710

  —

  710

  1988–89

  734

  —

  734

  1989–90

  774

  —

  774

  1990–91

  826

  68

  894

  1991–92

  942

  129

  1,072

  1992–93

  1,102

  204

  1,306

  1993–94

  1,227

  275

  1,502

  1 In 1994–95 prices based on the Retail Price Index (excluding mortgage interest payments) in September at the beginning of each academic year.

  2 Expenditure on grants to mandatory award normally domiciled in England and Wales.

  3 Expenditure on loans to higher education England and Wales.

  4 Information on expenditure on maintenance award holders in 1974–75 is not available.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her estimate of the number of students in higher education in the year 2000. [30328]

  Mr. Boswell
  Projections for students in Great Britain institutions of higher education are not available for academic years beyond 1997–98.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her estimate of the total number of university students with a student loan in each year from 1987–88 to 1997–98. [30334]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information is not readily available in the format requested. The Student Loans Company first issued loans in the academic year 1990–91. The total numbers of loans issued in each academic year to students in higher education are:

  1990–91: 180,000

  1991–92: 261,000

  1992–93: 345,000

  1993–94: 430,000

  The latest forecast of the number of student loans that will be issued in 1994–95 is 525,000.

  The forecast of student loan numbers, as used in calculating the figures for the supply estimates, was:

  1995–96: 672,000

  1996–97: 731,000

  1997–98: 768,000

  630
  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the percentage of university/polytechnic students entitled to(a) full maintenance grant and (b) no maintenance grant in each year since 1979. [30350]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested on this topic which the Department collects relates only to mandatory award holders domiciled in England and Wales. The available information is shown in the table.

  Mandatory award holders receiving full and nil maintenance grants in England and Wales: 1979–80 to 1993–94

  Percentages

  Full maintenance grant

  Nil maintenance grant

  1979–80

  39

  —1

  1980–81

  40

  —1

  1981–82

  40

  —1

  1982–83

  37

  —1

  1983–84

  36

  —1

  1984–85

  35

  —1

  1985–86

  35

  22

  1986–87

  37

  22

  1987–88

  37

  25

  1988–89

  37

  25

  1989–90

  36

  25

  1990–91

  37

  25

  1991–92

  39

  25

  1992–93

  42

  24

  1993–94

  44

  22

  Note:

  1 Up to 1984–85 all mandatory award holders received at least a non-zero minimum maintenance grant (£335 in 1979–90 and £410 in 1983–84).

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education to what extent maintenance for younger children assessed under the Child Support Act 1991 is taken into account in assessing parental contributions towards grants for students in higher education; and if she will make a statement. [31213]

  Mr. Boswell
  Certain payments which are made by others for the benefit of a student are treated as part of the gross income of the parent in assessing that parent's contribution to the student's grant. These payments include any made under a trust deed or other enactment or instrument for or towards the maintenance, education or other benefit of the student, or of any person dependent on the student's parent, and include payments assessed under the Child Support Act. Where a parent makes such payments in respect of his children, other than the student whose grant is being assessed, and those children are wholly or mainly financial dependent on him, his contribution to the student's grant is reduced by £75.

  Unemployed Graduates
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of first degree graduates where unemployed in the December following graduation in the latest year for which figures are available. [29130]

  Mr. Boswell
  Short-term graduate unemployment increased during the recession. But 1993 provisional figures for England show increased numbers going
  631
  straight into employment and a fall in the proportion believed unemployed in the December following graduation to 12 per cent. As the economy improves, graduates should be well placed to find jobs.

  Class Sizes, Barnsley
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of class sizes in schools in Barnsley in the current financial year. [29131]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on class sizes is derived from returns made by individual schools to the Department in January each year. This will include class size information for maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in Barnsley. In January 1994 the average size of one-teacher classes in Barnsley was 27.4 for maintained primary schools and 22.9 for maintained secondary schools. Information for January 1995 will be available in the autumn.

  Science
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of 16-year-olds last year went on to study an A-level science subject. [29132]

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not held centrally in the required form. In 1993, at the end of the academic year, 10.7 per cent. of 18-year-olds had at least one science GCE A-level compared with 8 per cent. in 1980.

  University Fees
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to redistribute the student top-up tuition fees for Oxbridge colleges to all British universities. [29133]

  Mr. Boswell
  There are no plans to redistribute Oxbridge college fees in this way. A college fee is paid in recognition of the tuition and other facilities that the colleges provide to their students. The Higher Education Funding Council for England takes account of the Oxbridge colleges' fee income in determining the level of grant payable to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and abates those universities' grants accordingly.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the progress to date on the extension of nursery education provision. [29134]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she expects to make a statement on Government plans to widen the availability of nursery education; what is the estimated cost of these proposals, and if she will make a statement. [29365]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend and I have 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. An announcement will be made as soon as the details have been finalised.

  Bradford (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for 632
  Education when she intends next to visit Bradford for discussions with the local education authority. [29136]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend enjoyed visiting schools in Bradford on 1 March. There are no immediate plans for a return visit.

  Music Teaching
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of musical instrument teaching in schools and changes since 1985. [29263]

  Mr. Forth
  The Office of Standards in Education is responsible for reporting on the standards of music teaching in schools. It has recently published a review of its inspection findings in music in 1993–94, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Sixth-form and Further Education
  Ms Tessa Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of 16-year-olds stay on at school or further education colleges in(a) Southwark, (b) Lambeth, (c) Camden, (d) Hammersmith, (e) Birmingham, (f) Leeds, (g) Newcastle, and which of these authorities provide assistance with their travel cost.

  Mr. Boswell
  The proportions of 16-year-olds in full-time and part-time education in inner London, Birmingham, Leeds and Newcastle in the 1993–94 academic year are shown in the table:

  Percentage

  Full-time

  Full and part-time

  Inner London

  74

  78

  Birmingham

  70

  77

  Leeds

  66

  78

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  68

  75

  Figures for individual inner London boroughs cannot be estimated reliably.

  Information on authorities providing assistance with travel costs is not held centrally.

  Further Education Institutions
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what are the total units of activity done or estimated to be done at further education institutions in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and 1995–96; [31216]

  (2) what is the percentage change in the average level of funding per unit at further education institutions, using 1993–94 as a base, in (a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; [31215]

  (3) what are the figures for the average level of funding per unit of activity at further education institutions in (a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96. [31214]

  Mr. Boswell
  Details of the allocations of the funding to colleges are matters for the Further Education Funding Council. I am therefore asking the council's chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  School Leavers
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total number of school leavers in the United Kingdom for each of the last five years. [31148]

  Mr. Boswell
  Data on school leavers in England, and hence the United Kingdom, were collected only up to 1991–92. The table shows the available information.

  Pupils leaving school in the United Kingdom, 1988–89 to 1991–92

  Thousands

  Year

  School leavers

  1988–89

  753

  1989–90

  706

  1990–91

  661

  1991–92

  636

  Sources:

  Education Statistics for the United Kingdom, 1993 and 1992 editions, HMSO.

  Table 1

  Category of correspondent

  Number submitting comments

  Number supporting contracting

  Number opposing contracting

  Other

  Bodies representing teachers

  12

  0

  12

  0

  Teachers in schools and other educational institutions

  40

  1

  35, and 1 petition with 18 names

  3

  Employers of teachers, and bodies representing teachers' employers

  25

  1

  11

  13

  Civil service unions

  3

  0

  3

  0

  Staff of the Department for Education, including the TPA

  39

  0

  36, and 3 petitions with 831, 80 and 8 names respectively1

  0

  Members of Parliament, writing on their own behalf

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Members of the European Parliament, writing on their own behalf

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Local councils

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Potential contractors

  4

  1

  0

  3

  Members of the public

  2

  0

  2

  0

  Other

  3

  0

  1

  2

  Total

  131

  3

  103 and 4 petitions

  21

  1 Certain names appear on more than one of the petitions.

  Teachers' Pensions Agency
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many representations were received to her proposals to privatise the administration of the Teachers' Pensions Agency; and how many were opposed to it. [31266]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to table 1 of the paper "The Future of the Teachers' Pensions Agency (TPA): Results of the Government's consultation exercise", which I placed in the Library of the House on 7 June 1995.

  We had made no proposals, either before or during that consultation exercise, to let a contract to administer the teachers' superannuation scheme. My announcement of 7 June, Official Report, columns 205–7, said that we shall invite expressions of interest for a contract, but that we shall let such a contract only if it would provide better value for money than keeping the administration of the scheme in the public sector.

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 Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Minewater Pollution: Control
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the long-term arrangements and responsibilities for the control of minewater pollution.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Environment Agency will carry forward the regulatory role of the National Rivers Authority. The Environment Bill introduces measures which will enhance the agency's powers to address this issue. Discharges from mines abandoned after the end of 1999 will be regulated in the same way as all other discharges.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's belief that if the pumping of minewater ceases the consequences will be devastating? Despite what the Minister has just said, is not the main issue that no one has responsibility for the matter? As the Coal Authority is the obvious body to shoulder that responsibility, why do not the Government make that a statutory duty of the authority?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I suspect that the question of ceasing pumping needs to be dealt with on a coalfield by coalfield basis. The noble Lord says that the consequences may be devastating. That may not be true in every case. Certainly the Coal Authority has confirmed that it will maintain all the pumping operations which have been identified by the NRA as necessary to prevent water pollution. That includes pumping formerly carried out by British Coal, especially to prevent pollution of the River Weir.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Viscount not agree that under the regime of the National Coal Board, and later of British Coal, the control of minewater pollution was clearly the responsibility of those bodies, but that under the present arrangements responsibility is shared between the Coal Authority, the new owners and various regulatory bodies? Is there not a serious risk that under that mixed arrangement, which replaces a single responsibility, minewater pollution might begin to cause damage?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, because the Coal Authority is now responsible as the owner of all abandoned coalmines, except in so far as any part of that responsibility has been transferred to private sector operators through leases. However, through those leases
600
private sector operators are still responsible to the NRA for the risk of pollution and also to the Coal Authority as the owner. The Coal Authority has confirmed that it will seek to address the pollution problems inherited from the past—in other words—from British Coal, within its available resources and in the light of priorities to be agreed with the regulatory bodies. I do not believe that there has been a change of course in any way.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that during the course of the proceedings on the Coal Bill, the liability for pollution from abandoned mines was purposely delayed in order to protect the proceeds that the Government expected from the sale of the coal industry? Therefore, the new coal owners—the Budges of this world—are exempt from liability if they pollute rivers and streams as a result of any of their operations until 1999. Is that not a classic example of the Government pursuing profits from privatisation to the detriment of the environment and conservation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is confusing two distinct Bills. The coal privatisation Bill made operators give six months' notice to the Coal Authority of any proposed abandonment and produce a report on the consequences. It may be necessary for the operator to make appropriate payments to the Coal Authority to deal with continuing costs when relinquishing a mine. The date that the noble Lord quoted of 1999 is the date introduced by the Environment Bill, which removes the statutory defence which has been law for over 100 years.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that minewater pollution has been a major problem in South Wales over many years? It causes a great deal of concern generally throughout the valleys of South Wales. Will the noble Viscount say what action is being taken at the present time? Is he in a position to talk to the Secretary of State for Wales about it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Coal Authority is discussing with the NRA at present, and will do so with the Environment Agency in the future, priorities for pumping or disposal in other ways. As the noble Lord will recall, the agency will cover Wales as well. Other techniques are being investigated. It is not just a question of pumping. I see no problem regarding communicating with the acting Secretary of State for Wales.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his Answer to my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington, the Minister referred to the fact that a regulatory body was needed because there might be differing degrees of pollution from mines. However, whether the pollution is minor, not severe or very severe, what is the difference in principle? My noble friend and colleague seeks to establish who picks up the bill. Will the Minister give an undertaking that it will not be the public?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the issue is the same for everyone; it is a completely level playing field. It is an offence for mine owners, whether the Coal Authority or any other owner of a coal mine or any other mine, to cause pollution of water courses. The Coal Authority

601
can be prosecuted in the same way as any other mine operator, whether a mine is active or abandoned. But the statutory protections apply only where water is permitted to flow from an abandoned mine.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Viscount accept that there was a clear distinction between the undertakings given in this House on the passage of the Coal Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the provisions of the Environment Bill? On this serious problem the Government seem to have copped-out (if I may use that expression) from the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave to the House.
Does the noble Viscount further agree that the Government have made no provision for the problem of metal mines from which pollution is equally important—in some cases more important—as that from coal mines?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord is wrong in imputing that the Government have acted in a way which is not entirely consistent with my noble friend's assurance during the passage of that Bill. The Government then made it clear, and now make it clear, that as regards water pollution liabilities the Coal Authority would not rest on the effect of the defence and exemption provisions but would seek the best environmental result obtainable from the funds available to it. The Coal Authority has undertaken that it will do that. During the first year of its existence since October 1994 it has done that.
The noble Lord is quite right: there is more pollution from metal mines than from coal mines. That is why we have sought to remove the exemption. However, in order to give operators and owners an opportunity to adjust to the new liabilities, the date of the end of 1999 has been introduced.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Viscount accept that introducing 1999 as the final date in debates on the Environment Bill derogates from the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave to this House on the passage of the Coal Bill?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no; that is not so. My noble friend gave an assurance that I have repeated today: the Coal Authority will not rely on those exemptions which have existed in law for a long time, and it will seek the best environmental result obtainable from the funds available to it.

Toxic Poisoning: Treatment Facilities
2.48 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make an allocation of central funds to enable general medical practitioners to refer patients suffering chronic symptoms after exposure to toxic chemicals to consultants with specialist knowledge and facilities for the purposes of diagnosis and treatment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government allocate resources to health authorities to enable them to purchase healthcare for their local populations. It is already possible for GPs to refer patients suffering chronic symptoms of toxic poisoning for specialist treatment.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Baroness appreciate that the medical profession is the first to admit that it knows little about the chronic effects of toxic chemical exposure? Does she understand, too, that extra contractual referrals are extremely difficult in some cases because the GPs do not understand the history of the patients? It can also happen that the paying authorities—a health authority, for example—will not allow ECRs for various reasons. Will the Minister consider setting up supraregional units, perhaps using the West Country as a model, with another, say, in Glasgow, followed by other regions? GPs could then refer patients to consultants not just for organophosphate poisoning but for poisoning by the many thousands of chemicals and combinations of chemicals in use today.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, on the first point, the noble Countess will be aware that much research is going on. She is quite right; there is a lot more that we need to learn about organophosphates and poisoning generally. As to the second point, only 2 per cent. of all referrals are ECRs and there are few reasons why they should be refused. If patients feel they are not receiving the service they need, they always have the option of asking for a second opinion.
On the third point, I have just received a paper from the noble Countess which outlines regional proposals for an assessment and investigation unit. I received it about 20 minutes ago. It is an interesting proposal that I would wish to pursue with officials.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister examine an individual case with which I have been dealing from the Harrogate health district? It is of a farmer who is suffering from organophosphate poisoning and the health authority has refused to pay to send him to a specialised unit. He was accepted by both Glasgow and Guy's hospital in London, but the authority refused to pay because his case was considered to come under the heading of research. It said that it could not be sure that there would be any clinical help.
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, I should be delighted to pursue any individual case. I am surprised that the person was refused treatment; it is something I shall investigate.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the noble Countess has rightly drawn attention to a new and serious health problem? If dogma about extra-contractual referrals and the operation of the internal market prevent the Government giving central funds to help to promote proper care, will they consider funding research from central NHS funds under the NHS R&D programme?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I remember that when the internal market was first introduced, there was real concern about ECRs, particularly from the noble

603
Baroness opposite. Those fears have not been justified. When we have problems we pursue each one so that we know their extent: it is minimal. Much research is going on at the moment. There are tenders out from the department for research institutes wishing to pursue the subject and put forward proposals.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I accept the Minister's reply about extra-contractual referrals. However, is it not above all important that the average general practitioner be given greater information and education in order to recognise the symptoms before he can even begin to refer the case?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, toxicology is covered in the initial training of doctors. There are also postgraduate courses available of which doctors can avail themselves. Indeed, the department produced a hook, Pesticide Poisoning, which was published and circulated. On two occasions the Chief Medical Officer has written to all doctors in England explaining the problem. On the last occasion, the letter was also signed by the chief executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. So we are trying to give the issue maximum exposure. However, it is important that research is carried out. That is exactly what the Government are doing.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Baroness appreciate that the papers and letters to which she referred all deal with acute poisoning by toxic chemicals? There is nothing about the effects of chronic poisoning. Secondly, I have received a number of complaints about the failure of ECRs. If I give the noble Baroness a list of the problems, will she kindly investigate them for me?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords.

Iraq: Kuwaiti Detainees
2.54 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to help Kuwait secure the release of any remaining Kuwaiti civilians taken captive by Iraq during the Gulf War.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we raise this issue at the United Nations at every opportunity and were instrumental in obtaining a progress report from the ICRC to the Security Council which was submitted on 9th June.
We shall continue to play a leading role in the Tripartite Commission and its technical sub-committee. We shall continue to press Iraq to co-operate more fully with the ICRC.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. However, is she aware that during the recent Recess I had occasion to go to Kuwait? I was invited by the Speaker, to whom I spoke, and he expressed his deep appreciation of the British Government's endeavours at the United Nations, particularly those of the noble Baroness. He appreciated the sincere manner in which she answered the questions
604
which I put to her and requested an assurance that we would continue to help all we could. I said that I would mention the matter to the House. I felt sure that the noble Baroness would be prepared to give the assurance that, through its Parliament, Britain would continue to make every effort to ensure that people stolen from Kuwait would be returned to their parents and their homes.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the thanks which he has passed on from the Government of Kuwait. We intend to continue our work. We were instrumental in obtaining a progress report from the ICRC. We maintain constant touch with the Kuwaitis and other coalition countries. We made it quite clear to the Iraqis that we expect to see substantive results soon. It is vitally important for relatives of the missing that Iraq should comply so that an end can be put to the period of uncertainty as soon as possible.
However, let us not leave the issue without condemning Iraq for rejecting, for the third time, a scheme which would allow humanitarian goods in, such as food and medicines, in return for the export of some oil. Every time we try to help, the Iraqis refuse to help the Iraqi people.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, has my noble friend any idea how many Kuwaiti civilians are imprisoned at the moment?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that there were 609 inquiry files. So far, we know that the technical sub-committee has discussed 168 of those. I believe that there may be a further 18 people from countries including Saudi Arabia and the Philippines who are also detained, but we do not know where or under what conditions because the ICRC has not been given access to all of them.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Kuwaitis are not the only hostages now in Iraq? Are not many Kurds in that position, including some imprisoned before the start of the Iraq/Iran war?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I regret to say that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is undoubtedly right. We have no idea of the numbers, nor where those people are held. However, every time the ICRC goes in, for one reason or another, it will obviously try to find out about all people who may be illegally detained by Iraq.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a powerful lobby is organised, I suppose by Iraq, to try to persuade people in this country that the resolutions of the United Nations are to be rejected? That includes the latest and most generous arrangements to allow Iraq to sell oil so as to acquire humanitarian goods. It is suggested that the West is responsible for the deaths of babies and other kinds of humanitarian disasters within Iraq. Will the Minister place in the Library whatever documents she has which show the reasonableness of the offers that have been made by the Security Council and the benefits that would accrue to children, nursing mothers and other victims of the blockade if the Iraqis were prepared to accept the generous offer?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for picking up the point. He is absolutely right that some Iraqis are setting out to deny the benefits of United Nations Resolution 986. It would allow Iraq to export oil in return for other humanitarian goods. Again, I underline that medicines and food can go into Iraq; they are not caught by the embargo. It is the additional help which the West wishes to give for the sake of the Iraqi people that is caught. I am not sure that an exact document exists, but one can certainly be drafted so that it could be placed in the Library, and I shall do that.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the arranging of meetings, postponing them and then claiming that they were never arranged, is part of a policy of procrastination by the Iraqi Government in the hope that the rest of the world will grow weary and lose interest? Will she give an undertaking that that policy will not work and that the questions will continue until either the prisoners have been released or there has been an honest account of what has become of them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I hope that the world will never grow weary of fighting the cause of human rights for people placed in such intolerable positions by Saddam and other Iraqis. It is for that reason that we are so determined to spread democracy across the world so that other parliaments, like our own, can raise these issues at every possible point, keep the issues alive and make sure that Iraq knows that it will receive no mercy until it shows mercy to those it detained illegally.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when those of us in the delegation saw the terrible grief and sorrow we could not understand why, despite the efforts of this country and the United States of America, the United Nations does not seem to move at all? Is it doing anything whatever? Does the United Nations organisation really exist for times like this?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this is a particular and very difficult problem. In his most recent report to the Security Council, the United Nations UNSCOM ambassador, Ralph Ekeus, made clear what was going on. There has been some progress on accounting for past chemical weapons and ballistic missile programmes, but significant gaps remain on biological weapons. In addition, no progress has been made over those detained. While I sympathise with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that the UN may not seem to have the necessary mechanism, the UN only has the mechanism that the General Assembly gives to it. We should never forget that.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the last time my noble friend asked this Question she said that the lack of progress on this matter was unacceptable? That was three months ago, and there has still been no further progress. I accept that the UK Government play a role in the tripartite commission and in the technical sub-committee in trying to speed up the review of these cases. However, in relation to the 168
606
cases that have been considered, have any concessions at all been made by the Iraqis with respect to their future release?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am as anxious as is the noble Baroness for progress for these poor people and for their relatives. Of the 609 inquiry files, I mentioned that 168 had been discussed. Iraq has presented what one might term intermediate results on 70 of those 168 cases. The mortal remains of one person were repatriated from Iraq to Kuwait. We know that Kuwait has now closed two files that it had submitted to the ICRC, and two other files have been withdrawn. We shall go on pressing. But there is no unilateral action that can be taken. We have to work with fellow members of the United Nations and the European Union to continue the pressure in whatever way is possible.

Rail Privatisation: Timetable
3.3 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the timetable they have set for the privatisation of more than half of passenger train operations by April 1996 is likely to be adhered to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government remain committed to the target of franchising 51 per cent. of passenger services by April 1996 that was set for the franchising director in the objectives, instructions and guidance issued to him on 22nd March 1994.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that British Rail managers have indicated that that is an impossible timetable to undertake and have expressed grave concern about it? Is he further aware that the whole procedure is so hideously complex that the Office of Passenger Franchising, with some 70 staff, is finding it extremely difficult, I understand, to cope with the volume of paperwork? Is not the requirement for indicative bids before proceeding to ask for a full bid a concession on the part of the Government who have no idea of the amount that the private sector is expected to bid for the franchises?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the process is necessarily complex. However, we have made good progress and remain committed to the target. It is a challenging target, but there is absolutely no point in having a target unless it is challenging. Prequalification documents for the first eight franchises were issued in January. Invitations to tender for the first three franchises were issued in May. At the same time, draft passenger service requirements for four more franchises were issued for consultation. That illustrates that we have made considerable progress towards the challenging target of franchising 51 per cent.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, why do the Government insist on indicative bids? After all, when the owner of a house wants to sell it he does not ask for an indicative bid before the full bid is forthcoming. What is the rationale behind that?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have set up a very full procedure to make sure that the bidding process goes the right way. We need to make sure that value for money is secured and that the best services are provided. We believe that the very full procedure that we have set out is the best way to go about it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what is the basis for the Government continuing with this policy, given the fact that they are tearing themselves apart day by day on the question of leadership? What conceivable mandate do they have for privatising British Rail?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I should have thought that the production of better services for passengers, an increased level of service, and achieving better value for the taxpayer were all worthy objectives of a Conservative Government.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister accept that many of us feel that the concept of indicative bids is not only sensible but absolutely crucial since it enables the Government to have in advance some idea of exactly how much money they will have to pay the bidders to take this off their hands?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I was about to say that I was grateful to the noble Lord. As he points out, there is clear value in the bidding process we have set out. It is the best way of handling what is a highly complex procedure.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, even if the Government's programme is achieved, will there not be a hiatus in the provision of the essential investment required to make the railway system successful?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords, quite the opposite. Our approach will produce the new avenues of investment that the railways have lacked. Access to new and innovative types of investment, coupled with innovative management, will, I am sure, produce better services for the passenger.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that every single one of the privatisations was bitterly opposed by the other side and every single one has been extremely successful?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it could not be put better than that. I agree totally with my noble friend, and the look of anguish on the Benches opposite reflects that truth.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance that in the process of franchising—if they are in a position to carry it out—the Government will ensure that services under the franchising arrangements will connect? Can he assure us that the current nonsense whereby, owing to the beginning of the break-up of services, it is
608
impossible to get connecting regional and InterCity trains from one part of the country to another will end? Will he also confirm that InterCity trains are being delayed when entering stations because of the break-up of services? I understand that they have to pay for the use of local platforms and therefore have to wait until an InterCity platform is available.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, making services connect with each other is clearly in the interests of those who will run the franchises. Nothing illustrates that better than the debate that went on about through-ticketing. It is clearly in the interest of those who will bid for franchises and consequently operate them to make sure that their services connect in the best way with other services.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while no one would challenge my noble friend's suggestion that this is a necessarily complicated process, can he tell us anything about the attitudes of the franchising director'? Is he being a little more reasonable and flexible so far as bids from British Rail are concerned?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I know that my noble friend has tabled a Question on this specific subject. We shall go into that matter in very full detail. Essentially, whether BR can bid for the franchises is a decision for the franchising director himself.

Disability Discrimination Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 23 [The National Disability Council]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): In calling Amendment No. 101, I should inform the Committee that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 102.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 17, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) It shall be the duty of the Council—

(a) to work towards the elimination of discrimination; and

(b) to keep under review the working of this Act, and when they are so required to do so by the Secretary of State or otherwise think it necessary, to draw up and submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amending this Act.

(2A) In discharging the duties set out in subsection (2) the Council shall have the following powers—

(a) to investigate such complaints as are made to them of failure to comply with any provision of this Act in an individual case, and where it seems appropriate, conciliate in relation to such complaints:

(b) to provide assistance, including legal and financial assistance, to disabled persons in enforcing their rights under this Act;

609

(c) to carry out investigations with a view to determining whether the provisions of this Act are being complied with;

(d) to undertake or assist (financially or otherwise) the undertaking by other persons of any research and any educational activities, which appear to the Council necessary or expedient for the purposes of subsection (2).").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 104, 108, 109 and 114 to 118 inclusive. Also grouped with those amendments are amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain; namely, Amendments Nos. 103, 106 and 110. I understand that some Members of the Committee have indicated that they might wish to take Amendment No. 106 separately.
The amendments are designed to extend the powers of the National Disability Council. The purpose of the first amendment, Amendment No. 101, is to change the role of the council from being merely advisory to one with enforcement powers. The amendment broadens the role of the National Disability Council. As currently drafted, the council has power only to advise the Secretary of State on matters relevant to the elimination of discrimination against disabled people, measures which are likely to reduce such discrimination and matters related to the Act.
This amendment would give the council important new powers which, in my view, are essential to ensure that the law is properly implemented and the rights of disabled people safeguarded. The new powers are, first, to draw up proposals for amending the Act if the council considers any part of it not to be working as intended; secondly, to carry out investigations into complaints by an individual person and, where appropriate, provide conciliation; thirdly, to provide assistance to disabled people, including legal and financial assistance, so that they can enforce their right not to be discriminated against; fourthly, to initiate investigations into companies' practices, as it considers necessary; fifthly, to undertake or commission research; and, finally, to undertake or commission educational activities.
Disabled people are excited by this new Bill. They hear what the Government say about wanting to eliminate discrimination and they have high expectations. They will want information about their rights and advice on what to do if they feel that they are being discriminated against. The law is complicated. Different parts will come into force at different times. The very important principle of reasonableness means that different levels of access will apply in different situations. Codes of practice and regulations will be there to help clarify duties, but many disabled people will be unsure of how to interpret them in their particular situation and they will not have the overview that is available to the council.
So where can they go for help? The Government propose that disabled people who feel that they have been discriminated against in the area of employment should take their complaints to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, whose conciliation officers will be able to offer advice. If that fails, the disabled person must go to an industrial tribunal, for which there is currently no legal aid available. If they feel that they have been discriminated against in the area of goods and services,
610
the Government propose that they should go to the local citizens advice bureau. Unfortunately, that idea was rejected by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. However, under the Bill the matter can go to court, which is a daunting experience for anyone and surely "an option from which many disabled people, without the support and backing of an authoritative body, are likely to shy away.
The enforcement body set up under other laws aimed at eliminating discrimination—the Race Relations Act and the Sex Equality Act—are able to give help to individuals who feel that they have been discriminated against in the areas of race and sex. Why should people with disabilities, many of them with sensory impairment which makes it difficult for them to have access to information and advisory services, have less support to tackle discrimination against them than people from ethnic minorities or women?
The broader role of the commissions in being able to initiate investigations into companies and practices where they suspect that discrimination is taking place is of key importance. Such investigations are able to focus on key areas and issues. They generate a lot of publicity. They make businesses, many of which wish to comply with the law but fail to do so through ignorance, aware of discriminatory practices. Where businesses are reluctant to comply with the law, a commission can force them to provide information. An individual disabled person would not be able to do that. Where necessary the commission is able to take legal proceedings. Often that is not necessary. The threat of being taken to court is enough to make many companies change their practices.
Finally, the amendment would give the National Disability Council the power to carry out independent research and undertake educational activities. In the Bill as currently drafted, the council can only undertake research commissioned by the Secretary of State. The educational role is of paramount importance. Employers and service providers will need advice. They have made clear that they are very concerned about whence that advice and information will come. The Employers Forum on Disability, in its summer update, said:
"Employers need consistent expert advice and support. Experience suggests that credible, workable and enduring anti-discrimination legislation needs the underpinning provided by an authoritative central body".
The educational role is very important, but obviously it is of little value if businesses fail to follow advice. In its second review of the Race Relations Act, the Commission for Racial Equality said:
"Our promotional work is greatly strengthened by the awareness of employers that, if it fails, formal investigations are possible. Our guidance and codes are heavily based on the information that has come to us through formal investigations and individual complaints".
I turn to Amendment No. 104. Subsection (4) of this clause (page 17, line 16 of the Bill) prevents the Secretary of State from giving the council powers to investigate complaints. That is obviously incompatible with Amendment No. 101, to which I have just spoken. One of the most important powers that Amendment No. 101 gives to the council is the power to investigate complaints.
I come to the purpose of Amendments Nos. 108 and 109, and also Amendment No. 110 in the name of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. Subsection (9) of the clause prevents the council from giving advice on employment matters. Under the Bill as currently drafted, the council has powers only to advise the Secretary of State about discrimination in the area of goods and services. The power to advise the Secretary of State for Employment about employment, self-employment and training of disabled people rests with the National Advisory Council on the Employment of People with Disabilities, a body which is already in existence. That means that there will be two separate bodies advising two different Ministers in two different departments with two sets of civil servants about discrimination against disabled people. Most businesses will be service providers and employers. They will have to consult with two entirely different structures.
NACEPD has a very low profile and is not known to employers. It has only 2.75 staff units and does not have its own budget. It currently advises the Minister through its quarterly council meetings and provides periodic reports of its activities to him. It is not independent. If the Minister rejects its advice, it is not able to promote its views.
NACEPD does not have a remit to combat discrimination or to monitor legislation. Even if it did, it would not have the resources to be able to tackle discrimination against disabled people by employers in the same way that the existing commissions can. In its response to the Government's consultation last summer, NACEPD called on the Government to set up a single authoritative body with enforcement powers to cover all aspects, including employment. The Government have so far ignored that advice.
The purpose of Amendment No. 114 is to enable the council to appoint its own staff. Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 enable the council to have financial independence. Amendment No. 117 seeks to remove the power of the secretary of State to make supplementary regulations in regard to the provision of information to the council, the commissioning of research, the appointment of any person as an adviser and the payment of expenses incurred by the council.
Those four amendments ensure that the council is an entity in its own right, with sufficient resources to carry out its responsibilities. The Bill, as currently drafted, means that the Secretary of State can provide the council with staff as he considers appropriate. The proposed budget for the council is only £250,000, which will pay for very few staff. On such a small budget and with only a few members of staff, the National Disability Council would be extremely limited in what it was able to do. With the broader powers given to it under Amendments Nos. 101, 104, 108 and 109, it would need sufficient resources and staff to carry out its key role.
The National Disability Council's budget of £250,000 is ludicrously small when compared with the budgets of bodies set up under previous discrimination Acts. As I understand it, the Equal Opportunities Commission has a budget of £7 million and the Commission for Racial Equality one of £15 million. The lines deleted by Amendment No. 117 enable the Secretary of State, by
612
regulation, to make provisions in relation to information given to the council by the Secretary of State, the commissioning of research by the Secretary of State, the circumstances in which the council may appoint an adviser, and payment of expenses incurred by the council. That regulation-making power would not be needed if the other amendments were accepted, giving the council more powers and resources, thereby making it more independent of the Secretary of State.
The purpose of Amendment No. 118 is to provide for regulations to be made governing the carrying out of the council's investigations and enforcement powers. The new clauses provide for regulations to be made governing how the council carries out those powers. Through the regulations the Secretary of State can specify how investigations are to be carried out, the circumstances in which the council can make recommendations and issue non-discrimination notices following investigations and the arrangements whereby the council may refer cases of discrimination to an industrial tribunal or court. By enabling the Secretary of State to prescribe such regulations, the clauses will ensure that the National Disability Council is not able to abuse its powers and act in a heavy-handed or inappropriate way.
Not included with this group of amendments but which are connected to them are Clauses 26 and 27. Those clauses give the Secretary of State the power to prepare codes of practice in the area of employment. Under the Bill as currently drafted, the National Disability Council does not cover employment and therefore the Secretary of State must have the power to draw up codes. However, Amendments Nos. 108 and 109, to which I have just spoken, amend Clause 23 so that the National Disability Council can cover employment matters and therefore the council and not the Secretary of State would draw up codes of practice covering employment. The Bill as currently drafted enables the council to draw up codes of practice under Clause 24, but that is only for goods and services. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I add my warm support to these amendments, particularly those to which I added my name and also Amendment No. 108, to which there was no room to add my name. The amendments were clearly and comprehensively explained in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and I should like to go back briefly to look at the evidence on the need for a strong body.
Way back in 1982, when the Committee on Restrictions Against the Disabled was conducting its investigations, members visited both the CRE and the EOC. They also sought information on the experience in other countries. The evidence collected led CORAD to recommend that, with anti-discrimination,
"there should be a regulatory body or Commission with powers to investigate, conciliate and if necessary take legal action on individual complaints of discrimination; to recommend guidelines on reasonable affirmative action required to accommodate disabled people and to promote the integration of disabled people into society".

613
What is important is that CORAD found that in every case where such legislation had been passed an enforcement body had been necessary. It concluded that a commission or council with powers to help individual disabled people enforce their legal rights and powers to undertake general investigations was vital to the success of any legislation to eradicate discrimination against disabled people.
As the Bill stands, the NDC lacks those powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, explained, it is predominantly an advisory council. It is unable to investigate individual cases, to conciliate, to take legal action on behalf of an individual and, very important, to undertake general investigations to determine whether someone is following the procedures that might lead to discrimination. With regard to the first three shortcomings, the Government recognise the need to help disabled people who are subject to discrimination. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, in the field of access to goods and services they asked NACAB to do the job, which felt that it could not agree to it. As the noble Lord said also, where will disabled people go for advice if the amendments are not accepted?
I was not encouraged by the Minister's words on the first day of Committee. He said:
"One does not need to use the same organisations throughout the whole of the country. That is something we are considering".— [Official Report, 13/6/95; col. 1698.]
We need clear, firm, reliable advice and information, not advice the quality of which may vary in different parts of the country according to which organisation may be proffering it.
As to the question of investigatory powers, one of the most important means of amicably—I stress "amicably"—improving practice in commerce and industry in relation to disabled people would be to empower the NDC to undertake general investigations. It would be both an efficient and cost-effective means of advising and educating firms and businesses as to how they can benefit both themselves and disabled people by avoiding discriminatory practices. As it stands, Clause 23 falls short on all four of those counts. That is why I hope the Committee will support the amendments.
Lord Rix: I am by nature an optimist and therefore I hope that our brief sojourn into the territory of Clause 23(4) of Part IV of the Bill in Committee on 13th June (col. 1739), guided perhaps inadvertently by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is but a harbinger of good tidings to come as we debate the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in regard to the National Disability Council.
On paper the National Disability Council looks significantly different from the commission for which some of us have argued over months or indeed years. I suspect that it is popularly perceived among those who are concerned, but who have not read the Bill, as having rather less relevance to the day-to-day business of disability and discrimination than the City livery companies have to the day-to-day business of manufacture and trade. I would give it rather more credit for a potentially useful role. However, the noble Lord,
614
Lord Swinfen, provided the Government with a helpful prompt to think again about a central clause and a central schedule in a major Bill.
The Government do not, I imagine, want their Bill to be or be seen to be a pussycat where a tiger is needed and are concerned to face a future debate about the renewal of their party mandate with the credit of having at least taken a serious swipe at unfair discrimination. That credibility seems to turn in large measure on Clause 3. Moreover, there must be some question about the ability to attract the best people to serve on the council if that council is popularly perceived as being of very limited usefulness. In short, and despite what I take to be the Treasury concerns about opening a pandora's box, I think that the Government need to move at least some way down the road that the noble Lord has invitingly marked out for them.
The amendments that we are considering say that disabled people are important, that the barriers society places in their way are substantial, that the task of removing those barriers is a high priority and that we need to dedicate to that task resources adequate for its completion. That approach to the issue seems to me to be wholly logical. The opposite approach, of sticking with a council which has been so heavily and so widely criticised, seems not to be logical. Saul would have had even less credit for his contributions to the major debates of his day had he sent David into battle with Goliath armed with a sling but with a strict ban on the use of pebbles.
If we do not make any progress today I hope to come back to your Lordships at a later stage with some ideas for a more modest strengthening of the council. However, I hope that we can make progress today in the interests of the Government, who deserve credit for turning into the paths of righteousness if not yet into the ways of peace, in the interests of building the sort of partnership that can be built around this Bill and, above all, in the interests of the disabled people whose rights we are debating and whose cause we all support.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am glad to follow the Biblical references of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. After two previous very long days in Committee on the Bill, some of us felt rather more disabled than we were before. I expect and look forward to another long day, moving on into the night.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen has very clearly explained the purpose of his amendments. As your Lordships know, I have been involved in this subject for a very long time. The Private Member's Bill which I introduced in another place in 1968, 27 years ago, was entitled The Disablement Commission Bill. It would have established a commission with very much less power and fewer functions than the National Disability Council. That did not save it from being opposed by the Labour Government of the day. After its Second Reading debate it was defeated by only four votes. I have a copy of it with me. Its last clause stated:
"This Act may be cited as the Disablement Commission Act 1969".

