Sitting of 20 March 1995

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

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps have been taken by his Department to ensure that up-to-date information is supplied by his Department's local offices to local authorities and to claimants, with particular respect to housing benefit claimants. [12988]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): We have introduced agreements between local authorities and Benefits Agency offices setting out the service to be delivered. Such agreements now exist in all Benefits Agency offices. Additionally, as part of a special exercise, seven local authorities now have direct computer access to income support information via a Benefits Agency operator. The results of this have been very encouraging.
    Mr. Hughes: I am sure that that is helpful progress. Does the Minister agree that it is unhelpful when inaccurate or outdated information is either held by the DSS or sent by it to local authorities because such information often prejudices the rights of tenants who may be shown as being in arrears and thus prevented from
    2
    having a transfer or disadvantaged in other ways? Will the Minister look at that to make sure that the incidence of such happenings is reduced as far as possible or eliminated altogether?
    Mr. Evans: Clearly, the issuing of outdated or otherwise inaccurate information is a serious matter which can indeed prejudice claimants and we always bear in mind the need to prevent it as far as possible.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that housing benefit currently costs the taxpayer £10 billion and that it is one of the most rapidly growing social security benefits? Will he also confirm that in the London borough of Barnet people can receive £250 a week or £13,000 a year in housing benefit? That distorts the housing market, is a disincentive for people to work and may well be given to tenants who pay no rent at all, thus denying the landlord that benefit.
    Mr. Evans: The answer to my hon. Friend's first proposition is yes. He gives the example of rents in Barnet being met by the taxpayer at the rate of £250 per week in housing benefit. That is why we seek to introduce a reasonable limit in the case of above-average rents.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister not realise that it is the landlord and not the tenant who gets all this money? The Minister might ask himself why rents have gone up to such an extent that we have to pay so much housing benefit.
    Mr. Evans: Of course it is the landlord who gets the money. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would agree that the right to what is, in effect, an open-ended commitment to private landlords—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: You did it
    Mr. Evans: The system has been extremely successful in promoting the private sector, but there must be some limit to it. That is why we are introducing these proposals.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are eligible for housing benefit. [12990]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Some 4,667,000 people were receiving housing benefit in August 1994. The latest estimate of take-up was in 1992 when, of those who from the family expenditure survey data appeared to be entitled to claim housing benefit, between 88 and 93 per cent. were doing so.
    Mr. Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that he has not given the most up-to-date estimate of people taking up housing benefit? Is he aware that in Coventry a combination of reductions in housing benefit and the jobseeker's allowance can cost many people up to £100 a week in lost income?
    Mr. Lilley: I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. I have given the most recent figure—the figure at the middle of last year—for the number of people receiving housing benefit. Large numbers receive it, but a few do not claim it although they appear to have entitlement and are able to do so if they wish. None of the changes that we are making would prevent them from doing that. We are ensuring that those who choose to occupy properties with above-average rents for such properties in a particular area make some contribution to the rent or, alternatively, occupy less expensive property or negotiate a lower rent with the landlord
    Mr. Brazier: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that councils weed out illegal immigrants from among those to whom they pay housing benefit? Has he seen the recent story in Private Eye about Hackney council and the supposed allocation of many council properties to illegal immigrants to whom, if the story is true, the taxpayer is presumably paying housing benefit?
    Mr. Lilley: Illegal immigrants are not entitled to benefits, in or out of Private Eye. We expect local authorities to investigate and to pursue vigorously cases of fraud and not to facilitate it. As of last year, persons from abroad, as they are known in the lugubrious language of my Department—that is, those who enter this country legally, but on condition that they are not a burden on public funds—are no longer entitled to claim housing benefit.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way to reduce the cost of housing benefit would be to bring back rent controls and to stop the millionaires making a killing out of housing benefit, misery and poverty?
    Mr. Lilley: That would only transfer subsidy from people in need to bricks and mortar indiscriminately. At the same time, it would destroy the private rented sector because it costs money to have low rents in publicly funded housing. If one destroys the private rented sector, one does not have a private rented sector. One of the successes of our policy in recent years has been to reverse the long-term decline of the private rented sector, which was smaller in this country than in any of our European Community partner countries.

    Family Benefits
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families receive family credit; and how many received family income supplement in 1978–79. [12991]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): In July 1994, some
    4
    572,000 families were receiving family credit compared with some 78,000 receiving family income supplement in March 1979.
    Mr. Sims: Are those figures not a striking demonstration of the success of the Government's policy of directing money to those most in need? My hon. Friend will be aware of my correspondence with his office about a recent decision by a social security commissioner which has had the effect of depriving certain school workers, who work limited hours, of family credit. My constituent was not entitled to income support either. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to change the law to correct that anomaly? If so, how soon will the law be changed and will it be retrospective? Can he assure me that people like my constituent will not be out of pocket at the end of the day?
    Mr. Burt: To answer the last part of the question first, the original policy intention was that school workers should have their pay averaged over a term rather than over 52 weeks, for obvious reasons. The commissioner's decision put that interpretation at risk. Accordingly, we have already laid regulations, which will take effect on 11 April, giving effect to the original policy intention so that school ancillary workers will not be disadvantaged. The law cannot be retrospective, so it will apply from that date, but the regulations should help my hon. Friend's constituent and others in the future.
    On my hon. Friend's first point, the figures are a vindication of our policy of trying to improve the situation for people getting back into work. That is most important and it is one of the reasons why this country has the most successful policies on getting back into work compared with all our European neighbours.
    Dr. Godman: Family credit is a social welfare subsidy for those who are paid disgracefully low wages, often by unscrupulous employers. May I urge on the Minister the need to ensure that such credit is paid quickly when claimants make a successful application for it? Too many of my constituents have had to wait far too long for that credit to be paid to them.
    Mr. Burt: On the latter point, the present fast-track family credit procedure helps about 75,000 claims a year to be processed very quickly. We are introducing a pilot project intended, over a period, to deal with some 400,000 cases a year in which we expect to see family credit claims cleared extremely quickly. That will help to cover the situation that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
    On the hon. Gentleman's first point, a report in January 1995 from the Institute for Employment Research said that the availability of family credit had no effect whatever on the wages being offered. Family credit is a supplement for those who need it and an encouragement for people to get back into work. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman and I would share the view that that was an important objective for us all.
    Mr. Rowe: Can my hon. Friend give us an idea how much has been spent in total on family credit? From the evidence of my postbag, the number of people who complain that it is not worth their while to get back to work has fallen off very sharply and I seldom receive such letters now. Will my hon. Friend continue to press policy

    5
    in the direction of eradicating the differential between benefits which are too high and wages which encourage people to go back to work?
    Mr. Burt: The total amount of money paid through the family credit policy since 1988 is some £4.5 billion. That reflects payment of some 5.7 million awards as time has gone on. It has been a successful policy. We have increased the number of hours people are able to work. By adding the child care disregard recently, we have further added to the policy.
    On my hon. Friend's second question, the whole point is that the best relief of all for poverty is ensuring that people are in employment. Anything which can be done to encourage and support that should be done. The present Government have seen some 600,000 come off the unemployment register in the past two years and family credit has certainly played its part in that.

    Habitual Residence Test
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reports he has received about British citizens being denied benefits under the habitual residence test. [12992]
    Mr. Lilley: I have received correspondence on this matter both from hon. Members and from other individuals and organizations.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Secretary of State agree that when the test was introduced the House never envisaged that it would be applied to British citizens? Does he realise that many British citizens who originate from overseas perceive the test as part of this country's immigration controls? Will he address his reply to the question that I have asked about British citizens and not to Canadian backpackers with British citizens as grandparents?
    Mr. Lilley: The regulation was always intended to apply to anyone who was not habitually resident in this country, who had severed his connections with this country and chosen to live elsewhere or who had been born and brought up elsewhere. That includes people who—technically—have British citizenship because they have British grandparents, but who may have been born and bred in Canada, who come here on working holidays, as the hon. Member kindly reminded us, and expect the British taxpayer to pay for their benefit. Surely the hon. Gentleman or, indeed, any hon. Member cannot believe that that is right. The extraordinary thing is that the Labour party opposes every measure that we introduce to stop abuse of the benefits system and then tries to get us to amend the measures in ways which are incompatible with the European Community law, to which it normally wishes to make us subservient.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that many of the so-called British citizens who are denied benefit under the habitual residence test have very little connection with the United Kingdom and that some have never visited this country before? Does he agree that we should limit benefits to those people who have demonstrated a commitment to this country?
    Mr. Lilley: I am sure that my hon. Friend's view will be widely supported in the country. People believe that benefits should be available primarily for those who live
    6
    and have their residence in this country and who contribute through the tax system directly and indirectly to the cost of welfare, and that benefit should not be available to those who have chosen to live elsewhere, to pay taxes to other people and to be dependent on benefits there.
    Ms Lynne: Following the woefully inadequate reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), does the Secretary of State accept that, although we all want to stamp out benefit tourism, British citizens are being caught in the net? Those who go away to work for a couple of years or who go to live abroad with their husbands and come back to this country because their marriages have broken down face destitution. Will the Secretary of State at least guarantee to look at the legislation again and take into account those particular British citizens who are suffering?
    Mr. Lilley: On the hon. Lady's second point, as with all new measures, we are committed to keep this measure under close review to see how it works in practice. I assure her, however, that the vast majority of those affected are not British citizens. As for those who are technically British citizens, they are rarely in the circumstances that the hon. Lady described. Nevertheless, we shall of course keep the regulations under review.
    Mr. Congdon: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the changes simply bring us into line with other European countries where it is not possible for foreigners to claim benefits as of right? Is it not entirely right to put the interests of the British taxpayer before the interests of those people?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right in that most continental countries have a residence system and only people with residence permits in those countries are entitled to the equivalent of income support there. No country in the European Community is entitled to discriminate on the basis of nationality, as the Opposition appear to wish us to do.
    Mr. Bradley: When will the Secretary of State answer two simple questions which he has so far failed to answer on the Floor of the House or in parliamentary replies? How many British citizens have won their appeals against the decision to deny benefit under the habitual residence test and what reasons were given for their winning those appeals? If the Secretary of State is so sure that it is simply a matter of benefit tourism, will he give those answers today—or will the deafening silence continue, with many claimants being denied benefit and suffering severe hardship as a consequence?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member will know that I cannot, off the cuff, give the result of every appeal and the reasons for it, but I will respond to questions tabled by the hon. Gentleman as soon as the information becomes available. He would not expect me to do otherwise. There is an appeals system and it is right that there should be one. If people disagree with the judgment, they can take the matter to appeal. That would merely be a measure of how successful the appeal system is.

    Private Pension Funds
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total amount of funds in

    7
    private pension provision in the United Kingdom; and what is the equivalent figure for the two next largest European Union countries. [12993]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. James Arbuthnot): In 1992, the total amount of funds in private pension provision in the United Kingdom was around £500 billion. That is more than three times the amount in any other European Union country.
    Mrs. Knight: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. This is an area in which we appear to be doing much better than our European partners. Can my hon. Friend confirm that more than 65 per cent. of people retiring now have occupational pensions, and that the Pensions Bill will mean greater confidence in occupational schemes so that personal schemes will be more attractive to many people, thus improving financial security in old age?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I can indeed confirm that. My hon. Friend is quite right. This is an area in which European and other countries are looking to us to take the lead. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that recently retired pensioners have been retiring with an occupational pension of around £100 a week on top of their state retirement pension.
    Mr. Fraser: Is there not something seriously wrong when the initial charge on a pension contribution is equivalent to the first two years' yield on that contribution and when, in addition, the annual management charges take a substantial part of the yield? Are not a few people making a lot of money out of millions of pensioners?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The Government have made it plain that people must be able to judge for themselves which pension to take out. That is why we introduced, from 1 January this year, the requirement that there should be full disclosure of the amount of charges so that people can make their own choices.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Recognising the United Kingdom's excellent record in respect of occupational pensions compared with its European counterparts, does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why in the past 15 years pensioners in this country have seen their incomes rise on average by 50 per cent. compared with an average of 30 per cent. is precisely because so many of them have made provision for their retirement through an occupational pension?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The additional flexibility that we are providing, partly in the Pensions Bill, and which we have been providing over the years, has attracted people to providing for themselves in old age. That has never proved attractive to the Labour party.
    Mr. Ingram: When Ministers talk about personal pensions, they sound like seedy street traders saying, "Never mind the quality, feel the width." Why do the Government continue to over-promote the benefits of personal pensions when it is known that an estimated 1.5 million people have been wrongly advised to leave their occupational pension scheme and up to 2.5 million low-paid workers have been wrongly advised to contract out of the state earnings-related pension scheme in favour of a personal pension plan? Given the nature and extent of the scandal, why have the Government introduced further
    8
    measures in the Pensions Bill actively to encourage even more people into personal pensions and away from well-run and well-funded occupational schemes?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I did not realise that I sounded like a street trader. The Securities and Investments Board has identified a problem and has made sure that it will not recur. We believe that it is right that those who are found to have suffered from mis-selling should be given redress. Appropriate personal pensions are right for some people. In many cases, they are the only thing for people. That is one of the reasons why we want to give more people more flexibility and more choice.