615
I am afraid that that was not to be. The Bill had seven sponsors, including Mr. James Griffiths, who had been in a Labour Cabinet, Lady Vickers and—a very important sponsor—the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. He and I are the only two survivors of the eight who at that time introduced and sponsored the Bill.
The noble Lord and I have been involved in this subject over the years. We do not always agree on the means to achieve our goals but it is interesting for the record that we are the survivors of that Bill. I had been in Parliament for nine years; the noble Lord had been in Parliament for two years. But as far back as 1968 we worked together in raising the subject of disablement and pressing the government of the day to take it up. At last this is happening. A government are taking up the subject.
As regards Amendment No. 101, it would add enforcement powers and additional functions to the council. The Government's proposals in the Bill are for an advisory body only. The comparisons which have been made in the past with the commissions dealing with equal opportunities and race are not valid. Even in these days of sex change operations, discrimination, if it occurs against women or men, does not raise doubts about their gender. It is a single, straightforward condition. In contrast, the range of disabilities is vast. There are many kinds of physical disability, including degrees of sight and hearing, and of mental illness and learning difficulties. There are also huge differences in degree, from the very severe—people who are completely immobilised—to the very slight, though, of course, I quickly point out that even the loss of one finger can be very damaging for someone who is a professional pianist. I shall not dilate upon this subject because I initiated a whole debate in the House on 14th December last about the many different disabilities which we must consider. The information is set out in the record and can be looked up.
The proposed body—the council—will be considering situations involving, for example, the completely bed-bound and very severely disabled immobile person as well as the outwardly able-bodied suffering from mental illness or dyslexia, blind persons and the aged, who are by far the largest group where goods and services are concerned and who are disabled by arthritis or other afflictions which arrive normally late in life. Those categories are very different from each other. The Equal Opportunities Commission starts with the simple fact that a person is female or male. Similarly, with regard to the Race Relations Commission, which was referred to at earlier stages of the Bill, although there are several ethnic minorities, the commission deals with situations and problems which are shared by them all. I must declare an interest. I have been for many years the patron in chief of the Scottish Pakistani Association. The Pakistanis are the largest ethnic group in Scotland. Under race and gender it is not normally necessary to determine first whether someone is eligible under the Act. Under this Bill the definition "substantial impairment" and other parts of the Bill will have to be looked at very carefully to see whether someone qualifies at all to be considered under its provisions. There is also a completely new concept
616
of "reasonable adjustment", which most of us have welcomed as a way of dealing with disability problems. But that again is something quite new in this field.
I incline to the view that an advisory body is more appropriate in this Bill in the widely varying circumstances and the miscellaneous conditions of disabled people whose problems are not just of access but of a hundred or more different kinds. An important point is that the NDC proposed in the Bill can offer advice to the Government on its own initiative. That advice can be on discrimination in general concerning disabilities and on the operation of the Bill when it has been enacted. If the Government resist the suggestions of the council or take a very long time to respond, there appears to be nothing to prevent the NDC from making its views public while preserving the confidentiality of any individual case. I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could confirm whether that is so. That would certainly bring public pressure to bear upon the Government. One would hope that that would seldom be necessary and that good relations would subsist between the council and the government of the day.
The NDC as proposed by the Government raises some questions. First, I am concerned whether it will have adequate resources and whether facilities will be available to it; for example, when it needs to commission research into a particular matter and where government assent might be withheld in reasonable cases. We hope that the Government will give an assurance that there will be no withholding of assent unless they were quite ridiculous proposals.
How will the NDC work—my noble friend raised this point—with the existing National Advisory Council on the Employment of People with Disabilities, which is due to be wound up in due course, according to Clause 33? Will the NDC then take over some or all of that council's responsibilities in the employment area? I shall want to receive assurances from the Government on these questions in considering their proposals for the council. I accept the Government's proposals for the new body in general, but I believe that these questions need to be answered and we want satisfactory answers.
Baroness Flather: I too added my name to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I am very grateful to him for dealing with all the details of the clause. It is very helpful that I do not have to do so. I wish to make some broad-brush remarks because I believe that I am in a unique position to make them. I am a woman and from an ethnic minority. I am a primary carer for a very disabled husband. Therefore, I can tell Members of the Committee here and now that I have personal experience of all three areas of concern. I am very disappointed that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy believes that there is no connection between the two commissions and what we are now talking about.
We are not talking about the commissions or the structure but how to do away with discrimination. That is the basic, underlying reason for our talking about these issues. Social legislation never comes about ahead of need. We all know that, lawyers only too well. It comes long after the need has been established. The need for something to be done for people with

617
disabilities is well and truly established. We are into our third race relations Act. The first had very limited powers and did not work. The second separated the promotional role from the legal role, which also did not work. Why are we going down the same route and not learning from the experience of the other commissions?
As far as the Equal Opportunities Commission is concerned, I believe that people have benefited greatly from Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and the European Court of Justice. So it is always the threat, if not the fact, of legal action which makes people think about issues. The only area where there has been a quota is that of disability. What has it meant? It has meant that nobody has bothered about anything. It has been the most negative feature of all the different administrative measures that could have been put forward.
Now that we are considering this matter we should be looking at what works and not saying, "Let us do this now and then, if it does not work, we will tinker with it". Why not look at everything and see what works best? Let us look at examples from other countries. Let us look at examples from the United States where such provisions work. It is always the threat of having to do something, otherwise one gets into some kind of trouble. The most vulnerable group, which we are talking about today, is the least likely to be able to put its own case forward as substantially as one would like.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for moving Amendment No. 101 so clearly. I wish to speak to the proposed group of amendments with the exception of Amendment No. 106 which, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, will be moved separately at our request.
The Bill is a major advance for disabled people, in theory. So much of it is good. The Government could end this Session and we could leave your Lordships' House knowing that we had passed a landmark Bill for disabled people—remedying wrongs, affording rights and integrating disabled people as never before into a full life in our society. That would be a good thing for us to have done this Session.
It will be done in theory but not in practice because the wrongs remedied will too often continue and the rights afforded will too often not be enjoyed. Why? Because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, so eloquently told us, the Bill provides no proper means of enforcement. It is a paper Bill which will raise many hopes subsequently to be dashed. The gap between the promises of the Bill and the reality that it will achieve, I fear, is going to be very wide. A Bill which is not enforceable is not enforced whether it is factory and mines legislation or health and safety legislation. We know that to be true.
No one expects customers in a restaurant to sue the owner for a dirty kitchen because we expect the environmental health officer to do that. No one expects a shopper in a supermarket who has an underweight piece of cheese to take on the supermarket. We expect the trading officer to do that for us. No one here who is involved in an instance of dangerous driving expects
618
personally to prosecute another driver. We expect the police to do that for us. If local residents fear that a chemical factory is discharging into a river we expect the environmental health officer to take up the issue. In other words, we expect in all areas of our life to have an enforcement agency ensuring that the intentions of the Act are enforced.
That is our experience in every walk of life except, apparently, when we are dealing with disabled people and their rights and remedies for their wrongs. Disabled people are often poor, isolated and in poor health. They will have to fight their claims through the courts and tribunals themselves. If they cannot do that or do not do so, their rights will remain paper rights in a paper Bill. We fear that that is what the Government's Bill will leave us with. Why?
When one looks at the Government's proposals in the Bill, there is a set at the top and another at the bottom. At the top the Government are proposing to add a second advisory council to an existing one—in other words, one for goods and services in addition to the one which already exists for employment, even though most of us will never have heard of it. Therefore, we shall have two advisory bodies reporting to two different Secretaries of State, backed by two different Civil Service departments, issuing two different sets of guidance. The result which employers fear is contradiction, incoherence and lack of clarity.
The Bill is split down the middle at the top. For example, let us consider an hotel. If the owner is dealing with issues of physical access for employees, he will come under the Department of Employment and that advisory body. But if that same hotel is dealing with means of access for disabled customers, it will come under the National Disability Council and a different Secretary of State with different guidance and requirements as to what makes for physical access. That cannot be sensible.
That is at the top of a split Bill. At the bottom it is also split. Disabled people will have to pursue their employment rights through a tribunal and the rights to goods and services through the courts. If they struggle through the system we may find a dozen different cases, all simultaneously contesting the one point—say, controlled epilepsy. There may be a dozen different judgments. As the Law Society said, its prime concern is the absence of any body to co-ordinate cases which reach industrial tribunals and the courts. It fears that there will be contradictory signals coming from different cases as they go through the system. Again, that is a recipe for confusion, contradiction and incoherence. To add to the list we not only have split advisory councils at the top and split roots at the bottom, with no legal aid or financial support for people to contest their cases, but no feedback between the two. We fear that, as things stand, the result will be a costly and confusing shambles.
As employers' organisations have said, without the National Disability Council, with powers such as those proposed in Amendment No. 101, we shall have law by litigation. No one will know where they stand, what to do, where to turn or what is needed. The Government's own red book on the consultation exercise showed that over three-quarters of those who responded wanted a

619
body with powers such as those outlined in Amendment No. 101. None of us minds what the body is called, but we need a central authoritative body with powers to give advice, information and guidance. It needs powers to monitor legislation and to investigate, conciliate and, if necessary, to prosecute complaints. It needs powers to carry out research and to bring test cases to clarify the law. It needs the power to take up third-party complaints. We want a strong friend.
On 27th March in the other place, the Minister said that he would prefer one body for the UK rather than separate bodies for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. He said:
"There are considerable benefits in one organisation taking a consistent approach in advising on the elimination of discrimination—for example, in ensuring that the best and most effective practice can be shared".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/3/95; col. 789.]
Quite so. If Mr. Hague, the Minister in the other place, argued for one body for territorial reasons, do not his arguments apply for one body for policy reasons? What are the Government afraid of?
We know what employers want. They have told us. The Employers Forum on Disability was set up in 1986 as a self-help group for major companies which wanted to share best practice on recruiting disabled staff. It has 134 members and a list of them reads like the FT share index. Apart from the local authorities, building societies and banks, its members include Boots, BP, British Airways, BT, Coca-Cola, Esso, Grand Metropolitan, Guinness, IBM, ICI, Sainsbury, Kingfisher, Marks & Spencer, McDonald's, Mobil Oil, Reuters, Sears, Shell, Smithkline Beecham, Tate & Lyle, Taylor Woodrow, Texaco, Unilever and Whitbread. They all want to have a statutory commission. Perhaps I should add that that organisation's members also include the Metropolitan Police, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Inland Revenue and the Minister's own Benefits Agency—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am listening with interest to the noble Baroness, but I do not think that she can assume that because those organisations subscribe to that body they necessarily subscribe to the views that she has quoted.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The organisations which belong to the body pay for, run and own it. They are the stakeholders. The body claims to represent their views. I understand that it may be a little inconvenient for the Minister to have the Benefits Agency included, but I promise the Committee that those are the organisations which founded that body which speaks for their views—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may point out to the noble Baroness that democratic organisations which represent people may speak for the majority, but that does not necessarily mean that they speak for absolutely all of their members. I cite as an example her own Front Bench with regard to the European Union, and the position of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. Like the noble Baroness and, I am sure, other Members of the Committee, I received a Peers' briefing from the forum this morning. It has looked at all the amendments that we are considering today and states:
"We would encourage Peers to support amendments tabled by Baroness O'Cathain on behalf of the CBI which seek to clarify and strengthen the role of the National Disability Council".
It does not say anything about abandoning the National Disability Council. I feel strongly that statements are being made on behalf of companies which have not investigated or examined this position. Indeed, they have not given credence to it. I have found from all my investigations leading up to this debate that what the noble Baroness has been saying is absolutely not the case. I know that the forum would ideally like a body such as the CRE or the EOC, but what it has actually said is that the Bill provides the ability to strengthen the NDC and NACEPD. We should go ahead and do what the Bill is supposed to do, which is to enable disabled people to lead able-bodied lives as far as possible.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Baroness appropriately read from the briefing from the Employers Forum on Disability, which asked Peers to support the amendments that she has tabled. I refer to Amendments Nos. 103, 106 and 107. However, the noble Baroness did not read the next paragraph which I am sure that the Committee will wish to hear. It states:
"We would also encourage Peers to support amendments tabled by Lord Swinfen and others which will strengthen the investigatory and enforcement powers of the NDC, including amendments 101"—
that is, the amendment that we are now discussing.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Baroness, but the fact is that the forum wants to strengthen the NDC. That is the point to which I wish to speak. It is being said that we need a commission, but the Employers Forum on Disability is not saying that. It says that we need to strengthen the provisions. That is what we are all saying and we are asking the Minister whether the council can be strengthened.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think that I made the point that we do not care what its name is; what matters are its functions. Speaking for its members the forum says that it wants to strengthen the investigatory and enforcement powers of the NDC. It supports Amendment No. 101, which we are currently discussing. That is what it has said. If the noble Baroness continues to read the briefing she will see that I am in no sense misrepresenting its views. I am happy for other noble Lords to have a copy of the briefing if they want, but I believe that it may already have been sent to other noble Lords. The Employers Forum on Disability has 134 members with a total of more than 2.6 million employees, representing some 12 per cent. of the working population. I have to say—although I leave it to others—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way again. She is obviously keen to represent that particular body, but can she give the Committee an assurance that all of the companies that she quoted actually agree—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: What I have done is to list the bodies which set up that organisation and for which the organisation speaks. When I asked the director of that organisation whether she represented the views of those bodies, she said that that was her job. Perhaps your Lordships have heard to the contrary, but as the Bill went through the other House I did not receive any representations from any of the organisations in the forum dissociating themselves from the views of the forum. They would have been perfectly entitled to do that, but given that they did not, surely we can assume that the Employers Forum on Disability is doing what it says and speaking with the employers' voice—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am sorry to have to ask the noble Baroness to give way, but one of the firms that she quoted was Texaco. In earlier debates I pointed out that Texaco insists on HIV testing, so I find the noble Baroness's point surprising. It throws into doubt my assessment of whether those people are all supporters of what she is saying.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I understand that a number of organisations, including British Airways, may do the same thing, but that is because of the effect of medication, for example, at altitude. It is not the case that they dissociate themselves from the disability council, which should have powers not only of advice and research but of investigation and enforcement. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 101. Unless any of your Lordships have heard to the contrary from companies which that body represents, and that they are dissociating themselves from that body, I am afraid that the evidence is with the Employers Forum on Disability. I give way to the Minister.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Baroness is trying to reverse the onus of proof and I am afraid that she cannot do that. The fact is that if she does not have a specific letter from those companies and organisations, she cannot pray them in aid. She can pray in aid the overarching body, but she cannot pray in aid individual companies. I assure the noble Baroness that some of them do not subscribe to the view that she attributes to them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The evidence is that that body, set up by those organisations, expresses their views. That is the evidence that we have. Therefore, the assumption and presumption that reasonable people may make from that evidence is that those companies express the view that is put forward in their names. Only if your Lordships have evidence to the contrary of companies explicitly dissociating themselves from that view would the argument lie the other way. The burden of proof lies with the Minister.
I repeat that that body was set up by those companies and represents their views and that, together, those companies employ over 2.5 million people. The organisation is saying that the cost of a central authoritative body is outweighed by its advantages. It lists the advantages. It quotes also W. H. Smith and IBM as calling for such an organisation. And their reasons? They wish to see less litigation, with its attendant
622
concealed costs to employers as each case is fought on its merits. They wish to support a central disability organisation—one body with powers to make the Bill work—because they think that it will lead to reduced dependence upon state benefits for disabled people, a greater tax take for the Exchequer and reduced bureaucracy. The EFD believes that it would generate greater employer good will because of easier and speedier access to advice and guidance. It believes that it would reduce discrimination against disabled people.
The EFD goes on to say that it is precisely because there is no such national authoritative body that it had to be founded in 1986. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a central disability organisation is what these major organisations want; it is what disabled people want. We are entitled to put to the Government a very simple question: will the Bill work without a commission such as is outlined in Amendment No. 101?
I am sure that every one of us in this place wants the Bill to work. I do not believe that there is any difference between us on that. We want it to work, but will it work without such a commission? The Government are willing the ends but not the means. The whole history of our social legislation—the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, was right—shows that if you set up policy objectives without the means to enforce them—if you will the ends but not the means—and do not have an enforcement agency standing at the back, then the Bill will remain a paper Bill.
As it stands, the Government's advisory body has the power to do everything except make a real difference. The amendment is a test to see how much we all want the Bill. I support it.
4 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: I shall speak to the amendment standing in my name. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is right: everyone wants the Bill to work. The problem is that some of the arguments that are going on at the moment detract from the overall basis of the Bill, which is that we want it to work.
In my Amendment No. 103 I am dealing with functions. I could not care less where the functions lie for this council. I am much more interested in whether they operate effectively. I believe that the NDC, as proposed, could and will work, depending upon the will for it to work. It is not a matter of confrontation. There must be a high level of commitment on all sides. It depends also on the ability to make it work. So it has to have the necessary authority. The body itself has to have an adequately strong membership. It has to have the functions and, of course, the resources.
I want to deal with just two of the functions: the research function and the education function, with which Amendment No. 103 deals. If the NDC was allowed to commission its own research it would exist as a body of authoritative research which people would be able to use if there were a dispute.
While doing some preparatory work on the Bill, I was greatly heartened to read on the Americans with Disabilities Act, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission document entitled Your Responsibilities as an Employer, from which I should like to quote:

623
"The Commission also recognizes that differences and disputes about the ADA requirements may arise between employers and people with disabilities as a result of misunderstandings. Such disputes frequently can be resolved more effectively through informal negotiation or mediation procedures, rather than through the formal enforcement process of the ADA. Accordingly, EEOC will encourage efforts to settle such differences through alternative dispute resolution, providing that such efforts do not deprive any individual of legal rights provided by the statute".
If there are problems, people who feel that they are discriminated against should be able to call on the NDC, which, with the research that it has commissioned, should be able to point out the advice that such people should have. Points were raised by previous speakers which I should like to question. One related to the CABs saying that they would not give advice. A document I received from the CAB during the past three or four days said that of course it will give advice but it will not say that it is statutory advice. No one who goes to a CAB asking for advice on these issues will be turned away.
Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that employers fear the legislation and have no faith that the organisation will work. I have been briefed by the CBI. It does not fear that the NDC will not work, provided that it is strengthened. There are two sets of employers with apparently two different views. A great many of the companies named by the noble Baroness are members of the CBI. In this, I suppose you have got to pay your money and take your choice, but I believe that employers are not fearful of this organisation working provided that it has enough functions.
I turn now to the point about the commission versus the NDC. I drew up a list of what I call debits and credits of the work undertaken by the CRE and the EOC and whether that work would be undertaken by the NDC. The monitoring of legislation is undertaken by both the EOC and the CRE. My amendment suggests that the NDC has a role in monitoring the legislation, bringing advice to the Government, and saying, "It's not working here, please can we amend it in such a way?" That would be undertaken anyway under the NDC.
Both the CRE and the EOC work towards ending discrimination. Certainly the NDC has as its remit to do that and to oversee the aims of the legislation. Parliament itself has a role to play in this, given the expertise and public concern about which we know. The EOC and the CRE exist to promote equality of opportunity. That is of course needed with the NDC, but the NDC will oversee and publish an annual report. It will draw attention to all those issues. It will undertake research and educational activity. That is a point upon which I think the NDC needs strengthening. We have been promised that the NDC will be able to commission research. So long as it is independent research in which people will have faith, I do not believe there will be any problem.
The NDC will produce an annual report, as do the two other commissions. It will issue draft codes of practice like those two commissions. NACEPD will also do that. On information and advice to filter weak claims, it requires a good infrastructure for that to happen. I believe that the secretariat needs strengthening. But we are already being told that ACAS can give advice in relation to disabled people in employment. We need to
624
know who will give advice in relation to goods and services in this area. I should like to pursue that issue with my noble friend the Minister.
The CRE and the EOC help reach settlements. The NDC should be able to do that in the terms of giving advice. Both the CRE and the EOC provide general information and give guidance and advice on key issues. Again that is something that the NDC will be capable of doing. They both conciliate. That again is something that the NDC could do.
There have been arguments about formal investigations. The NDC does not envisage having a formal investigation role. I do not believe that it is necessarily required. It is not an ideal tool. It can have many drawbacks. The desired effects can be achieved by other means; for example, by referring to a whole caucus of high-quality authoritative research. Similarly, I do not believe that it need necessarily serve anti-discrimination notices. Desired effects can he achieved by other means. What people, employers particularly, are looking for, is, as has been already stated, consistent advice.
If the NDC is sufficiently beefed up, has sufficient powers and respect and has the commitment, I cannot see that it will not fulfil all the functions that are now being fulfilled by the EOC and the CRE.
Lord Carter: I am obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way. She spoke about employers and their wishes. We have discussed the Employers Forum on Disability and whether it could speak for all its members. I believe that the Minister raised that matter. I took the trouble to leave the Chamber and telephone a representative of the forum. I was told that every member, including all those mentioned by my noble friend, was consulted on the Government's consultation document. The vast majority supported the line that the forum has taken on the need for the council. I telephoned only five minutes ago and was told that all its members stated that they were entirely happy for the employers forum to speak on their behalf.
Baroness O'Cathain: They were probably not asked whether, if there was a sufficiently strong NDC with strong powers—
Lord Carter: Every member was asked in detail to comment on the Government's consultation document. The great majority came down heavily in favour of the briefing given by the employers forum and all said that they were happy for it to speak on their behalf. The noble Baroness should let the forum and the members decide what they want to say instead of deciding for them.
Baroness O'Cathain: I am not trying to decide for the employers forum. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that there is another side of the argument. Some employers and members of the employers forum to whom I have spoken would be happy for the National Disability Council, if sufficiently strengthened, to give such advice, so long as it was consistent advice. I shall make additional suggestions about the amalgamation or overlap between NACEPD and the National Disability

625
Council. There is a danger of having two bodies, one for employment, which is NACEPD, and another for access, which is the NDC.
Once the legislation is enacted and the regulations are agreed and begin to work, it may well be that NACEPD could be subsumed into the NDC in order to make it a proper National Disability Council. But that is further down the line. I believe that to throw out the Government's suggestion of an NDC at this stage and to set up a whole new superstructure of a commission is not what employers require.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: Perhaps I may contribute to the debate and answer one of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I wish, first, to speak to Amendments Nos. 101 and 108. I was unimpressed with the point made by the noble Baroness. I believe that my noble friend Lady Hollis was right to say that terminology is not important but the meaning and thrust of what we are discussing are crucial.
The noble Baroness appears to be implying that no organisation should speak for its members unless every member has signed an affidavit to that effect. That is the equivalent of a football supporters' club saying, "We believe that this should be the policy for this club", and someone else saying, "You have 30,000 members. Have you asked them all whether they support that policy?". That is an absurd proposition and I cannot agree with it. The heart of the argument is our proposal for the National Disability Council. Whether we call it a commission or not is irrelevant.
I wish to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on his presentation of amendments to the Bill. Coupled with the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, that represents significant support from the Conservative Benches for amendments to the Bill which will strengthen the Government's hand. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness are aiding the Government by proposing amendments and they are helping the Minister. We too will lean over backwards to help him. That is why we are being so diplomatic in putting forward these proposals.
The Bill should be a landmark Bill, but as it stands it will not and it cannot be that. It fails to provide a council or a commission which will give it a strong backbone. That is its problem. It is impossible to argue legitimately with the Law Society's view that it is unfair and unjust to introduce statutory rights which disabled people cannot afford to have enforced. The Law Society made a most strong statement.
Perhaps I may quote to the Minister one other authority; I use the word "authority" with a small "a". I refer to one of the finest and most eloquent Conservative Back-Benchers ever to sit in the other place, Alan Howarth. He said:
"To create rights without providing the means to sustain them is a hollow act".
He is not a raving socialist or a severely disabled person but a healthy, articulate, balanced and loyal Conservative Member of Parliament. That means that the amendment should not be brushed aside; it is put
626
forward in all good faith. Many disabled people do not have the means, some do not have the determination and many do not have the knowledge or confidence to fight discrimination. The Bill will give them only superficial protection if the individual is not supported. I have no doubt about that.
The commission's investigations into individual cases and its support for those going to the courts would ensure that they focused on the relevant and important issues. A strong commission would provide the resources to argue the case, which is profoundly important, and people would be able to obtain the vital information.
That is important because the legislation will be new and there will be areas of uncertainty. We need to establish legal rulings in crucial areas. However, this is not a once-and-for-all Bill. It needs changes and improvements not only to help individuals but in respect of general strategic issues. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that. It is important to have a body conducting an independent review, observing which part of the legislation is going well and which is failing and seeing where problems exist for disabled people, employers, companies and service providers. If the commission can help individual disabled people, employers and the institutions that is fine; let us do what we can about that. It is necessary to have a strong commission which will identify trends in attitudes and practices, which are the driving forces for extending future opportunities and for providing the right ones. If those aspects are in question we can do something about that.
Often disabled people lack confidence. A strong commission would give them that confidence because they would know that there was a powerful body ready, willing and able to fight for them. I do not refer to people who have lost an arm or to people such as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who is one of the finest battlers for disabled people that the House has known. I refer to severely disabled people who cannot fight for themselves. They need a champion and they do not have one in this Bill. They have a weak advisory body which has no real powers, independence or ability to fight cases through the courts. That is not good enough.
We are asking the Government to change their mind. We are not asking for an empty government organisation but for an organisation that is truly independent. Such an organisation would ease the pressure and frustration for disabled people. It would lead to fruitful discussions instead of angry demonstrations outside Parliament, and all of us would benefit from that. Without such an organisation and without an independent review, which this organisation could provide, the Government will be blindfolded and unable to assess the success or failure of their policies. That is not a very dignified posture for any government. I am sure that the Minister wishes to be dignified.
The independence of this council is vital if it is to be effective. It needs the resources and powers to be independent. However, I wish to say to the Minister in all good faith that I am receiving the impression from government spokesmen—not the noble Lord, Lord

627
Mackay, but some of his colleagues—that they are tending to patronise disabled people. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, does not do that but some Ministers are beginning to do so. The "Does he take sugar?" syndrome is beginning to display itself. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, would wish to dissociate himself from that.
For example, when the Minister was pressed in another place about providing powers for the council and to commission research, he replied:
"It will also be assisted by research commissioned on its behalf'.
Is that not marvellous? We cannot have the commission itself looking into the problems of disabled people by disabled people for disabled people. That research will have to be commissioned. That is rather like patting their heads; like patting the heads of people in wheelchairs. That is simply not good enough. We must allow that independence and assume that people can do the job for themselves. We must assume that they have the pride and capability to carry it out. The Minister would be well-advised to accept the amendment and to give disabled people what they are seeking.
I conclude with this thought. This Bill is put forward by the Government as an attempt to combat discrimination. We know that it is well-intentioned but we feel that it needs strengthening. We have tabled those amendments which we hope will be accepted. Perhaps I may illustrate my attitude to the Bill by using the analogy of the Grand National. This Bill is saying that disabled people are able to enter the race of life in our society and they are welcome to do that. This Bill will enable them to jump the first big hurdle. But then, by refusing an effective law enforcement body, the Government have removed the jockey. They have kicked the jockey out of the saddle. Disabled people will be moving without direction and inevitably they will be the losers. When that happens—and I do not say if it happens—the Government will be condemned publicly instead of acclaimed publicly for their Bill. Ministers are heading for a disaster of their own making. The most calamitous mistake to be made is the failure of Ministers to include those provisions. They will regret it if they fail to accept the amendments and I hope that they will consider carefully to see whether or not they can accept them.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that when the Grand National fiasco took place, a brilliant man raced across the course twice and stopped the horses jumping the first fence, the horses having been egged on by the animal protesters? That gentleman was receiving a disability pension but it seemed to me that he was not suffering from a great deal of disability.
Lord Addington: After that discussion by the racing fraternity, perhaps we may return to the Bill. There has been a great deal of argument about who does and who does not support the amendment. I do not intend to go down that road because it makes absolutely no difference.
The amendment provides a coherent structure. It gives a real functioning heart and soul to the Bill. It means that there will be a body which gives guidance
628
on the legislation and makes it effective. It gives direction and it will enable changes to be made when they are needed.
It provides also the ability to co-ordinate any legal action which is needed in the courts. Therefore, there will be direction, enforcement and education. Most of us agree that most types of discrimination are due to ignorance. If all those elements are combined, the Bill will be made very much better and more effective.
One historical analogy which may be used is in relation to legislation on factories. I believe that it was about 200 years ago that the law said that people who worked in factories must not be mistreated and one inspector was employed to ensure that that law was observed throughout the whole country. Unless there is an enforcement agency, the legislation will not work because people ignore what is not in front of them. If something is not relevant to them, they ignore it. Unless provision is made which gives people the drive and ability to make note of what should be done, it will have no effect at all.
Also, these amendments remove the confusion arising out of having two bodies. All matters are brought together. Unless that is done, the Bill will achieve only part of its objective. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that if we work together and co-ordinate matters, the legislation may work. That is true. But these amendments mean that that will happen and I do not believe that we should take the risk that it will not.
Lord Milverton: I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. They seem to be far more sensible and practical. I have given the matter some thought but I cannot support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinfen.
My wife pointed out to me recently an extremely striking letter in The Times, written by a disabled person. It was not, as some Members of the Committee may have thought, that that person was hoping that all the amendments put forward would be accepted. Strange as it may seem, that disabled person said that he had a disability and he accepted it. Unless we are careful, disabled people, whom we want to help, will feel that they are being patronised. It is no good being too heavy-handed. Something may be provided in legislation but, in the end, there must be a willingness and a sensitivity to bring that about.
I believe that we may be too heavy-handed and, therefore, we shall not help disabled people. Reliance must be placed on sensitivity and understanding to bring about reasonableness. Until that reasonableness comes from every single person from every single spectrum of outlook and creed, there will be endless, ineffective legislation.
As regards protesters, I shall not say what I think of the many protesters that there are in the world today. One wonders what they are doing, or trying to do, in life. I support my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, but I cannot support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I am sure that the Minister will give a good reply. I support him and what this Disability Discrimination Bill seeks to achieve. I think it is good.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I suppose that that will come as no surprise to the Minister and Members of the Committee as I have consistently argued during the passage of the Bill for a central, independent body to be charged with the responsibility of overseeing the operation of the new Act and to be given the necessary powers and resources to do so.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, set out a whole range of functions for the proposed National Disability Council. The council could select which of those functions it would deploy at certain times so as to deal with the issues with which it will be faced. I support the amendments based on my experience when I was chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I know from that experience that there will be, both initially and from time to time when codes of practice or new statements are made, a whole range of inquiries coming to the council asking for advice and interpretation on what is meant.
Therefore, I believe that it is important to have a body which can build up such expertise and which is capable of seeing what the trends and main issues are so as to be able to give that help and advice. In order to do that, I hope that the council will have the ability to conduct research and to have independent research undertaken. It should have the ability to help individuals pursue cases, not in a confrontational way but in order to help it understand just how the Act is operating. In so doing, it would strengthen its own position in giving advice in the future.
I was chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission from 1975 to 1983. I must point out that the commission was not in a confrontational position, although it did take legal action. Most of its time was spent in helping, advising, guiding and providing information which helped to educate. I foresee the proposed National Disability Council doing much the same.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that there was a difference between disability and sex and race discrimination. Yes, there is a difference; indeed, it is a very considerable difference. But there is a considerable difference between sex discrimination and race discrimination because they are separate issues. However, there is one overriding factor which is common to all three, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather—namely, the issue of discrimination. When the National Disability Council is established, I hope that it, along with its staff, will soon become expert in matters of disability and in the operation of other laws affecting disabled people, and that it will see discrimination in the light of that expertise.
I understand that the Minister may have some reservations about having a council with legal powers because of the costs involved in disability discrimination. However, I suggest to the noble Lord—we have debated the matter many times in this Chamber—that there is a cost attached to disability and that that cost will apply, whether or not the amendments are accepted.
Just over a week ago I read in the Daily Telegraph about a deaf woman who had won her case against the Government, thus enabling her to claim disability living
630
allowance to help provide her everyday social needs. Such cases will occur whether or not we have a disability council with enforcement powers. Surely the Minister will agree that we must have confidence that the Bill provides that, in order to win, one has not only to prove discrimination; one has also to prove that it would not be unreasonable for an employer or a company to carry out certain changes involving cost.
I suggest to the Minister that the test for reasonableness is a very tough one in the context of the Bill. I hope therefore that he will not feel that the proposal for assisting the disabled would increase costs—costs which are necessary and which, I suggest, would have to be spent in the long run. Despite the exchanges that have taken place, I hope that the Minister will take a more favourable attitude towards the amendments which I believe could strengthen and make more effective the legislation that he is seeking to get through.
Lord Gisborough: I support the amendment to bring in a central, one-stop shop to administer the workings of the Act which at present are split between two departments of state. Such a central authoritative body would help in mobilising the goodwill of employers, which is most important if the spirit of the Bill is to be adhered to rather than meeting with just bare compliance. It becomes much easier for employers to deliver the opportunities for disabled people if they can refer to consistent and one-stop advice. Such a body could monitor the working of the legislation; it would be able to give better information to disabled people; and it could try to sort out some of the problems that will inevitably develop.
The cost of such a central body would be offset and probably outweighed by savings in reduced litigation, better employment opportunities, reduced state benefit, a greater tax take from those disabled who became employed, reduced bureaucracy and greater employer goodwill. Finally, I hope that the Government will be able to give an assurance that at least as much will be spent on the implementation of the Bill's provisions in respect of the proposed National Disability Council as has been spent on the quota system which proved to be a failure.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Members of the Committee will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for tabling the amendments and for the powerful, well-informed and eloquent manner in which he introduced them. Conscious as I am of time, perhaps I may make just a few remarks, drawing on my practical experience as one of the architects of the sex discrimination and race relations Acts and someone who, as an advocate, tried to make the legislation work.
I strongly support the amendments because I believe they will lead to wiser, more effective enforcement of the legislation and will ensure that the legislation is more user friendly. That seems to me extremely important. When I left the Bar in the mid-1970s to advise the then government on the sex discrimination and race relations legislation, it was clear that earlier attempts to legislate—namely, the attempts of 1965 to 1968—had failed precisely because too much reliance was placed on individual enforcement and too little on

631
strategic enforcement. People had sought to bring forward fanciful cases; unnecessary legal costs had been incurred; and there was great confusion about how to give effect to the legislation.
In the mid-seventies, with the support of all parties in both Houses, legislation was put in place to give effect to the principle of equal treatment without unfair discrimination. This Bill admirably extends that principle to another kind of unfair discrimination. However, the underlying problem applies to all kinds of discrimination—how can the ordinary individual, whether it be an employer, employee or anyone else, understand his or her rights? How, if necessary, can they be enforced? And what bodies can there be to filter out frivolous complaints, give proper advice and assistance in key test cases? It seems to me that those considerations apply every bit as much to this Bill as to the other body of law that we have in this country, including the Northern Irish legislation on religious and political discrimination.
What worries me about the Bill as it stands is that, as has been said, it is a much more complicated piece of legislation than any of our existing discrimination laws. It will lead to costly and protracted litigation, especially if there is no public body able to give advice and to help the courts and tribunals in their daily work. We have no legal aid in industrial tribunals. Disabled people on the whole are under-represented in trade unions, and if they are not employed they will not be members at all, and there will be no other body to take up cudgels on their behalf.
The Committee may think that that would be a bonanza for members of my profession or that public expenditure would be huge. I remind the Committee of the figures. In the case of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Great Britain, which deals with half of the population of the country—namely, the female half, as well as the other half—the total amount spent on providing legal assistance per year has never exceeded £600,000 and last year it was about £300,000. Those figures are much smaller than the cost of fighting a case all the way to the House of Lords on some point of law and then having to pay the costs of both sides. The figure for the Commission for Racial Equality is higher, but has never been higher than about £800,000.
It seems to me that it would be cost-effective if there were a body able to give modest assistance of the kind that those bodies now give and advise employers, employees and others. That would be a really cost-effective way of plugging the gap in the legal aid provision and trying to reduce frivolous, unnecessary and vexatious litigation. That is why I feel very strongly that, of the amendments tabled, those dealing particularly with advice and assistance deserve to be supported.
I am somewhat less enthusiastic about any open-ended research function because that could be expensive and not necessarily cost-effective. That is not to say that it is not important, but as a matter of priority I would focus on the points that I raised.
I very much hope that the amendments will be treated sympathetically by the Government. It is in their interests as well as everybody else's that courts and tribunals are not overwhelmed by unnecessary litigation, and also that the public at large receive proper advice.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: I agree with much of the aims expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. However, he has not convinced me that the means he suggests are the right ones.
This has been the most important debate that we have had during the Committee stage, and I shall detain the Committee for a very short time in order to put the matter into a somewhat different perspective from that which has so far been mentioned.
We all want to see the provisions of the Bill enforced. Indeed, we have passed Clause 8, which enables industrial tribunals to enforce the provisions of the Bill in relation to employment, and Clause 20, whereby the civil courts will enforce them in relation to access and so on. There will be appeals from either of those bodies.
The Government have it in mind that the National Disability Council shall advise them and have continuous oversight of the way the Bill is working, including the work done by tribunals and the courts. However, the Government have decided, wisely in my opinion, that the NDC should not interfere or be given additional functions enabling it to interfere with functions with respect to the investigation of any complaint which may be subject to proceedings under the Act. However, my noble friend Lord Swinfen wishes subsection (4) of Clause 23 to be left out. That could result in a serious overlap with jurisdiction in relation to the investigation of complaints. The National Disability Council will not be a judicial body. It will be a lay advisory body, as I understand it. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish may correct me if that is not right. It would create confusion if we were to accept subsection (2A) (a) of Amendment No. 101, which gives the council the power:
"to investigate such complaints as are made to them of failure to comply with any provision of this Act in an individual case".
That is an overlapping of the jurisdiction of tribunals and the courts.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The power proposed in the amendment is not for this to be a judicial body but for it to be an administrative agency, as is the case with the EOC and the CRE, able to investigate complaints and, where necessary, support proceedings. It is not to be a judicial body of any kind.
Lord Renton: It is very difficult to imagine how it will be able to investigate complaints without considering the evidence offered in respect of those complaints and without considering the relevant provisions of the Bill, unless it will exercise a proper judicial function.
Lord Swinfen: Will my noble friend give way?
Lord Renton: I am trying to be brief. We have gone on for a very long time. I was reluctant to speak at all. I decided to keep an open mind about this matter until I heard the debate. Having heard my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. I believe that the powers already contained in the Bill, perhaps amplified in the way that my noble friend Lady O'Cathain suggested, would be far better than risking a