    Low-income Households
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the bottom decile of income distribution had (a) a fridge-freezer, (b) a car and (c) a video recorder in 1979; and how many have them currently. [12995]
    Mr. Burt: Ninety-eight per cent. of households in the bottom decile of income have a fridge or fridge-freezer now, compared with 88 per cent. in 1979; 53 per cent. now have a car, compared with 40 per cent. in 1979; and 65 per cent. have video recorders, which very few possessed in 1979.
    Mr. Arnold: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), who was not here to ask Question 7, had been present in the Chamber he would have learnt a great deal from the answer that the Minister has just given, which spoke for itself about the average income of people in that decile? Will my hon. Friend inform the House what has happened to the average incomes of people in that decile and what proportion of that decile is made up of pensioners?
    Mr. Burt: There are a couple of important things about the bottom decile of income. It is always there: there is always a bottom 10 per cent. of income, no matter when or where we are. What matters is its composition. Since 1979, pensioners as a group have tended to come out of that decile, partly due to the increased amount of benefit from pensions and what has been achieved in that respect. For the bottom decile as a whole, housing costs have been at a standstill in relation to income. As we all know, the bottom decile is not always the same people. The Rowntree report showed that a third of those in the bottom decile in 1990 had moved up to the next decile or even the decile above that within two years.
    Mr. Battle: It is tempting to ask the Minister to spell out how many fridge-freezers, cars and videos the top 10 per cent. have each. Is not the truth of the matter that under the Government the incomes of the bottom decile have fallen by 17 per cent. while those of the top 10 per cent. have increased by 63 per cent.? Where is the social justice in that? Would it not be better to give people real job opportunities rather than leave them to waste?
    Mr. Burt: I do not think that there is any argument between the two of us or within the House on the last point. The importance of having jobs in the economy and the fact that jobs help those in poverty is paramount. I wish that, instead of just saying that, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would support some of the measures

    9
    that we have taken over the years to increase the opportunity of jobs for everyone rather than carping about them, as they have so often done.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware that more than half of those who declare no income at all spend above the average for all other income groups? Does that not prove that there is a lot of nonsense in some of the low income statistics?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. Some 750,000 of the bottom income decile group report nil or negative incomes; yet half of them spend more than the average for the population as a whole. The whole set of statistics is capable of a variety of interpretations. The important point for the House is that there is no fixed group which always stays in the same place. People move throughout the income deciles according to what is happening in their lives. For the Government, the important thing is to make sure that the work that we do to increase the availability of jobs is successful. The fact that Britain has the most successful record in the European Community in terms of getting people back into work in the past couple of years is one that we should all welcome.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his Department's assistance by way of benefits for the homeless. [12996]
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): A wide range of benefits, including income support, is available to homeless people, and housing benefit is available to help meet reasonable rents when accommodation has been found.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that changes in housing benefit due to come into effect in October are a source of worry to people involved with the needs of homeless people in Leicester and, I am sure, the rest of the country? Is he aware that the changes are regarded as inadequate and likely to make it more difficult for people to come into affordable housing, and that they will increase the already awful of burden of homelessness in this country? Will the Minister therefore reconsider those changes?
    Mr. Hague: No. The changes to housing benefit concern above-average rents for an area, and are most unlikely to have an impact on the homeless. Homeless people are assisted by a wide range of benefits, including income support, and housing benefit will continue to be available to help meet reasonable rents. Community care grants and loans from the discretionary social fund are also available to help meet specific expenses, and the jobseeker's allowance is available to unemployed people—including the homeless—who satisfy the entitlement conditions.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend accept that the number of people who are seen begging in the streets causes not only distress but great offence? Will he continue to work with other Departments to deal with the problem, which is often caused by drugs and alcoholism as well as by genuine homelessness? Does my hon. Friend agree that parents have a role to play? Does he further agree that if the rackets that my right hon. Friend the
    10
    Secretary of State mentioned earlier were dealt with effectively, more money would be available to deal with those who are genuinely homeless?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is quite right to refer to the important role which can be played by parents. He is also right to draw attention to the initiatives of other Departments. My colleagues at the Departments of the Environment and of Health have introduced initiatives to reduce the number of rough sleepers which have met with considerable success. The good news is that the third quarter of last year—the last for which figures are available—showed the tenth successive quarterly reduction in the number of homeless acceptances by local authorities, and the eighth successive quarterly reduction in the number of households in temporary accommodation.

    Residential Care
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received in the last 12 months regarding preserved income support payments to residents in care and nursing homes. [12997]
    Mr. Roger Evans: We have received some representations recently, both from individuals and from representative bodies, about the income support limits for people in residential care and nursing homes.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware of the real difficulties facing many of the 80,000 mainly elderly people whose weekly incomes, including DSS benefits, do not enable them to meet the weekly fees of their care or nursing homes and that many of them end up in local authority care homes due to inability to meet their private care costs? Is it not disgraceful that the Government, having privatised the care of the elderly with such worrying human consequences, are now proposing to remove a vital safety net by taking away from local authorities the duty to provide their own direct part III accommodation for the care of the elderly?
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman's last point does not follow at all. The private sector can provide the service better and more effectively. The 80,000 cases to which he referred are preserved rights cases.
    Mr. Hinchliffe indicated assent.
    Mr. Evans: I see that the hon. Gentleman nods. Those people were in residential care nursing homes as at 31 March 1993. Local authorities have the power to deal with the situation when such persons face eviction, or have their home closed. In the circumstances with which we are dealing, it is surely not reasonable to expect the public to pay fees at just any rate at all, as some can run to £1,000 a week or more.