633
duplication of the jurisdiction of the courts. For that reason, with great respect to my noble friend Lord Swinfen, and knowing how zealous he is in helping disabled people, I hope that he and those supporting him will realise that they may not be doing the service to disabled people that they intend. They may be creating confusion.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may say that although I am not a lawyer I should have thought that the police, who have powers to investigate complaints under various Acts, act in an investigative role and not in a judicial role. That is what I intend in the drafting of the amendment. As I said, I am not a lawyer and I may have got my drafting wrong.
Lord Renton: My noble friend refers in his amendment to individual cases, and if he reads the rest of that subsection he will see that the opportunity of investigating a complaint goes as far as the courts will go.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I wish to support the amendments, and in so doing I wish to read a postcard which I received this morning from a member of the public in Cornwall, who writes:
"The Disability Discrimination Bill needs an enforcement agency … The Disability Council will just be another talking shop, full of 'ifs, buts and maybes'. We hope the Government will recognise this omission and act constructively".
Last Sunday evening I had a call from a member of a disability group in Northallerton in North Yorkshire telling me that the Hambleton District Council was to remove a taxi man's licence because he was disabled. I was told that the taxi man had held a licence to drive a taxi for three-and-a-half years without any problems. He had passed his advanced driver's test. The man had lost an arm while in the Army. I asked why Hambleton District Council wanted to remove his licence. I was told that the official concerned did not like disabled people. I do not know whether that is fact because the issue is so recent and I have not been able to check on it, but that is what I was told.
I then asked whether the case had been taken to the local Member of Parliament. The honourable Member of Parliament happens to be the Minister for Disabled People, William Hague. I was told that he had fobbed the case off saying that it was up to the Department of Employment. But surely if the taxi driver does not have a licence to drive a taxi, the Department of Employment cannot do much—or can it?
Who will sort out those problems? Does it not show that there is a need for an agency which has expertise, is independent and can sort out all the varied and complicated issues with some clout?
I found the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, most interesting. I hope that the Government will consider what she said. The noble Baroness may agree with me that the problems of gender and ethnic minorities are not half as complicated as those of the disability issues. One of the biggest issues is this: who are disabled people and who will be covered by the Bill?
Earl Russell: Before touching on what I was going to say, perhaps I may respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He has touched the hub of the central
634
issues. He suggested the danger of a concurrent jurisdiction with courts. If the commission (as I hope that it will become) were to listen to the evidence, as I agree it must, surely it would no more conflict with the courts than a solicitor does when he takes the proofs of witnesses. The hearing would be preliminary to referring a case to court if need be, or exercising conciliation. The role would be similar to that which the Equal Opportunities Commission discharges with distinction.
To enforce any such provision one needs specialist knowledge. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, illustrated, one needs specialist knowledge as regards disability more than with any of the other areas because of the number of different types of disability and the jigsaw problem of matching them to specific employments. Therefore the need for a specialist body in the area of disability is even greater than in race relations or sex relations.
In 1563 the Lord Keeper, Sir Nicholas Bacon, summoned the Parliament at the end of its Session for a headmasterly talking-to. He reproved it for passing large numbers of laws without thinking how they were to be executed. He said that it was like buying new gardening tools and never using them. If we do not pass Amendment No. 101 we shall be wide open to that reproach.
I have also been considering how Clause 23 and Schedule 3 to the Bill came to be drafted as they are. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), may remember moving what I believe was the first amendment that I ever heard accepted by the Government in this place. It was in a debate on the Education Reform Act 1988. It sought to remove a clause from the qualifications for membership of the National Curriculum Council which disqualified anyone who became disabled or was otherwise incapacitated from carrying out his duties. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, agreed instantly to remove the provision. On the next Bill, we immediately found a clause with identical wording. On the noble Baroness's amendment, it was instantly removed. We then found it a third time. The noble Baroness asked whether the Minister could investigate whether there was any common source for those clauses. I have since heard it suggested from a very good source that there are such things as model clauses for drafting provisions for Acts of Parliament. Therefore the question arises: what model clause has the draftsman used for drafting Clause 23 and Schedule 3 to the Bill?
To anyone who has sat through the vast series of education Acts since 1988, the answer is painfully obvious. It is the model that was used for the Universities Funding Council in the Education Reform Act 1988. But that is the wrong model. The provision was for a different duty. That Act was for the administering of funds. If one considers Section 131(4) of the Education Reform Act 1988, the first duty that it lays on the council is to be responsible for administering funds made available to the council. It is essentially an administrative model which has been spatchcocked into an advisory function, to which it is not entirely appropriate, in a situation where what we really needed was enforcement.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: I support my noble friend's amendment. The National Disability Council in its present form is quite inadequate because it has no enforcement powers. My noble friend's amendment shifts the role of the council from being advisory to one which involves taking action to fight discrimination.
All disabled people welcome the Bill. Let us give it some teeth. It will be sad if the National Disability Council continues in its present form. It simply must have an adequate secretariat with an adequate budget so that it is in a position to investigate all cases, not just a few, and to give advice when required, with authority to use enforcement powers if and when necessary. I support the amendment.
Lord Monson: The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, among others, extolled the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. They put them forward as models which ought to be followed in the Bill. However, I wonder whether they have read a recent newspaper interview with the distinguished dean of one of our better known medical schools. He expressed the view that race relations and equal opportunities legislation were making it much more difficult to recruit medical students of the right calibre. No longer was it possible to offer a place to a white male who was perhaps academically slightly less qualified than a female applicant, or one from an ethnic minority, but who was nevertheless much more sensitive, much more empathetic with patients and generally had a much better bedside manner than the technically slightly more qualified applicant, because if the medical school were to do so it would fall foul of anti-discrimination legislation.
5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This has been an interesting debate, but running through it is a point which worries me. Some people who support the Bill say, on the one hand: "This is a landmark Bill"; yet on the other hand in their speeches they do as much as they can to diminish it. They say that it will not work, it will not do the job and they devalue it. It seems to me that they are playing a dangerous game when they approach the issue of a commission with that argument.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that I am always impressed when Opposition members quote a Government Back-Bencher as being among the finest and most able of people. That usually means that the Back-Bencher has decided not to support the Government but the party opposite on a certain issue. I am afraid that I do not fall for that, and nor, I suspect, do many of my noble friends.
The proposals in this Bill have been carefully formulated to meet the needs of disabled people, business and government. They recognise that each of these groups has different needs and seek to provide for them, building on existing expertise and using tried and tested mechanisms. We see no benefit in creating another bureaucracy while the necessary functions can be delivered more effectively by other means. Most importantly, we think our three-pronged approach,
636
which provides a powerful body to advise government, information for business and disabled people and conciliation, advice and support to help resolve disputes, is best suited to meeting the needs of all concerned.
There has been a heavy concentration on employment, but the Committee should remember that the Bill concerns goods and services as well. In all cases, it is not about equality but about doing things to help get rid of inequality, to help people carry out a job and be provided with a service when, without those changes, they would not have such help. So it is not strictly a case of, "You must not discriminate"; it goes a step further and states: "You must do things, change things"—procedures, buildings or whatever it may be—"in order to help someone who would otherwise be discriminated against".
I suspect that the calls for a commission which I have heard today stem in part from a failure to perceive the major difference between what we propose for disabled people and the legislation that was passed in the 1970s, over 20 years ago, on sex and race. Speakers also do not understand the valuable role which we envisage that the National Disability Council will have. The council will have an influential and practical role in helping us towards a society in which disabled people no longer meet barriers to integration. It will be influential because it will be the primary source of advice to government on general issues and on whether the legislation is meeting its aims. It will provide advice both on its own initiative and when asked to do so by the Secretary of State. It will be practical because it will prepare codes of practice which business and disabled people will need to implement the legislation. We also envisage that the council will work closely with senior civil servants in developing regulations under the right-of-access provisions in the Bill.
An important part of the NDC's duties will be to keep under review the operation of the Act with the exception of aspects relating to employment. I shall return to the role of NACEPD later. Should the council find that particular groups of disabled people are having difficulty securing their rights—for example, from examining the information collected by the advice and support service—there will be a number of courses open to it. It may want the Secretary of State to commission research or to take evidence from the advice service and speak to representatives of business to identify the root of the problem. In any event, we would expect the NDC to make recommendations to government about how any problems could be overcome. The flexibility provided in the regulation-making powers contained in the Bill and the provisions for codes of practice are intended to allow the policy intention to be clarified if a particular problem arises without the need for cases to be tested through the courts. The council will have a central role in this process of clarification and refinement.
The council may also wish to take a lead in persuading industry to provide for the needs of disabled people, in a similar way to the National Council on Disability in America. This would be particularly useful in the areas of accessible design and labelling of products which cannot be dealt with by rights-based

637
legislation. The NDC would also be able to work on other aspects of business not covered by this legislation to encourage voluntary codes of practice.
Perhaps I may turn to some of the amendments and take, first, the research amendment and the points made by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. I can assure the Committee that the NDC will be able to ask for research to be commissioned on its behalf by the Secretary of State. Such research will ensure that it is fully informed.
The arrangements proposed in the Bill will allow the NDC to draw on the professional expertise of analytical services staff already employed by the Government, to commission independent research and to co-ordinate the use of research from reliable sources.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may ask for a small but important clarification. The Minister said that the council may ask the Secretary of State to commission research on its behalf. Is the Secretary of State bound to accept the request?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, he is not bound to accept it. He must weigh all the suggested research projects that come to him against the amount of money he has in his budget for research and against the other projects which seek research money. So one has to be realistic about it. I presume that the noble Earl would like unlimited money to be devoted to the organisation to allow it to carry out any research it wishes, without considering the competing demands. However, the Government already collect a wealth of information through research which the NDC might find useful. If it had to rely solely on research commissioned in isolation, there would be a significant risk that it would either be unaware of important information or would duplicate that already available.
The NDC can also advise the Government on educational material. That is an area where much work is already being done by government departments and the voluntary sector. To avoid duplication, it seems wisest if the NDC, with an independent eye, identifies what more needs to be done and provides advice.
We are committed to supporting the implementation of the Bill with a wide-ranging programme of awareness raising and information provision. I shall speak about that when we reach another amendment.
I turn now to the changes proposed in Amendments Nos. 108, 109 and 110. They would leave substantial potential for duplication between the NDC and the National Advisory Council on the Employment of People with Disabilities. My noble friend Lord Swinfen cast doubt on the independence of NACEPD. I assure him that it is independent. It has prominent members who would object to the suggestion that they did not act independently in giving advice or considering issues. Its views on last year's consultation document, to which my noble friend referred, are in the Library. From time to time NACEPD also issues a report on its activities. So my noble friend is being unkind when he questions its independence.
Let me say right away that it is not our intention that the NDC be precluded from considering the adequacy of anti-discrimination provisions in the field of employment,
638
where that is appropriate, as an aspect of its broad overview of anti-discrimination measures. Ministers can ask it to do so and the NDC can advise Ministers that it wishes to look at particular aspects of the employment provision. But to provide for it to act on its own initiative in that area, as the amendment would do, would risk confusion and give the wrong signals.
So long as NACEPD or a successor body exists, that body should lead in giving advice on all employment and training matters. We of course recognise that there will be a need for the advisory bodies to keep in close contact where they provide advice on aspects of the Bill which might affect businesses in their roles as both employer and service provider. I can assure the Committee that my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Social Security and Employment will be asking the councils to do that and to ensure that there is a full understanding between the councils. It is very likely that in appointing members to the NDC, the Secretary of State will seek to provide some common membership.
Clause 23(9) (b) refers to provisions of the Bill dealing with employment which it will be natural for NACEPD to be concerned with in line with its existing responsibilities. All the members are appointed because of their knowledge and experience of employment and disability issues. NACEPD has developed considerable expertise over the years. It has advised Ministers on issues such as the Employment Service's code of good practice, the disability symbol and the Access to Work scheme. It will continue to monitor and advise on the wide range of employment and training help provided to disabled people. Most immediately, we need NACEPD's help on issues to do with the Bill, including the new employment code of practice which we discussed at the start of the first day in Committee.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the Minister confirm that NACEPD stated that it would wish to see its own abolition and to be overtaken by a statutory commission?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We shall discuss a later provision which, were it to be used, could be used to wind up NACEPD. I am just about to come to that point if the noble Baroness will contain herself. Many people have advised us on what should be done and that a commission is needed. We listened to the advice. We have listened to the advice of those who do not want it. We made our judgment, as governments are supposed to do. I do not expect noble Lords always to agree with judgments that the Government make, but that is what governments are there for.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the Minister answer my question?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have answered it, and I am just about to add to that answer. We are not locked into the NACEPD arrangement for ever. The Bill provides in Clause 33 for the statutory powers in the 1944 Act, under which NACEPD is established, to be repealed, and for people to be appointed to advise generally—that is to say, on a national basis—on employment issues. We intend, however, that NACEPD should continue in its present form until at least the

639
expiry of the terms of office of current members, when the position would be reviewed. That would be until 30th June 1997. That answers the question put by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.
I hope that the Committee will agree that these arrangements provide for the NDC and NACEPD to fulfil the advisory role to government in much the same way as a commission. They are intended to harness the authority, experience, good will and resources of government, business and voluntary organisations to achieve our aims. In this new and sensitive area we need independent bodies whose members have the right mix of experience and skills to give balanced and practical advice. Government do not intend to wash their hands of this Bill once it has come into force, as some Members of the Committee might be tempted to think having listened to some of the speeches. When the council's advice has been accepted by the Secretaries of State, it will be promulgated and implemented with the full backing of government using all the mechanisms across the public sector, including the resources of the Disability Unit, which works for my right honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People and the network of services provided by the Employment Department.
I turn to some of the other aspects that were raised. We do not believe that creating a commission as proposed in these amendments is the best approach to meeting the needs of disabled people or business, and for three fundamental reasons: it would not work; it risks a backlash; and it would not fit the social context of the late 1990s.
In an exchange earlier an attempt was made to persuade the Committee that the majority of employers were in favour of a commission. There was an exchange about the Employers Forum on Disability. I welcomed the emphasis by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in his intervention that the great majority of members of that body said that they were in favour of a commission. My point was, however, that not all of them said so. Therefore, it is not possible to read out a list, claim that it comprises every single one of them and then say that it is the great majority. That was my only point.
Lord Carter: Will the Minister give way? He knows what I said. When the Government negotiate with the National Farmers Union, do they ask the NFU whether it has asked every farmer in the country whether that member supports NFU policy, or any other organisation that comes to them?
I telephoned the employers forum, and I repeat what I said: every member of the forum, including every company—all the large organisations that were quoted by my noble friend—were consulted on the Government's consultation document. Every one was consulted. The great majority entirely supported the outcome that is in the brief in front of us; and in addition every one of them said that they were happy for the forum to speak on their behalf.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Of course they are happy that the forum speaks on their behalf; they have all joined it in order to make it easier to recruit, retain and develop disabled employees. That is perfectly
640
laudable. The noble Lord repeated and underlined the point that I am making. He said "the great majority". You cannot, as the noble Baroness tried to do—I should not have intervened had she not made a clever little attempt to suggest that some organisations within my own department disagree with the Government's policy; that is why I was brought to my feet. It is not true that every organisation is asking for this—the great majority may be but not every one. That is my point.
I return to organisations. I suggest that there are other organisations involved, not just this particular one. We have to be careful not to form the impression that a majority of businesses want a commission. The Forum of Private Business, an organisation that tends to represent, if I may so describe them, the Davids rather than the Goliaths of the business world, expressed its firm opposition to a commission. The Institute of Directors was equally forthright. The CBI, while it has called for clarification of certain functions, has not called for a new enforcement body such as would be created by Amendment No. 101.
I mentioned three reasons. The first is that a commission would not work. Anti-discrimination legislation in the field of disability is not the same as sex and race legislation. One vital difference arises because both the existing race and sex legislation cover all racial groups and both sexes. The Acts governing these areas make it a duty of the commissions to promote equality of opportunity between men and women and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups generally. I note with interest that the amendments we are discussing today, which draw so heavily on the sex and race legislation, do not seek to place this duty on the council. Perhaps my noble friend recognises that there is indeed a considerable difference between race and sex on the one hand and disability on the other.
If we accept these amendments, we should not be setting up a body with a fundamental duty to promote equality of opportunity between able-bodied and disabled people. It would be a powerful executive body charged with the explicit duty to act in the interest of disabled people, without any statutory responsibility towards the interest of the rest of society. I believe that this would undermine and endanger our aims. A commission also runs the—
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Would it not be possible to incorporate the employers and everybody else? That is what is wanted.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not too sure in what way. The NDC will include people drawn from the employers, as it will those drawn from the disabled and others who are interested. They will be involved in the NDC.
A commission would also run the risk of creating a backlash. The provisions in this Bill go much further than the sex and race legislation. The sex and race legislation requires essentially that the same service is extended to people without regard to their sex or racial origin. The provisions in this Bill require a service provider to make additional arrangements, if that is necessary, to ensure that a disabled person can access

641
the service. This might take the form of providing extra services, a sign language interpreter for someone who is deaf, or altering the building from which the service operates. What we are requiring in this Bill is that service providers not only stop discriminating in the sense of the sex and race legislation, but that they change the way in which they offer services to overcome the problems that disabled people encounter.
Similar issues arise for employers, who will be required to consider providing extra supervision, changing the premises or allocating some of the disabled person's duties to another person. It is about the employer making different or additional provision to enable a disabled person to carry out the job; and in some instances it might require other employees to change the way they work or to take on extra duties. These are substantial differences that set the boundaries for eliminating discrimination against disabled people much wider than those for sex and race. They need be reflected in the arrangements that we make for ensuring that the policy intention of this Bill is carried through without encountering a backlash.
My noble friend Lady Flather asked me to look at the United States, saying that a commission works there. I fear that my noble—
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will be kindly explain the concept of backlash, given the fact that a commission as proposed by the amendment would pursue only those who actively discriminated against disabled people? It would not in any way affect people who did not discriminate.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not want to rehearse an argument that we had late last Tuesday night, but I should have thought that anyone listening to the small debate that we had on taxis, and realising that it would perhaps have been a rather larger debate had it been held earlier in the day, would appreciate that in that narrow field there would be the danger of a backlash. We saw just that problem occurring there. Some of us have a briefing from organisations in which I at least believe that one can see the danger of a backlash and a need for us to bring everybody with us if we are to improve the day-to-day living of disabled people, not just in special areas but everywhere.
In response to the point made by my noble friend Lady Flather, I feel that she misunderstands the American experience. There is no independent enforcement agency in the United States covering all aspects of the Americans with Disabilities Act. There is the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, but that is hardly an example to follow. Perhaps I may quote from a recent report published by the Millbank Memorial Fund:
"Backlogs of complaints at the EEOC have been problematic for years and are increasing. EEOC' s inventory of pending charges grew to 85,212 through March 1994–20,000 more than the previous year. The average time to process a charge rose from 274 days to 293 days in the same period".
I turn to the matter of test cases. I believe that test cases and formal investigations have little general application in the area of disability. Disabled people
642
come in groups of one. The language itself is misleading us into perceiving disabled people as a single group with the same needs. That is not the case. What an 18 year-old with epilepsy needs is different from what an 80 year-old with chronic arthritis needs. Even with the same impairments, there will be significant differences in effect. Somebody losing his hearing in his sixties faces very different challenges from someone who is born deaf. While a central body taking test cases to court may be able to set helpful precedents on behalf of women, there seems little scope for it to do the same for disabled people, who form such a diverse group. Similarly, a company's policies, practices and procedures will rarely disadvantage disabled people as a whole.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. He is quite right about the variousness of the cases. But does not that strengthen rather than weaken the need for a central body with specialist knowledge?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There is a body with specialist knowledge; namely, the NDC. We are talking about investigation at this time. I was going on to say that we believe that the mechanisms that we have provided will largely replace the need for formal investigations. In any event, interestingly enough, those are used very rarely by the existing commissions. The EOC commenced only one investigation under that heading in 1993.
My final objection to a commission stems from the different social context in which we are introducing this legislation from that which operated in the 1970s. I shall resist the temptation to list all the deeply held beliefs and policies of the 1970s which have now been discarded in the 1990s. People are very much more aware now of their rights than they were then. That has been achieved in part by the huge growth in the voluntary sector in the past 20 years. There are hundreds of organisations, both voluntary and in the public sector, with considerable expertise in providing information and advice to disabled people. Nothing similar was available in the 1970s to help women or people with different racial backgrounds. I believe that the correct approach is to build on the important foundations that we have and to develop them further. In particular, we need to provide advice locally which gets to the root of problems without delay and ensures that disabled people get the help they need to secure their rights.
One can establish centrally the elaborate framework of rights required to span the wide diversity of disabled people's needs. But, frankly, a set of general rules will get us only so far. We need a local service to get close enough to the local issues to resolve individual cases.
I hope that I have shown that a commission would not work and demonstrated that the council will perform admirably the task of advising the Government. I should now like to explain how we propose to help individual disabled people. Our aim in providing conciliation and support services is to offer mechanisms for resolving disputes quickly, efficiently and cost-effectively without lengthy litigation and at the local level where the problems arise.

643
We intend to set up under the Bill advice services to support rights of access to goods and services which will be equipped to provide a face-to-face service to individuals and resolve disputes at local level without the need for more formal action.
The Employment Service will provide advice to individual employers and disabled people on the proper application of the new employment right. Where a claim of discrimination has been or could be made against an employer, a disabled person will be able to seek help from an ACAS conciliation officer. The advice and support services will explore the facts in individual cases and standard questionnaire procedures will be provided to aid the processes and ensure a common approach across the country.
The procedures at industrial tribunals and small claims courts, where we envisage that most cases will be heard, are relatively simple and inexpensive. It costs nothing to take a case to a tribunal and only a few pounds to go to a small claims court. Both mechanisms are designed to be used by individuals without legal representation, with the tribunal or judge specifically charged to draw out the facts of the case. Some 90 per cent. of cases under the sex discrimination and equal pay legislation are already taken to industrial tribunals without the aid of the Equal Opportunities Commission. Therefore, it is misguided to think that individuals will be unable to secure their rights without the aid of a commission. That was what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, tempted us into thinking.
I am sorry to go on, but there are other amendments in this group. I now turn to Amendments Nos. 114 and 115. They would provide the council with funding to meet the responsibility of appointing its own staff and those associated with its other duties. Amendment No. 116 concerns financial records and Amendment No. 117 removes regulation-making powers from the Secretary of State. I believe that the amendments are unnecessary. The arrangements in the Bill are in line with those made for other advisory bodies, such as the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and the Social Security Advisory Committee. They will be the most appropriate for the kind of council that we believe should be established.
I believe that the provisions in the Bill will set up arrangements which best serve the needs of disabled people, business and government. The National Disability Council will be an influential voice, ensuring that we keep working to eliminate discrimination against disabled people. It will report publicly to Parliament through its annual report, thereby drawing attention to its concerns and any areas where it considers that its advice has not been heeded. Again, I believe that that answers a point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.
It is mistaken to think that the provisions in the Bill offer less protection to disabled people than has been given to women and ethnic minority groups. Indeed, we are giving them more. The Bill requires much more than equal treatment for disabled people. It requires business to make jobs and services accessible by making changes which accommodate the needs of the individual disabled person. The Bill's provisions are enforceable through
644
courts and tribunals, although we hope and believe that the conciliation, advice and support services will be effective in resolving disputes before formal action is necessary.
These amendments would not provide disabled people with a better service. They would be costly and set up another central bureaucracy and policing force which might well jeopardise our ability to take society with us in removing discrimination against disabled people.
I cannot recommend that the Committee should accept these amendments. I do not know what my noble friend intends to do. Perhaps I should invite him to contemplate what I have said and the strength of my arguments and ask him to withdraw his amendments. I hope, if he feels that he cannot do so, that my noble friends and other noble Lords who have been convinced by my arguments will support me in the Lobby.
Lord Swinfen: Before I make up my mind on what I intend to do—I have a feeling that my noble friend Lord Mackay and I are still some distance apart—would my noble friend be prepared to meet me between now and Report stage so that we could consider whether we can thresh out this matter a little further and come to some kind of understanding?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am always happy to meet my noble friend and discuss the issues. But if I were to meet him, I should endeavour to persuade him that I am right. I should not hold out any hope that he would be able to persuade me that he is right.
Lord Swinfen: I am sure that my noble friend would endeavour to use his powers of persuasion on me as I would try to use mine on him. Having had that assurance from my noble friend, it is fair to let the Committee know that I advised him earlier that I did not intend to test the opinion of the Committee on this amendment. It is a very important matter and it should not be dealt with in a great hurry.
I do not know what my noble friend Lady O'Cathain will do with her amendments. She may agree that my amendment covers the same ground. However, if she decides to move her amendments I shall support her in the Lobbies. My noble friend will make up her own mind in due course.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said that he felt that disability discrimination was different from race and sex discrimination. Of course it is, but the principle is the same. One discriminates in employment against someone when one takes into account factors such as race, sex or disability and not the competence of the person to do the work.
The National Disability Council only has an advisory role. It has no powers to advise individuals or employers, only the Minister; it has no power to carry out independent research and very little in the way of resources; it also has no independent members of staff and no powers with regard to employment.
I thank all those who took part in this debate. It has been extremely useful. I intend to come back to the matter at Report stage and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 17, line 9, at end insert ("and persons who have had a disability").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 103:
Page 17, line 13, at end insert:
("() The Council may assist (financially or otherwise) the undertaking by other persons of any research, and any educational activities, which appear to the Council necessary or expedient for the purposes of subsection (2).").
The noble Baroness said: Having received assurances from my noble friend the Minister I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 17, line 18, at end insert:
("() In discharging its duty under subsection (2) (a) of this section, the Council shall have a particular duty to advise the Secretary of State on the measures necessary to prepare for the repeal of section 29(6) (a) of the National Assistance Act 1948 and for the conferring on social services authorities of the power to make cash payments to a disabled person in lieu of the direct provision of services under section 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 105 relates to a different matter. It is a probing amendment.
In April 1988 the Disablement Income Group, with the then Department of Health and Social Security, set up the Independent Living Fund to administer cash payments to severely disabled people to assist with the costs of personal care and domestic assistance. That followed the replacement of supplementary benefit by income support which effectively ended many payments previously made to disabled people in respect of their additional disability costs. By the time the fund closed at the end of March 1993, 21,500 severely disabled people were receiving payments which averaged £105 per week.
The earmarking of cash payments to disabled people by the Independent Living Fund raised the profile of this whole area of provision. Since then, disabled people have been actively involved in promoting and developing cash payment schemes with their local authorities. However, because of the illegality of direct payments from local authorities to individuals, those schemes have taken the form of indirect payment schemes which have used third party organisations to support user-managed care. The latest research report by the Disablement Income Group—An Opportunity Lost? Social Services use of the Independent Living Transfer—revealed a notable increase in the interest shown by social services departments in third party personal assistance schemes.
Third party organisations are increasingly being used by local authorities as legally acceptable mechanisms for making direct payments to individuals who wish to
646
purchase their own care. Most of the recent schemes studied by DIG channel local authority money through a voluntary organisation which provides a support system rather than just "laundering" the money. Providing personal assistance support services is an important adjunct to any direct payments scheme. The research also confirmed that there is widespread support among local authorities for changing the law to allow for direct payments.
Clearly, several issues need to be resolved as the framework for direct payments is created. Those include consideration of how the money will be audited and how support structures for recruitment and management of individual employees can best be provided. Questions will also arise concerning eligibility, financial ceilings and thresholds, and the interface between nursing and personal care. Then there are a whole series of issues concerning the employment conditions of personal assistants, including their status in employment terms and the obligations of individual employers who would be the disabled people concerned.
All those and more will need to be resolved before a framework can be established. Nevertheless, in my view it is crucially important that those moves are legislation-led, which is why the new clause is so important. I believe that my noble friend's department has been working on this matter and I hope that he can give me and others in the Committee some assurance that it is moving forward. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: I suspect that the Minister, when he replies, may be minded to say that the principle of direct payments to disabled people has been accepted; it is now being developed by officials and fits a little uneasily into a Bill dealing with discrimination. I therefore want to take the opportunity provided by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, to anticipate unfair discrimination in this area.
While it may be true that the standard model of support for people with learning disabilities is a staffed group home and local authority day centre, that is not the whole story. There are already within the existing rules service brokerage arrangements which put the funding into the hands of advocates, supporters, parents and so forth who are close to disabled persons and who make it their business to understand their needs and secure tailor-made solutions to those needs.
Just as people with severe physical disabilities may need a partner, advocate or agent to help them handle the sometimes complicated business of being a disabled person, so may someone with severe learning difficulties. If and when direct payments begin, I hope that the scheme will not discriminate against people with learning disabilities, but that they will be included in the scope of the arrangements. That option will provide advocates, carers and brokers with the opportunity to agree with the disabled person in the light of what they are known to enjoy and to dislike, in the case of those unable to speak, what would be the most appropriate, and then to go out and buy it.
The heart of community care is assessment of individual needs, followed through into individual support packages. That is as true for people with

647
learning disabilities as it is for people with physical disabilities. Anything that moves us closer to securing that, such as direct payments and service brokerage, is to be commended. That is why I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I give my wholehearted support to this amendment and added my name to it. As one who has been involved for what seems like many years fighting long and hard to achieve this aim, I support it and hope that the Minister will be able to say something encouraging to us when he replies.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We also strongly and warmly support the amendment. It will allow local authorities, where they deem it appropriate, to pay cash rather than provide services to their disabled clients. Why? There are two broad reasons.
First, it places the disabled person at the centre of the care system rather than making him or her dependent upon it. Direct payment means that services are fitted to the needs of the client because the client purchases them, rather than fitted to the needs of the service. For example, someone with severe spinal injuries may be dependent on help to go to bed. If that person is dependent on a service being provided by the local authority, then that person would have to fit into the timetable of the person provided by the local authority. If it is said that the disabled person must go to bed at eight o'clock, nine o'clock or 11 o'clock, then that is when they go to bed. Whereas, if the disabled person is purchasing the services she or he will determine when they go to bed, when they get up, and whether or not they go out. The services are tailored by her or him to meet her or his needs rather than to fit inevitably the needs of the providers. That allows the disabled person to enjoy the spontaneity in her or his life that we all take for granted.
Because a disabled person would employ the carer if there were cash payments she or he would control what the carer does. That is important. As an Independent Living Fund client said, if you are paying for it, you can get what you want. When we are talking about quite intimate tasks—toileting and the rest—it is appropriate that the disabled person should choose because she or he can pay the person who performs those services rather than be dependent on a kindly flow of strangers who may change from week to week.
Therefore, the first reason for supporting the amendment is that it puts the disabled person at the centre of care and ensures that she or he gets the services that she or he wants at the times she or he needs them and provided by the people she or he chooses to suit her or his needs. By definition, if a local authority is doing it for the disabled person, she or he is dependent on what the local authority can do at any particular time.
The second reason for supporting the amendment is that it offers better value for money. If a disabled person can make a direct payment, she or he can use that sum of money to float a whole network of care, formal and informal. She or he can pay the petrol, can offer a bottle of wine, can provide chocolates, can meet expenses and as a result get very many more hours of support and
648
care for the same sum of money than she or he would get if those services were provided by an individual. The same money can be stretched because the disabled person can broker it around a whole network of people, some of whom will be paid by the hour, some of whom will be paid expenses and some of whom will not be paid but will nonetheless get the occasional gift.
That is why the amendment is so warmly supported by all the disability organisations, by the local authorities and by the Association of Directors of Social Services. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, local authorities are so keen to provide this additional service that around two-thirds of them have set up trusts to launder the money. The local authority pays the money to the trust and the trust pays it to the disabled person. It is not legal at the moment to make a direct cash payment—I forgot, it is not legal in England but it is perfectly legal in Scotland. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why it is legal in Scotland but not legal in England. That means that we must provide the system which disability organisations and local authorities urgently want.
What are the objections to the amendment? Some time ago the noble Lord, Lord McColl, introduced a direct payments Bill into the House. The opposition was said to be the Treasury which had insisted that local authorities provide services and that the DSS provide cash and that the lines between the two should not be confused. That argument would be a little more powerful were it not already the case that those lines are confused. Local authorities already pay cash to foster parents; they already pay cash to children leaving care; they already pay cash to voluntary organisations to aid disabled people. Most of them—two-thirds of them at the last survey—were already paying cash into trusts in order to make direct payments to disabled people.
No one suggests that direct payments are suitable for everyone. Perhaps one person in a thousand is receiving care services in the community and perhaps only one-tenth of those in turn might want direct payments. Many elderly people might much prefer services rather than cash. No one is saying that they must have cash. Very often the people asking for this right will be younger people with spinal injuries who managed their own affairs but following a traumatic accident are unable to do so. They would be able to take control over their own lives and be independent. Direct payments would empower them. As Sir Peter Large once said:
"Direct payments makes the difference between a life in which most of your choices are made by others and a life in which you can mostly choose for yourself".
That is the difference which direct payments would make. I know which choice all of us would prefer. With this amendment we can offer that same choice to disabled people.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has touched on the point I was going to raise. I am afraid that I have not had time to give my noble friend the Minister notice of it and I quite realise that he may need time but it is my understanding that direct payments are legal in Scotland. That is because the

649
Scottish legislation concerning local authorities is different and the whole administration by the Scottish Office of local authorities is different. I supported in principle the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord McColl a year or two ago and I made the same inquiry then. My understanding is that direct payments have worked quite well in Scotland but the Scots make up only one-tenth of the population of the United Kingdom. If the system is working there I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at changes south of the Border, though I would not wish to interfere with what is going on south of the Border.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: To allow direct cash payments to be given to disabled people in lieu of community care services is indeed the Government's aim and we have already announced that we intend to introduce legislation to achieve that south of the Border. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned, those facilities are already available in Scotland. It means that if someone prefers this option he or she would take on the responsibility for buying his or her own care package with these payments. That would give people more choice, more independence and more control over their lives. For example, they could employ their own care assistant and choose exactly when it would be most convenient for an assistant to help them. This initiative is a logical extension of the Government's policy of giving more power to the users of public services, a guiding principle for the Government seen most clearly in the Citizen's Charter initiative. I was delighted by the powerful endorsement given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, to these government principles.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the Minister baits me he can hardly expect me not to respond. We have debated this issue on at least two occasions to my knowledge and it may be very many more. Why has the Minister for Health firmly resisted this proposal in the past? Why are the Government now changing their mind? We are absolutely delighted that they are, but why has it taken so long? Many of us fought hard when the old ILF was scrapped to make sure that the continuation fund could fulfil the same role. Let us welcome the belated conversion, but let the Minister be a little wary of claiming too much credit for initiating that which for so long he has opposed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was just pointing out that this is but a small part of the Government's total overall principle of giving people choice—like buying their own council houses, dare I say, on which I crossed swords with some on the Benches opposite yesterday. However, I leave that aside.
Unfortunately, I have to say to my noble friend—I do not think he will be surprised—that I cannot support this amendment which attempts to specify exactly how legislation should be changed before it is clear what legislative measures are needed. It may be that more legislation is needed to create an efficient direct payments system than is specified in the amendment.
650
The Department of Health is currently looking at what legislation is needed to allow local authorities to make cash payments to disabled people. There are some complex technical issues to be resolved. The Department of Health is taking this forward in co-operation with local authorities and representatives of disabled people themselves. For example, one of the complex issues which has to be addressed is the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. That is the role that a third party might play in assisting recipients to manage their direct payments. That is but one of a number of complex issues which are being addressed.
We recognise the value and importance of consulting disabled people themselves about how this work is taken forward. The necessary preparatory work ought to be carried out before the legislation is changed. However, by asking the NDC to report on the necessary measures to introduce direct payments, we run the risk of duplicating the role of a separate technical advisory group which the Department of Health has set up. This group is assisting in the work of taking forward legislation to allow direct payments.
The British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, the Disablement Income Group and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR) are all represented on this technical advisory group. Therefore, there is already a means through which disabled people can influence the development of this important policy. Having explained what the situation now is, and where we are with the development of this policy, together with the assurance I have been able to give my noble friend that we intend to introduce the necessary legislation to achieve the ends that we all agree, I hope that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: Before I do that, can my noble friend say whether he is in a position to give any sort of tentative timetable?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Convention has long dictated that Ministers do not attempt to say in which Session of Parliament legislation will be brought forward.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Before the Minister sits down, the preparatory work has taken quite some time, has it not? It was in 1990, during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, that the Secretary of State, Mrs. Bottomley, more or less indicated in the other place that an amendment would be forthcoming. My noble friend on the mobile Bench and I pursued it in this House. There have been five years for this preparatory work to be undertaken. Has the Minister anything to say on that?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not have anything to add without breaching the convention which I mentioned to my noble friend. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that I shall chide the Department of Health when I return to Richmond Terrace.
Lord Swinfen: I am delighted to hear that my noble friend will bring pressure to hear where it is most effective in order to speed up this matter. With those words I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 17, line 18, at end insert:
("() The Council may, on request or otherwise, give employers and disabled people such advice as it thinks appropriate on matters concerned with or affecting or likely to affect disabled people.
() The Council may publish general advice on matters concerned with or affecting or likely to affect disabled people.").
The noble Baroness said: The main point of this amendment is that it is very important to give access to authoritative, consistent and informative information, support and advice to all three constituent groups that we are talking about at the moment—that is to say, the disabled, employers and providers of goods and services. The advice has to be really consistent and authoritative on their rights and obligations.
The amendment draws on the wording of ACAS's powers to give advice. One way of ensuring advice is provided would be to attach this function to the NDC. But it could be done elsewhere, and other specialist agencies could be best equipped to do it. ACAS, for example, is held in very high regard by employers and it is reassuring that it will be delivering some of the services under this Bill.
What is essential is the key function of ensuring that the right information and advice is available. This can be delivered through the existing institutional framework proposed in the Bill. But some reassurances are necessary that this delivery will happen.
Information and advice, of course, comes in different forms, but needs to include written materials and guidance, and the codes themselves. It should include information and advice, perhaps available from telephone helplines or one-stop shops, on specifics of legislation; for example, on the formula needed to calculate whether an adjustment falls within the cost ceilings set in the regulations. It also needs to include very specific advice or information on detailed issues of adjustment in specific cases, which can only realistically be given by specialists.
Other important support will need to come in the area of conciliation, which I have referred to already. ACAS on employment and the CBI have been assured that some other body could have the role on access. But the information and advice must clarify what the new law requires; how it will work and who is to be covered. This will be an important adjunct to the codes of practice and guidance that will be produced. It should also contribute to the effectiveness of informal dispute resolution.
Business does not look to the Government to provide everything. It is not looking for handouts and it will certainly use legal and technical specialists, as it does now in other areas of activity. I suppose that in this case there will probably be a whole raft of new consultants on the Disability Discrimination Bill. But the Government and publicly funded sources will play a vital and central role.
The Government have already given undertakings that information and some advice will be available from a variety of publicly funded sources. Given that, it is also reassuring to have Government undertakings as stated in Hansard of 13th June at col. 1696; namely, that ACAS, the Employment Service and their PACTS
652
will be available to offer to people with disabilities and employers appropriate help and advice on the new requirements under the Bill. It is also reassuring that business will have a realistic time to prepare for and make necessary changes, and that the Government have undertaken to ensure that, while the introduction of the Bill will be phased, the support structure is intended to be fully in place to meet the requirements of the first provisions that come into force. That again was mentioned on 13th June.
But there are some important criteria which the provision of advice and information must fulfil if necessary functions are to be carried out. Further confirmation is sought that the support will be consistent—that is very important—and coherent across employment and access issues, guided by "reasonableness" tests as to the scale and nature of the physical adjustments which will be required. There will also be a need for support which is readily accessible at local and national level; for example, through the provision of telephone helplines. It should also be available to all three groups; namely, those employing people, those providing goods and services and, most importantly of all, the disabled.
In a case where it is clear that advice is too individual or specific to be answered by anyone other than specialists—for example, on the precise adjustments that must be made—people should be told where the specialist advice can be obtained. In addition, I seek clarification on what contribution the NDC and NACEPD will make to the design and delivery of the support structure for the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. At the moment the National Disability Council would simply advise the Secretary of State and then only on issues of goods and services and only when he asks it to. It has no independent powers to offer him advice; no independent powers to commission research or to give advice. As I say, in any case, as it does not deal with employment matters, it is certainly not able to advise employers even if the Secretary of State wanted it to.
I believe that we all agreed at Second Reading that most problems in enforcing this Bill are likely to occur not because of malevolence, but because of ignorance; not because employers and the providers of goods and services want to thwart the law, but because they do not know what the law is or what it requires. All hope that cases going to the courts and tribunals will be a last resort when all else fails. It is much better to have a culture of willing compliance rather than a climate of litigation.
How will employers' organisations and suppliers of goods and services who seek clarification of the law know where to go if they are not allowed to seek the advice of a central authoritative body? It is a very modest and tiny amendment, but at least it would ensure that companies, organisations and suppliers of goods and services get consistent advice when they seek it. Otherwise, where do they go? How do they find out what they should do? How are they going to assess what is reasonable cost and how can they be reassured that their competitors will also be complying in the same way?

653
There was a revealing interchange at Committee. We discussed this matter on the first day, 13th June, at cols. 1737 to 1738. On an amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Turner, we discussed the need for employers to take expert advice. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked the Minister where employers could take expert advice, and the Minister said that the National Disability Council could "offer advice". When we were surprised, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, replied that, although institutionally the body could not give advice,
"if someone were casting around, with nowhere else to go, they might find they could be helped by contacting that body".—[Official Report, 13/6/95; col. 1739.]
When the Minister said that, we all thought, "What an entirely sensible idea"—but for one small drawback; under the Bill the council has no power to do that. The Minister apologised for misleading the Committee. The Minister's first thought—that employers could go to that body—was his best thought. That body, the National Disability Council, could and should offer advice. Indeed, the Minister's reflex response was that it could offer advice. We all thought that it was sensible for it to offer advice. The Minister was somewhat surprised, when pressed, to find that it could not do so. Was not the Minister making our case for us? In the light of that, may we hope that the Minister will support the amendment?
6 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I rise to support the amendment. If it is accepted, we shall need to take out of the Bill subsections (9) and (10), as envisaged in the group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 108, 109 and 110. Those subsections specifically prevent the National Disability Council from giving advice on employment matters.
Lord Addington: In our last debate but one I said that the noble Baroness had proposed a second way to try to make the Bill more functional—that is, to try to specify that there should be advisory powers and to try to stitch together the current rather loose structure. This is not my preferred way of doing that, but at least it is an attempt. Therefore, I support the amendment and its aims.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may start by making the position clear. Indeed, I thought that I had made it perfectly clear in my rather long speech on the first group of amendments. Clearly, however, I had not because the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said—I cannot quote her verbatim but I understood her to say—that the NDC could give advice only if asked to do so by the Secretary of State. I said clearly that the NDC will provide advice both on its own initiative and when asked to do so by the Secretary of State. I added—indeed, I emphasised this by pointing out that I was answering a point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy—that the NDC will report publicly to Parliament through its annual reports, thereby drawing attention to its concerns in any areas where it considers that its advice has not been heeded. Although I
654
understand that the noble Baroness wants to go a little further, I believe that she is doing the proposed NDC a disservice to suggest that it can give advice only when asked to do so by the Secretary of State. That is certainly not the case.
We fully intend the NDC to give advice on the needs of disabled people and on how service providers can meet those needs. Practical advice on implementing the provisions relating to goods and services will be issued in codes of practice prepared by the National Disability Council. Similarly, NACEPD will give advice to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment on the employment provisions in the Bill. Indeed, NACEPD rather than NDC is best equipped to consider the wide range of employment issues as all of its members are appointed because of their knowledge and expertise in the field of employment and disability issues. They include such key figures as Sir Peter Large, who was mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, and the director of RADAR, Mr. Bert Massie.
In particular, we shall be drawing on the expertise and experience of NACEPD when drawing up the new employment code of practice on the employment of disabled people. However, we are also fully aware that employers, service providers and disabled people will want more general information and specific advice on particular issues. That point was raised in another place and my honourable friend the Minister responsible for disabled people gave assurances that the Government intend working in co-operation with business—with, for example, the Confederation of British Industry, the chambers of commerce and local authority access officers—to ensure that people know what Parliament expects them to do once the Bill has been enacted.
Officials in the DSS and the Department of Employment are already working together to co-ordinate a framework of action to ensure that the business community and disabled people are aware of the new rights and duties created by the Bill. We shall be discussing that framework with business and with representatives of disability organisations. My honourable friend has also said that he is considering setting up a telephone helpline to provide more specific advice on particular issues.
When the NDC is set up, both it and NACEPD may wish to provide advice about those arrangements. We shall certainly put draft plans to them for their consideration, but we see no advantage to it becoming the councils' responsibility to provide such advice. The experience and skills of the NDC's members should be directed to overseeing the operation of the Act, appraising the arrangements with a truly independent eye and advising the Government on any improvements which need to be made. I remind the Committee that the Bill already contains provisions for setting up an advice and support service to help to resolve disputes under the right of access and that the services of ACAS will be available to help to settle the disputes arising from the new employment rights.
I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend Lady O'Cathain that the information and advice needs of business and disabled people will be met. We are at one in considering that essential for the successful

655
implementation of the Bill. We shall be giving it a high priority in the lead-up to the implementation of the Bill's provisions and thereafter to ensure that the Act operates as we all intend it to operate. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: The phrase which gave me the most comfort in my noble friend's speech was that officials of the DSS and the Department of Employment are working together. The impression that has been given in our long discussions on the Bill to date is that they are two cells working in different parts of Whitehall and ne'er the twain shall meet. Therefore, I found my noble friend's words most encouraging. I was also encouraged that the Government are considering setting up a helpline. Being realistic, I suppose that we should be most encouraged by the fact that my noble friend has said that he fully intends the NDC to be fully available to give practical advice on access, that it is involved in drawing up codes of practice and that NACEPD is to give practical advice on employment matters. In the light of those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 17, line 39, after ("appropriate") insert ("including appropriate organisations representative of employers and appropriate organisations representative of disabled persons").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 107, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 112, 119 and 120. My noble friend the Minister will not be surprised by these amendments because they relate to a matter that I have raised in every discussion on the Bill so far. I refer to the need to consult. It is terribly important that that happens. I hope that by now the message may have got through. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's reply: I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I shall be extremely brief. These are helpful amendments. When the Minister replies perhaps he could tell the Committee how the department proposes to ensure that the organisations which represent disabled people are truly representative and whether they are organisations of disabled people or organisations for disabled people. I can see the Minister holding his head. He is aware of the problems that that will raise, but I know that he is aware of the important distinction. Therefore, it would be helpful if he could say just a few words, first, about how the Government intend to ensure that they understand the distinction between organisations of and organisations for disabled people and, secondly, about how the Government propose to ensure that they are appropriate organisations.
Baroness Seear: At a previous stage I mentioned that when consultation is to take place with employers' representatives and representatives of disabled persons, it is regrettable that no reference is made to trade unions, or at least organisations of employees, because disabled people will be working alongside other workers. It is a common experience that some workers can find that difficult. They need to have the position explained to them.
656
I recall many years ago the issues that arose when a person with epilepsy was introduced into a typing pool without the other typists knowing that that person had epilepsy. If that person had suddenly had a fit it would not have had a good effect on relationships in the section or on the future of the person with epilepsy. If people with disabilities are to be happily employed inside organisations, it is important that fellow workers should understand the position and should be willing—when they do know they normally are—to accept such a person. They should understand that they are likely to do a good job but they may have special problems. It is a pity that that has been overlooked.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall deal with each amendment in turn. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that I understand the difference between organisations of and organisations for, and probably organisations which are both of and for, disabled people. We appreciate the wide range of bodies that there are in this field. Some overarching bodies exist to bring them together, otherwise consultation might be impossibly lengthy.
On Amendment No. 107, as the Bill is currently framed the NDC would be empowered to consult any persons it considered appropriate before giving advice to the Secretary of State. It would be free to consult appropriate organisations representative of employers and disabled persons, but might also wish to consult a wide range of other people, organisations and service providers, depending on the area under consideration. I hope that that answers the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
Baroness Seear: I am sure that the Minister will not let the disgraceful words "trade unions" or "union employee representatives" pass his lips, will he?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I did say representatives of employers. As I said, depending upon the area of consideration, the organisations could easily include representatives of employees. A trade union is obviously one such organisation which represents employees. If that encourages and helps the noble Baroness, I am happy to say it.
The NDC is required to consult bodies set up by statute or by Ministers for the purpose of giving advice on disability. Representatives of business and disabled people already sit on those advisory bodies. Moreover, the NDC itself will include members from business as well as disabled people.
We do not think it right to place in legislation further reminders to consult specific types of organisation. The NDC's membership will be appointed with a view to gaining the respect and confidence of all sectors of society. Therefore we envisage that it will see the good sense of consulting organisations whose members are likely to be affected by its recommendations. But we must leave the NDC to decide whom it is appropriate to consult before giving advice to the Secretary of State on particular issues. I am sure that the Secretary of State will take an interest in whom the NDC has consulted and it would be open to him to consult more widely before corning to any decision if he considered that to be appropriate.

657
On Amendment No. 112, the legislation as currently framed allows the Secretary of State to consult whoever he considers appropriate before making appointments to the NDC. The intention is that both appropriate organisations representative of business and representatives of disabled people would be consulted along with others with an interest in the work of the NDC. It would be wrong to put some types of organisation on the face of the Bill, as proposed by Amendment No. 112, while leaving others out.
The effect of Amendment No. 119 would be to require the Secretary of State to specify at least one person to be consulted by the NDC whenever he asked it to prepare a code of practice. That would not always be appropriate. The legislation as currently framed allows for the proper amount of flexibility.
Amendment No. 120 seeks to specify that appropriate organisations representative of employers and disabled people should be included among those the NDC considers consulting when preparing codes of practice. However, it would be inappropriate to make such a provision. As I have already said, there will be a number of other bodies with an interest in the work of the NDC and it would not be sensible to specify two groups on the face of the Bill and leave others out. In any case, the Bill as currently framed allows the NDC to consult whoever it wishes.
I am sure that the NDC will be careful to consult organisations representing those with a direct interest in the matters under consideration when preparing proposals of codes of practice. But I would also remind my noble friend and other Members of the Committee that there are further safeguards which require draft codes of practice to be published before they are put to the Secretary of State. Those will ensure that everyone with an interest has an opportunity to make representations to the council and, I suppose, to the Secretary of State.
We believe that the provisions in this Bill for consultation prior to the appointment of members or the giving of advice, and on the preparation of codes of practice, are sufficient to ensure that the views of all those with an interest are taken into account. I hope that, given my assurances and my explanation on the record, my noble friend will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving that reassurance and for the fact that it will be on the record. But will be enlighten me on one point? He said that membership of the NDC will include representatives of business in relation to the provision of access. Will there be something in the remit of those appointed to the NDC which will make them responsible for consulting widely the people whom they might represent? I cannot get my mind around whether a member of the NDC will be someone who happens to be a good business person (man or woman) or an articulate member of a disabled lobby who might just give his or her own views rather than consult. In that case the rest of business would not be consulted. Does my noble friend see the point I am making? I should like to know what he thinks about it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is always a problem. If one wishes to consult a body, one writes a letter to the secretary and receives a letter back from the secretary. One may well be left puzzling whether the secretary is writing on his own behalf or whether he has decided that that is what everyone thinks. It is a general problem, but I do not believe that it happens often. I suspect that people are always careful about ensuring that their organisation is involved if it is being consulted.
The people on the NDC will be drawn from the background I mentioned. On employers, I hope that they will do a great deal more than just represent employers' interests. I hope that they will be of such a calibre that they will realise that they must try to listen to what all employers are saying before they give the views. I hope that they will take a wider interest in the NDC's business. Even if it does not directly involve employers, I hope that they will still be prepared to give their expertise, help and advice. That is it.
On appointing people to the council, we shall of course be consulting about that, but all the people appointed, whether they are from disabled groups, employers or wherever else, will be appointed in their individual capacity. It would not be in the interests of the NDC's best working if all the members felt that they were only there to bat for whatever or whoever they represented. Some Members of the Committee, like me, may have served on bodies where that view was sometimes held by a member. It did not serve the body well when the member took such a narrow view of his responsibilities. I hope that that helps my noble friend.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank my noble friend for that explanation, but my attention has just been drawn to Schedule 3 which provides:
"The members shall be appointed from among persons who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State—

(a) have knowledge or experience of the needs of disabled persons … or

(b) are members of, or otherwise represent, professional bodies or bodies which represent industry or other business interests".

I come back to the point: will they be charged with not necessarily giving their own personal opinion, but when issues arise which have wide implications charged to consult on behalf of those particular groups?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I understood my noble friend to ask whether an individual representing employers, say, will be obliged personally to consult employers. I do not believe that on the face of the Bill that will be the case. The NDC collectively, including that person, will be obliged to consult widely, as set out in Clause 23(7). However, there will be no obligation on each individual member to consult the sector from which he or she is drawn.
However, the way of the world is that when deciding how to make a judgment on issues before the council the person will draw from his or her experience, contacts with colleagues, and so forth. I understand my noble friend's point but she is concerning herself unnecessarily about the distinction between what an individual must do and what the body as a whole, including that individual, must do. I hope that I have helped my noble friend.
Lord McCarthy: We are corning close to the heart of the Government's philosophy. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, told us that she reflects what is said by the CBI. Of course, the CBI wants a body that is representative. It wants to sit at a table with people who represent different groups and who can commit those groups by saying, "This is what these people would like to have".
If one wants a body that is representative it would help to have representatives of employees, even if they are from trade unions affiliated to the TUC. A dreadful thing! I do not ask for that to be on the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, the Government are keen not to have anything representative because it smacks of that terrible thing, "representativeness"; it is getting close to quangos and so forth. Therefore, they state repeatedly that such people are individuals talking as individuals. If that continues they will represent no one until there is nothing.
Lord Renton: During the past 50 years we have had a great deal of experience of statutory bodies appointed by the Government under authority given by Parliament. As regards the National Coal Board, for example, it was customary to have on the board at least one current or former representative of the National Union of Mineworkers. However, once he was appointed he represented the interests of the National Coal Board. He drew on his experience and loyalty but his decisions were those to be made in favour of the National Coal Board. That is only a simple example of what happens across the board.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord is utterly and totally wrong. If one was a workers' representative on the National Coal Board one could not have anything whatever to do with the National Union of Mineworkers or any other association connected with the industry. The board was an executive functioning management and people were not there to represent people; they were there as individuals. We are now talking about a consultative committee and the Government are trying to discover what industry and various groups, including the CBI, think. That is the difference and that is why it should be representative.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is a great deal more than a consultative committee. It will give advice on a number of issues, including important issues such as codes of practice. Therefore, it is a good deal more than the noble Lord suggested.
I am amazed because it sounds like a debate on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I thought that it had been pretty well accepted that people who are appointed to public bodies, as this body will be, come from different backgrounds and perhaps are appointed because of that. However, after they are appointed they are expected to participate fully in the total work of the board or organisation and not represent only one interest. I am amazed that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, believes that that would be a sensible and workable way to organise a body such as this.
Baroness O'Cathain: Of course, individuals are not there to represent only one interest. Let us suppose that there is an employers' representative on the NDC; for
660
instance, somebody with experience of dealing with ATMs, the bank machines. He has been appointed in his own right because he has experience and knows about some of the problems. If a specific problem arises will it be up to the NDC as a whole or will it be up to that individual to ensure that there is wider representation? It could be that the individual has specific experience in one area of ATMs and not in another.
Obviously, representatives will be appointed for what they can contribute to the running of the NDC but groups of employers, disabled people and providers of goods and services will believe that, as regards the NACEPD and the NDC, unless there is a strong commitment they will be left out.
I shall read carefully what the Minister said. Perhaps he will confirm that he said that the NDC will have a responsibility to consult. Indeed, it has a responsibility to consult but I expect that underlying that will be specific areas. For example, in the case of access it will consult the building construction industry and in the case of disability it will consult disabled people. I cannot see why the provision cannot be put on the face of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps it will help my noble friend to reflect on what has taken place today if I put on record in Hansard Clause 23(7). She can then read it tomorrow. It states:
"Where the Council proposes to give the Secretary of State advice on a matter, it shall before doing so … consult such other persons as it considers appropriate".
There are plenty of powers on the face of the Bill to suggest that the council must consult.
Baroness O'Cathain: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 108 to 110 not moved.]
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [The National Disability Council]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 33, line 7, at end insert:
("() have knowledge or experience of the needs of persons who have had a disability or the needs of a particular group, or particular groups, of such persons;").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 33, line 15, after first ("persons") insert (". persons who have had a disability").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 114 to 118 not moved.]
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Further provision about codes issued under section 24]:
[Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 120A:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
("Reports prepared by the Council
.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of section 23(2), the Council, in pursuance of the duties imposed by paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection—

(a) shall examine enactments for the purposes of ascertaining whether they are inconsistent with, or contrary to, the object of eliminating discrimination against disabled persons, and

(b) if so required by the Secretary of State, make to him a report on any matter specified by him which is connected with those duties and concerns the results of any such examination.

Any such report shall be made within the time specified by the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State shall cause the report to be published.
(2) Whenever the Council think it necessary, they shall draw up and submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amending enactments.
(3) In this section "enactment" includes an Order in Council, and Northern Ireland legislation and any instrument made under an Act or any Northern Ireland legislation:").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 120A is to monitor other legislation in order to test its effect on the disability discrimination legislation. Clause 32 establishes that all other legislation, whether prior or subsequent to it, will take precedence over the disability discrimination legislation. Therefore, this amendment will require the disability council to review both secondary and primary legislation to ensure that it does not conflict with the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Bill; in other words, that it does not conflict with the elimination of discrimination against disabled people.
It is a fairly simple and straightforward amendment but it is important in the sense that much of our other legislation tends either in itself or in its implementation to discriminate against disabled people. A number of laws may operate in such a way as to block the elimination of discrimination. One example has already been discussed; that is, the legislation governing listed buildings. We are extremely pleased that the Minister has indicated that English Heritage will be producing guidance on that issue and that the council may choose to address that in its code of practice.
Another obvious example relates to the implementation of health and safety legislation. The role of health and safety legislation and of fire regulations in constraining access to buildings and services is well documented, in particular in the report of the Committee on the Restrictions against Disabled People which reported in 1982. Perhaps I may quote a paragraph from that report which states:
"Many of the letters we received referred to people being refused access because they were 'a safety hazard' … Many others referred to being turned away from cinemas. dance halls and other places because they were 'fire risks'. We … accept that on certain occasions they might be justified. On the other hand. the insistence on safety by managers is often not so much for the benefit of customers as to protect managers who do not want to be accused of carelessness".
I know that that report was published in 1982 and, as the Minister indicated earlier, we have become much more aware of those issues since that time. But there are still examples of occasions on which people impose restrictions which are not reasonable and which impose a barrier against disabled people. In other words, there are still misplaced perceptions of what disabled people can and cannot do. Those perceptions can easily creep into legislation, and in particular into secondary legislation.
I hesitate to say this, but there is a precedent for this particular amendment. It is based on Section 55 of the Sex Discrimination Act. Under that section, the EOC is required to monitor and report on changes in health and safety legislation. It has carried out one major report at the request of the Secretary of State but, since then, it has not published any major reports. However, it has monitored the various changes that have been made and it has made its report to the Health and Safety Commission or, as appropriate, to the Minister.
Of course, this amendment would go rather wider than just to one area of legislation, although health and safety would be extremely important in that respect.
The fact that such a duty is placed upon the commission is a cautionary influence on those making legislation and in particular those putting forward secondary legislation in the form of regulations. It would give the National Disability Council an opportunity to influence the wording of those regulations for the legislation to ensure that unfair perceptions were not included. It is quite an important amendment and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: The noble Baroness put her case clearly and sincerely but, with respect, I must say to her that I do not consider that the amendment is necessary and I am not sure that it creates a very wise precedent. In the first place, the amendment asks that the NDC "shall examine enactments". That means previous legislation. But that is the function of the legal people in government departments. Sometimes that is done with the help of parliamentary counsel, the draftsmen.
If the NDC were to do that, it would have to employ lawyers. It may be that it will employ one lawyer but I should not expect it to employ more than one. Surely when we establish new bodies under statute we do not expect to pass the buck to them to see whether the statute under which they have been appointed has omitted necessary amendments to previous legislation. I hope that they have not been omitted because there are quite a large number of amendments proposed in this legislation; there is also a repealing schedule and there is modification of the Act in its application to Northern Ireland, and so on. Therefore, with great respect to the noble Baroness, I do not believe that it would be right to have the effort which government departments are making continuously duplicated by this new statutory body.
The noble Baroness has a better case in relation to subsection (2) of the amendment; but within the powers already given to the NDC under the Bill—in subsection (2) of Clause 23 especially, to which the new clause

663
refers—the council could perfectly well submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amending enactments, including this Bill when it becomes an Act.
I should have to look again at Section 55 of the Sex Discrimination Act which the noble Baroness mentioned but my recollection is that Section 55 enables the health and safety regulations which are already in existence to be considered to see whether they need to be amended in the light of practice which has arisen in their application. Therefore, with deep respect, that is not really a precedent and I should not be surprised if, on this occasion, my noble friend felt unable to accept the amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I support my noble friend, who put her case so well. I am extremely surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, should say that there is a danger of creating a precedent because my noble friend went out of her way to say that the precedent is already established in the Sex Discrimination Act.
The principle is precisely the same. The strength of my noble friend's case is that because the section is in that Act it gives us a valuable precedent and is a crucial part of the legislation. Therefore, by omitting the principle from the Bill, the Government are, in a sense, discriminating against disabled people by their failure to provide adequate legislation. We are not at all interested in existing legislation; we are concerned with future legislation. That is a very important factor and one of the important reasons why my noble friend deserves support.
Can the Minister say why the Government deliberately omitted that clause? Perhaps I may speculate on two possible excuses, although I am sure that the Minister will have a very good reason rather than excuses. However, my first example is on the question of money. No government want to spend money unreasonably, but, as the Minister well knows, there is provision in the Bill to cover unreasonable accommodation. Therefore, there is no question of unreasonable amounts of money being spent because of the amendment, which I hope the Minister will accept.
The only other excuse or reason that I can think of is that the Government do not want the hassle and that they fear that arguments will arise over such issues as safety regulations. But we will not remove discrimination and prejudice or get reasonable provision for disabled people without a lot of hassle. We shall have the hassle in any event when the Bill is enacted; but hassle is an essential and worthwhile price to pay. If the Government fail to accept the amendment, I believe that they will have far more hassle if subsequent legislation goes against the letter or the spirit of the Bill.
Lord Swinfen: My name is attached to the amendment and I should like especially to support its principle. My noble friend Lord Renton praised Clause 23(2). Of course, it may have been faint praise, but it was nonetheless praise. However, how can subsection (2) work without there being some work on subsection (1)? Looking at the provisions and the regulations produced under the legislation, one would have to undertake a certain amount of investigation to ascertain whether there are any contradictory Acts around.
664
When he responds to the amendment, can my noble friend the Minister say whether, as drafted, the provision would cover secondary legislation? I ask that question because I have a feeling that it may cover only primary legislation. I suspect that most of the problems are caused not necessarily by primary legislation (which should be looked at by parliamentary draftsmen when preparing Bills) but by the way in which the regulations produced under various enactments are actually put into effect.
Perhaps I may give Members of the Committee an example from my own experience when dealing with fire officers. When there is a change of individual holding a particular post, all the requirements in a particular building also change because the new man's fads—and it is normally a man—happen to be totally different. Such changes can prove to be very expensive for disabled organisations and also for business.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I do not know whether this is the right time to mention it, but I have received yet another letter. This time the letter is from the vice-chairman of the Oxford City Access Committee. The committee is most concerned about city centres of such towns as Oxford which are being closed to traffic. The letter says:
"I beg you to use your influence to press for more power to be given to local authorities when they shortly take over responsibility for access for disabled people in city centres. In fact, a legal right of access is needed".
I hope that the Minister will ensure that such a provision is somehow incorporated into the Bill. Access is absolutely essential to such people if they are to live a normal life.
Lord Carter: It may be of assistance to the noble Baroness to know that I have tabled Amendment No. 126A which deals with that very point.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I thank the noble Lord for that information.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendment seeks to place a separate duty on the NDC to examine legislation to ascertain whether it is inconsistent or contrary to the aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people. I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me if I tell the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that I believe her point does not actually arise under the current amendment. However, we shall perhaps deal with it later. I shall certainly look into the point that she mentioned. Moreover, if Members of the Committee will extend a little further tolerance to me, I should say that I have looked into the point that the noble Baroness raised regarding an earlier letter that she read out this afternoon. The noble Baroness said that it was letter number one. I was surprised at the suggestion that my honourable friend Mr. Hague, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, had—and I believe that I remember the words correctly—"fohhed oft" a disabled constituent.
I believe that that letter led the noble Baroness to take a very partial view on the matter. However, far from fobbing off the gentleman, my honourable friend has

665
written to the council on his constituent's behalf on no fewer than four occasions since last December. As the council has the responsibility in the issue, that clearly is the body which my honourable friend must consult.
My honourable friend has also secured a temporary extension of the taxi licence while the matter is being investigated further. I do not want to go into any more detail on the matter, but I should like to restore the balance as regards the picture painted—unwittingly, I know—by the noble Baroness. As other people have said, and as I am sure the noble Baroness appreciates, my honourable friend has an excellent record on behalf of disabled people in general and regarding his own disabled constituents.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: For the sake of the record, perhaps I may tell the Minister that that was not letter number one; it was a telephone call. Letter number one came from Devon.
However, I was very pleased to hear what the Minister said. I hope that there will be a satisfactory outcome. If the matter has been going on for as long as the Minister said, it really is a very serious problem. Indeed, we are talking about the poor man's livelihood. Therefore, to take away his bread and butter—and he is a taxpayer—and throw him into unemployment would be ridiculous.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As I said, thanks to the intervention of my honourable friend, that gentleman now has a temporary extension of his licence while the matter is being resolved. Therefore, as they say, we should carefully watch this space.
I appreciate the concerns expressed by Members of the Committee who have taken part in this short debate and especially those raised specifically by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. I, too, envisage that the NDC may wish to pursue that area. My noble friend Lord Renton, with his unerring eye, drew our attention to Clause 23(2). Some of the duties of the council are laid out in that subsection and encompassed in them would be the ability to apply the role that I believe the noble Baroness wishes it to play; namely, to look at the important area of other legislation. Indeed, although I am not a lawyer, my eye is caught by subsection (2) (c) in particular which says:
"It shall be the duty of the Council to advise the Secretary of State, either on its own initiative or when asked to do so by the Secretary of State—
(c) on matters related to the operation of this Act or of provisions made under this Act".
Therefore, quite clearly—
Lord Swinfen: If, when the legislation becomes enacted, it clashes with another Act, would advice on amending the other Act be allowed?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought that my noble friend had lost patience with me. I was just about to tell him that that would, of course, include secondary legislation. I believe that that answers one of my noble friend's points.
However, the question is: what would happen to that advice? I would expect that in most cases—and I use the word "most" with a little care—the Government
666
would try to take the opportunity (and obviously, if it is legislation, that has to be the way that it is done) to square up the Bill and whatever Act or secondary legislation has been drawn to their attention as being contradictory.
I would not like to say that in every case they would be able to repeal the offending part of a previous Act. There may be other or conflicting interests which require to be balanced. We all know about the difficulties concerning fire prevention and health and safety which may well conflict with this Bill. In some cases a future government may not be able to go down the road the NDC might wish them to go down.
However, I see the NDC as a valuable body from which the Government could obtain advice on those conflicts. I would expect that in the great majority of cases the Government would take steps to make sure that the conflict was removed. However, I should not like to lead my noble friend into believing that there is a guarantee that the Government would act in every case. The other interests involved have to be considered.
As I said, the council will be free to consider these matters on its own initiative. Should it consider that a piece of legislation is inhibiting the elimination of discrimination and needs to be amended it will be within the council's remit to advise the Secretary of State how that could be done.
While we do not envisage that the council would produce a report for publication on each piece of legislation examined, it would be open to the Secretary of State to use the council's report as a basis for wider consultation. The council might also wish to include details of its consideration of legislation in its annual report, as I mentioned earlier. The Northern Ireland Disability Council will have a similar ability in relation to Northern Ireland legislation.
I hope that the debate has served to demonstrate the breadth of the NDC's general duties as proposed in the Bill and the influential position it will hold. We do not believe that it would be right to try to identify all the areas which the NDC may wish to consider in detail on the face of the Bill as those are hound to change over time. However, I hope that, given my assurances on the points before us this evening, the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. However, there is a difference between the general duty about which he spoke and to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred and a specific duty which is placed upon the council. If a specific duty is placed upon the council, that means that there is an obligation on the council and on the Government to discuss the matter and consider what the council recommends.
To take the parallel with the Equal Opportunities Commission, the review of the health and safety legislation led to a number of changes in that legislation. However, where the commission has made representations on other Acts of Parliament it has been more difficult to bring about changes in those Acts. Therefore, there is a difference, which can be important.