    Compensation Recovery Unit
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had about the operation of the compensation recovery unit; and if he will make a statement. [12998]
    Mr. Roger Evans: A number of representations have been received.
    Mr. O'Hara: Whether the Minister views the CRU from the conceptual, legal or moral point of view, he will

    11
    find that its whole basis is fraudulent, that it represents a breach of the national insurance contract with the electorate and that it is one of the meanest contrivances of a mean-minded Government. Will he therefore give a commitment at least to review the many anomalies in a system which impacts so acutely on damaged lives?
    Mr. Evans: That is a grossly over-exaggerated statement. The existing system was simply unacceptable and arbitrary and that is why the Public Accounts Committee condemned it. It was a subsidy out of public funds to the negligent and the partly negligent. In the case of disabled people in receipt of mobility or attendance allowance, it was also a system that allowed the whole sum to be deducted in full without any future limit whatsoever. The Government's proposals are an improvement on the existing system. Of course, we will consider the report by the Select Committee on Social Security in due time.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that negligent employers and their insurers should fulfil their responsibilities, rather than pass them on to the taxpayer?
    Mr. Evans: Yes.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister confirm that the average sum recovered in the 60,821 cases dealt with between April 1994 and the end of February 1995 was more than £15,000? Even if there is a case for recovery where wage loss is included in the settlement, how can he defend a situation in which the compensation for pain, suffering and loss of facility is clawed back by the Treasury? Is that not indefensible?
    Mr. Evans: No. The average sum recovered during the operation of the scheme is a modest £2,200 per case. On the disaggregation of the award or settlement, only a small fraction of the cases are ever fully and properly determined by a judge. That is highly desirable because it saves money for everyone involved and speeds up the settlement process. Any attempt to disaggregate a settlement that was entered into freely is impractical to organise without considerable expense and would not be as satisfactory as a trial in every case, which would be unthinkable

    Post Office Payment System
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of introducing new technology for the delivery of benefits through the post office network. [12999]
    Mr. Lilley: Five companies have been selected by Post Office Counters Ltd. and my Department, as potential prime contractors to automate the payment of benefits. Discussions are now taking place with each of the suppliers. In the next few months, consultations will be held with sub-postmasters and organisations representing benefit customers. It is expected that phased installation of equipment in post offices will begin in the spring of next year.
    Mr. Bruce: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and the good news that the system is moving ahead rapidly, because it will be good for post office viability and the reduction of fraud? Can he assure the House that, before moving to wide-scale use of information technology, the initial installations will be
    12
    fully trialled and checked out, so that we do not get to the point when information technology delays rather than improves matters, as unfortunately happened with the Child Support Agency and invalidity benefit?
    Mr. Lilley: It is expected that, when we put out a contract, there will be a piloting process and a gradual roll out of the facilities through post offices. Post offices are very eager for them to be installed as soon as possible. I agree that it is sensible to learn from initial experience and ensure that we do not run before we can walk.
    Mr. Barry Jones: What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by the "lugubrious language of my Department"?
    Mr. Lilley: That was on an earlier question, but I was referring to the phrase "persons from abroad" which is used in my Department. It simply means those who come to this country on the strict understanding that they will not be a burden on the public fund.

    Benefit Expenditure
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure on social security benefits in 1979, 1992 and 1994, at constant prices. [13001]
    Mr. Lilley: At today's prices, the figures for total expenditure on social security benefits in 1979, 1992 and 1994 are £47 billion, £79 billion and £85 billion.
    Sir David Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show the Government's commitment to the less well-off members of society? Does he also accept that the lot of the less well-off provides no grounds for complacency?
    Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The figures refute two frequent assertions: first, that we have been cutting back on social security, which we manifestly have not; and, secondly, that there has been no growth in benefits. When one considers where the growth has been coming from and sets aside all benefits to unemployed people, one sees that other benefits, particularly pensions and benefits for the disabled, have still grown. That means that, since 1979, all other benefits have been growing at 3 per cent. a year faster than inflation. We are, however, carrying out a long-term review to ensure that that huge sum of money is focused on those in greatest need and that, in future, growth does not outstrip the nation's ability to pay.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State admit that those figures would show a different basis of comparison, had unemployment remained constant at the figure that the Government inherited in 1979 and had the Government not entered the exchange rate mechanism at the wrong rate and caused a massive increase in unemployment?
    Mr. Lilley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman listened to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox). I pointed out that, even if all benefits to unemployed people had been set aside, or held constant at the 1979 level, all the other expenditure on social security—eight ninths of the total—has grown at 3 per cent. a year faster than inflation. That is because of the growing number of retired and elderly people but also because of the increased and new benefits going to disabled people, as well as the growth in

    13
    invalidity benefit, which, together with housing benefit and benefits to lone parents, is an area that we are tackling.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Racial Offences
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions citing a racial element have been brought since the introduction of the Public Order Act 1986. [12978]
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I have consented to 15 prosecutions for offences under part III of the Public Order Act 1986 since the Act came into force.
    Ms Lynne: Given that racially motivated attacks are on the increase, does the Attorney-General accept that, notwithstanding changes to section 5 of the Public Order Act, more prosecutions should be made under section 18, or a new crime of racial harassment introduced, so that the perpetrators of those crimes do not get away with just a fine?
    The Attorney-General: Part III of the Act provides a comprehensive selection of offences, which are well placed to cover the events that concern the whole House. The problem in those cases is invariably one of evidence. Provided that the evidence can be obtained—the House will recognise the difficulties—I assure the hon. Lady that there is a strong willingness to prosecute.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the prosecution policy of the Crown Prosecution Service. [12979]
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): It is the policy of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute all offences where the evidence provides a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to do so.
    Mr. O'Brien: Does the Minister agree that the service provided by the Crown Prosecution Service to carry out those prosecutions is paid for by the state? Does he accept that my constituent, Mr. Allan Green, who has been granted permission to appeal against a previous conviction, has been denied solicitor services and the facilities of a Queen's counsel? Those services will be provided for the Crown Prosecution Service and, therefore, my constituent is at a disadvantage because of the Government's policies on the Crown Prosecution Service and legal aid for those who appeal. Does the Minister agree that there is a bias in favour of the Crown Prosecution Service? Will he take action to ensure that fairness applies in administrating justice and will be seen to apply in the case of Mr. Allan Green?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has been misinformed about the ircumstances surrounding Mr. Green's case. At first instance, Mr. Green had a certificate for two counsel under the legal aid provisions. He could have had a Queen's counsel and a junior, or two juniors; he chose two juniors. When he appealed to the Court of Appeal, the court granted him a certificate for junior counsel. If junior counsel sees fit to write a letter to the Court of Appeal showing that a solicitor's services are
    14
    necessary for the conduct of the appeal, which is unusual but sometimes necessary, the Court of Appeal has the power to extend the certificate to include the services of a solicitor. Furthermore, if junior counsel writes an opinion saying that the case is one of exceptional difficulty, gravity or complexity, the Court of Appeal has power to extend the legal aid certificate to include the services of Queen's counsel. In that way, the machinery allows absolute equity of representation between the CPS and Mr. Green.
    Mr. Batiste: Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the CPS is seeking extended rights of audience for its employees in the courts? Does he share the view of many hon. Members and others outside the House that that would be quite wrong in principle?
    The Solicitor-General: The matter is being considered at the moment by the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee, chaired by Lord Steyn, who will in due course make the committee's recommendation. That recommendation will then be considered by the designated judges. That machinery has been set up by the House under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Did the Solicitor-General note the reference in last week's annual report of the Law Commission to the valiant but failed efforts of the Crown Prosecution Service to adapt the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 to the modern world? In particular, did he note the Law Commission's criticism of the waste of time and money of the CPS, practitioners and judges on "obscure and antique Acts"? Surely now is the time for the House and the Government to respond positively to those criticisms of the Law Commission and to simplify the law. Why not begin with the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the recommendations of the Law Commission?
    The Solicitor-General: I read the Law Commission report with great interest having had reason to deal with the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 on many occasions over the years. It is a matter for obvious comment that the language in which it is couched is not the language that people use nowadays. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will also read that report with great interest and will consider whether he should bring proposals to the House for an updating of the law.

    War Crimes Act 1991
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to be able to make a statement about progress under the War Crimes Act 1991. [12981]
    The Attorney-General: The Crown Prosecution Service has referred the cases of seven potential defendants to Treasury counsel for advice. That advice has now been delivered. It is being considered with great care by the CPS and by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and myself. I cannot, at this stage, predict whether or when any prosecution will be initiated.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it is high time that decisions were made on those cases? The 1991 Act was passed by the House with a large majority several years ago and it is high time that those cases were brought to trial before the witnesses to those awful offences may die.
    The Attorney-General: I quite understand the need for expedition. The evidence and all relevant surrounding

    15
    circumstances will be examined scrupulously in the light, first, of the expressed will of Parliament and secondly—the House will regard this as being of great importance—in conformity with the proper and necessary requirements of justice.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: No one doubts that the Attorney-General is correct to demand proper performances of justice, but he will understand that genocide is not something to be treated lightly; nor can it be ignored. I must ask him to try to expedite the hearings, because, after all these years, speed is the very least that we can offer those who suffered in a way that many of us find inconceivable.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Lady and the House will realise that the police, having been charged with the burden, have carried out a careful examination, which is now being looked at by senior lawyers. The outcome of that examination must then be considered by the CPS, in consultation with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and myself. That is the stage that has been reached. There will be no dilly-dallying in the matter, but equally it must be looked at extremely carefully

    Criminal Law Enforcement
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Attorney-General in what ways he discharges his specific responsibilities for the enforcement of the criminal law. [12983]
    The Solicitor-General: In discharging our responsibilities for the enforcement of the criminal law in specific cases the Attorney-General and myself act wholly independent of Government.
    Mr. Mackinlay: What is the hon. and learned Gentleman going to do about the widespread public perception that white-collar crime is easy to get away with in this country; that there are very few prosecutions and, when there are prosecutions, sentences are wholly inadequate? Is it not an opinion that has some validity that, if one commits a mega-big white-collar crime, one gets away with it whereas, if one is a minnow, one gets prosecuted?
    The Solicitor-General: That view is totally misconceived. The Serious Fraud Office deals with a number of cases—approximately 50 at any one time—that formerly were not prosecuted. Very recently, increased power to refer unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal was assigned to my right hon. and learned Friend, so that he can now refer unduly lenient sentences in cases of serious and complex fraud.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Social Development Summit
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he will take following the world summit for social development in Copenhagen. [13018]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): We are considering the summit's conclusions.
    16
    We shall study them carefully. We shall continue to have a large aid programme, the object of which is poverty reduction through sustainable development.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister accept that one of the recommendations of the summit was to encourage Governments to accept the 20:20 principle? Do he and the Government accept that principle, whereby 20 per cent. of the aid should be spent on social programmes specifically targeted to help, not only the poorest countries, but the poorest people? Does he also accept that there should be a reduction in the percentage of our bilateral aid that is tied from more than two thirds of our aid programme to about a third, which is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average, and which will also help to target aid towards alleviation of poverty?
    Mr. Baldry: Our aid programme is poverty-focused. Nine of the 10 largest recipients of our bilateral aid are low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.
    However, those so-called definitions—20:20 definitions or other definitions of what contributes to poverty reduction—are meaningless unless one understands what is behind them. If there were parts of the hon. Gentleman's constituency that were regularly without electricity or did not have any electricity supply, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would feel that that was a matter of considerable deprivation, but in overseas development terms, projects to enable areas to have secure supplies of power are not within the 20:20 definition. Therefore, unless those definitions are clear, they are meaningless.
    The important thing is that we have an aid programme that is essentially focused on relieving poverty and ensuring sustainable development.
    Mr. Hendry: Does my hon. Friend share my worry about whether the multi-million pound jamboree in Copenhagen should have taken place? Does he agree that the money would have been better spent on tackling poverty rather than talking about it?
    Mr. Baldry: The facts are that, prior to the Copenhagen summit, Britain had the sixth largest aid budget in the world; after the Copenhagen summit, Britain continues to have the sixth largest aid budget in the world; year on year, an aid budget that is due to grow at a time when many countries, including the United States, Canada and Sweden, are reducing their aid budgets.
    One is compelled to ask what has been added to the sum of human knowledge by that summit, which cost $30 million—$30 million that, one suspects, the United Nations could have spent better elsewhere directly on aid.
    Miss Lestor: First, before we call what took place in Copenhagen a jamboree, may I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that one of the problems that confronted us in Copenhagen was that we did not send our Prime Minister there, as more than 100 other countries did? In the eyes of many people representing the developing world and other parts of the world, that was regarded as us trying to downgrade the whole position—especially as we sent as our representative the Minister responsible for overseas aid which, however competent that person may be, gave the impression that poverty and social exclusion were nothing whatever to do with this country.