667
However, because the Minister has dealt with the amendment so sympathetically, I should like to consider what he said and perhaps return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Codes of practice prepared by the Secretary of State]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 121 to 124:
Page 19, line 36, leave out ("against disabled persons").
Page 19, line 37, after ("employment") insert ("against disabled persons and persons who have had a disability").
Page 19, line 39, at end insert ("and persons who have had a disability").
Page 20, line 3, after ("person") insert ("or a person who has had a disability").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to the amendments. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 121 to 124 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Further provision about codes issued under section 26]:
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 20, line 19, after ("consult") insert "the National Disability Council and such other").
The noble Baroness said: I am grateful that this is one of the few areas of the Bill where consultation is specifically mentioned. However, the amendment seeks reassurance that consultation will also involve discussion with the NDC. There could conceivably be an overlap between the codes of practice under Part H of the Bill on employment and under Part III relating to goods and services. It is very important that those should be consistent.
For example, in the case of an employee working in a restaurant, NACEPD would give advice and the code of practice would specify that certain arrangements would have to be made for that disabled employee. That same restaurant would be open to disabled people. It could well be that the advice given by the NDC in terms of access would not be consistent with the advice relating to provision for the wheelchair employee in the restaurant. In order to avoid any confusion, I ask that the National Disability Council should be consulted. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining her concerns about one hand not knowing what the other was doing. However, I should point out that, unless specifically asked to do so, the National Disability Council is excluded under the Bill as currently drafted from advising Ministers on specific matters relating to employment. The National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities fulfils that role, as we have already debated. However, I accept that the employment code of practice will have implications for employers and others that need to be considered in a wider context.
As my noble friend Lord Mackay mentioned, NACEPD has considerable expertise and is well respected. It has advised Ministers on a number of
668
employment issues, including the Employment Service's voluntary code of good practice, the disability symbol and Access to Work, and continuously monitors the provision of employment and training programmes and services for people with disabilities. NACEPD is currently helping with issues connected with the Bill, following a request from my honourable friend the Minister of State for Employment. To that end it has set up a special working group which is looking into employment matters as they are affected by the Bill.
I mentioned earlier that it is our intention to issue a code of practice in advance of the employment provisions of the Bill coming into force. As we intend the employment provisions to commence towards the end of next year, the preliminary work on that code has already commenced and the intention is for it to be put out for formal consultation at the end of this year. Members of the Committee will be interested to note that the NACEPD working group I mentioned earlier is playing an active role in the development of the code. I make these points because, although the intention is for the National Disability Council to be established early in 1996, it may not be set up by the time the Government are ready to consult formally on the draft code and clearly can have no role in the current preliminary work.
I can, however, assure my noble friend, as my honourable friends have explained in the other place, that we will be consulting widely on our proposals for codes of practice and regulations. Those consultations will include organisations and individuals not included on the face of the Bill. I can therefore confirm that NACEPD, and the National Disability Council provided it is set up in time, will be included in any formal consultations on the code and any subsequent revisions of the code. It is unnecessary to mention that in the Bill; it could potentially cause confusion when coupled with other provisions specifically excluding employment and training matters from the National Disability Council's remit.
I hope that with that assurance my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Lord McCarthy: Is the noble Lord really saying that he cannot accept this very small and reasonable amendment because the Government cannot make up their mind what they want to do with these two consultative bodies? They have made provisions whereby they could keep one of them in existence for ever, get rid of one of them, or have another. The Government do not know what they want to do. Therefore, when they are asked to accept a simple amendment which provides merely that something may be done to keep them together so that they do not go in different directions, they cannot make up their mind. Why can they not make up their mind? If they cannot accept the amendment, why can they not tell us now how many councils they think we shall eventually have, and when?
Lord Swinfen: Is this not another argument for having a central authority?
Lord Inglewood: In trying to confuse me, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has confused himself. To go hack to what I explained about timing in relation to the various bodies, the important point is that. as the

669
amendment is drafted, it would be impossible for anybody to do anything until both bodies were in existence. The National Disability Council will not come into existence for a little time, long after much of the essential preliminary work from NACEPD in order to draw up the code of practice will have had to be carried out. In other words, the amendment would effectively block the proceedings which we intend to put into place to help disabled people. That would be quite contrary to the purposes underlying the Bill, whose aims I believe noble Lords opposite agree with.
7 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Baroness does not say that one can consult only the National Disability Council. If it were not there one could not consult it. The noble Baroness is saying that when the council is in existence, consult it.
Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I may say what I actually wanted to say. I take the Minister's point that if the council is not in existence it cannot be consulted. When the codes of practice are drawn up, I wish to ensure that there is coherence between the two councils. If NACEPD has done all the work on the codes of practice before the NDC is in existence, my amendment does not stand. However, I was reassured by what my noble friend stated: that people will be consulted on drawing up the codes of practice. Although he did not say this, there was mention earlier about there being common membership between NACEPD and the NDC. It was another point on which I wished to thank the Minister. People who are drawing up the codes in NACEPD now may eventually find themselves on the NDC. If there were any problems, they could be ironed out.
The Minister nods his head in agreement. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved amendment No. 126A:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Obstruction by public authority
. No public authority shall unreasonably obstruct the operation of this Act where a person has acted to comply with its provisions.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. I apologise for the drafting; I drafted it myself.
The purpose of the amendment is to find out the exact rights, powers and responsibilities of public authorities—I refer in particular to local authorities—in respect of the Bill when it becomes an Act. I briefed the department on the background to the amendment. I put forward the provision as a result of my experience over the past week or so which revealed to me that there may be a gap in the Bill. If not, perhaps the Minister will explain that I have analysed the situation incorrectly.
Members of the Committee who were present at an earlier debate may remember that I gave an example of a company I know which employs disabled people. It needs a ramp. The company is a tenant and the landlord
670
has agreed to provide a ramp. The tenant requires access to secure employment of disabled people. Application for planning permission has been sought, received and so on. The only place for the ramp is on the pavement, on the public highway. The highways authority has said that within the existing law there is a long and tedious procedure for encroachment on the public highway. The matter can even go to a public inquiry and may take a long time. In fact, the ramp is half built, but building of the ramp has been stopped while the issue is sorted out.
I have deliberately not named the council because I am just giving an example of the grey area which may arise when the Bill becomes law. The point was made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, when she referred to the problem of city centres.
Unless the matter is already covered in the Bill, if the ramp clearly does not interfere with movement on the pavement—in this case the pavement is extremely wide and in common sense there is no problem with the ramp—the amendment requires the public authority or the local authority not to act unreasonably. It can consider the situation and say, "We can rely on the Disability Discrimination Bill. It provides that we must not act unreasonably. Therefore, we do not have to go through this long and complicated procedure under the Town and Country Planning Act, the public inquiry route, and so on. We can rely on the Bill to provide that we are not acting unreasonably if we give permission".
At present public authorities, in particular local authorities, can put so many hurdles in the way of access or whatever that there can be a long delay and then refusal. In this case the highways authority regards as its primary responsibility to defend the safety of the highway rather than giving higher priority to providing access for disabled people and thus employment for disabled people. If the ramp is not provided, disabled people will have to be discharged from employment because the fire officer is extremely unhappy with the current access available.
As it is drafted, I am not clear that anyone will be able to call in aid the Bill in order to ask the public authority to act reasonably. The purpose of the amendment is to discover whether the Bill can be used, as it were, to force a public authority to apply the test of reasonableness in its considerations.
With regard to my specific example, there will obviously be a requirement to consult with the highways authority. The highways authority can consider the matter and say, "This is not unreasonable. Therefore we give permission. We do not have to consider all these other requirements which are largely theoretical, although legal, as overriding the responsibility for providing access for disabled people".
If the power is not built into the Bill, many necessary alterations to improve access will not take place because the owner of the building will be willing to provide access but the local authority, the highways authority or the public authority involved will say, "No. We have a higher responsibility over and above providing access for disabled people. That responsibility is under the Town and Country Planning Act to ensure that the highway is not impeded".
The amendment probes the need for an overriding power of reasonableness so far as concerns the public authority whose consent is required. Such a power requires the authority to behave reasonably in its consideration of such matters; the authority would not be forced to rely on other Acts of Parliament which take precedence over the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support my noble friend's amendment most warmly. The problems that he outlines have been experienced by many local authorities, in particular where one has a two-tier system. The district council may be responsible for conservation issues as a local planning authority and may well have the disability access officer. Together they come up with an acceptable proposal. But the highways authority involves another tier—the county council. The county council is responsible for ruling whether a proposal is acceptable. As a result, the district council may urge that providing access is a reasonable activity. The pavement may be 10 feet wide or 12 feet wide. The conservation officer and the local disability officer, both employed by the district council, have come to a reasonable and sensible way forward on the issue. But the traffic authority involves the county council—another local authority. It may veto the matter, unreasonably we may believe.
Given the complications, and given that there cannot always be a meeting of minds, we hope that the Government will be supportive of the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for bringing the amendment to our notice. I, too, would like to probe the Minister on the issue. I received a letter only yesterday about Oxford city centre. It is from the vice-chairman of the Oxford City Access Committee. It asks me to bring the matter up and to press for more powers to be given to the local authorities when they shortly take over responsibility for access for disabled people in city centres.
Is this a new provision? I should like an answer from the Government so that we know whether a new regulation is being handed over to the local authorities. Access to city centres is absolutely vital for people living in those towns, otherwise they will not be able to go shopping or to take up employment and will be discriminated against.
When the city centres are closed to cars, there needs to be positive discrimination for severely disabled people so that they may park their cars near the closed areas, otherwise there will be completely no-go areas. As people live longer, there will be more elderly people and it is becoming a great issue. I should like an answer from the Minister about that. I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for his helpfulness over the other matter.
Lord Rix: I too would appreciate clarification. Access to places of entertainment and particularly theatres in city centres is involved. The noble Lord. Lord Carter, put the amendment down as a probing amendment for clarification, which I too should like if the Minister can give it.
Lord Addington: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has put his finger on an important point. Once again, the amendment calls for clarification, as we have been doing all day. If the Minister can give a little guidance, it would probably save many people a lot of money and avoid the damage to pension funds with the use of solicitors.
Lord Swinfen: I wish to support the principle behind the amendment. I am thinking of a theoretical case of a listed building which will require a new use. The building will perhaps be used as a hotel or offices but the approach to it is in fairly poor condition, for example, with potholed asphalt. In order to make the place look more authentic and in keeping with its listing, the local authority wants the developer to cobble the front as opposed to the nice smooth surface. Something similar was done recently outside one of our most famous cathedrals, where asphalt was replaced with cobbles. I gather from those who use wheelchairs that to be pushed over it is absolute hell. Sometimes local authorities suggest or insist on various things being done in planning applications but the example I gave is the kind of thing that should be avoided.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for moving the amendment and for describing the background to it and also to other Members of the Committee who spoke. The problem is obviously causing considerable concern. We are trying here to tease out the interaction between the provisions in this legislation and that contained within other government legislation, particularly as it refers to providing access for disabled people.
As an aside, I believe that the problem we arc discussing goes much wider than simply disablement issues. I suspect that most planning inquiries and appeals going on in the country at present would in one way or another focus on the problem.
When considering the matter, it is important for us to distinguish between two cases: those where the law gives the person who—if I may put it this way—is getting in the way of the desirable disablement aspiration absolutely no discretion about what he can do; and those circumstances where a public body is involved and has a discretion. I shall go through the matter in detail and I hope I shall demonstrate why I believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
We have already debated the right of access to goods, services and facilities in the Bill where it is made clear that it applies equally to public authorities as to any other provider of services. I am, however, happy to take the opportunity to restate the position, which is that any public authority will be subject to the requirement under the right of access. as a provider of services or facilities to the public, to make adjustments to any policies, practices and procedures which would otherwise prevent a disabled person from making use of a particular service or facility and to take steps to remove any physical features which make it unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to use a service or facility.

673
I must also make it clear that, as with other legislation of this nature, nothing in the Bill makes unlawful anything done under any other Act. I refer here to Clause 32. In other words, the legislation does not require service providers to breach other legal obligations. The important word there is "require". That is the same approach as taken in the sex and race legislation, an approach which the Government believe is right.
I know from what the noble Lord said that he has in mind a particular case. Obviously I cannot comment on it from the Dispatch Box. However, I can say with certainty that I cannot imagine a situation where a highway authority would unreasonably refuse permission to provide wheelchair access in the public highway. After all, as we know, that is the kind of aspiration that the Committee would like to see provided for where possible and appropriate. However—and this is the crux of the issue—the ultimate responsibility for the safe upkeep of the highway lies with the local highway authority. No alteration to the highway would be permitted if, in the authority's view, such alteration would pose a danger to other highway users. The prime factor in granting such permission is therefore one of safety and avoiding obstruction to the public highway. In areas where there is a discretion, one should remember that that discretion must be exercised reasonably. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not here. He has plenty of views about that.
The public authority cannot simply act capriciously. We referred to that when we debated listed buildings some days ago. However, in cases where a refusal has occurred, it may not necessarily be the end of the matter. For example, there may be a more acceptable way of providing wheelchair access which meets the concerns of the highway and planning authorities. Or, for that matter, on the facts of the case and the circumstances, there may be a mechanism for appeal which will be open to those people who are disappointed. That is the case in all kinds of other areas where people may be disappointed in respect of quite different matters.
We have heard examples from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked some questions to which I wish to respond later. I cannot give her an exact reply. My noble friend Lord Swinfen mentioned examples about which he was concerned. It might be helpful if the noble Lords wrote to me about particular cases so that the matter may be investigated and a fuller response given if there is a problem. In a wider sense, there may be useful lessons to be learnt from the cases that people have in mind.
Meanwhile, I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the amendment is unnecessary to achieve the result he seeks. If he feels reassured, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister and to other Members of the Committee who took part in the short debate. When I moved the amendment I forgot to mention a point raised by my noble friend Lady Hollis which reminded me that it was a disability access officer who suggested where the ramp should go.
674
The planning authority was happy with it, but then the highway authority moved in and we now have the whole apparatus of the Town and Country Planning Act to deal with. It seemed to me that it was a good example of the overlapping powers of different departments in the same authority.
I was partly encouraged by what the Minister started to say—that the Bill would apply to public authorities, with the right of access and that they will be required to adjust policy and so on. However, the local authority is not the provider of the service in this case, it is just the provider of the highway. Whether that is caught, I am not sure. The authority is required not to act unreasonably, but suppose it does? That is the question. The disabled person, the employer or whoever it was would not be able to rely on the Bill to stop the authority acting unreasonably because it would be acting within the powers which it thinks reasonable within the existing legislation. At the end of the day, it seems to me that it will be left to the public authority. We shall not be able to rely on the Bill; someone will not be able to say: "You are acting unreasonably and we have the anti-discrimination Act which prevents you doing so".
Lord Inglewood: I understand that the position which the noble Lord described is correct. However, we are talking here about a system where discretion is to be exercised by an authority. In exercising that discretion, the authority will take into account the policy aspirations that may be found in society. The kind of problem which the noble Lord describes is one which people face all the time. In planning matters there is an appeal and the policy behind the Bill is an important matter to be taken into account. I myself conducted a planning appeal—successfully, I am glad to say—about a listed building and trying to provide WCs for disabled people.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. Incidentally, did he win?
Lord Inglewood: Yes, I did.
Lord Carter: If he had not won, I bet that he would not have mentioned it. I am grateful to the Minister. I shall write to him with a particular example. It is an interesting illustration of the sort of problems that might arise. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 127 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 128:
After Clause 27. insert the following new clause:
("Unlawful advertising
.—(1) It is unlawful to publish or to cause to be published an advertisement which indicates, or might reasonably he understood as indicating, an intention by a person to do any act which is, or might be, unlawful by virtue of Part II or III.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the intended act would not in fact be unlawful.
(3) The publisher of an advertisement made unlawful by subsection (1) shall not he subject to any liability under that subsection in respect of the publication of the advertisement if he proves—

675

(a) that the advertisement was published in reliance on a statement by the person who caused it to be published to the effect that, by reason of the operation of subsection (2), the publication would not be unlawful; and

(b) that it was reasonable for him to rely on the statement.

(4) It is unlawful for a person knowingly or recklessly to make a statement such as is referred to in subsection (3) which in a material respect is false or misleading.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 128A which is grouped with it. The amendment relates to unlawful advertising and the enforcement of the advertisement provision.
The issue of discriminatory advertisements is addressed in the Bill. However, we feel that the current approach is too weak. Clause 11 provides that where a discriminatory job advertisement has been placed, a disabled individual has applied for the job, has been rejected for that job, and challenges that decision as discriminatory, then that fact can be used in evidence in proceedings.
The corresponding provision in the sex and race legislation makes discriminatory advertisements illegal per se and allows the commissions in those cases to take proceedings. These amendments mirror that approach. The approach to discriminatory advertisements currently contained in the Bill is unsatisfactory and is unlikely to lead to individuals attempting to use the Act to bring challenges. The burden of enforcement placed on the individual is too high. Very few people apply if an advertisement indicates that they will be unwelcome. After that it is extremely unlikely that they will take additional legal action. This illustrates the important role that a commission could play, if it had the power, in lifting the burden of enforcement from individuals.
Although few prosecutions are brought under the relevant sections of the sex and race discrimination Acts, the commissions in those cases are regularly contacted by people who seek advice before they place advertisements because they wish to ensure that they comply with the law in those two respects. I believe that we are all now familiar with the types of blatantly discriminatory advertisements that were common before the passage of the race and sex legislation and which have been stamped out. I was given an example by RADAR of the sort of advertisements that discriminate against disabled people. I am afraid that it relates to a local authority which intended to place an advertisement for a car park attendant that included the statement:
"An essential criterion for the post is being physically fit as there is a lot of walking involved".
On closer examination it was accepted that this was not correct. Indeed, the post of car park attendant is one of the occupations reserved for registered disabled people under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act.
I am sure that the Minister will understand the drift of the amendments and what we seek to achieve. As I say, it is extremely unlikely that the individual will wish to go through all the hoops that are in the Bill in order to prevent discrimination in advertising. The two new clauses in the amendments are intended to prevent that happening. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I can fully understand the noble Lord's concern that it should not be lawful to publish advertisements that are suggestive of discrimination. That is why we made the provisions in Clause 11 to which the noble Lord referred in relation to the publication of advertisements by employers.
The Committee may remember that when we discussed Clause 11 I explained that we do not believe that a total ban applying to employment advertisements is the best approach. As I explained, there may be perfectly good reasons why certain particular physical attributes are necessary to carry out a particular job. In the case of a disabled person applying for that job, we then had to measure by the test of what would be an appropriate and reasonable adjustment in the particular circumstances. We believe that it would he wrong to prevent an employer mentioning health requirements or occupational skills requirements in advertisements. Instead, as already touched on, the Bill provides for tribunals to take into account the publication of an advertisement that suggests an intention to discriminate in considering an employer's reason for refusing employment to a disabled person. We shall also provide guidance for employers on ways to avoid unacceptable advertising.
As to advertisements for goods and services, which I believe would be covered by this particular proposal, I must say that I have difficulty in thinking of examples of cases of advertisements that might be discriminatory in the way that the amendment suggests. Apparently, there was an evangelist who recently advertised a rally that he was holding. It was suggested that all those who were disabled would somehow or other walk away from it with their illnesses put right. That is the only case that we could think of where people might positively advertise in a discriminatory manner, in the way suggested, as we understand it, in these particular provisions so far as Part III of the Bill is concerned. I am sure that the main focus of the new clause is advertisements for employment. Indeed, while the Sex Discrimination Act covers advertisements for employment and goods and services, the examples given in that Act concern only employment advertisements. In any case, I believe that the concerns expressed are already addressed by the provisions of Part III. Clause 15 puts a duty on service providers to change any policy, practice or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to make use of their services. Given the need to adjust such policies, it seems most unlikely that a trader, determined to evade this requirement, would advertise his or her failure to comply with the law. Essentially, I believe that Amendment No. 128 is unnecessary.
There is no equivalent of Clause 15 of this Bill in the Sex Discrimination Act and thus no need to follow the lead on advertising set by that Act in relation to goods and services. It is interesting that the Americans with Disabilities Act, which does have similar provisions to Clause 15, has no general ban on discriminatory advertising of goods and services.
Amendment No. I28A seeks to place a responsibility on the National Disability Council to police and enforce the provisions of the new clause proposed on unlawful

677
advertisements. Again, it seeks to mirror the provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act without regard to whether they are necessary or constitute the best approach. The amendment provides for the NDC to monitor advertisements, apply to either an industrial tribunal or a court for a decision as to whether an advertisement is unlawful, and apply for an injunction if it considers that the person who issued the advertisement is likely to do so again.
My noble friend Lord Mackay went to some lengths in earlier debates to explain that the NDC is not intended to be an investigative or policing body. It will be an advisory body, charged with providing high level policy advice and guidance. The role proposed in the amendment, which I fully understand is one that noble Lords opposite would like to see the NDC have, is totally at odds with the remit that we propose for the council.
I turn to the noble Lord's other point about trying to prevent advertisements of this kind. It seems to be generally accepted that, where there is legislation of this kind on the statute book, backed by policy guidance, it has the effect of reducing very considerably the number of offending advertisements.
Of course, the NDC will be able to consider advertisements as part of its wider duty to study the operation of the Act. Should it identify a problem, it will bring that to the attention of the Secretary of State and advise on ways in which the problem could be tackled. However, as I mentioned, we believe that the provisions already in the Bill will be sufficient to deter such advertisements.
I hope very much that I have been able to allay and mitigate the noble Lord's concerns about advertising. I hope he considers that he will be able to think again.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, can be say whether this provision will also apply to firms employing 20 or less in terms of advertising? So long as the advertisement was not offensive, could those firms exclude people with disabilities and get away with it?
Lord Inglewood: So far as those employers are concerned, the duty not to discriminate as defined in the Bill does not apply. I believe the noble Lord's question did not address goods and services. It addressed advertisements for employment.
Lord Rix: It could be either. It could be goods and services or employment. The goods or services might be provided by an employer who employed fewer than 20 people.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: Indeed, so far as the provision of goods and services is concerned, there is no threshold involved. It completely falls outside it. The second point on which the noble Lord inquired was whether an employer who employed fewer than 20 people would fall subject to the provisions of Clause 11 of the Bill. Clause 11 expressly states that a number of criteria have to be satisfied.
678
I hear the noble Baroness's remarks, but the difference between these Benches and those opposite is that when we make a mistake, we quickly appreciate it. That is not necessarily the case on the Benches opposite. I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to look into this matter. I should like to give an accurate answer. I think that I know the answer but perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to give him an answer later this evening.
Lord Rix: I should be delighted to and I hope that it will be quite clear that companies with 20 or fewer employees cannot discriminate in their advertisements.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I too would like to ask the Minister a question. One of the difficulties and reasons why so many of us are anxious to have a national disability commission is that under the arrangements of the council, with individuals going to tribunals and courts, there is no way to take on board what I call third party issues or problems; in other words, where the difficulty is generic. As with the old Press Council, someone could only pursue a problem that directly affected that person as opposed to a generic problem, which may be the case of advertisements. Can the Minister help us on this?
Lord Inglewood: I thought that I had explained our approach to that matter in my remarks. The National Disability Council clearly can consider the general question of advertisements. We do not anticipate that the kind of general queries to which the noble Baroness alludes will be likely to cause problems. However, as I explained, it is open to the council, if it anticipates or identifies the kind of problems to which the noble Baroness refers, to make recommendations to the Secretary of State.
I am now able to give a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rix. A firm of below 20 employees is not subject to Part II of the Bill and hence will not be covered by Clause 11.
Lord Rix: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may tell him that I am shaken by that response, for obvious reasons. In fact it means that an employer could place an advertisement in a small local newspaper saying, "No disabled person need apply". If my reasoning is correct, the advertisement could be as flat-footed as that, which is in absolute contravention of the whole principle of this entire Bill.
Lord Inglewood: I should like to emphasise that the guidance that will be provided is intended to be guidance for the good behaviour of employers and others regardless of the size of firm about which we are talking. I do not wish to go over the ground that we went over at some length on a previous occasion. But the Government feel that the burdens that could be inherent by falling within the scope of the Bill compulsorily under Part II arc such that they should not be imposed on employers employing fewer than 20 people. That does not mean to say that the Government might necessarily in any way condone the kind of advertisement to which the noble Lord referred.
It has just been drawn to my attention that we ourselves arc not aware of discriminatory advertisements which are so blatant as the noble Lord

679
suggests. I should have thought that if such advertisements were not appearing now, the chances of them appearing once the Bill came into operation would be that much less.
Lord Rix: I believe that I can give chapter and verse for advertisements that have appeared certainly within the past year saying in effect that no disabled person need apply. The advertisements probably did not use those exact words but used similar wording. I shall try to find evidence and provide the Minister with it, if he so wishes.
Lord Inglewood: I am extremely sorry to hear that the noble Lord has such evidence. Clearly, we should be pleased—if that is the right word to use in the circumstances—to have chapter and verse.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Surely the Minister can see that there is a difference between some of the advertisements for employment not requiring specific people to be employed as a rule and circumstances in which people are ruled out of consideration before they even get to the job. Surely it is totally wrong for someone to be able to write advertisements in such a way that people know that there is no point in applying, even to be able to prove it to themselves, however small the employer.
Lord Inglewood: I understand the noble Baroness's concern. But it is not helpful to anyone concerned if the advertisement encourages people to come forward who will not be given a realistic chance of getting the job. All of us in our time no doubt have applied for jobs for which we knew that we had no chance of being successful. It does not do anybody a good turn to encourage people to apply for jobs when they are simply not in the running for them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Tell John Redwood!
Lord Carter: It was a most unworthy remark of my noble friend to imply that that certainly applies to Mr. John Redwood.
This discussion has opened up an area to which we might well have to return at Report stage. We are aware of the tribunal route, but it is a very long, winding one. I was struck by two examples under the heading of goods and services. In fact, I have just been given an advertisement which states:
"I am blind; I am crippled; I am helpless".
It refers to a home for the multiple handicapped. In the middle of the advertisement it says that these people are mercifully few in number but their plight is tragic. I find that an extremely offensive advertisement. It would be interesting to know whether that would be prevented by the Bill.
Also, it occurred to me while listening to the Minister that I saw an advertisement some years ago which referred to the state of this country under a Conservative Government. There was an advert in the Guardian which showed a clapped out, broken down Britannia in a wheelchair. I thought that that advertisement was extremely offensive. I do not say that it was inaccurate in what it said about the Conservative Government, but it was extremely offensive to use the wheelchair analogy.
680
I shall not press these points now. We have opened up an interesting area and I can see the Minister looking rather worried. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 128A not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage should not begin again before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) Order 1995
7.39 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move. This order extends the scope of compulsory competitive tendering to three further white collar services: financial, information technology and personnel services. That completes our programme for the extension of competitive tendering to white collar services begun last year when this House approved other orders extending CCT to legal, construction and property services.
Few doubt that competition can stimulate efficiency in the provision of public services and in many cases can offer significant financial savings. Local authority manual services have already been subject to competitive tendering for up to 15 years. We estimate that that has resulted in savings of over £400 million for local taxpayers. There is no reason why the discipline of competition should not also bring better value for money to local authority white collar services: the lawyers, architects and accountants at the heart of the local government machine.
The Government first proposed extending competitive tendering to local authority white collar services in a consultation paper issued in November 1991. Since then we have engaged in a thorough and informed debate on detailed proposals with local authority representatives and other interested parties. This process has been much more than a polite formality where decisions have, in reality, already been taken. The regime has been substantially modified as a result of the valuable input of local authority representatives and the various joint working groups which have been considering CCT extension. While it would be wrong to pretend that local authorities see eye to eye with the Government on the

681
value of CCT, nevertheless I know all parties agree that the extensive consultation on CCT extension has been a valuable and constructive process.
The statutory competitive tendering regime we are putting in place for white collar services is based on that set out in the Local Government Act 1988. Put simply, local authorities cannot undertake certain work in-house unless it has been awarded through fair and even-handed competition. In developing the white collar regime, we have undertaken a thorough view of all aspects of the statutory framework for CCT to ensure that it meets the needs of white collar services. Of necessity there are rules. I hope that those rules are flexible enough to recognise the different approaches individual authorities may take to providing white collar support services.
The order before us this evening defines the new activities to be brought into the regime. Once Parliament has approved the order, then we will bring forward further regulations setting out the timetable for competition and the proportion of work which local authorities are required to expose to tender.
Turning to the services addressed in the order before us today, I should like to describe to noble Lords the regime we are putting in place for each. I should at this point note that we are consulting separately on the application of CCT for those services to police authorities, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will bring forward separate proposals shortly.
Taking first financial services, we have drawn up a comprehensive definition of a broad range of activities which may be brigaded together as financial work. These range from internal audit through accountancy services to frontline tasks such as the administration of council tax or benefits. We will expect local authorities to have exposed 35 per cent. by value of this work to competition, a figure which was deliberately chosen to allow a degree of flexibility in deciding what work should be put out to competition.
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State announced on 18th May that metropolitan authorities and London boroughs, the first local authorities to be required to expose financial services to CCT, would be allowed an additional six months to prepare for CCT. The timetable in shire authorities depends on the outcome of the local government review and, where appropriate, subsequent reorganisation in their area.
Second of the new services to be subject to CCT is information technology. This definition captures the procurement, development and programming and maintenance of IT systems, but does not impinge on the users of IT. Much of the work described here is readily suited to competitive tender, and indeed many authorities already buy in from outside suppliers a range of services. We are asking authorities to expose 70 per cent. by value of IT work to competitive tender. As with our other services, they will be able to take into account the value of work which has already been outsourced. The implementation timetable for IT CCT places this service at the end of the extension programme, reflecting the fact that decisions taken on IT could be
682
heavily dependent on the outcome of competition for services such as finance which are major users of information technology.
The last of the new services this House is considering this evening is personnel. Once again, the definition is relatively straightforward and includes services such as human resource management, training or health and welfare work. We have agreed that certain work is not suited to competitive tender. We therefore intend to exempt from CCT the operational training of fire fighters, training undertaken by local authorities on behalf of TECs and personnel work undertaken as part of consortia for the pre-imposed qualification training of social workers. The private sector of course has a role to play in all those areas, but not through CCT.
Following consultation, we also reduced to 30 per cent. the proportion of work which authorities will be expected to expose to tender. This is to acknowledge that many elements of the defined activity for various reasons may not be readily suited to tendering. In practice, most local authorities have already brought competition to bear on many aspects of personnel services and CCT will not pose any particular new problems. For that reason we have concluded that the implementation timetable should remain as was originally set out in our consultation paper. The first authorities will be expected to implement personnel CCT by October 1996.
This order also amends the definition of building cleaning, which is already subject to CCT under the 1988 Act, to include the cleaning of police buildings. Competition can readily be brought to bear on much of this work, although we have acknowledged that certain sensitive areas within police buildings should not be open to wider public access. For that reason, police authorities will be required to expose to tender 80 per cent. by value of cleaning work within each force.
I have this evening outlined to noble Lords the bare bones of the new regime in each of the new services. The detailed regime has, as I have already said, been subject to thorough consultation and should not, I believe, pose any problem for those authorities willing to take on board competition and realise the benefits it may bring. I hope local authorities will respond by adopting a positive approach to CCT. Competition provides an opportunity for local authorities, for their staff and for the private sector. Those who are willing to meet the challenge head on stand to gain. Their reward for thinking clearly about the nature of service provision within their area will, I anticipate, be higher quality services offering local people better value for money. No one can object to that. I commend this order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister has explained the statutory instrument. It is perhaps worth making a couple of general points before making a specific point.

683
The Minister will be in no doubt that we on these Benches are extremely unhappy about the extension of CCT to white collar services. We do not believe that we need it. Many services have already been tested in the market place and the financial constraints affecting local government over the past few years have pushed costs down to the bare bones. The pressure on blue collar direct service organisations has led to pressure on those support services. The new system, despite some adjustments which the Government have made in response to local authorities, remains extremely complex and bureaucratic.
In relation to more general concerns, first, this will further fragment the provision of local authority services. One of the key justifications for white collar services remaining in-house is the interaction between legal services, advice services, financial services and personnel services to provide a corporate response of local government to its problems. By fragmenting them in this way, one leaves local government less equipped to meet the emerging and changing needs that it will face over the next decade.
Secondly, white collar CCT will create a complex web of contracts because so many of the services overlap. The complex web will also be paralleled by departmental client-contractor split and in the process some of the core values and planning objectives of local authorities will be lost.
Thirdly, I suspect that what will happen under white collar CCT is increasing centralisation at the same time as local authorities are being encouraged, rightly, to bring services closer to the people in the locality. They will have to be brought back into the centre in order to comply with CCT.
Fourthly, there will be severe transaction costs. There will be an increase in the total cost of delivering the service which may not be apparent in the contract price. The local authority associations gave me one such example where, in one London borough, there used to be a single head of legal services and there are now three: one overall head of department, one head of the client side and one of the contractor side. Three senior managers are now required to provide the same service—possibly an interior service—previously provided through one senior manager.
Finally, we believe that there is a loss of democratic accountability because, once implemented, CCT contracts limit the opportunities for variation and flexibility and the fine steer in service delivery that local authority committees can offer. If a contract is lost to the private sector the opportunities for implementing change, except at a very high price in adjusting those contracts, may be severely curtailed. For example, political priorities may change if a council changes political control. But the council will not be able to change the priorities of that service without paying a high price.
We firmly believe that transaction costs are high, that management time will be diverted from improving service delivery and that there is a loss of loyalty and corporate commitment to the organisation and a concentration on narrow financial targets at the expense of the public service. All the experience in blue collar
684
CCT has shown that, disproportionately, the complaints from the public have mounted because the only way those contracts could be won was by cutting pay and conditions of service—unemployment pay, holiday pay, sickness pay, maternity pay and the like. As a result, by pressing down costs, which can only be taken out of employees' wages, CCT has reduced the morale of staff.
There has been a rapid turnover of staff. As a result there has not been the commitment of staff. The staff have been relatively untrained. Consequently, complaints from the public about the quality of service have mounted. It is no accident that a significantly high percentage of contracts that have gone out to private organisations has had subsequently to be called in by the local authority because targets of quality have not been met and a lot of public discontent has been generated. That is one set of problems.
One area about which I am particularly concerned—we argued the point long through the night when we were dealing with the Local Government Bill in Committee—is the extension of CCT to sensitive services like housing benefit. One of the aspects of housing benefit is that one is not just dealing with a mechanical set of calculations as to what benefit anyone is entitled to receive. One is dealing with quite sensitive information which applicants for housing benefit may be very reluctant to reveal when they can have none of the same guarantees about confidentiality, and so on, that they would expect to get from a fully trained and professionalised housing benefit service. We are extremely worried about that. When we debated the Local Government Bill the Ministers at the time tried to assure us that confidentiality would be protected and ring-fenced. That has not occurred and we are extremely concerned about it.
We wish to register our dismay about the unnecessary extension of CCT to white collar services. We wish to register our dismay with regard to the fact that, far from producing value for money, all the evidence shows that public dissatisfaction has mounted and a number of contracts have had to be called in. We wish to register our concern that housing benefit administration in particular will be privatised and that with it there will be a loss of confidentiality that claimants of housing benefit have every right to expect.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I had perhaps expected the reaction the noble Baroness has given to the order. It is no secret that the party opposite is unhappy with CCT extension. It has made that clear when we have brought forward orders. I do not agree with the noble Baroness that fragmentation of local authority services will take place in the way she described. One has only to look at the benefits that have occurred over the past 15 years. In my opening remarks I mentioned the figure of some £400 million. But there are not only financial benefits. I believe that an improvement in service quality and efficiency has been brought about by the better management and the clearer strategic focus.
The noble Baroness was concerned about the lack of provision of core services. My answer to that is that the percentage which is subject to the competition requirement in the extension programme that I am

685
announcing today is designed particularly to allow local authorities to retain that client capability and corporate responsibility that she feels would be lacking. The percentages are relatively low in order that the local authority can retain those core services.
The noble Baroness said that the costs of local authorities will be increased at a time when they are stretched by the local government settlement. We have to look very carefully at the estimated reduction of about 7 per cent. of costs overall and indicate that that is purely to the benefit of council tax payers who receive that in a lower council tax and also a better quality service and better efficiency.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there can be hidden increased costs? If the majority of people providing services, such as school meal services or cleaning services, fall below the poverty line as a result of the process, they then become eligible for other benefits. There are many examples of people's wages and conditions of service being driven to a far worse point as a result of compulsory competitive tendering. For the record, it is also the case that from these Benches we oppose the compulsory nature of competitive tendering when Whitehall imposes a uniform rule across the country without knowledge of or regard to local circumstances.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may add to my noble friend's point. The Minister made much of 7 per cent. savings. I think he will find that virtually all the savings so far found from CCT have come from the low-paid jobs of catering and cleaning and have disproportionately disadvantaged very poor women. That is where the savings have come from—by pressing women down to and below benefit level.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that may be the noble Baroness's view of how savings have been achieved. I was going on to deal with housing benefit, about which the noble Baroness was particularly concerned, and to quote, for instance, the London Borough of Bromley, where housing benefit claims dealt with correctly, first time, have gone up from 67 per cent. to 95 per cent. That service was contracted out. It was contracted out voluntarily, before the competitive nature of the process was brought about.
I understand that compulsion is what noble Lords opposite are unhappy about. There is a recognition of the improvement in the quality of the service delivered by those local authorities that have undertaken competitive tendering. A considerable number of local authorities have undertaken a lot of competitive tendering with a lot of jobs; IT in particular. Therefore. compulsion on some of these extensions will not affect a great number of local authorities as they are probably undertaking, if not the percentage then very nearly the percentage at the moment.
The noble Baroness was concerned about the confidentiality of housing benefit claims. We have a list of items in the order. Although that is one of them, the percentage is indeed smaller. That would allow any local authority to contract out under compulsory tender sufficient other work, but it would not need to if it did
686
not want to. So there is no compulsion. They are not compelled to subject housing benefit to compulsory competitive tender. Some authorities have already done so. They do not seem to feel that the mechanistic side of the delivery of housing benefit is in any way compromised by what the noble Baroness is concerned about. It is for that benefit that there is no compulsion. The percentage has been set that delivers no compulsion on that side.
I believe that decisions on these matters in the order tonight have entailed careful judgments which balance the need to bring competition to bear on white collar services with the operational flexibility that individual authorities rightly seek. The noble Baronesses have indicated that they do not agree with some of the answers which have been arrived at in the consultation. That is inevitable. There is perhaps a point of principle between us. I hope that all recognise that we have given each decision very careful consideration.
My department intend to monitor closely the implementation of white collar CCT and will undertake to reconsider aspects of the regime if there is hard evidence of problems in applying the new rules.
We have met many of the concerns of local authorities in putting together a challenging but, I believe, a fair regime. The CCT will not impose a rigid model for service delivery, but instead encourage innovation, improved quality and greater value for money. The onus is now on local authorities to respond positively to the challenge of competition. I commend this order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.2 to 8.30 p.m.]

Disability Discrimination Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 28 [Victimisation]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 21, line 18, leave out ("his disability") and insert ("or a person who has had a disability, the disability in question").
The noble Lord said: We have already debated this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 130 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clauses 29 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Appointment by Secretary of State of advisers]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 131
Page 23. line 19. at end insert ("and persons who have had a disability").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 132 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 133.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 23, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert:
("(6) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) provide for section 17 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 (national advisory council and district advisory committees) to cease to have effect—

(i) so far as concerns the national advisory council; or

(ii) so far as concerns district advisory committees; or

(b) repeal that section and Schedule.").

The noble Lord said: Clause 33 provides a power for the Secretary of State to appoint people to advise and assist him on matters concerning the employment and self-employment of disabled people. This amendment is being introduced to clarify the wording of subsection (6) which concerns the power to end the current arrangements for national and local advisory bodies.
We believe it important to ensure that the legislation under which the advisory bodies of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State operate provides sufficient flexibility for them to be adapted as circumstances require. The clause provides for this by giving him the option of retaining the existing arrangements for so long as he considers them to be appropriate or of bringing them to an end, either in part or in full. He would then have the power to appoint people to advise him either nationally or in relation to particular localities on employment issues.
At present my right honourable friend receives advice and assistance on employment issues affecting disabled people from NACEPD and from the 60 committees for the employment of people with disabilities (CEPDs). These bodies are established under Section 17 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and are referred to in that section respectively as a "national advisory council" and "district advisory committees".
Although both types of body are appointed under the 1944 Act, they have different functions: NACEPD advises on national employment and training issues relating to people with disabilities, while the CEPDs advise on local employment issues, including matters referred to them in relation to the registration and quota provisions of the 1944 Act. In practice, CEPDs work with the Employment Service locally to promote the employment of disabled people. The two types of body are independent of each other. Subsection (6) was accordingly intended to enable the provisions concerning NACEPD and CEPDs to be repealed either separately or together as appropriate. Our legal advice, however, is that the current wording of subsection (6) does not make this option sufficiently clear.
The amendment before your Lordships is, therefore, intended to remove any doubt that may exist that the duty to have NACEPD and the duty to have CEPDs can be ended separately or both together. It does this by
688
expressly providing the Secretary of State with a power to provide by order for either the repeal of the whole of Section 17 and Schedule 2 to the 1944 Act or separately for the part affecting NACEPD or CEPDs to cease to have effect. The amendment is an improvement over the original wording as it provides clarity on what can be done. For those reasons, I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: I accept what the Minister says about the wording of subsection (6). However, I rise because this is our first opportunity to explore what the Government mean in Clause 33. In many ways, it is a very funny clause. Subsection (1) gives the Secretary of State the right to appoint such advisers,
"as he thinks fit to advise or assist him in connection with matters relating to the employment of disabled persons".
We are not told who those people shall be or what kind of people they shall be. Indeed, the schedule does not tell us what kind of people they shall be. We are not told what kind of advice or assistance they shall give. We are not told with what matters relating to the employment of disabled persons they shall concern themselves; we are merely told that the Secretary of State,
"may appoint such persons as he thinks fit".
That is subsection (1).
Subsection (2) states that such persons,
"may be appointed by the Secretary of State to act generally or in relation to a particular area or locality".
We are not told how they are to act generally or in what way that relates to what they do in particular areas or localities.
In some ways, subsection (3) is even more curious because those people are not to receive any money—at least, they are not to receive salaries—so they will not be the kind of people the Conservatives normally appoint to such bodies. We are told in subsection (3):
"The Secretary of State may pay to any person appointed under this section such allowances and compensation"—
this is very low-level stuff—
"for loss of earnings as he considers appropriate".
We are talking about out-of-pocket expenses for such people, not about full-time jobs. What on earth do they do? My first question is: can the Minister tell us more about these funny people? Who are they? Where will they come from? What will they do? Most importantly, for whom will they substitute?
That brings me to subsection (6). I do not think that there is any substantial difference between the wording of the amendment and that on the face of the Bill. Subsection (6) gives the Secretary of State the power to repeal Section 17 and Schedule 2 to the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and to abolish, at a time that seems right to him, the national advisory council or the local advisory committees. Therefore, we must ask whether the advisers have anything to do with that. Will those advisers at some time in the future do some of the work of the subsequently abolished national advisory council? Will they operate as a private army of the Secretary of State? Will they meet collectively? Perhaps they will never meet collectively because we know that the Government do not like collectivities.