    17
    Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in dismissing the invitation to hold a full-scale debate on the summit, we have opted out of the global perspectives of the summit; we have opted out of trying to consider those matters from a worldwide point of view, not only from a very narrow perspective
    Mr. Baldry: Of all the 118 representatives at the summit, only my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey had the perspicacity to make it clear that free trade is the key to global prosperity, that the full implementation of a general agreement on tariffs and trade is likely to generate more jobs worldwide than any other single international development and that prosperity created by free trade is the key that opens the door to higher social standards. That is why open access to markets is important for all products. My right hon. and noble Friend made it clear that the overriding goal of our aid programme is poverty reduction through sustainable development. I have no doubt that my right hon. and noble Friend's words made a telling contribution towards ensuring that the summit maintained a degree of perspective on what is in the interests of developing countries.

    Sierra Leone
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what humanitarian and diplomatic efforts are being made to bring peace to Sierra Leone. [13020]
    Mr. Baldry: We have given our strong support to the good offices of the United Nations Secretary-General and the Commonwealth Secretary-General. We have also allocated more than £0.5 million to the international humanitarian relief effort this financial year.
    Mr. Worthington: Just before the tragedies in Rwanda and Burundi, the Foreign Office said that it was not getting too involved with those areas because they were not within Britain's traditional sphere of influence. There is no doubt that Sierra Leone is within Britain's traditional sphere of influence as it is a former British colony. Does the Minister accept responsibility for giving a lead at the United Nations Security Council to ensure that the already deteriorating position, with thousands upon thousands of refugees, does not get worse? Does he accept the responsibility for giving a lead at the UN Security Council.
    Mr. Baldry: It may be of interest to the House to know that last Friday we were able to speak by radio to all the British hostages in Sierra Leone and to confirm that they are alive and well. That is the first confirmed proof that all our hostages are alive and is an encouraging sign. We hope to secure their release soon. There is no need for exhortation in the UN Security Council because the UN Secretary-General and the Commonwealth Secretary-General are both actively engaged in seeking to facilitate progress in Sierra Leone towards peace negotiations. Both the UN Secretary-General and the Commonwealth Secretary-General have our full support in those initiatives. We are working to bring greater attention to the conflict in Sierra Leone, which we want
    18
    to see peacefully resolved as quickly as possible. We want the safe release of United Kingdom and other hostages as speedily as possible.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not the particular tragedy of Africa that far more damage is done by civil war and internecine strife than occurs as a result of natural phenomena?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That conflict alone has caused the displacement of more than half a million people and the deaths of 20,000 people. Last Friday the director of Oxfam said:
    "Africans are now more likely to die as a result of internecine wars than at any other time in their long history. These complex emergencies are the result of violent conflicts not natural disasters."
    That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is correct to promote in the UN more peacekeeping initiatives in Africa to try to ensure that there are mechanisms to enable African countries to have the capacity to deploy peacekeeping forces quickly and effectively.

    Poverty Reduction
    Mr. Wicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase the proportion of overseas aid targeted on poverty reduction. [13021]
    Mr. Baldry: All priority objectives for the aid programme are concerned, directly or indirectly, with poverty reduction through sustainable development.
    Mr. Wicks: Does the Minister accept that much aid policy, which is reinforced by other policies in the fields of trade and finance, reinforces dependence on aid? Will he consider new aid policy initiatives which attack the causes of poverty?
    Mr. Baldry: That is why we are very keen to ensure that all countries have access to free trade and sustainable development. If countries are to come out of poverty, they will need to trade freely and to sell their goods and services on the world market. That is why Britain, and my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker in particular, must be congratulated on making it clear at the Copenhagen summit that many developing countries need free trade in order to lessen their dependence on aid.
    Dr. Spink: What is the Overseas Development Administration doing to focus aid to South Africa on the very poor people in that country, particularly as we are currently experiencing a wonderful royal visit to that country.
    Mr. Baldry: As the House knows, we have an aid package to South Africa of some £100 million which is focused primarily on support for education and other initiatives such as rural development programmes, youth enterprise development and support for small businesses, many of which are emerging in the townships.
    Bearing in mind the remarks that were made earlier, it is worth remembering that much of that aid to South Africa would not qualify according to some of the definitions of poverty which were bandied around at the summit and elsewhere under the 20:20 definition. I hope that the whole House supports the substantial aid package that we are giving to South Africa.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, of which I have given notice both to you and to the Minister of State, Home Office. Six weeks ago, I tabled a question for written answer in the following terms:
"To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the conclusions of any studies available to him as to the effectiveness of boot camp prisons in the United States of America."
That question was due for answer on 15 February, but it was not answered until last Friday, 17 March, following a telephone call from my office to the Minister. The answer that I received from the Minister of State read:
"Copies of the readily available published reports have been placed in the Library."—[Official Report, 17 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 764.]
The answer contains no reference whatever to any other reports—the identity of which I was seeking—that his officials may have made available to him.
On Friday I received a copy of a Home Office report entitled "Boot Camps: Report of a Visit to the United States, May 1994". I can well understand why the Minister and the Home Secretary may have evaded mentioning that report as, from the mouths of their own officials, it blows apart the case for boot camp prisons quite comprehensively.
I wish to put three questions to you on this point of order, Madam Speaker. First, is it in order for Ministers to fail to answer a simple parliamentary question, which was put down for answer on 15 February and of which due notice was given, until 17 March—more than four weeks later? Secondly, is it in order for Ministers to fail even to acknowledge the existence of a report, albeit they may wish not to make the report public? Thirdly, in the light of the report—which is now a public document—has the Home Secretary indicated to you that he intends to make a statement to the House abandoning any idea of pursuing a policy of establishing boot camp prisons in the United Kingdom?
Madam Speaker: First, let me say to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that, although he apparently indicated his intention of raising a point of order today, he gave me no details about it. About five minutes ago he gave a little indication to my staff of what his point of order might be about.
Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Ministers are responsible for the answers that they give to parliamentary questions; that is not my responsibility. If the Minister's answer was dilatory—I think that the Department may have been in this case—I will seek to speed up that process. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether the Minister is about to make, or is considering making, a
20
statement about the issue that he has raised. I have been given no indication at this stage that the Government will make a statement on those matters.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I point out to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that, according to the conventions that apply in the House, advice to Ministers is not disclosed. The report that the hon. Gentleman has—I have no idea how it came into his possession—has not been published. It is a report by officials within the Prison Service, which comprises advice to Ministers in considering policy options in this area.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that we are still considering a regime for young offenders, which will be tough and rigorous. We plan to make a statement about it. Rather than misleading the press and others about the perfectly proper answer that he received, the hon. Gentleman would have done better to prevent his colleagues from objecting to the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), which sought to impose penalties on those who abscond while on prison leave.
Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the presence—
Madam Speaker: Order. Is this a completely different point of order? I will not allow a debate on the matter that has been raised.
Mr. Marshall: I would not dream of it, Madam Speaker.
In view of the presence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, I wondered whether he had asked your permission to make a statement on electoral registration, following allegations in the Daily Mail that the electoral register in Birmingham is merely a work of fiction.
Madam Speaker: I think I have said to the House before that, if any statements are to be made, they will be on the Annunciator screen so that we are all informed of them.
Mr. John Gunnell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is the authority of the House affected by the fact that an ex-permanent secretary, soon after leaving office, has described the policy for which he was responsible, with his Secretary of State, as a mess? He said that on television. Surely it is for the people responsible—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I may have authority over the House—indeed, I do—but what ex-Ministers say on television is none of my concern.
Mr. David Shaw: Civil servants.
Madam Speaker: Civil servants, Ministers—whoever they are, I cannot spend my day watching television.

Orders of the Day

  Child Support Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  [Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of Session 1994-95 on the Child Support Agency (House of Commons Paper No. 199) and the Memorandum submitted to the Social Security Committee by the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency (HC 303).]
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition
  3.36 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The background to the Bill is well known to right hon. and hon. Members. In 1991, Parliament passed the Child Support Act to ensure that parents who lived apart supported their children themselves, to the extent that they could afford to do so. The whole House supported that principle, but rapidly became concerned about how it was working in practice; so I introduced some early changes in February last year. I promised to keep the system under close review, I promised a positive response to the Select Committee's investigation and I published the White Paper "Improving Child Support" this February.
  The White Paper promised major changes, to be introduced in two stages. Those which could be made by means of regulations would be introduced as soon as possible—and I duly published regulations on 16 March, which will come into force in April. They will improve the formula by setting a ceiling on assessments of 30 per cent. of net income, or the minimum of £2.30 per week; making a broad-brush allowance for property transfers made before April 1993, when the agency became responsible for setting child support; making an allowance for travel-to-work costs for those living more than 15 miles from their place of employment; and allowing an absent parent to deduct all reasonable costs of housing his new partner or stepchildren. They will also limit the maximum payable above basic maintenance.
  The other half of the changes announced in the White Paper require primary legislation—hence the Bill.
  Mr. William O'Brien: First, what action does the Secretary of State intend to take in the case of a parent who is living in the same household as his or her family and maintaining that family, but is classed as an absent parent? That has happened since the establishment of the agency. Secondly, does the White Paper include any provision to take account of the stress, strain and hurt caused to families by the existing legislation?
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman's first question struck me as complex; I should like to consider it in detail. I do not think that the Bill refers to it specifically, but we may wish to consider it further in the light of representations or any specific cases that the hon. Gentleman can cite. He may have already discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.
  22
  On the second point, the main purpose of the Bill is to improve the system of child support so that it has greater acceptability and works better, to streamline the operations and to encourage greater compliance. That means that the problems that we have seen, which we all acknowledge and regret, will be less frequent in future than they were in the past and will gradually disappear as the situation improves. There is not a specific proposal of the sort that the hon. Gentleman suggested, but we are introducing a limitation on the arrears that can accrue where the fault is that of the agency, and I think that that is one of the major complaints and sources of distress that people have. In general, when it is the fault of the agency, the maximum arrears will be six months, assuming that there is agreement with the absent parent.
  The changes will enable the agency or an appeal tribunal to depart from the amount that has been assessed under the formula to take account of exceptional expenses or past property settlements. The Bill will also defer indefinitely take-on by the Child Support Agency of non-benefit cases where parents had a maintenance agreement before the agency began its work. It will introduce a child maintenance bonus. It provides for compensation for parents on family credit or disability working allowance whose maintenance income is cut by the other policy changes.
  The proposals that I announced in the White Paper have already been widely welcomed. They encompass and in some respects go further than the Select Committee's report, and they meet nearly all the main concerns that have arisen since the CSA began its work.
  There is no doubt that the two features of CSA assessments that have given rise to most concern over the past year or two have been: first, the treatment of past property settlements; and secondly, the inability to take account of special factors that are not reflected in the formula. I concluded that no reform could command widespread support unless it addressed both those issues. Yet, unfortunately, neither could be satisfactorily addressed simply by adjusting the formula—something that we can do by changing regulations.
  From April, the regulations will introduce an allowance into the formula for past property settlements. But the way in which the formula works means that the recognition of past property settlements can be only broad brush. It will be satisfactory for many couples, but some may feel that it does not reflect the true trade-off that was made between property transferred and child maintenance obligations.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: If the Secretary of State is successful today with the Bill, is it his intention to send it to a Special Standing Committee, as is allowed under the Standing Orders of the House? Does he agree that such a procedure would vastly benefit those assigned to sit on that Standing Committee, as they could take evidence from those who are familiar with our system and with comparable systems elsewhere?
  Mr. Lilley: That matter is not for me alone, but for the usual channels in the House. The hon. Gentleman might care to raise it with the Leader of the House on a Thursday. I want to ensure that we get the Bill through in time to introduce the changes. I am grateful for the promise given by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to ensure that there is no trench