689
Perhaps they will be consulted individually. Will the advisers be an alternative to what we believe to be the best way of dealing with the problem if the Government want to get rid of the national advisory council, as it seems to me that they do?
It seems to us that in the end it would be better to have one council dealing with both sides of the Bill. If we cannot have a commission we will have to have, in some ways, an improved council. We would rather have that on a representative basis than have all these people who come from nowhere, who are appointed, to do we know not what, by the Secretary of State. That is what I am asking.
I have been glad to hear in the debates we have had so far, that Ministers have been prepared to say that the work of the existing council has been useful. When the Minister for Employment, Miss Widdecombe, went to the established council on 25th January, she said, among other things:
"I know that you recommended that the new National Disability Council should take on responsibilities similar to a commission".
So we accept that that is what the old council wants to do: it wants, as it were, to disappear into a commission. But if it does not disappear into a commission, we do not mind it disappearing if it disappears into a properly constituted council, established in broad terms under the provisions of the Bill, if that is possible. I take it that it is possible, because the Minister can add to the present council's functions. He could give the present council powers to act on the employment side. That would be our chosen way of doing it. Will the Minister tell me tonight that in the end—this year, next year, some time, never—whenever they get rid of the present council for employment affairs, the Government will give its functions to the existing council and not to all these funny advisers? Even if they can say that, will they tell us what the advisers will do?
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for explaining that he did not understand what the clause meant. It appears on the face of it to be straightforward. I do not have a great deal to add to what he has read out to us. This is a general power to appoint advisers. We said in the consultative document that we would review the advising arrangements under the 1944 Act.
The clause gives the Government the power to set up a new advisory arrangement. The basis for payment is similar to that under the 1944 Act, which is both for NACEPD and for the CEPDs. My noble friend Lord Mackay has already described the valuable work that NACEPD does, and why we believe the council should be retained, at least for a period after the legislation is enacted.
As we have heard, NACEPD provides expert help on employment and training issues and comprises well-respected individuals in the disability world. I do not want to repeat the reasons for keeping NACEPD, because the Committee has already heard them, but NACEPD's continued existence after the employment right has been implemented is clearly something that must be considered carefully. We have already said that
690
we will do so. Now, however, is not the time for that consideration. The Government have committed themselves to reviewing the position before June 1997, when the terms of office of NACEPD members end.
We shall look closely then at the situation prevailing in deciding whether it will be sensible to amend NACEPD's remit or its constitution, or whether to introduce entirely new arrangements. New arrangements could of course include the transfer of NACEPD's responsibilities to the NDC. Some Members of the Committee think that that is a desirable course of action.
Such transfer is already provided for in the Bill, because Clause 23(10) provides for the NDC automatically to take over the responsibilities currently discharged by NACEPD if it ceases to exist. No one has been appointed under Clause 33 to advise the Secretary of State. Now is not the right time to determine when NACEPD should be abolished. We should therefore not prejudge the review that will be undertaken. I am obviously interested in hearing the Committee's views now. However, it is only right for me to say in turn that I should need some persuading that it would be appropriate, within a year of the Bill's passage, to do without a specialist committee, well-equipped to consider a wide range of employment and training issues.
While the two bodies exist, we shall of course expect them to arrange appropriate means of ensuring, so far as possible, that they adopt a consistent approach towards related issues and take account of each other's views, where appropriate. We discussed that issue earlier today. As has been said, it is likely also that in appointing members to the NDC the Secretary of State will seek to provide some common membership.
For the reasons I have mentioned, I believe that it is right to maintain the current flexibility provided by the Bill. After all, the Bill's provisions are flexible. They provide for a variety of advisory arrangements, depending on what is appropriate. For example, NACEPD could be retained indefinitely or for a particular period only. If NACEPD were to be abolished, the new advisers could be appointed on national employment issues. If no such advisers were to be appointed, then the NDC would take over that role.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, will feel that he is much better informed than he was and will find this a satisfactory reply to the questions that he asked.
Lord McCarthy: If the Government cannot decide what to do about these two councils, it is not surprising that they cannot decide whether to join a single European currency.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 134:
Page 23, line 30, at end insert "within one year of the passing of this Act, at which time any outstanding responsibilities of the national advisory council shall become the responsibility of the National Disability Council").
The noble Baroness said: I may not necessarily move the amendment, but I want to speak to it. My noble friend the Minister has just stolen all my thunder, because he said precisely the things that I was going to say.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that NACEPD and the NDC should work closely together, and that, if the requirement for NACEPD no longer exists, it should be subsumed into the NDC. I appreciate my noble friend's assurance that the statutory existence of both those bodies is not necessarily set in stone, because it is much better, even with common membership, to have one organisation. I have never been convinced that having two separate bodies would always be the best way, certainly in the long term. As my noble friend has given me an assurance that there will be close contact in the short term, and that the long term is to be looked at, and that NACEPD may die a happy death, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardhrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardhrecknish moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 23, line 30, at end insert:
("(7) At any time before the coming into force of an order under paragraph (b) of subsection (6), section 17 of the Act of 1944 shall have effect as if in subsection (1), after "disabled persons" in each case there were inserted ", and persons who have had a disability," and as if at the end of the section there were added—
"(3) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a person is a disabled person if he is a disabled person for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and

(b) "disability" has the same meaning as in that Act."

(8) At any time before the coming into force of an order under paragraph (a) (i) or (b) of subsection (6), section 16 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (which extends the functions of the national advisory council) shall have effect as if after "disabled persons" in each case there were inserted ", and persons who have had a disability," and as if at the end of the section there were added—
"(2) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a person is a disabled person if he is a disabled person for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995: and

(b) "disability" has the same meaning as in that Act."").

The noble Lord said: The amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 136:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
("Duties of local authorities etc. to keep records of disabled persons employed
.—(1) It shall he the duty of local authorities, health authorities, government departments and government agencies to keep such records regarding the numbers of disabled persons employed by them as the Secretary of State shall by Regulation prescribe.
(2) Regulations may prescribe:

(a) the definition of disabled person to be used for recording purposes:

(b) what particulars shall be recorded:

(c) the mariner in which such particulars shall be collected and published

(3) Regulations made under subsection (2) (b) may, in particular, make provision for particulars to be collected separately with respect to different categories of employee.
(4) Regulations made under subsection (2) (c) may, in particular, make provision for the confidentiality of information collected about individual employees.
(5) In preparing such Regulations the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) The National Advisory Council on the Employment of People with Disabilities: and

(b) such organisations representing the interests of disabled persons or employers or employees as he considers appropriate.").

The noble Baroness said: As it presently stands, the Bill will eliminate the register of people with disabilities. The amendment provides that a record will be kept in the public sector—in local authorities, health authorities, government departments and government agencies—of the number of its employees with disabilities.
The Select Committee on Employment in another place in its recent report on the operation of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 which was published in April this year said, among other things:
"We believe that the maintenance of accurate statistics on the position of disabled people in employment is essential in order to tackle discrimination against them, and to open up training and promotion opportunities".
We agree with that view. Nor is it only we who agree with it: many reputable companies in the private sector also do so. They use statistics within their own companies as a focal point for development and implementation of their employment and training policies. They also publish those statistics. As employers, they accept the requirement to publish the number of employees. They agree that it provides an incentive annually to review progress and to ascertain whether any new initiatives need to be instituted in their organisations in order to take more disabled people into their workforces.
Why do they do that? Perhaps I may quote one leading company, Rank Xerox. It recently stated, "If you don't measure it, it won't happen". "It won't happen" must be put into the context of disabled people having an official unemployment rate almost three times that of able-bodied people. "It won't happen" was recently confirmed in a report published by the social policy research unit at York University. That report recommended a mechanism for ensuring that employers keep records of the proportion of disabled employees. The same report referred to the experience of 15 other countries. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, for instance, operate alongside anti-discrimination legislation, such as that which we are debating, various forms of employment equity.
Experience has shown that monitoring is recognised as the best practice in developing and assessing the success of equal opportunities policies. The Government do that in a number of areas. For instance, in the Opportunity 2000 project in the health service they continually assess. monitor and publish statistics in regard to the impact of equal opportunities for women in that organisation.
With the elimination of the register, as provided for in the Bill, and if a new standard for the monitoring is not developed, the whole thrust of the Bill in the employment area will be fragmented. In the view of many representatives of groups of people with disabilities, it will put their position hack. It will not take it forward, which is the clear intention of the Bill. Without any record, how will they know what progress is being made and whether the situation is getting worse for disabled people in employment? What yardstick will be used? Without some comparison, how will the private sector know whether it is meeting its responsibilities and the intentions of the Bill? The public sector is a good area to use as a model in requiring the information to be published.
In our view, regulation in this area is the right way forward as regards assessing data, using it for the details to be recorded and deciding the manner in which those details will be collated and published. That is all to be prescribed under regulation. We accept that this is a sensitive area and that consideration must be given to what is and what is not appropriate from the information gathered. That is why the amendment provides for regulations to be made. Best practice exists and can be used as a model in the race relations field where the monitoring and publication of statistics is important while maintaining the confidentiality of the individuals concerned.
The Employment Select Committee in another place supports that approach, as does the Employers Forum on Disability. The public sector is particularly crucial in this area. Subsections (3) and (4) of the amendment cover issues of confidentiality and the different categories of employee. Subsection (5) requires the Secretary of State to consult on the regulations before they are drawn together and published. That consultation will be required with the National Advisory Council on the Employment of People with Disabilities and other appropriate organisations which represent the interests of disabled people.
Perhaps I may refer to our earlier debate on the issue. Trade unions represent thousands of disabled people in the workplace. Many unions have policies which encourage the recruitment of people with disabilities. Indeed, within the workplace there are model agreements under which the employer and employee organisations monitor the progress made.
I suggest that we need to have the requirement to consult on the face of the Bill because there will then he no doubt about it. We believe that the amendment is sensible. It will enhance the Bill and will not lead to the situation in which in a few years' time many people wonder why we did not get the Bill right when it went through Parliament. Why do we have a situation in which so many disabled peopled are not in the workforce? We do not know the statistics because they are not published. We do not know what the role model should be for a company in taking on employees. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The noble Baroness introduced the amendment most lucidly and helpfully. Its purpose is clear and I look forward to hearing about its practicability and how much has been done already in this area.
694
I have only one inquiry. The noble Baroness spoke about statistics and numbers, and I am sure that we must have those figures. The confidentiality of information is mentioned in subsection (4) of the new clause. However, there is a problem because, unfortunately, many employees refuse to allow themselves to be branded as disabled even though they are clearly disabled. That has been the main problem with the quota system of the 1944 Act. Is it intended that an employee who clearly is missing an arm or leg but who refuses to be categorised as disabled will be included in the figures? I note the point about confidentiality, but will information about him be communicated elsewhere? That has been a basic problem.
I am all in favour of the availability of statistics and numbers because that helps employers. However, there is a problem with many employees who refuse to allow themselves to be categorised as disabled people. Although I am in favour of the principle of the amendment I sec a major problem.
Lord Addington: I must declare an interest because I am a green card holder. It has been of no great use to me but I took it out when I discovered that I was entitled to be registered as a disabled person. Many dyslexics repeatedly refuse to agree that they have a disability. The noble Lord. Lord Campbell of Croy, is right about that. As a result, we do not know how many dyslexic people are unemployed, how many arc employed below their skill base, and so forth. The noble Baroness is therefore taking on an important issue.
Knowledge should be turned into power. If we know what is happening in this field we will be able to do something about it if it is going wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, pointed to the problem. How does one persuade someone to say, "I am disabled but there is nothing the matter with me"? That is an odd concept. Perhaps political correctness will fulfil a useful purpose in this case. If such a provision can be included in the Bill or in regulations we shall be taking steps towards educating ourselves about the problems of employment and, it is to be hoped, encouraging disabled people to admit that they have problems in certain areas. It is agreed that something can be done about the vast majority of those problems. We should encourage disabled people to register themselves and others to pay attention to the information.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: It is not surprising that some people did not register for the quota because the failure of governments to enforce the quota meant that there was little benefit to be gained from registering. That is one of the main reasons for non-registration. However. I do not see that as an argument against the amendment. I am optimistic that the Minister will accept it. I am sure that the Minister, wanting to help as always, will not use the excuse of lack of practicability because there arc no practical problems in collating statistics. It is the simplest matter in the world.
One of the flimsy excuses which Ministers use habitually to evade Parliamentary Questions is that the information is not held centrally or that it is not available. As far as I know, the Minister has not said that. But I am sure that he will wish to help the

695
Committee by agreeing with the principle behind the amendment. As the quota system is intended to be abolished by the Bill, there will be no record at all of the employment of disabled people. We shall be dependent on ad hoc surveys and that clearly is not good enough.
I speak from experience when I say that the absence of information about disabled people is the main reason for discrimination. The fact is that when no one knows what is happening, disabled people are disregarded. It is a matter of out of sight, out of mind; and out of consideration, out of a job. That afflicts far too many people who are not considered merely because the Government do not compile adequate statistics. Although I shall argue to maintain the quota system in a later amendment, its relative failure was due to lack of relevant records. As my noble friend rightly said, without records we cannot tell whether the situation is improving or deteriorating. I am sure that the Minister would wish to monitor his own Bill when it becomes an Act, as it will do under the next Labour Government.
The public sector should lead the way in providing information in relation to the problems of disabled people in employment. As far as I am aware, no responsible organisation ever establishes a new, complex system without monitoring the provisions. The Government would be irresponsible if they legislated for new provisions in the Bill and rejected this minimal amendment, because my noble friend is far too modest in her proposals. I believe that the Government will regret it if they reject the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I did not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, but I believe that he slightly misunderstood what I said. I do not suggest that the lack of registration in the quota system is a reason to oppose the amendment. I am merely inquiring whether employees who are unwilling to allow themselves to be branded as disabled will be included in the lists of disabled. I rather hope that they would, but it is quite a difficult matter of citizens' rights whether somebody should be included as a disabled person in an establishment when he is utterly opposed to being so considered. Will that person be included in the figures? As I say, somebody may be obviously disabled—missing an arm or a leg—and yet utterly refuse to be so categorised. We do not wish people who are partially disabled to feel that they are in any way inadequate. That was the point I made. I understand why the noble Lord did not quite take that point, but I wanted to make it clear.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I would not believe that we were debating disability if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, did not accuse me of misunderstanding or misquoting him. However, I am beginning to warm to these debates because in the opening debate the Minister was very kind to me and in this debate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was exceptionally generous to me. Therefore, I am beginning to enjoy the debates.
On this point, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. that people do not declare themselves disabled. But the main reason for that is that they see
696
no benefit in doing so. That is a problem, but it can be solved. I am fairly sure that the Minister will look sympathetically at the amendment and we shall then move forward to encourage disabled people to register their disabilities.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the Minister replies, I commend his attention to the fact that the amendment calls for consideration to be given to how that should be done. There has certainly been a problem because people perceive that it is against their personal interests to register as disabled, to go on a list and be identified as such. But that is very different from agreeing to take part in a survey which will identify anonymously those people who have a disability and are in employment.
In my experience in local government I have known people who are totally blind and who are prepared to have their names recorded voluntarily as having a disability but who do not wish to become registered disabled because they fear that they may go against them when seeking promotion.
Lord Inglewood: I am reassured that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is feeling benign after our debates today. I hope that I shall not put him in an ill humour with some of the comments that I am about to make. I agree also with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy that the noble Baroness clearly set out exactly what is in her mind when introducing the amendment. I do not believe that there is anything between us in our wish to see as many disabled people as possible both in work and integrated fully into society at large.
There is, clearly, a case for encouraging employers to monitor the numbers of people with disabilities that they employ. The employment code of practice will accordingly encourage employers to do this. I believe, however, that this type of information is of value first and foremost as management information for employers to monitor their performance against their own equal opportunities policies. I fear that the prescriptive system proposed in the amendment would place an unnecessarily onerous burden on the bodies concerned. The employer would be required, by the amendment, to request prescribed information from a large number of employees in a wide range of employment situations. Such a system would be inflexible. The information would be of more value if it is designed to suit the policies and circumstances of the individual employer.
I should also like to echo the note of caution that has been expressed by a number of speakers about those whose disabilities are not obvious and who may still prefer not to declare their disability to their employer. As has already been said, we see evidence of a similar reluctance now where people choose not to register as disabled because of the stigma that they believe—perhaps, entirely wrongly—is attached to registration. We return now to the kind of points raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in that respect. Therefore, to make it useful, employers need to develop sensitive techniques for collecting information on whether an employee has a disability. Overcoming the harrier of mistrust may be difficult. We do not believe that that would be helped by imposing a prescriptive system for the collection of such information.

697
The Government will, of course, want to monitor the position of disabled people in the labour market after the Bill is implemented. That will be done using a variety of methods, including research conducted by government and others, and through regular surveys such as the Labour Force Survey. The Labour Force Survey will provide nationally representative information on the employment of disabled people across all sectors of the economy. It will not be restricted to the public sector which accounts for less than a quarter of total employment. It will provide more reliable and useful information on the employment of people with disabilities, and the effects of the new legislation, than any pulling together of information from local authorities, health authorities and other employers in the public sector.
The Government can, of course, already arrange by administrative measures for government departments and agencies to monitor their employment of people with disabilities. There is, therefore, no need to establish a statutory requirement for monitoring to be done by those bodies. In fact, the Cabinet Office has already taken positive steps, and actively promotes the programme for action to achieve equality of opportunity in the Civil Service for disabled people. Under this, government departments and agencies are already required to monitor the numbers of their staff and applicants who have a disability.
It is correct that the numbers of registered disabled people employed by government departments, local authorities and National Health Service trusts are published annually in the Employment Gazette. As Members of the Committee know, only about one-third of people with disabilities actually choose to register—a point that we discussed earlier. Therefore, the information is not accurate as regards the number of people with disabilities employed in those organisations. Under any statutory system, employers would still be faced with the difficulties that I have already outlined in identifying those among their workforce who arc disabled and should therefore he counted. On that count alone there would be no real advantage to such a statutory requirement.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, made some remarks about the quota. I believe that it is important to get the point about the quota, and prosecutions in that regard, into some sort of perspective. There have been only 10 cases of prosecution since the quota was introduced. The last prosecutions took place in 1975 as part of an experiment in stricter enforcement policy. There was no evidence that that materially improved the position of disabled people generally. During the 1970s there were five prosecutions under the 1944 Act, two of which were brought by a Conservative Government and three by a Labour Government. Therefore, I do not believe that it has anything to do with the political complexion of the government at the time. That seems to be pretty conclusive evidence that, as an instrument of trying to achieve some of the things that we all want to see, it simply is not working.
698
I am sure that other employers, including local authorities and health authorities, will see the benefits of introducing over a period of time similar initiatives to the kind that I described. It is certainly our intention to promote such good practice. As I said, the employment code of practice will include guidance and encouragement for all employers to implement effective equal opportunities policies and appropriate methods for monitoring them. For the reasons that I have already given, such voluntary arrangements will, we believe, be more effective than what is proposed in the amendment. We also believe that the reality of the amendment is that it would not achieve anything substantive and of value.
Lord McCarthy: Before the Minister sits down, would be not agree that to rely, as he does, on the Labour Force Survey is somewhat naive? That survey asks 40 or so questions on a household basis. It could not ask any detailed questions; indeed, those concerned would have to ask respondents questions like, "Are you disabled?" or, "Do you regard yourself as disabled?" If the Government rely upon the Labour Force Survey and nothing else and will not accept the amendment, what, they are really saying is that they cannot find out how many people are disabled.
Lord Inglewood: I am extremely pleased to be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on that point because he clearly did not hear exactly what I said. I said that the Government would rely on a variety of methods, including research conducted by the Government and others, and through regular surveys such as the Labour Force Survey. Therefore, the Government will be flexible in the manner in which they approach the problem.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I am rather envious of the feeling of warmth felt by my noble friend Lord Ashley. It is not a feeling that I have as yet experienced whereby the Minister agrees with me. However, I look forward to that day, although I thought that this might be it. I thank all Members of the Committee who spoke in support of the amendment. I should say straightaway that the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, were both helpful and, indeed, extremely realistic.
As regards the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, as to why people do not register, perhaps I may put forward my small experience in the field while representing people at work. Such people would quite often not want to register because they were afraid that they would be discriminated against in employment, in job training, in promotion and, indeed, in all kinds of opportunities. Even if they were working for a good employer where they would not be discriminated against, such people felt that if they left that employment, or if there were redundancies and they lost their jobs, they would have no chance of gaining other employment if the disability label was attached to them.
I do not suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, proposed that for that reason the amendment should not be accepted; rather the reverse. Education of employers is a key factor, whether in the public or private sector.

699
I hope that at the end of the process we are now going through we shall have an Act which will make it illegal to discriminate against someone on grounds of disability. It will also provide individuals with an opportunity to rectify discrimination in a court of law. I hope that that will encourage people to recognise that they have rights. Those rights may have always existed in some areas but not in others. They will be backed up by law and by due process.
The Minister said that there was nothing between us. There is a big gap between us if we agree on the problem but cannot agree on the means of rectifying it. It will be a major problem if there are no public statistics on which one can assess how we are progressing and what policies should be put in place.
I accept the Minister's view that a code of practice will encourage employers. The public sector is a major employer. How helpful it would be if the public sector—local authorities, health authorities and national government, which are covered by the amendment—was required to keep records. Government support for what we propose would send an important message to the private sector.
The Minister says that it would be wrong to be prescriptive; if what was required was set out on the face of the Bill there would be no flexibility. We recognise the problems that exist and that there are different problems in different sectors. We also recognise that there needs to be consultation. Equally, we recognise the overwhelming problem of confidentiality. That is why we have proposed in the amendment that this be set out in regulations. I do not see that that should present a problem.
The Minister relies on voluntaryism. The voluntary system did not work in relation to sex discrimination and we had to have a Sex Discrimination Act. The voluntary system did not work in race relations in Britain and we had to have a Race Relations Act. I suggest that, unfortunately, when too much water has passed under the bridge, we shall find, if the Bill remains as it is, that the voluntary system and the code of practice will not work when it comes to equality of access to employment and training for people with disabilities.
It is clear that the Minister is not prepared to budge from his position. That is extremely disappointing, not only for me but for the people who hoped that this measure would be in the Bill to protect them. It is therefore with a great deal of regret that I seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Amendment of Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944]:
9.15 p.m.
Lord Gladwin of Clee Lord Gladwin of Clee moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 23, leave out lines 41 to 43.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 137 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 138 and 139. All of the amendments are designed to protect severely disabled people who are either in employment or seeking employment.
As we have already discussed, the 1944 Act gives the Secretary of State for Employment powers to provide facilities for and to subsidise employment for people with severe impairments who would otherwise find it difficult to get jobs. This is a supported employment programme which takes two forms. The first is supported factories such as Remploy and the British Legion poppy factory and sheltered workshops run by local authorities and voluntary organisations. The second takes the form of a sheltered placement scheme in which a local authority or a voluntary organisation acts as a sponsor employing people with severe impairments who are then placed in "open" employment with host employers who pay the sponsor for the work done. Those sponsors are subsidised directly by the Employment Service.
However, the 1944 Act prevents the Government from providing funding for supported employment in companies which distribute profits. Clause 34(3) removes that prohibition. That sounds acceptable, but there is anxiety that it could lead to discrimination against more severely disabled people. For some time now supported employment providers have been under pressure to act more like commercial enterprises, and there is anxiety that those pressures are forcing them to recruit employees with less severe impairments and not recruit severely disabled people. If "not-for-profit" organisations feel constrained to discriminate against more severely disabled people, the pressures on dividend distributing companies will be even greater.
The issue was not discussed in the other place. The only reference was made in this House when the Minister responded to a question by my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke about the future of Remploy. I ask the Minister therefore for an assurance that there will be no reduction in the number of jobs provided for severely disabled people under the supported employment programme.
Secondly, at col. 889 of the Official Report of 22nd May, the Minister stated that before using the power provided, he would consult,
"relevant organisations, particularly those representing existing supported employer providers".
Can I be assured that he will also consult representatives of the workers in supported employment establishments?
There is anxiety about the possibility of creaming off. There is concern about the kind of jobs which will be provided by profit distributing companies for people with severe disabilities. There is concern that the money used to fund supported employment in dividend distributing companies will not be new money but will be funds diverted from existing providers of supported employment. Will the Minister confirm that that is not the case?
Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 seek to retain the statutory register for disabled people and the quota scheme. I appreciate that it is difficult to argue that the quota scheme has been a major success, but we all know the reasons for that. We have discussed them in the House.
A number of noble Lords have experienced, as I have, the reluctance of many disabled people to register because they regard registration as a stigma and because they fear that it could affect their prospects of employment and promotion. In other words, they are afraid of being discriminated against.
My experience encompasses two different situations. Like my noble friend Lady Dean and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on many occasions I have sought to persuade members of my organisation to register. On the other hand, I used to deal with factories in which every single employee was registered disabled. It is those people about whom I am particularly concerned.
The provisions of the Bill should remove the anxiety that disabled people will be discriminated against. But how will we know that it is removed if we abolish the register? Therefore the first argument for retention is monitoring. We have already discussed that.
Secondly, registration is an effective method of assisting the more disabled people to obtain jobs through the supported employment programme. The White Paper states that the ending of statutory registration will require new arrangements for identifying severely disabled people who should be eligible for supported employment. Why invent new arrangements when we have the register? If, after consultation with supported employment providers and representatives of disabled employees, the registration scheme needs modification, then so be it. But do not abandon it. Do not throw out the baby with the bath water.
On the question of the quota, I agree with the view put forward at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde and the noble Lord, Lord Rix; why not follow the suggestion of the Employment Select Committee in another place and allow the quota scheme to run concurrently with the new employment right for a period of up to five years?
In his reply at col. 887 of the Official Report of 22nd May, the Minister said:
"I do not believe that it would be practicable or reasonable to overlap the quota provisions with the new provisions in this Bill, even for a year".
I believe that both employers and disabled people seeking employment would find it both practicable and reasonable to retain the registration quota scheme until we are sure that the new legislation is working in the way that Parliament intended. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: I realise full well that the Minister regards trying to keep registration and the quota—while welcoming the new anti-discrimination provisions as they affect employment—as being rather akin to bringing your sandwiches to the Lord Mayor's banquet. I realise, too, that there is within that fairly broad church—the so-called disability lobby—a strong view that registration and quota are not only ineffective but, in themselves, discriminatory. Had not the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, spoken in defence of the quota and of registration at Second Reading, and indirectly just now, I should have been much minded to refrain from further argument in support of a cause which seemed to have
702
few supporters. However, since the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, is having another go it seems worth while rehearsing the arguments yet again.
Quite simply, is it not prudent to make quite certain of the new-found way of doing things before firmly jettisoning the old way, especially when we have yet to hear a convincing explanation of how the new arrangements are to be monitored? Indeed, the Government seem to accept the contention with their views on the future of NACEPD.
In addition, I have to break ranks with those who say that the quota never did any good and that people with disabilities can always gain and keep employment simply on merit without any artificial aids. I know that it has done some good, particularly for people with a learning disability and with the MENCAP Pathway Employment Service. It has set a standard; it has provided a prompt in individual cases for employers to look at their practice; and it has sometimes been the key that turned the lock and got someone a job. I notice that in all the long history of attempts to discredit the quota scheme by those not minded to apply it, there are frequent references to, "employers really are employing 3 per cent. of disabled people, if only you count X, Y and Z". Would anyone have thought of it in such terms without the quota? The quota represents positive discrimination, albeit very modest positive discrimination, and in a society which sets so much store by physical and mental perfection I am not ashamed to say that there is a case for a little positive discrimination. That is permitted in the case of sexual and racial discrimination and I see some case for encouraging it for disabled people, who do not always meet quite what the employer had in mind, especially those with a learning disability.
The Bill sets out to change society: first, its behaviour and then its attitudes. As that begins to happen, registration and the quota will become increasingly old hat. But I am not convinced at the moment that they have actually passed their sell-by date.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am glad to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Rix. First, I wish to explain to the Committee why I appear to be defiling the Privy Counsellors' Bench by putting my leg up on it. I hope that it has been noticed that I tidily have a protective cover underneath the leg, but I am under doctor's orders. A few weeks ago, a thrombosis was diagnosed in one of my legs, which is disabled. I took my medicine during the adjournment and I am only allowed to be here this evening on the basis that I keep my leg up. My doctors are keen that I should take part in proceedings on the Bill. At first they wanted me not to do so and forbade it, but they are now keen that I should take the line that I am and be available to do so. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will understand and I seek its indulgence.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwin. has taken the three amendments together. I am sure be was right to do so. On the first amendment, as he probably knows, I have been a strong supporter of Remploy and been much involved in its activities over the years. However, I wish to concentrate on the other two amendments and the quota.

703
Following the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I start by saying that I have never discredited the quota system. I have just been sad that in recent years it has not worked properly. It started 50 years ago and I shall not repeat my Second Reading speech. Of course, it was mainly intended for the very young disabled people from the war. Unfortunately, for the past 25 years—about half of its life—less than 3 per cent. of the workforce has been registered as disabled. Therefore it has not been feasible to enforce the quota system under the Act. The lack of registration has occurred under both Labour and Conservative governments. On a previous Committee day I referred to questions asked by Labour Members of Parliament and answered by Labour Ministers in the 1970s pointing out exactly the same; namely, that it was impossible to fulfil the quota or bring action against establishments and firms because far less than 3 per cent. of the workforce was registered as disabled.
The important point for the future is one upon which I think we are all agreed: in any system we must somehow persuade or encourage people who are disabled—particularly the severely disabled—to register; or we must bring in some new system whereby they are known and can be encouraged. But that is for the future.
One of the alternatives in the past 20 years would have been to reduce the quota to 1 per cent. That percentage could have been met. I understand that at present 1 per cent. of the workforce is registered as disabled. A 1 per cent. quota could be prescribed by statutory instrument. The 1944 Act did not in its primary legislation prescribe the quota. That was left to Ministers. But that would have been a very depressing signal. I should not have recommended it, and I do not recommend it now. To continue the quota system and bring the percentage down to something that could be achieved would be a sign of failure. Therefore, I dismiss that option.
There is another option. In France, anyone entitled to a disability benefit is automatically registered. I do not know whether compulsion of that kind would be acceptable in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that it would be acceptable immediately. It might in time be possible. That has been practised in France. Britain has a different system of benefits and it would be more difficult for us to follow that course. Our benefits do not necessarily apply just to disability.
In France and Germany there are penalties in the form of fines for establishments that do not reach the quota. This is another option. Some firms in Germany prefer to pay the fine rather than employ the disabled people. In this country in 1981, when I was much involved in a prominent position with the International Year of Disabled People, the Manpower Services Commission was asked to carry out a full review of the quota system. Members of the Committee will probably remember that it recommended that the quota system should be dropped and that a code of practice should be adopted. That was not accepted by the Government of the day. However, there was very wide discussion at that time among the disability organisations, and a wider debate in the country as a whole, as to whether a system of penalties such as exists in France or Germany should be
704
brought in. The majority, particularly among disabled organisations, appeared to be against a punitive system of fines. The reason was that they felt it would make disabled people appear to be a costly burden rather than members of the workforce who could contribute as much as or more than other members. I absolutely understand that. That was the main objection in 1981 to our bringing in such a system. I suspect that it would still be an objection in this country to our bringing in a system of fines as a penalty for failing to meet the quota. I just mention these alternatives before we drop the quota system, which is the intention under this Bill. I do not think that the alternatives are very attractive.
I should not object to the quota system being continued for a time, as a target. I know how much it has helped MENCAP, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, mentioned. I have mentioned that point before on various occasions. However, if it were continued, it would be dangerous for too much faith to be put in it. We know now that it can only be a target. It will have to be—and should be—phased out. I should not be against the Government continuing it for three or five years, or whatever it may be, until the country becomes familiar with the new system that is being introduced in this Bill. But I do not feel that we ought to put faith in the quota.
For at least 25 years I have lived with the system. As the Committee will know, by the time of the 1944 Act I had been wounded and was disabled. I have followed the system ever since with colleagues and men whom I commanded getting jobs and so on. In the first 25 years the quota system was successful and did what was intended. But I do not believe that even the parliamentarians who in 1943 and 1944 passed that Bill would have expected it necessarily to be functioning as they expected 25 years later. In fact, it has gone on for 50 years.
I would not discredit the system or pour scorn on the 1944 Act. But it has served its purpose and now parts of it are no longer applicable. In particular, the quota system needs to be replaced by something else, even if it is not brought to an end immediately.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: We have come to a delicate part of the evening, when we are in danger of repeating our speeches from earlier occasions. I do not want to fall into that trap. I am as willing as anyone to repeat my points ad hominem, ad infinitum and "ad horum", but I should only set even more people against me.
I hope that I can make different points with regard to the quota system. First, it remains because it is not and never will be redundant. It complements and does not replace this Bill. It protects disabled people as a group. This Bill protects the individual rights of people. That is a very important difference.
The system is capable of revision by the levy, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I am in favour of the levy. If some employers do not want to keep the quota and say that they will pay the levy, that is fine. At least they are contributing to disabled people. Finally, it is the only method of curbing the prejudices of wilful, evasive and discriminatory employers, who resist everything but the strongest compulsion.

705
I complete my brief remarks by endorsing what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, said about Remploy and the position of very seriously disabled workers. It is very serious. I hope that something can be done under the Bill by the Government accepting these amendments.
Lord Addington: Let me say very briefly that I am very much in the minority in having taken part in the old green card system. It set a target which has become increasingly unrealistic. One reason for that is that the nature of work has changed since the system was introduced. There are no longer production line jobs on which large numbers of people were employed and a quota could easily be set. The nature of employment has changed.
It is also the case that certain groups of people, for whom this Bill is not designed, have found the system very useful. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, can perhaps confirm MENCAP has found it difficult to find employment for much of its client base. Other groups have not benefited from it.
We have already decided in another case not to have a register. We have just discussed that point. But we do have a register in this case. Many good things were said about the register, including the idea of knowing how many people are involved in it. If the Government would breathe life into the green card—or even change its colour and make it a blue card or even a pink card (let us be radical)—that system would work. Something which tells us who the person is, and possibly the nature of his disability as well, would be helpful.
The quota has not worked in recent years for the vast majority of people of whom we are talking. That is the one thing that marks it down. It has worked for certain groups but it has not worked for others. If the Government had accepted any of the amendments discussed earlier, they could probably say that there was sufficient process here, especially within the council, to make sure that a quota system was not needed, and that they had a positive and aggressive stance. It is the only thing we have left. The idea of registration, and the ease of access to those supporting bodies around it, has not been mentioned but should be taken into account. If one possesses a green card, at least one knows where to go in the employment services to obtain help.
I shall not pretend to know what the answer is. Can the Government give an assurance that the quick lines which the green card provides to the support services will remain intact and that there will be guidance to inform disabled people, whatever definition is used, that the services exist? It is important that disabled people know what they are entitled to in the realms of support. That has not yet been raised but should be borne in mind.
Lord Renton: On the substance of this matter I agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. I merely add that in order to obtain a full picture we must realise that various lists are already kept by those in the public service who pay out various allowances to people with various kinds of disability. A list must be kept of the war disabled who are in receipt of war disability pensions. A list must be kept of those
706
who receive disability allowances and unemployability supplement. I forget what the other allowance is called, but my severely handicapped daughter receives it. She has to be careful all the time; she cannot do anything herself and receives the allowance because of that. There are therefore in existence various lists.
I realise that the noble Lord who moved the amendment is concerned with the register to which there is public access; that is another matter. I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell. However, there is a purely technical point—I hope Members of the Committee will not think it boring—that I wish to raise on the drafting of the amendment. Clause 34(7) on page 24 reads,
"The following provisions of the Act of 1944 shall cease to have effect".
Many times I have complained about the use of that phrase because it really means "repealed". In Schedule 5 we find that each of the provisions mentioned in the subsection is included in the list of repeals. If we wish this provision to be endorsed, why cannot we be consistent in the words that we use in the statutes and say in subsection (7) that those provisions are repealed?
Lord McCarthy: I do not want to rehearse the disparate arguments that have been put forward to persuade the Government to say something. But that is what we want. We want them to say something about the two different general topics dealt with in the amendment.
My noble friend Lord Gladwin asked the Government to say something about three specific matters. He asked whether or not there would be any reduction in the severely disabled programmes. He asked about the consultation procedures on the workers' side and, most importantly, he asked whether there would be any new money or whether the changes which the Government propose in the subsidy and funding arrangements will result in money being taken away from existing programmes. I ask the Government to seek to answer those questions this evening. They are serious questions which worry a considerable number of people. If the Government cannot answer them tonight because they are new questions and they have not thought about them before, let them say that they will go away and write to my noble friend, giving him the answers to the questions.
We come then to the second general heading relating to the quota scheme. We know that the Government are going to abolish the scheme. We do not intend to divide the Committee on these amendments at this time of night. We know that it is long gone. But almost everyone on this side of the Committee and around the Committee has been asking whether the Government accept in any sense that the original objectives of the register are still there to be met. If the Government abolish this way of doing it, have they no proposals at all to follow through the original objectives of the scheme in other ways?
As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, in many ways this is extremely modern. It is astonishing that in this country in 1918, before anyone thought of it in the United States or anywhere else so far as I know, we legislated a system of positive discrimination. It is true that we did it in the aftermath of a world war, but we

707
did it. It worked for some time, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, and then began to fade away because circumstances changed. Successive governments of all political persuasions felt that they had more important things to do and therefore did not look at the way the scheme was operating and try to bring it up to date. They did not find effective ways of working it or set up a Royal Commission on what was wrong with the quota scheme; they just left it there. And now this Government want to do away with it. Those are matters that we ought to feel sorry about; and we on this side of the Committee and noble Lords in other parts of the Committee are sorry about them.
The original aims of the quota scheme deal with the more severely disadvantaged. They deal with those who are prepared to register and try to induce others to register and give them significant benefits so it is worth their while registering. Those objectives and aims are surely as relevant today as they always were. Therefore, we ask the Government for answers. We know what they are going to do. But can they answer the first few questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, and can they answer us in a positive way as to what they feel should replace the quota scheme?
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I merely want to add three points which I hope the Minister will take into account when he replies to the questions posed by my noble friends. First, many appointments made by public bodies—local authorities and local education authorities—are now made not directly by people who are part of the staff of the local authority but by thousands of school governors and teaching and non-teaching staff. It is very difficult to keep a record in those circumstances unless there is a requirement to seek to comply.
Secondly, as a result of government policy much more of the work is being carried out by private sector companies which submit tenders. We heard about this in the Dinner Break tonight. Without a requirement that information should be collected it is very difficult for local authorities to demand contract compliance in the way that they did when they were employers. Finally, as a result of government policy there is a growth in the private sector directly providing in areas where in the past the public sector provided; for example, homes for the elderly. Therefore, there is a need for this monitoring to be continued.
I repeat and stress what I said when I spoke earlier. It is not that the system is excellent and works—because of the difficulties we have outlined. We arc not talking about sticking rigidly to an outworn system. We are talking about the need to continue the monitoring and to insist that the Government accept that principle, go away and look at it and come hack with an amendment that will require that to be done.
Lord Inglewood: We have had an extremely worthwhile debate focusing on three principal matters: first, the supported employment programme; secondly, quota: and, thirdly, registration. I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Gladwin. for raising the matters and
708
also to the doctor of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for having allowed him to be here. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for the contribution he made once he got here. Before getting to the substance of this amendment, I thank my noble friend Lord Renton for his drafting comment, which I am sure that those who are responsible for these matters will be pleased to have heard and will reflect on.
As the Committee will be aware, the supported employment programme was set up under the auspices of the 1944 Act to provide job opportunities for people who, because of the severity of their disability, are unable or unlikely to be able to obtain or retain work in open employment. Around 21,800 severely disabled people are currently helped by this programme at a cost of about £153 million. This includes around 9,200 people in Remploy Ltd, some 4,600 people in local authority and voluntary body workshops and around 8,000 people on the supported placement scheme which provides job opportunities for severely disabled people to work in open employment. I emphasise that the Government are fully committed to this programme and intend to maintain the current level of provision, but we have to recognise that the needs and expectations of severely disabled people are changing, and the supported employment programme needs to be flexible enough in its administrative arrangements to continue to meet those needs and expectations.
Amendment No. 137 would hinder that flexibility on the mistaken premise, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, that private companies would be able to exploit severely disabled people or in some way cream off less severely disabled people to maximise their contribution to productivity. The suggestion appears to be that supported workshops would be left with a workforce made up entirely of the most severely disabled people. This is not plausible. We have contractual arrangements which deal with standards in existing placements, including payment of the rate for the job, and I can assure the Committee that contractual arrangements would be put in place to ensure similar standards in future placements.
As to the potential to cream off those who arc less severely disabled, we propose to consult on the precise mechanisms for entry to the supported employment programme, but we do not expect the broad criteria to change significantly. The current criteria arc that severely disabled people should be capable of productivity within the range of 30 per cent. to 80 per cent. of a non-disabled worker. The specific type of provision to be offered will continue to be decided by the Employment Service and the individual disabled person, in liaison with the relevant providers.
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from funding places in private companies which had demonstrated a commitment to the principles of the programme. It would do so despite the fact that those who responded and commented on this aspect of our Disability on the Agenda consultation document overwhelmingly agreed that there was no reason to exclude dividend-distributing bodies from participating in the programme.

709
We recognise that under the supported placement scheme existing host companies in the private sector are already involved in a range of supported job opportunities through providers who act as a form of agency. This amendment would limit the Employment Service's flexibility in funding additional places in reputable companies located where local provision was too limited to meet the needs and expectations of severely disabled people.
I can assure the Committee that the Government do not propose to exercise this power immediately, nor until they have consulted further with relevant organisations, including employees, on the detail of how the power might be used. Particularly, we would consult those groups representing existing supported employment providers. Mention has been made specifically by a number of speakers of Remploy. I want to make it absolutely clear that the Government remain committed to Remploy and the changes made by the Bill leave Remploy's statutory position unaffected.
The supported employment programme, however, must be open to change, and this is an opportune time to introduce further flexibility into the administrative arrangements to allow in the longer term an opening up of supported employment across a wider range of occupations and locations and to help tailor provisions more precisely to the local employment needs of the most severely disabled. I hope that this gives a clear picture of what the Government's thinking is on this matter and indicates that the more dramatic scenarios that seem to be behind some noble Lords' contributions are not founded.
I should now like to continue by speaking about the quota scheme.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: The Minister did say "additional", did he not? The anxiety is that by doing what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, suggested earlier and by opening it up and becoming more flexible, there will be no more money and the current providers, such as Remploy and the other sheltered workshops, will wither on the vine. That is the fear. I want to be absolutely clear that the Minister is saying that that is not the intention and that the intention is to have more funding for more places for the severely disabled. If that is the case, we are on board.
Lord Inglewood: I think that the noble Lord has jumped further than we have. At this stage, all that the Government are seeking to do is to acquire the power to be able to do that. There is a considerable amount of consultation to be done before anything actually happens. I cannot give a commitment about funding levels some time in the future. It would be unrealistic to do so. If noble Lords opposite were in the same position as I am and at this Dispatch Box, they would not do that either. As I have said, we are committed to the scheme and to trying to provide the hest form of placement that we can. We believe that it could be the case that something along the lines of what I have described could assist disabled people, which, after all, is the purpose of the Bill. We seek that power and, as I have explained, before we exercise that power we shall
710
consult to try to identify (with a greater degree of precision than I have been able to do this evening) what we have it in mind to do.
Lord McCarthy: With great respect, surely the Minister could at least say whether it is the Government's present policy and intention to run down the subsidies for Remploy.
Lord Inglewood: As I said, we are committed to Remploy. There is no policy of deliberately running down Remploy or of deliberately promoting Remploy. The positive policy is to try to ensure that the best provision and the most cost-effective provision can be provided for as many severely disabled people as possible. As I explained, there are a number of ways of doing that and we wish to have a portfolio of options in our pocket so that we can do what is best for people.
Baroness Seear: I should like to get this point quite clear because it is very important. If there are to be new opportunities in the private sector, helped by Government funding which I understand is the idea, will that mean less money for Remploy or is that to be in addition to the money that already goes into Remploy? That is the crux of it. If it is additional money, we are all for it.
Lord Inglewood: We are talking about some time ahead and, as I explained earlier, I am not in a position to give or to talk figures. We do not even know yet exactly what we are going to do. We have to reserve our position in order to be able to do what we consider to be the best for the various people concerned. I do not want to say things which will subsequently be played hack at me—albeit that I may do so with the best intent in the world.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: I am sorry to be persistent, but the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said on Second Reading:
"As regards profit-distributing organisations, we are committed to the supported employment programme which provides jobs for nearly 21,000 severely disabled people. The new power will enable us to fund supported employment in dividend-distributing bodies".—[Official Report, 22/5/95: col. 888.]
That is the new element. All that I and my colleagues are asking is whether the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. in saying that, meant that as well as supporting Remploy and as well as the 21,000 jobs that already exist, the intention is (for the flexible reason that is described in a later paragraph in Hansard) to provide more. That is the worry. That is what is concerning a lot of people not only from Remploy but many other people in sheltered employment. For people who cannot get jobs in the open market and who need sheltered employment, the question is whether it is the Government's intention (in line with the philosophy behind this legislation) to increase the number of opportunities. It is a simple question.
Lord Inglewood: I have nothing to add to what I said earlier, but let me try to explain it slightly differently. Remploy remains an integral putt of the supported employment programme. The Government's continued commitment to the company is demonstrated by the £94.2 million that will be allocated this year to

711
compensate for the cost of employing severely disabled people. As the Committee will be aware, that represents about 60 per cent. of the Government's total allocation to the supported employment programme of over £153 million. Furthermore, spending plans for the supported employment programme, including Remploy, are already published in the report of the Department of Employment. They show that we propose to maintain funding for Remploy throughout the planning period to April 1988. That date is stipulated because it is the current timescale for the Government and the departments' public expenditure bids.
I return to the point I made earlier. In the foreseeable future, the position is clear, and I have explained it. But what happens beyond that must inevitably depend upon the circumstances at the time. When faced with the circumstance of that time, we want to be able to respond with the maximum flexibility. I cannot see anything contentious in that approach, even if one disagrees about the particularity of some of the detail.
I should like to touch briefly on matters to do with quota. It has been agreed on all sides of the Chamber that the scheme is not working as originally intended. There may have been varying degrees of support for it, depending upon an analysis of how effective people felt it to be. It is not working as it should have done, and that has been recognised. It is impossible for all employers to meet the 3 per cent. quota because only a third of those in the workforce who are eligible to register do so. That point has been touched on, but perhaps the logic of the position was not spelt out. However, research indicates that employers would, on average, meet the quota if all those disabled people, who were eligible to do so, registered.
In its recent report on the operation of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, the Employment Select Committee described quota as a system which classes disabled people as a problem. I agree with that description. Quota sends, in our view, an entirely wrong signal to employers about the abilities of people with disabilities. In effect, it is saying, "Here is a group of people who are unable to get work by their own efforts. You, the employer, must therefore reserve a proportion of jobs for them." That is patronising. We should therefore take the opportunity provided by the introduction of the new right not to be discriminated against in employment to repeal the quota scheme.
I know that it has been argued that we should perhaps retain the quota scheme for a time in tandem with the new employment right. That would be wrong. It would serve only to confuse employers and people with disabilities alike. If one looks at the two schemes, they represent two separate and different ways of dealing with the problem. Not only that, the quota scheme itself is not effective. It is narrow in scope. After all, it covers only recruitment and dismissal phases of employment. It places no duty on the employer to help employees in matters such as training. promotion, or adapting jobs so that individuals can cope better with them. It entails criminal offences which we belie e to be inappropriate in today's employment situation. It has no effective provision Cm a disabled person to be compensated or reinstated.
712
We believe that quota is a poor second best to the new rights we want to introduce. Moreover, it would sit oddly alongside them. I find it hard to reconcile the right not to be discriminated against—that is to say, being treated in the same way as other individuals—with the special treatment of jobs being allocated preferentially to people with disabilities and where a burden on the employer would be entailed in keeping both systems. In effect, employers would have to follow two incompatible management styles simultaneously. That cannot be right.
We believe that the quota scheme is outdated. I urge the Committee to replace it with something better, which is what the Bill does—something which focuses upon individuals rather than groups and which we believe will be more effective than quota in dealing with the type of employer mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. At the end of the day, we are talking about individuals who are disabled. It will be poor consolation to a particular person under those circumstances if an employer says to him, "I have met my target. It doesn't matter any more, does it?"
The point about our approach is that it is necessary to deal with each individual as an individual, taking into account his or her particular disability problems.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Would the Minister care to comment on a case of someone seeking employment as a teacher who begins to suspect that he or she is not being shortlisted whereas other people with similar qualifications are? If that person takes action because of a feeing that he or she is being discriminated against, the person will not obtain a job in the locality if it is a fairly small area in which to seek employment. Surely during the period of overlap we need the belt and the braces. The belt will provide that the school governors need to record the trends. With all the caveats and the recognition of what is happening, there is a need to record the trends. Far too many people may be hurt during the changeover period because of the Government's failure to recognise what is happening.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Baroness has merely given a specific example of the generality of the problem that we intend to address. She appears to be saying that in such circumstances a disabled person should be employed rather than someone who is more suitable. The Bill contains an entirely logical and coherent mechanism for dealing with such a problem as and when it arises. We dealt with this in our discussion on Part II of the Bill. We do not believe that an approach which entails quotas will achieve anything that is beneficial. On the contrary. we believe that it would be less efficacious than our proposal.
I turn now to registration. Were a quota to be retained, it must follow that registration must be retained too. But doing so would fail to take into account the views of disabled people. who have shown by their reluctance to register that the system fails to meet their needs and aspirations. Registration is seen by many disabled people as stigmatising them and sending the g messages to employers about their abilities. We should be concentrating on their abilities and not on their disabilities.

713
We have heard arguments that disabled people chose not to register because quota is not working as a result of lack of enforcement. I do not accept that. Experience of stricter enforcement in the 1970s showed that the employment position of disabled people generally did not improve. Disabled people choose not to register for a number of reasons. Research commissioned by the Employment Service—I refer to Employment and Handicap 1990—shows that one of the main reasons for not registering is that potentially eligible people either do not believe that registration is appropriate for them because they do not see themselves as disabled or see no reason to register at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised a particular point. I wish to make it clear that a green card is not needed for help from the Employment Service. Disabled people will continue to receive specialist help where they need it and the Employment Service will continue to make sure that disabled people know about its services. We believe that registration is not worth keeping simply as a route into supported employment. We shall consult interested parties on the new arrangements but we expect the criteria to be broadly similar to those which now exist.
I have already touched on the key to our approach to these three matters. We believe that the new employment right contained in the Bill will be better and more effective in helping people with disabilities to obtain and to keep jobs. It is important that the new right goes wider than the right under the 1944 Act; and we believe that we should not keep this time-expired scheme alongside it. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to reject the proposals if the amendment is put to a vote. However, I hope that, as the noble Lord intimated earlier, he will reflect on what I have said.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: I am grateful to the Minister. I shall reflect on what he has said, as I am sure will my noble friends. I am sorry that I harried the Minister and I feel sorry for him. The Bill takes away things with which we are familiar, whether they have worked or not. and it puts nothing in their place. Therefore, in discussing the amendments the Minister is in a somewhat defensive posture.
I sincerely hope that before we reach further stages of the Bill—certainly before the autumn—we shall have a better idea about what the Government intend to put in place of what we have. This is not a peripheral matter. There is a great deal of anxiety among people with serious disabilities that, although we all support this legislation, in this area people may be worse rather than better off. I am sure that that is not what the Government want. We all want this legislation to succeed but at the moment the Government are batting off sensible suggestions in a rather defensive way. However, at this hour of the evening. I shall not divide the Committee and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 139A:
After Clause 34. insert the following new clause:
Public service vehicles
PSV accessibility regulations
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations ("PSV accessibility regulations") for the purpose of securing that it is possible for disabled persons—

(a) to get on to and off regulated public service vehicles in safety and without unreasonable difficulty (and, in the case of disabled persons in wheelchairs, to do so while remaining in their wheelchairs); and

(b) to be carried in such vehicles in safety and in reasonable comfort.

(2) PSV accessibility regulations may make provision as to the construction, use and maintenance of regulated public service vehicles including, in particular, provision as to—

(a) the fitting of equipment to vehicles;

(b) equipment to be carried by vehicles;

(c) the design of equipment to be fitted to, or carried by. vehicles;

(d) the fitting and use of restraining devices designed to ensure the stability of wheelchairs while vehicles are moving;

(e) the position in which wheelchairs are to be secured while vehicles are moving.

(3) Any person who—

(a) contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of the PSV accessibility regulations,

(b) uses on a road a regulated public service vehicle which does not conform with any provision of the regulations with which it is required to conform, or

(c) causes or permits to be used on a road such a regulated public service vehicle,

is guilty of an offence.
(4) A person who is guilty of such an offence is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(5) In this section—
"public service vehicle" means a vehicle which is—

(a) adapted to carry more than eight passengers; and

(b) a public service vehicle for the purposes of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981;

"regulated public service vehicle" means any public service vehicle to which the PSV accessibility regulations are expressed to apply.
(6) Different provision may be made in regulations under this section—

(a) as respects different classes or descriptions of vehicle.

(b) as respects the same class or description of vehicle in different circumstances:

(c) as respects different localities.

(7) Nothing in subsection (6) affects the powers conferred by section 37.
(8) Before making any regulations or order under this section or section (Accessibility certificates) or (Special authorisations) the Secretary of State shall consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and such other representative organisations as he thinks fit.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 139B to 139K and Amendments Nos. 142A. 146A. 1468 and 147A. I shall not read out the new clauses which I intend to insert in the Bill but I shall obviously have to explain in a little detail exactly what these clauses add up to. They add up to a very significant change in the field of transport.
We have already had an opportunity to discuss the Government's proposals to ensure that in future, taxis are accessible to disabled people. I was grateful for the support from all sides of the Committee on that subject, although that was at an even later hour than we are now. This evening, I wish to present to the Committee our proposals for dealing with access to buses, coaches and rail services. Those proposals complete the package of measures covering all forms of domestic land-based transport which my honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People undertook to bring forward at an early stage in the passage of this Bill.
Many Members of the Committee will already be aware of the excellent progress in improving access to public transport which has been made over the past decade. The Department of Transport has for many years worked closely with the transport industries to promote and encourage the introduction of better designs and operating practices to meet the needs of disabled people. I could give the Committee examples but I am sure that all Members of the Committee interested in this sphere know about the examples and the progress which has been made. Therefore, I shall move on to look at the new proposals.
In no sense are the legislative proposals that we are bringing forward intended to force co-operation on an unreceptive and recalcitrant industry but rather to indicate that we see the introduction of legislation in this area as continuing the process of shaping a transport network that is fully accessible. It has long been—and will continue to be—a collaborative and co-operative venture between the Department of Transport, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and all sides of the industry.
Perhaps I may also make clear from the outset that any regulations made under these provisions will apply only to new vehicles. I want to make that point very clearly to industry. There is simply no question of them being applied retrospectively. Such an approach at the very least would be technically very difficult and costly and at worst could render some transport services commercially unviable. Working on the basis of new vehicles, we can achieve access solutions which are effective and sustainable and which serve the interests of all parties involved.
I make no apology for the rather technical nature of the clauses before us on this subject. Our intention has been to ensure that we provide a legislative framework that will be compatible with existing transport requirements and that will allow the Secretary of State for Transport the flexibility which is vital if we are to ensure that we do not introduce requirements that are unworkable technically or that are simply not viable in an operational or economic sense. It is absolutely essential that we do not place burdens on either the manufacturing or operating industries that could jeopardise their future. We have learnt from the experience of the United States that a blanket requirement for accessible transport without regard for technical and economic realities, can lead all too quickly to loss of services altogether. If services are withdrawn, that is not a victory for disabled people. It is simply a loss to the travelling public as a whole.
The first set of transport clauses before the Committee deal with access to PSVs—bus and coach vehicles adapted to carry more than eight passengers and used on public service.
The new clause proposed by way of Amendment No. 139A gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations covering access to PSVs for disabled people, including those who use wheelchairs. The purpose of the regulations will be to enable disabled people to get on and off buses and coaches in safety, without unreasonable difficulty and to be able to be carried in such vehicles in safety and in reasonable comfort.
We have provided in subsection (2) a list of requirements which might be included in any regulations. That list is not exhaustive but simply highlights some of the key issues which would need to be covered. Before making any regulations under the clause, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and any other organisation that he considers appropriate.
I should also say at this point that a full compliance cost assessment will be produced for any regulations we make under those provisions, as well as those covering access to taxis and rail services.
To ensure that we have the flexibility to deal with the widest range of circumstances, subsection (6) provides for different provisions to be made for different classes or descriptions of vehicle, for the same class operating in different circumstances, and for different locations. That flexibility is essential to allow different access solutions, which in the case of full-size single deck buses might be low floors and in the case of coaches might be lifts, to permit different time-scales, and to allow regional and local variation. That will enable us to make regulations making different requirements for different types of vehicle over different time-scales which will ensure a smooth transition towards accessibility.
The Department of Transport has already embarked on a detailed and extensive process of consultation with trade associations and with individual companies. We are well aware that viable access solutions are not yet available for all vehicle types and we recognise that there may be a role for some research input from the Department of Transport to develop and evaluate possible options before regulations can be made.
Finally, as with the taxi provisions, and those relating to rail vehicles which I will come on to later, the new clause creates new offences to deal with non-compliance with the accessibility regulations.
Amendment No. 139B provides for "accessibility certificates" to be issued by vehicle examiners as a parallel to the existing initial roadworthiness certification procedure for public service vehicles. Regulations will deal with the detail of the application procedure for both types of certificate, the inspection system for vehicle examiners to follow and for the issue of duplicate certificates.
In the absence of such a certificate, or of the alternative "approval certificate" which would be issued for vehicles produced in large numbers, a PSV to which

717
the regulations apply will not be permitted to be used on a road. Failure to comply will give rise to an offence with a penalty set at level 4.
Amendment No. 139C introduces a new clause which provides for a type of approval approach to the certification of PSVs built in larger volumes, allowing an initial "type vehicle" to be approved, with subsequent vehicles of the same type being issued with approval certificates. That avoids the need for each vehicle of the same type to be individually inspected.
Amendment No. 139D allows special operating authorisation for vehicles which do not conform to accessibility regulations or for which a certificate has not been granted. It provides flexibility to cater for circumstances in which an individual vehicle or class of vehicle cannot reasonably be expected to meet the full requirements of the accessibility regulations.
Amendment No. 139E creates offences and sets penalties for forgery or misuse of accessibility certificates.
Amendment No. 139F provides for an appeals system against refusal to issue an accessibility certificate or an approval certificate. It also makes provision for a review system for cases where the type approval is refused.
Amendment No. 139G gives the Secretary of State power to require fees to be paid on applications for certificates, type approvals and appeals. There is precedent here in relation to existing procedures for vehicle certification arrangements.
I now turn to the rail services which provide a key link in the transport chain. We believe that disabled people should also have that transport option available to them. We have, of course, already made provision in the Railways Act to ensure that operators have a duty to have regard to the needs of disabled passengers. We believe that the legislative framework could be further strengthened. I wish, therefore, to speak to the new clauses in Amendments Nos. 139H, 139J, 139K, and Amendment No. 146B, which deal with the access to rail services, including light rapid transit and tram systems.
The Government propose to use these regulation-making powers only in respect of new railway rolling stock. There is no intention to require modifications to any existing rolling stock. The clause on this issue tabled by the Opposition in another place would have made that limitation clear on the face of the Bill. On reflection, we believe that that would be sensible and I shall be bringing forward a further amendment at Report stage which will limit the use of these regulations to new rail vehicles.
Amendment No. 139H is proposed so that the Secretary of State can make regulations defining standards of access for rail vehicles to enable disabled people, including those in wheelchairs, to be able to get on and off them in safety and without unreasonable difficulty. The regulations would also be able to ensure that disabled people are carried in such vehicles in safety and reasonable comfort. Before making any regulations under this provision, the Secretary of State
718
will be required to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and any other organisation he considers appropriate.
We have to recognise that the design and use of rail vehicles will vary according to a range of factors, including the systems on which they operate and the use to which the vehicles are put. We have proposed that this clause should allow for different provisions to be made in the regulations for different classes or descriptions of rail vehicles, for the same vehicles used in different circumstances and for different localities or on different networks.
That flexibility is essential for a number of reasons. For example, we will want to ensure that accessibility regulations do not undermine the historic character of heritage railways, and that could be achieved through this provision. Equally, it will allow us to look at different parts of, and different vehicles on, the London Underground to ensure that the access requirements are reasonable and practicable for such an old and largely inaccessible system. We need to be able to look at the circumstances of each system to tailor the requirements to the needs of both the industry and disabled consumers.
This clause also provides for the creation of an offence should an operator use a vehicle on public service which does not comply with requirements.
Amendment No. 139J provides powers for the Secretary of State to make exemption orders for vehicles which would otherwise have to comply with any accessibility regulations. I can assure the Committee that this is not a let out. Its purpose is simply to allow for flexibility in the legislation to provide powers to make exemptions where particular circumstances might warrant it. Again, we see a role for the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee in advising the Secretary of State on any applications, and we have provided for him to be able to make an exemption order, refuse to make one, or to make it with such conditions as he considers appropriate. We do not envisage that this power will be widely used.
Amendment No. 139K relates to both the "PSV accessibility regulations" and the "rail vehicle accessibility regulations", making provision for cases where offences are committed by corporate bodies, or in Scotland by partnerships or unincorporated bodies.
Amendment No. 142A relates hack to the provisions for PSVs and has the effect of disapplying the general requirement under the Bill that orders be made by statutory instrument in the case of special authorisations which apply only to a specified vehicle or to vehicles operated by a specified person.
We believe that these amendments will deliver improved standards of accessibility for disabled people to future public transport vehicles. It will not be achieved overnight, but these clauses will provide the necessary framework for effective and sustainable transport services which meet the needs of disabled people without creating unreasonable burdens on transport providers.
Amendments Nos. 146A, 146B and 147A simply cover the definitions of the new terms which have been introduced in the previous clauses. They are self explanatory.
I apologise if I have gone on a little. I have tried to go over the amendments as fast as I can, but I believe that it is important that what we aim to do in these important new clauses that I have brought to the Committee is clearly on the record. Equally, I believe that, despite the lateness of the hour, these changes to public transport on roads and rail are of great significance to disabled people. Over the years, as new vehicles come on the roads and the railways, the accessibility for disabled people will increase and one of the great problems facing disabled people—that of getting around—will largely be overcome. Even though I have detained the Committee for a little while, I believe that, to achieve that, it was worth it. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: The Committee will be extremely grateful to the Minister for the way in which he explained the group of amendments. I have some general points to raise, and a number of specific points on the new clause.
The noble Lord referred to buses, coaches and rail. I believe that he touched on trams. We have been advised to ask whether trolley buses and ferries are included or excluded. I believe that ferries are public service vehicles.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I can certainly assist the noble Lord on ferries. They are not included. The provision refers to land-based transport. Ferries are not included for a number of reasons, one of which is the international obligations on ferries, and the fact that they sail between different countries. Many ferries cater for disabled people, especially the new ferries which have lifts from, say, the car decks up to the passenger accommodation.
To be honest I had not realised that we had many trolley buses left. However, on the assumption that people will be manufacturing new trolley buses, I imagine that those will come within the scope of the provisions.
Lord Carter: My other point was whether Northern Ireland is covered.
On Amendment No. 139H, subsection (5) (c) and (d) refers to different networks. The Minister said that that would refer to heritage railways. Perhaps that is the term that we shall have to apply to British Rail eventually! However, will he make it absolutely clear whether the provision applies also to the different franchises? Could the Government use their powers under Amendment No. 139J to bring in exemptions? Subsection (2) (a) specifics the persons by whom applications for exemption orders may he made. Will the Government be able to vary the requirements between the franchisees of the privatised networks for providing access for disabled people?
I was puzzled why subsection (1) of Amendment No. 139K is needed. Those of us who are directors of bodies corporate spend a large amount of money on directors' liability insurance. Why do the Government believe it necessary to spell out that provision? I believe that all the people referred to in that subsection are guilty if they
720
connive at such an offence. I have referred already to ferries. The awful cases of the "Herald of Free Enterprise" and the "Marchioness" involved the crime of corporate manslaughter. In this specific case, why do the Government believe it necessary to spell out the provision?
In subsection (2) of Amendment No. 139K, I am puzzled by the definition of,
"a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members".
I can think only of a workers' co-operative or a kibbutz. I am not sure what is meant by a "body corporate". In a private company the members are shareholders; they do not manage the company. And they do not do so in a public company. What is "a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members"?
I understand why a partnership is spelt out in subsection (3), because under Scottish law it is a body corporate. In Scotland there is considerable use of the limited partnership where the liability of one of the members is limited, rather like a limited company. But that is only one member of the partnership. The device has been used a great deal in Scottish farming to create tenancy agreements. In drafting, has the draftsman caught the limited partnership as well as the partnerships defined in the amendment?
We shall be grateful if the Minister will reply to those points. Perhaps he will write to me if that is easier and quicker.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: With regard to Amendment No. 139K and the rather legalistic issues raised, if the noble Lord is content perhaps I may write to him.
As to the different franchises, clearly, as with the case which I mentioned earlier of heritage railways, these might be operated by a different company from the rest of the rail network. That is how it already happens. So different franchises may have different conditions imposed on them. Some may serve different areas and provide different services. For example, already the trains on the inter-city lines are pretty accessible. That would be one franchise which might go ahead more quickly than a franchisee with more local lines, with more old-fashioned stations and more difficult rolling stock to deal with.
It is possible that conditions may vary from one franchisee to another; it is equally possible that conditions may vary inside a franchisee's area because of the differences in the kind of service being run, the availability of stock and how quickly we can see the development of the kind of trains which will be accessible. I hope that is helpful. I shall write to the noble Lord about the other points.
Lord Carter: The concern would he that if the Government found it difficult to unload a number of the franchises—as I am sure they will—would it not he easier to relax the requirements for access for disabled people'?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord has far too suspicious a mind!
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 139B to 139K:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Accessibility certificates
(".—(1) A regulated public service vehicle shall not be used on a road unless—

(a) a vehicle examiner has issued a certificate (an "accessibility certificate") that such provisions of the PSV accessibility regulations as may be prescribed arc satisfied in respect of the vehicle; or

(b) an approval certificate has been issued under section (Approval certificates) in respect of the vehicle.

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations—

(a) with respect to applications for, and the issue of, accessibility certificates;

(b) providing for the examination of vehicles in respect of which applications have been made;

(c) with respect to the issue of copies of accessibility certificates in place of certificates which have been lost or destroyed.

(3) If a regulated public service vehicle is used in contravention of this section, the operator of the vehicle is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(4) In this section "operator" has the same meaning as in the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.").
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Approval certificates
(".—(1) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that such provisions of the PSV accessibility regulations as may be prescribed for the purposes of section (Accessibility certificates) are satisfied in respect of a particular vehicle he may approve the vehicle for the purposes of this section.
(2) A vehicle which has been so approved is referred to in this section as a "type vehicle".
(3) Subsection (4) applies where a declaration in the prescribed form has been made by an authorised person that a particular vehicle conforms in design, construction and equipment with a type vehicle.
(4) A vehicle examiner may, after examining the vehicle to which the declaration applies if he thinks fit, issue a certificate in the prescribed form ("an approval certificate") that it conforms to the type vehicle.
(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations—

(a) with respect to applications for, and grants of, approval under subsection (1);

(b) with respect to applications for, and the issue of, approval certificates;

(c) providing for the examination of vehicles in respect of which applications have been made;

(d) with respect to the issue of copies of approval certificates in place of certificates which have been lost or destroyed.

(6) The Secretary of State may at any time withdraw his approval of a type vehicle.
(7) Where an approval is withdrawn—

(a) no further approval certificates shall he issued by reference to the type vehicle: but

(b) any approval certificate issued by reference to the type vehicle before the withdrawal shall continue to have effect for the purposes of section (Accessibility certificates).

(8) In subsection (3) "authorised person" means a person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of that subsection.").
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Special authorizations
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order authorise the use on roads of—

(a) any regulated public service vehicle of a class or description specified by the order, or

722

(b) any regulated public service vehicle which is so specified, and nothing in section (PSV accessibility regulations), (Accessibility certificates) or (Approval certificates) prevents the use of any vehicle in accordance with the order.

(2) Any such authorisation may be given subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified by or under the order.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the purpose of securing that, subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified by or under the order, provisions of the PSV accessibility regulations apply to regulated public service vehicles of a description specified by the order subject to such modifications or exceptions as may be specified by the order.").
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Forgery of certificates and false statements
(".—(1) This section applies to accessibility certificates and approval certificates.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to deceive, he—

(a) forges, alters or uses a certificate to which this section applies;

(b) lends such a certificate to any other person;

(c) allows such a certificate to be used by any other person; or

(d) makes or has in his possession any document which closely resembles such a certificate.

(3) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

(4) A person who knowingly makes a false statement for the purpose of obtaining a certificate to which this section applies is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.").
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Reviews and appeals
(".—(1) Subsection (2) applies where—

(a) the Secretary of State refuses an application for the approval of a vehicle under section (Approval certificates) (1): and

(b) before the end of the prescribed period, the applicant asks the Secretary of State to review the decision and pays any fee fixed under section (Fees).

(2) The Secretary of State shall—

(a) review the decision; and

(b) in doing so, consider any representations made to him in writing, before the end of the prescribed period, by the applicant.

(3) A person applying for an accessibility certificate or an approval certificate may appeal to the Secretary of State against the refusal of a vehicle examiner to issue such a certificate.
(4) An appeal must he made within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner.
(5) Regulations may make provision as to the procedure to be followed in connection with appeals.
(6) On the determination of an appeal, the Secretary of State may—

(a) confirm, vary or reverse the decision appealed against:

(b) give such directions as he thinks fit to the vehicle examiner for giving effect to his decision.").

After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Fees
(".—(1) Such fees, payable at such times, as may be prescribed may he charged by the Secretary of State in respect of—

(a) applications for. and grants of. approval under section (Approval certificates) (1);

(b) applications for, and the issue of, accessibility certificates and approval certificates;

(c) copies of such certificates:

(d) reviews and appeals under section (Reviews and appeals).

(2) Any such fees received by the Secretary of State shall be paid by him into the Consolidated Fund.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the repayment of fees, in whole or in part, in such circumstances as may be prescribed.")
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Rail vehicles
Rail vehicle accessibility regulations
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations ("rail vehicle accessibility regulations") for the purpose of securing that it is possible—

(a) for disabled persons—

(i) to get on to and off regulated rail vehicles in safety and without unreasonable difficulty;

(ii) to he carried in such vehicles in safety and in reasonable comfort; and

(b) for disabled persons in wheelchairs—

(i) to get on to and off such vehicles in safety and without unreasonable difficulty while remaining in their wheelchairs, and

(ii) to be carried in such vehicles in safety and in reasonable comfort while remaining in their wheelchairs.

(2) Rail vehicle accessibility regulations may make provision as to the construction, use and maintenance of regulated rail vehicles including, in particular, provision as to—

(a) the fitting of equipment to vehicles;

(b) equipment to be carried by vehicles;

(c) the design of equipment to be fitted to, or carried by, vehicles;

(d) the use of equipment fitted to, or carried by, vehicles;

(e) the toilet facilities to he provided in vehicles;

(f) the location and floor area of the wheelchair accommodation to he provided in vehicles;

(g) assistance to be given to disabled persons.

(3) If a regulated rail vehicle which does not conform with any provision of the rail vehicle accessibility regulations with which it is required to conform is used for carriage, the operator of the vehicle is guilty of an offence.
(4) A person who is guilty of such an offence is liable. on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(5) Different provision may he made in rail vehicle accessibility regulations—

(a) as respects different classes or descriptions of rail vehicle:

(b) as respects the same class or description of rail vehicle in different circumstances;

(c) as respects different localities:

(d) as respects different networks.

(6) In this section—

"network" means any permanent way or other means of guiding or supporting rail vehicles or any section of it;

"operator". in relation to any rail vehicle, means the person having the management of that vehicle;

"rail vehicle" means a vehicle constructed or adapted to carry passengers on any railway. tramway or prescribed system;

"regulated rail vehicle" means any rail vehicle to which the rail vehicle accessibility regulations are expressed to apply; and

"wheelchair accommodation" has such meaning as may he prescribed.

(7) In subsection (6)—

"prescribed system" means a system using a prescribed mode of guided transport ("guided transport" having the same meaning as in the Transport and Works Act 1992): and

724

"railway" and "tramway" have the same meaning as in that Act.

(8) For the purposes of this section and section (Exemption from mil vehicle accessibility regulations), a person uses a Vehicle for carriage if he uses it for the carriage of members of the public for hire or reward at separate fares.
(9) Before making any regulations under this section or section (Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations) the Secretary of State shall consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and such other representative organisations as he thinks fit.").
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order (an "exemption order") authorise the use for carriage of any regulated rail vehicle of a specified description. or in specified circumstances, even though that vehicle does not conform with the provisions of the rail vehicle accessibility regulations with which it is required to conform.
(2) Regulations may make provision with respect to exemption orders including, in particular, provision as to—

(a) the persons by whom applications for exemption orders may be made;

(b) the form in which such applications are to he made;

(c) information to be supplied in connection with such applications;

(d) the period for which exemption orders are to continue in force;

(e) the revocation of exemption orders.

(3) After considering any application for an exemption order and consulting the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and such other persons as he considers appropriate. the Secretary of State may—

(a) make an exemption order in the terms of the application;

(b) make an exemption order in such other terms as he considers appropriate;

(c) refuse to make an exemption order.

(4) An exemption order may he made subject to such restrictions and conditions as may he specified.
(5) In this section "specified" means specified in an exemption order.").
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Supplemental Offences by bodies corporate etc
(".—(1) Where an offence under section (PSV accessibility regulations) or (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) committed by a body corporate is committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in such a capacity. he as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence.
(2) In subsection (1) "director'', in relation to a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, means a member of the body corporate.
(3) Where, in Scotland, an offence under section (PSV accessibility regulations) or (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) committed by a partnership or by an unincorporated association other than a partnership is committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, a partner in the partnership or (as the case may he) a person concerned in the management or control of the association, he, as well as the partnership or association, is guilty of the offence.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 140A:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
Application to Parliament
(".—(1) This Act applies to an act done by or for purposes of the House of Lords or the House of Commons as it applies to an act done by a private person.
(2) For the purposes of the application of Part II in relation to the House of Commons, the Corporate Officer of that House shall be treated as the employer of a person who is (or would be) a relevant member of the House of Commons staff for the purposes of section 188 of the Employment Rights Act 1995.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (4), for the purposes of the application of sections 12 to 15, the provider of services is—

(a) as respects the House of Lords, the Corporate Officer of that House; and

(b) as respects the House of Commons, the Corporate Officer of that House.

(4) Where the service in question is access to and use of any place in the Palace of Westminster which members of the public are permitted to enter, the Corporate Officers of both Houses jointly are the provider of that service.
(5) Nothing in any rule of law or the law or practice of Parliament prevents proceedings being instituted before an industrial tribunal under Part II or before any court under Part III.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will he happy to hear that this is a much shorter speech. I beg to move Amendment No. 140A, to which someone referred earlier this evening. I am pleased to do so as it extends the coverage of the Bill to the Houses of Parliament. As the Committee is aware, parliamentary privilege dictates that, as it stands, the Bill would not apply to Parliament. It is, of course, always open to each House to comply with the spirit of new laws, but in this case the House authorities have decided that Parliament should he brought formally within the scope of the Bill.
In the field of employment, the decision is in line with previous provisions which have been made so that staff of both Houses benefit from the employment provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976. In the field of service provision, the two Houses provide a number of services to the public: for example, refreshment facilities, information services and. most importantly of all, access to the Palace. Their coverage recognises how important it is to provide the fullest possible access to the political process for disabled people. The amendment clarifies a point which I know has been of concern to many people and I believe the Committee will warmly welcome it.
Lord Carter: The Committee will obviously he delighted that the Government put down the amendment. It enables me to raise again the point made earlier in the Committee about the situation which has happened in the Chamber, with the arrangements that have been made for this Bill. I pointed out at an earlier stage that it is a classic example of the stereotyping and defining of people by their disability. Special arrangements were made with this Bill for noble Lords who use wheelchairs, but with no other. I pointed out that noble Lords who use wheelchairs are not interested only in matters of disability. I ant delighted that with this new clause it is clear that the House intends to implement the relevant clauses of the Act and that the arrangements which were made on a purely temporary basis for this Bill will become permanent for all Bills.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I warmly welcome this amendment.
Earl Russell: I, too, warmly welcome this amendment, and in the process of doing so say how much I admire what the House has done and will continue to do for its disabled Members, who make such an enormous contribution.
It is perhaps also worth noting in passing that this is an example of the fact that Parliament, being a sovereign body, may, if and when it so chooses, by force of statute override its own privileges. That is an important power and I am glad to see it used.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 141:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Confidentiality
.—(1) Each appropriate authority shall provide, in relation to the courts for which he is the appropriate authority—

(a) for proceedings before them in which a person might he identified as disabled for the purposes of this Act to he held in private,

(b) for securing that the registration or other publication of documents or decisions relating to those proceedings shall be so effected as to prevent any such identification, or

(c) for the court in question to make a restricted reporting order having effect (if not revoked earlier) until the promulgation of the court's decision,

if, for the purpose of preventing such identification, any party so requests or the court thinks fit.
(2) If any identifying matter is published or included in a relevant programme in contravention of a restricted reporting order made by virtue of subsection (1) (c), the following persons shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale—

(a) in the case of publication in a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor and editor and any publisher of the newspaper or periodical,

(b) in the case of publication in any other form, the person publishing the matter, and

(c) in the case of matter included in a relevant programme—

(i) any body corporate engaged in providing the service in which the programme is included. and

(ii) any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper.

(3) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (2) it shall he a defence to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he was not aware, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, that the publication or programme in question was of. or (as the case may be) included, the matter in question.
(4) Where an offence under subsection (2) committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent connivance of, or to he attributable to any neglect on the part of—

(a) a director, manager, secretary or similar officer of the body corporate, or

(b) a person purporting to act in any such capacity,

he as well as the body corporate shall he guilty of the offence and liable to he proceeded against and punished accordingly.
In relation to a body corporate whose aft airs are managed by its members. "director- in this subsection means a member oh the body corporate.
(5) In this section—

"appropriate authority- means the person who has authority to make provision. whether by rules or otherwise, governing the proceedings of a court referred to in subsection (1)

727

"court" includes tribunal,

"relevant programme" means a programme included in a programme service, within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990,

"restricted reporting order" means an order prohibiting the publication in the United Kingdom of identifying matter in a written publication available to the public or its inclusion in a relevant programme for reception in the United Kingdom, and

"written publication" includes a film, a sound track and any other record in permanent form, but does not include an indictment or other document prepared for use in particular legal proceedings.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 141 stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who is not able to he present this evening, and my name is also attached. The noble Baroness asked me to move the amendment for her, and I am very happy to do so.
The amendment makes specific provision for any proceedings under this legislation to be able to be held in private, and for parties to the proceedings not to be identified in any way if that is appropriate. At the outset, I stress the phrase "if that is appropriate". Clearly it is desirable in principle that proceedings before a court or tribunal should be public whenever possible on the ancient principle that justice should be not only done but seen to he done.
To explain how the new clause works, subsection (1) gives a power to the appropriate authorities in any court or tribunal to make provision for proceedings to be held in private to prevent identification of any party; to ensure that documents and so forth are not published in a form which allows identification; and for a reporting restriction. This power may he exercised either on the application of any party, or if the court thinks fit. The rest of the clause provides, as is necessary, for any contravention of an order made under subsection (1) to he an offence and for the necessary definitions under the clause. Members of the Committee with experience of such matters will recognise that all this is in recognisable form. The amendment does not seek to introduce a new principle, but to extend well-tried procedures to the circumstances of this Bill.
The rules at present allow private hearings only in those instances covered under Section 8(2) (3) of the Industrial Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 1993, which I have in my hand. So far as I can see, such instances are restricted to those relating to national security. or involving confidential information or information that would cause substantial injury to any undertaking in which a witness works. There is also a further provision in Rule 14 to make a restricted reporting order in cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct.
None of this appears to offer any comfort or protection to an individual desirous of maintaining confidentiality while pursuing a legal remedy under this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament—hence the new clause, which simply makes explicit that private hearings relating to discrimination within the terms of the Bill, would he not mandatory but permissive. It seems to me highly that there will he circumstances in which the identification of one or other, or indeed both, parties would he most undesirable.
The new clause covers all persons eligible for protection under the Bill; and one can think of various conditions that employees might not wish to have disclosed. One is certainly HIV disease—in which, as many Members of the Committee will know, I take an interest—which is widely known to generate discrimination and which, if revealed in court, might well prejudice the employee concerned not only in a current dispute but also in future employment. That is to say nothing of the disincentive effect of an unrestricted hearing to bringing the case in the first place.
The employer's interests might also he involved. For instance, let us consider the case of someone with a disability arising from a viral infection who wanted to take action under the Act (as the Bill will become) against an employer in the catering industry. Even if there were no question of any danger of infection to the public, neither the disabled person concerned nor his employer would necessarily want the fact of that particular disability to be made public, or for neighbours or competitors to know about it.
The interest of the employee is obvious. It could equally be in the interest of the employer for it not to he reported that he had employed staff with a particular condition which, although constituting no threat to public health, might he perceived as such and thus he detrimental to his business.
If there is not an explicit provision in the Bill for such cases, when appropriate, to he taken in private, in my submission the machinery of the Bill will he severely impaired. It will be defective. I stress that the new clause involves only a permissive power so that the ultimate decision is left in the hands of the court or tribunal concerned. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wish very briefly to support the amendment, so clearly explained to the Committee. The amendment would provide a permissive power to restrict reporting to ensure the confidentiality of the parties concerned.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, made clear, the problem could involve people with AIDS or possibly those having a history of mental illness who would he very reluctant to pursue their claims through tribunals and the courts if that resulted in widespread publicity for them. Equally, other disabled people might have a medical history of a highly intimate nature involving incontinence or concealed but substantial physical disfigurement that they would not wish publicly to he revealed.
With that proviso, none of the restrictions proposed in the amendment would prevent the appropriate reporting of the decision after the event. In child care cases involving abuse, restricted reporting would prevent the identification of the complainant and of the employer. I believe that there are similar protections whereby mental health review tribunal hearings take place in private as usually, I understand, do hearings of claims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I understand also that, for the most part, industrial tribunals can sit in private where national security or information of a highly commercial and sensitive nature is involved, but it is not a widespread practice.

729
As a former member of the Press Council—we were often concerned about issues of identification or inappropriate identifications and sometimes there was a jigsaw effect—I can assure the Minister that there need he no problem about requiring such restricted reporting, provided only, I suspect, that the press can claim a public interest defence in the very special circumstances that might be generated. I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have some sympathy with the intention behind the amendment, but I wish to underline a point made by the noble Lord; namely, that it has always been the principle that legal proceedings should he held in open court, capable of being fully reported, as summed up in the saying "that justice is not only done but is seen to be done".
The principle is reflected in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that,
"in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing".
That principle is closely adhered to by the Council on Tribunals in its Model Rules of Procedure for Tribunals.
The onus has always been on those seeking an exception to the principle of an open and public hearing of a case to demonstrate that it is in the interests of justice for a case to he heard in private on the grounds, for example, of national security, public order, decency, safety or the protection of minors. It is then for the discretion of the relevant judicial authority to decide upon the facts presented to them.
The effect of the wide-ranging amendment before us is to provide for a blanket privacy provision, requiring the hearings of all cases under this legislation in courts and tribunals to take place in private; for the litigant or appellant not to he identified in associated documents; and for there to be restrictions on reporting cases. That is a very wide provision which would apply to all those people involved in actions under the Bill. The amendment would also enable any party to the proceedings to request privacy and reporting restrictions, and would thereby fetter the discretion of the courts and tribunals in these matters. I fail to see any reason why there should he a need for a provision such as this to he introduced under this legislation when it has not been necessary to introduce similar measures under other similar legislation. I fail to see why it should he necessary or even desirable to provide for a blanket privacy exemption for any disabled person involved in action under this legislation.
Perhaps I may point out that parties taking claims under the right of access to goods and services provisions will have the option of having their claims dealt with under the small claims arbitration procedure where, because of the arbitral nature of this procedure, hearings are held in private.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: When the Minister said that he did not understand the need for the provision given that it did not apply in other legislation, was he
730
thinking about the other commissions, the CRE and EOC'? Was that what the Minister had in mind when referring to other similar bodies? If so, I should like to come back on that point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was thinking about the tribunals. I mentioned the legislation under which tribunals work and the models of procedure of tribunals which, as I indicated, adhere closely to the principles outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
I suspect that the motive behind the amendment was directed more towards people with AIDS or HIV who may require the protection of the amendment. If the amendment is designed entirely to protect such people, it is drawn rather too widely because it currently applies to all disabled people under the Bill. I would argue also that there is no similar blanket right of privacy under existing employment rights legislation and I am not aware that that causes any particular problems for people with AIDS or HIV. I would therefore stand firmly on the fundamental point of justice that I mentioned earlier.
The Bill attempts to deal clearly and effectively with issues of discrimination against disabled people. It would be a mistake for us to take a step such as that proposed in the amendment which, while of some benefit to a small group of people covered by the Bill, such as those with AIDS, would be of no benefit to the majority and might allow those who have discriminated to hide from exposure in the media.
One of the principles of justice in this country is that it is public. One of the reasons for that is that the public, through reporting and so forth, learn what is and what is not legal. I should have thought that Members of the Committee would he keen for the messages of tribunals and courts—though one hopes that there will not he too many of them—to he widely reported and learnt by other people who may he tempted to practise the same discrimination policies.
I believe therefore that it would not he right to make an exception in the case of this Bill and decide that cases should he heard in private. The overriding principles are too important to remove them too quickly and too readily. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment, though I suspect he will not he entirely satisfied with my answer.
Lord Kilmarnock: The Minister is certainly correct in his last supposition. He adduced the Council on Tribunals models of procedure but did not explain why there had been extensive derogations from that in the exempted areas which already appear in the rules—the ones we have mentioned of national security and commercial confidentiality. So there are already some quite big holes in the basic principle which presumably the Council on Tribunals approved.
The noble Lord refers to a blanket provision. but it remains ultimately in the power of the courts to decide the issue. The situation at the moment, as far as I can read it, is that the court does not have a power to decide on a private hearing in these cases. It seems to me that at least it ought to have that permissive power.

731
The Minister referred to AIDS and HIV, and I do not conceal that that is certainly one of the motives behind the new clause, but that is not the only group of people involved. People with disfigurements and other kinds of disabilities may well also be affected. The noble Lord's remarks rather surprised me in the context of this Bill, which is supposed to make it possible for people to come forward without fear or favour and bring cases for unfair dismissal which in certain circumstances they might find it very difficult to do.
I have to agree with the noble Lord's last remark. But I am not satisfied with what he said. I shall read it carefully tomorrow morning and together with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, I shall look carefully at the text of the amendment to see whether we can modify it in a way that would meet his objections. I do not think we want to let the matter drop entirely but I shall withdraw the amendment at the present time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Regulations and orders]:
[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 142A:
Page 26, line 27, at end insert:
("(6) Subsection (I) does not require an order under section (Special authorizations) which applies only to a specified vehicle, or to vehicles of a specified person, to be made by statutory instrument but such an order shall be as capable of being amended of revoked as an order which is made by statutory instrument.").
The noble Lord said: We have already discussed this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Interpretation]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 143 and 144:
Page 26, line 28, at end insert:
(""accessibility regulations" means regulations made under section (Accessibility regulations);").
Page 26, line 40, at end insert:
(""licensing authority" means—

(a) in relation to the area to which the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 applies, the Secretary of State or the holder of any office for the time being designated by the Secretary of State; or

(b) in relation to any other area in England and Wales, the authority responsible for licensing taxis in that area;").

The noble Lord said: We have already discussed these amendments. Perhaps I may move them en bloc. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I welcome the amendments which the noble Lord introduced earlier. I missed the metaphorical bus because I was waiting for my noble friend Lady Stedman, who is much more expert in this field, to speak. I very much look forward to the day when I can use public transport and use it without major forward planning and forethought. I pay tribute to the Department of Transport for its record in working towards making transport more accessible for people with disabilities.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those remarks. I shall certainly pass them on to my colleagues in the Department of Transport.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 26, line 42, after ("1983") insert ("or the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 145 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 146. Lines 41 to 45 of Clause 38 make it clear that the term "mental impairment" as used in the Disability Discrimination Bill does not have the same meaning as in the Mental Health Act 1983. They also make it clear that the fact that an impairment would be a mental impairment for the purposes of the 1983 Act does not prevent it from being a mental impairment for the purposes of this Bill. The effect of Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 is to make the same classification for the equivalent legislation in Scotland, the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 26, line 43, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("either of those Acts").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 146A to 147A:
Page 27, line 3, at end insert:
(""public service vehicle" and "regulated public service vehicle" have the meaning given in section (PSV accessibility regulations);").
Page 27, line 3, at end insert:
(""rail vehicle" and "regulated rail vehicle" have the meaning given in section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations).").
Page 27, line 6, at end insert:
(""taxi" means a vehicle licensed under—

(a) section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, or

(b) section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869.").

Page 27, line 6, at end insert:
(—vehicle examiner" means an examiner appointed under section 66A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Enforcement and Procedure]:
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 32, leave out lines 17 to 19.
The noble Baroness said: The effect of this amendment is to remove from the Bill a limit, as yet unknown because the level of the limit has not yet been declared by the Government, on any damages which may he awarded for injury to feelings in any action brought under Clause 20 of the Bill.
This provision to prescribe in regulations a limit on damages which a court can award was not debated in the other place so we have no idea of the thinking behind this measure or the level at which the Government intend to set the limit. I suggest that whatever rationale the Government may have, it cannot be equity-based and, if in fact it is, against which standard are the Government applying it?
A ceiling on damages is also suggested, bearing in mind that they will be awarded only when the discriminated person has established injury to feelings in a court of law. That flies in the face of experience and treatment in this Bill in comparison with other legislation that we have on the statute book. For instance, when the sex discrimination legislation was introduced, a limit was included for damages. Subsequently, that was removed. When the racial equality legislation was introduced, again originally there was a limit on damages, but it has subsequently been removed.
Yet in this Bill we have the Government trying, despite the experience in both those Acts, each dealing with discrimination in one form or another, to introduce a limit. Why? Is the reason to try to keep down the level of damages? Cannot the courts be allowed to be the best arbiters in these cases? After all, they will be dealing with them. How do the Government answer the quite legitimate allegation of people with disabilities that here again in this measure, as in a number of others in the Bill, they are trying to foist on the disabled inferior treatment to the rest of the community?
This provision deals with compensation for injury to feelings where such injury has been established in a court of law. The Bill does not define what constitutes an injury to feelings. One judge expressed it, fairly in my view, as pain caused by discrimination; as being held up to hatred, ridicule or contempt. They arc descriptions of attitude which, I suggest, all too many disabled people have experienced in the course of their lives.
Are the Government concerned that the judges will have particular sympathy for disabled applicants and make high awards? If that is the case, where is the evidence? If one looks at awards for injury to feelings caused by discrimination under other legislation as a comparison, the average is about £3,000 damages in each case. Disabled persons will have to take their cases to court when they feel that their feelings have been injured, and that comes under the remit of this Bill. Let us just try to assess the trauma that an individual will go through, having to re-live the experience again in court. It will be quite enormous.
As we know, legal aid is not available for claims under £1,000 so it is crucial, if the Government are not going to move on this issue, to know what is the level that the Government intend to set under regulations. Will it be at a level below that provided for which legal aid would be available?
Of course, damages are not just for the individual. That person receives the compensation, but they also send out a strong message as to how such personal damage is viewed by the rest of society and
734
parliamentarians in making the law. An award kept deliberately low by a limit set in statute is a telling message that any injury to feelings is regarded as not really an issue of importance.
This is an issue where the courts have recognised that damages for injury to feelings, humiliation and insult due to discrimination should not be minimal, as that would trivialise or diminish respect for public policy. Those are statements made by judges in courts of law.
The Bill would be better for the elimination of those two lines. There would be no additional cost to the Government. We are talking about court awards of compensation. Accepting the amendment would leave decisions on claims for injury to feelings to the courts to decide. They would have to decide whether a claim is established and, if so, the appropriate level of compensation. We should leave that decision to the judges of the courts which decide the cases. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Monson: It is true that under the Bill as drafted compensation for injury to feelings is likely in practice to be lower than that generally awarded under race relations and sex discrimination legislation, but the conclusion to be drawn is not that the provisions of the Bill are defective, but that the potential compensation payable under the 1975 and 1976 Acts is much too high—much higher, I submit, than anyone envisaged at the time, and I was present during most of the debates when the two Bills in question were going through this House. Women who joined the Armed Services, for example, knowing perfectly well what the rules of the game were when they enlisted and who were later discharged on becoming pregnant have been awarded not only extremely high damages for loss of earnings, for which some sort of case could perhaps be made, but also preposterously high damages for injury to feelings, for which I submit no case can be made at all. In fact, in many cases such damages are higher than those awarded to people by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for quite severe physical injuries. I believe that the Government arc on the right lines in this matter.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Amendment No. 148 would delete paragraph 7 from Schedule 2 and thus remove the provision allowing for a limit to he set on the amount of damages payable in compensation for injury to feelings. I cannot agree that the power to set such a limit should he removed.
The Government have made clear their belief that there should he a limit on the amount of compensation payable for injured feelings when a disabled person has been discriminated against in access to goods and services. The provisions in paragraph 7 do not mean that we do not place a high value on the feelings of disabled people. We believe the Bill offers practical solutions to the discrimination faced by disabled people.
The Government are committed to ensuring that disabled people can avail themselves of their new rights. That is why, for example, we will he establishing an advice and support service to help disabled people to

735
obtain advice on their right of access. We intend the service to promote the resolution of disputes arising under the right of access, without the need for legal intervention.
Where litigation becomes necessary, however, we will ensure that disabled people can obtain redress quickly and effectively. The limit on the amount payable for injured feelings will help to ensure that the vast majority of cases can be dealt with under the small claims procedure, which is informal, cheap and does not usually require legal representation. There will, of course, be no limit set on the amount of damages payable for financial loss incurred in a case of discrimination. As in other anti-discrimination legislation, there will be no limit in such cases.
I believe that it is in everyone's interests for the procedures for redress to be effective and, wherever possible, informal, so as to avoid expensive and lengthy litigation. It is for those reasons that I resist Amendment No. 148 and want to keep in the Bill the powers to impose a limit.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the Minister for that reply, which has given me some more questions to ask the Minister. The noble Lord did not respond to my point about the limit that the Government envisage for the regulations. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that in the light of his comment about hoping to ensure that the majority of claims are dealt with under the procedures of the small claims court.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to respond. The noble Baroness rightly deduces that we intend to set the limit close to or at the level which applies at any time to claims which fall to be considered by the small claims court. That is currently £1,000, although my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has plans for a higher small claims limit which could affect the eventual limit to be set under the Bill. I hope that that answers the question.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the Minister for that explanation, which helps but increases my astonishment at this paragraph. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, compared this amendment with claims by service personnel under the sex discrimination legislation. We are not here dealing with the same issue. We are dealing with injury to feelings, not lack of promotion or service opportunity, or being misled about opportunities which exist to return to work after maternity leave.
The Minister said that the Government do not intend to remove this provision from the Bill because it is their intention to promote the resolution of conflict. We would all agree with that, but even removing this paragraph from the Bill and so providing no limit on compensation would not of itself exclude conciliation to resolve the problem.
With regard to the small claims court, we are clearly talking about a limit of £1,000. That is to misunderstand the hurt feelings and discrimination suffered by many disabled people. Why should people covered by the Bill be treated worse than those covered by the sex discrimination and racial equality legislation? It is not
736
equity. In this area the Bill is not treating people fairly. It discriminates against them. Clearly we shall not divide at this time of night, and so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Consequential Amendments]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 35, line 16, at end insert:
("Further and Higher Education Act 1992
. In Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (Courses of Further Education), in paragraph (j) for the words "which prepares them for entry to another course falling within paragraphs (d) to (h) above" there shall be substituted the words "as defined under section 4(6) (b) of this Act"
Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992
. In section 6 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 (further education to which section 1 applies), in subsection (1), after paragraph (f) there shall be inserted—

"(g) is designed to teach independent living and communication skills to persons with a disability which either prevents or hinders them from making use of facilities of a kind generally provided by institutions within the further education sector for persons of their age." ").

The noble Baroness said: In view of the hour I shall try not to be too long, but I shall not he very brief because this is a matter which is important and about which I feel passionately.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the responsibilities of the further education councils in England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland include the provision of essential courses of benefit to young people with severe disabilities, even when they may not lead directly to a more academic or vocational course.
The amendment is necessary because at present it is unclear whether such people are covered by the further education sector or local authority provision. In practice, some students end up with no provision. Skill (the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities) can give many examples of students with severe learning difficulties who are in that predicament.
Another group encountering problems with gaining the skills they need are those people, often elderly, who have become deaf and are in need of lipreading skills. Those courses are sometimes available within the provision made by education authorities, but it is not always so, and many people do not have the opportunity of learning new ways to communicate. Skill feels that that duty is best placed in the further education sector.
LEAs have a responsibility to provide what arc usually called leisure courses. But for students with severe learning difficulties life skills are not an optional extra. They are essential to enable them to operate as effectively as possible as independent adults. They do very much what a more academic course would do for a more academic student. The same is true for someone needing lipreading skills to survive successfully in society. We are talking, as it were, of A-levels in living. It is important that they should be able to learn such skills in a college environment surrounded by other students.
That is one of the reasons why the noble Baroness, Lady David, and I cajoled and argued at length to get life skills included in Schedule 2. We succeeded on Third Reading thanks to the most welcome co-operation of the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness. I remember how pleased we were to have achieved that. I thought also that I had understood, but I cannot find it in writing anywhere, that the wording was to be interpreted fairly loosely, so that even if a student was unlikely to go on to a more academic course, he could still go to college to learn life skills.
We should remember that there are spin-off benefits. A more independent student is more likely to contribute to society and to need less from benefits and social services. The further education sector has no duty to provide this kind of course because of the tight structure of Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act and Section 6 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act. The general duty which LEAs have to make provision available seems insufficient to ensure that those students are adequately catered for. This limbo for students with severe disability needs to be eradicated by placing a clear duty on either the LEAs or the FE sector to provide for them. Does existing legislation cover the point but the bodies involved are unclear about their role? If so it would be helpful if the Government could clarify exactly who has this duty and ensure that provision is delivered in the way most appropriate for these students.
If, however, the existing legislation does not place a duty to provide independent living and communication skills for students with severe or newly acquired disabilities, we need to amend the law to ensure that such students can gain the essential skills in the way that is most suited to them. I very much hope that the Minister will provide not only enlightenment but also encouragement. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I strongly support the amendment. During the passage of many education Bills through this Chamber various issues have caused anxiety. One was the provision of adequate education and skills for those with learning disabilities who are over the age of 19. They are not properly provided for. A second was that while the 1992 Act was going through this Chamber we were most anxious about there being flexibility so that students could take courses in further education colleges or adult colleges. There could easily be difficulties for some of those students in finding the right course at any college. It is most important that they should be able to obtain it somewhere near their homes.
I hope that the amendment, which will cover many cases, will be accepted by the Government. I also hope that the Minister will recognise the existing difficulties for people over the age of 19 who have learning disabilities. They very much need these life skills and they should he able to obtain them in a variety of places; either a further education college or an adult college. I hope that the Minister can understand the problems which exist and can accept the amendment.
Lord Rix: During our discussions on Clause 12. the Minister was kind enough to redirect me to Schedule 4.
738
Owing to the lateness of the hour, I say merely that I totally support the amendment. It would help colleges to do without unnecessary fuss and negotiations what colleges are becoming increasingly good at doing; namely, continuing the excellent work with young people with severe learning disabilities. That is begun in schools and it should continue in further education.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We on these Benches fully support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). The existing scope for FEFC provision includes in Schedule 2 basic literacy and numeracy. It is logical to argue that skills such as lip reading are part of basic communication and survival skills.
Secondly, it is necessary to ensure that this is a duty not a power in order to give equality of treatment to those people, in particular those over the age of 19, for whom this is not adult education in the normally accepted use of the term, valuable and important though that is. We should not restrict life skills and treat them as being separate because in certain cases of severity of learning difficulty they may not lead on to a recognised course. In one particular case that I came across, taking a course at post-19 led to the difference between that person being able to feed and dress himself and not being able to do so. That is equally a right in developing human potential and the potential of people who may take much longer to learn. We fully support the amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: Once again the noble Baroness has dealt with a very important aspect of helping people with severe disabilities. They are being taught life skills which enable them to become part of the community. I can see no reason why the Government should wish to resist the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), is well known for her commitment to securing education for students with disabilities. Indeed, she was responsible for the amendment to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 which brought into being the current arrangements. I am not sure whether she is now suggesting that those arrangements should he changed.
The amendment would destroy the clear division of responsibilities between the funding councils and local education authorities and the associated apportionment of funds set out in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
The councils are under a duty to secure adequate facilities for education for all part-time students over compulsory school age and full-time students over the age of 19 years where the education falls within the ambit of Schedule 2 to the Act. The schedule includes courses,
"to teach independent living and communication skills to persons having learning difficulties",
where those courses prepare students for entry to other courses listed in the schedule, including basic literacy

739
and numeracy, English as a second language and courses offering a preparation for vocational or academic provision or access to higher education. The guidance issued by the Further Education Funding Council indicates that eligible courses in independent living and communication skills must have as their primary objective progression to another course in Schedule 2. That means the objective must he to prepare students to move on to a course of basic skills, English as a second language, academic, vocational or access provision or preparatory courses. The council looks for evidence that that objective is to be achieved.
That has a two-fold aim: to ensure that all who can benefit are offered the opportunity to progress to academic, vocational or access courses; and, where that is the case, to secure that the precursor courses could also take place in further education sector colleges. In the debates on this clause during the passage of the 1992 Act, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, pointed out that many young people with learning difficulties begin to learn when they reach their late teens. The current provisions take cognisance of that.
However, there is an equally important duty on local education authorities to secure adequate facilities for further education. That duty is set out in Section 11 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, amending the 1944 Education Act. It encompasses full-time and part-time education for people over compulsory school age, including vocational, social, physical and recreational training and associated leisure-time occupation. Each of those courses is self-standing rather than necessarily leading on to something else. LEAs also have a power to supplement the provision made by the funding councils. The respective duties of the councils and of the local education authorities were recognised in the financial arrangements flowing from the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
I have set out the existing provisions and the thinking underlying them because I share the view as to the importance of securing adequate and appropriate education for disabled people and of ensuring that there is a clear understanding of existing provisions.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness that existing provisions are robust and clear. The distinction between the responsibilities of the Further Education Funding Council and the LEAs is clear. To go down the road of the noble Baroness's amendment would confuse rather than improve the position. I hope that in the light of my explanation of how we see the system, put in place largely thanks to her efforts, working, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: Is the Minister listening?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes.
Baroness David: Is the Minister satisfied that no one can fall between these stools? I think that there may he a few characters who may not lit into any of those categories and. therefore, not get exactly what they need.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was, indeed, listening. I was turning to listen to the clever little amplifier in the seating because I do not hear on both
740
cylinders. I find that it is easier to listen through the machine. However, as far as concerns particular cases, I am not aware of any. But, quite clearly, in response to both the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), if there are any cases we will of course look at them to see whether something can he done to help.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am sorry but I feel that the Minister's answer fails to grasp the point. It should he a duty for FEFCs to make provision for the full ability range as of right in the same way and in the same college as such students' peers. The narrow interpretation set out in Schedule 2 precludes that area of activity.
It is true that LEAs are empowered to make provision within what is generally termed "adult education''. That sometimes is the voluntary area and the vocation area may be involved. After listening to the Minister's response tonight, it is my belief that, had the legislation been framed in the way that many Members of the Committee wished, such a division would never have occurred in the first place. I say that because in itself that division is discriminatory. Therefore, I regret that the Minister has taken that view. It denies young people the right to equality of treatment with their peers.
It is certainly the case that basic literacy and numeracy do not have to lead rigidly to a specific course on which a student has been enrolled. As we are pioneering new ground for those with severe learning difficulties, in many cases the courses will have to follow the students being given access to them rather than the other way round.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Perhaps I may first thank all Members of the Committee who gave me such strong support at this late hour; indeed, a large proportion of those in the Chamber. I should point out that that support comes from all sides of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, attached his name to the amendment and, had he been here, he would have supported me most strongly. All those who have spoken know exactly what they are talking about.
We arc discussing a very important matter upon which people feel strongly. Clearly, it needs clarification. The Minister said that he was not sure whether I was suggesting that I now wanted to change what I had brought into being. I certainly do not want to do so; indeed. I do not want to change what I hoped I had brought into being. However, it clearly is not working quite as the noble Baroness, Lady David, and I envisaged. The problem is that one can only go to an FE college and take such a course if one is going on to join other courses.
I thank the Minister for clarifying the guidance as regards FEFCs in that "eligible courses" must have as their primary objective "progression to another course''. That is now very clear. The Minister said that there was an equally important duty on the LEAs and that they also had powers to supplement FEFC courses. But, as the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Farrington.

741
said, it clearly is not working; indeed, we would not have tabled the amendment if it had been. Skill has evidence of many incidents in that respect. There was one in my briefing but I did not read it out to the Committee and I have now lost it. I can assure the Minister that Skill can produce many instances of people who fall between the two stools. They try to go to an FE college, but the college turns them down because they are not going on to a vocational course and tells them they must go to the LEA, and the LEA says that they must go to the college.
It is clear now that both have their separate duties. However, the system is not working. Will the Minister say that he might issue encouragement to LEAs to pursue their duties? Or will he at least agree to discuss the matter further and see whether we cannot at least issue guidance to ensure that what is meant to be happening does happen?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am more than happy to have a discussion with the noble Baroness to see whether something needs to be done to make clear what I thought was a pretty clear definition of where duties fall between the Further Education Funding Council and local education authorities. Having listened to the noble Baroness, I believe that the point that she makes is not necessarily that the boundary is wrong but that one of the parties on one side of the boundary does not seem to recognise how the Act works, as I have explained it. Of course I am happy to talk to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In order to clarify the position, can the Minister make clear whether there is a duty on both the FEFC and local authorities or whether this is a power'?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not have the original Act to hand, so I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. One could go to the Library and look up Statutes in Force, but of course I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister has the advantage of the support of hordes of civil servants which we, poor things, do not.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the Minister for that reply. He summed up the position rather well. I shall he delighted to talk to him. Skill would probably like to give him some examples of where people have fallen between the two stools. Perhaps we shall he able to go forward and produce some guidance or get some encouragement.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Advice has come to hand immediately on Statutes in Force, and I can tell the Committee that there arc duties on both sides.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth); I thank the Minister once again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 35, line 38, at end Insert:

("1993 c. 62.

The Education Act 1993

In section 161(5), the words from "and in this subsection" to the end.").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Modifications of this Act in its Application to Northern Ireland]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 150A:
Page 36, line 12, at end insert:
("(2) In section 7(4) to (10) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of Economic Development", for "he" and "him" wherever they occur substitute "it" and for "his" wherever it occurs substitute "its".
(3) In section 7(9) for "Parliament" substitute "the Assembly".").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 150A I wish to speak also to all the other amendments which arc grouped with it.
The inclusion of Schedule 6 in the Bill ensures that the provisions of the Bill may have effect in Northern Ireland at the same time as the rest of the UK. Schedule 6 modifies the provisions of the Bill so that they fit within the context of Northern Ireland's existing legislation and structures while at the same time retaining their substance and effect.
Bearing in mind the lateness of the hour, it may he appropriate to speak in that way to all the amendments, and if any Member of the Committee has any particular point he or she would like to raise I shall he pleased to answer it.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Perhaps I may intervene briefly. I believe that one of the amendments deals with education in Northern Ireland, but I cannot put my finger on it. If there is, does it give Northern Ireland the same powers as are given to the rest of Great Britain in respect of further and higher education?
Lord Inglewood: I can reassure the Committee that the Department of Education in Northern Ireland has undertaken to take appropriate steps to ensure that the education provisions will he effected in Northern Ireland as in England and Wales. For example, the forthcoming Northern Ireland Education Order will be amended to take account of the Bill's provisions on the publication of information in school governors' annual reports. The further education provisions will he taken fully into account in the development of proposals for the incorporation of further education colleges. In the area of higher education existing powers will he used to follow the arrangements proposed for England and Wales.
In addition, the opportunity will be taken with the publication of the charters on further and higher education due to he published later this year to reinforce those requirements. I hope that that assists the noble Baroness. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am most grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 151 to 154:
Page 36, line 13, at beginning insert ("—(1) In section 8(3) omit "or (in Scotland) in reparation".
(2)").
Page 37, line 9, at end insert:
("12A. Omit sections (Education of disabled persons), (Further and higher education of disabled persons) and (Further and higher education of disabled persons: Scotland).
12B.—(1) In section (Accessibility regulations) (1) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Accessibility regulations) (5) omit the definition of "taxi".
12C. For section (New licences conditional on compliance with accessibility regulations) substitute—
''New licences conditional on compliance with accessibility regulations.
.—(1) The Department of the Environment shall not grant a public service vehicle licence under Article 61 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 for a taxi unless the vehicle conforms with those provisions of the accessibility regulations with which it will he required to conform if licensed.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the grant of a public service vehicle licence in respect of a taxi if the Department is renewing a public service vehicle licence which is in force in respect of that taxi immediately before the grant of that licence.
(3) The Department of the Environment may by order provide for subsection (2) to cease to have effect on such date as may he specified in the order.".
12D. Omit section (Exemption from accessibility regulations).
12E. In section (Carrying of passengers in wheelchairs) (7) for "licensing authority" substitute "Department of the Environment".
12F.—(1) In section (Carrying of guide dogs and hearing dogs) (5) and (6) for "licensing authority" substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Carrying of guide dogs and hearing dogs) (9) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".
12G. Omit section (Taxis: requirements as to disabled passengers in Scotland).").
Page 38, leave out lines 44 to 48.
Page 40, line 2, at end insert:
("(4) In section 33(7) omit "paragraph (b) of", for "1944" substitute "1945" and omit "in each case".
(5) In section 33. Omit subsection (8).").
Page 41, line 16, after ("Kingdom;" ") insert:
("() in the definition of "fire brigade" for the words from "means" to the end substitute "has the same meaning as in the Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1984":
() in the definition of "prison officer" for the words from "means" to the end substitute "means any individual who holds any post. otherwise than as a medical officer. to which he has been appointed under section 2(2) of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953: and").
Page 41, line 49. at end insert:
(—accessibility regulations" means regulations made under section (Accessibility regulations);").
Page 42. line 4, at end insert:
(""the Department of the Environment' means the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.").
Page 42, line 26, at end insert:
("(aa) in Part (TAXIS) of this Act, regulations made by the Department of the Environment;").
Page 42, line 28, at end insert:
(""taxi" means a vehicle which—

(a) is licensed under Article 61 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to stand or ply for hire; and

(b) scats not more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver.").

Page 43, leave out lines 6 and 7.
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 151. At the same time I beg to move also Amendments Nos. 151A to 154.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Health Authorities Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Jobseekers Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before midnight.