  23
  warfare on the Bill, that it does not get bogged down and so on. I would not want to undertake any procedure that prolonged the process of consideration
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I commend the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). It is crucial that this time we get it right, and if that means taking evidence via the special procedure, let us look at that.
  Mr. Lilley: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's point about the importance of getting it right. I assure him that I have a vested interest in that. I think that we all do, and I want to make sure that, whatever the procedures, the Bill is given proper consideration and that we take into account all appropriate factors and likely outcomes. None the less, we have an obligation to everybody to ensure that we make as speedy progress as possible consistent with proper scrutiny, so that we can introduce the changes, for which there is considerable demand. We should also bear it in mind that there is little understanding in the country at large about the time taken by our normal procedures, even in the happiest of circumstances.
  Ms Liz Lynne: Will the Minister give way
  Mr. Lilley: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to make a little more progress. I shall try to give way to her later.
  As I said, some changes have been introduced by regulations that affect property settlements. Likewise, we are introducing a broad-brush allowance in the formula to help those who commute long distances.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I interrupt the Minister because he is moving to a subject that I should like to raise. Of course, I understand the argument that persuaded the Minister to deal merely with pre-April 1993 property settlements. However, in the interests of the children, there is quite a strong social argument for trying to encourage the transfer of the matrimonial home to the parent with care. The fact that there is no provision for future capital or property settlements, as there is under some other systems, is a matter of some concern. Did the Minister consider that?
  Mr. Lilley: Yes, that matter was one of the few that were specifically considered, and it is mentioned in the Opposition's reasoned amendment. Paradoxically, that does not look back to past property settlements, but forward to future ones. The matter is for choice and negotiation between the parties concerned. As long as they meet the maintenance obligations of the formula, the issue of how they deal with asset transfers is broader, as it has been in the past.
  I was moving to other changes that can be introduced in the formula to deal with exceptional cases. We cannot specify all expenses that might prove onerous because that would overload the formula and would mean seeking an immense amount of extra information from all absent parents, although the bulk of them would not qualify for any changes as a result. The only way to make satisfactory allowance for individuals with exceptional expenses or past property settlements that are not correctly reflected in the broad-brush formula changes is to allow them some flexibility. Therefore, the Bill introduces powers to depart from the formula assessment in certain circumstances.
  24
  It may helpful for me to spell out how we envisage the new departure system working. After the assessment has been made, either parent may seek a departure from the formula. That will include parents who had an assessment before the departure system was set up but, of course, no departure would be backdated to earlier than the start of the departure system or when the claim was made.
  In the first instance, the agency can consider requests to depart from the formula. There is no need to go through a formal appeal to an independent tribunal system, although either parent could subsequently appeal if he or she was not satisfied with the way in which the agency used or refused to use its discretion to depart from the formula in response to a claim. It would be wrong to allow a departure request to become an excuse for delaying payment. Therefore, the absent parent may be required to pay either the full maintenance assessment that he had had until then or a safe rate, which reflected what might be assessed if the departure application were to succeed.
  If there were no grounds for departure or if the resulting reduction in maintenance would be very small, the agency could refuse to look at the case and, of course, there would be an automatic right of appeal to an independent appeals tribunal if the parent did not agree with the assessment.
  A number of grounds for departure are specified in new schedule 4B. They include unavoidable costs of travel to work if the broad-brush allowance in the formula is very different from the actual costs that a parent incurs. High travel-to-work costs to maintain contact with the child are an important issue. A number of hon. Members have raised it and we do not think that it can be handled by a formula element.
  Another ground for departure is extra costs arising from the long-term illness or disability of the applicant or a dependant. Another is, in exceptional cases, the costs of stepchildren, for example when their own parent has died. Others are some debts arising from the previous relationship and property transfers for which a more exact calculation is needed of the amount to be allowed against maintenance. The details of all those grounds for departure from the formula will be set out in regulations. The Bill gives powers to include additional grounds through secondary legislation, should that be found necessary.
  Mr. Simon Coombs: My right hon. Friend has not mentioned specifically the problem that many families have with loans, taken out for house improvements, motor cars or whatever, which were entered into in good faith before they became aware of their responsibilities. Is that part of my right hon. Friend's consideration under the heading of departure direction?
  Mr. Lilley: That is a potential ground for departure, which comes under the heading of debts arising from the previous relationship prior to the assessment being made. A departure can be made only if it will be just and equitable, taking account of the circumstances of both parties, the welfare of the child and the interests of the taxpayer.
  Ms Lynne: Does not the Secretary of State realise that the Bill is just tinkering at the edges of the Child Support Act 1991? It does not go nearly far enough and it does not have the support of the parent with care or the so-called "absent parent". Is not it about time that the right hon. Gentleman decided to repeal the Act and to start from the very beginning?
  Mr. Lilley: What an opportunist change of tune. How typical it is of the Liberal Democrats to try simultaneously to offer a complete let-off for absent parents from any requirement to pay and to offer the moon and moonshine to the lone parent and the parent with care. I shall come to the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), which was not selected, in due course. It is, I am afraid, as insubstantial as the hon. Lady's intervention.
  When departures are allowed, special costs will be treated like other allowable expenses and will be deducted from the parent's income before maintenance is assessed. If, however, an allowance is made for a property transfer, it can be deducted directly from the maintenance assessment itself. Although it is generally more likely that it will be the absent parent rather than the parent with care who will apply for a departure from the formula assessment, either parent will be able to apply if it is appropriate in their circumstances. A parent with care who earns enough to contribute to maintenance, for example, may have high travel-to-work costs and could appeal on that ground.
  I also intend to introduce some grounds for departures that will be especially relevant to parents with care. Examples are cases in which they believe that the other parent's standard of living is higher than the declared income would suggest, cases in which housing costs are unduly high or should be met by a new partner and cases in which the broad-brush formula allowance towards the other parent's travel-to work costs is unreasonable. Again, those grounds for departure will also be available to absent parents if the circumstances are appropriate.
  When maintenance is reduced as a result of policy changes, parents with care on income support will not lose money because income support is adjusted immediately. However, awards of family credit and disability working allowance are set for six months ahead. For those whose maintenance assessment drops because of the changes, I intend to provide some compensation until the end of the award period.
  The Bill also makes provision for overpaid maintenance. If there is an overpayment, the absent parent's maintenance assessment is usually reduced until it has been cleared. That will continue to be the way in which most overpayments are dealt with, but in some cases, a reduction in maintenance may not be possible or it may not be possible to clear the overpayment in a reasonable time. The maintenance liability may, for example, be about to cease because the child is leaving school soon. The Bill will, therefore, introduce a provision allowing consideration to be given to reimbursing absent parents in such cases. Those changes and others to which I shall come in a moment will improve the perceived fairness of the level of assessments.
  It is also vital to continue to improve the operations of the agency. There is no doubt that administrative problems have caused genuine grievance and aggravated the concerns of many people. The report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration highlights those issues, many of which we have already taken steps to address. We have, for example, already announced a range of administrative and regulatory measures to improve the organisational efficiency of the CSA.
  26
  Some of the changes necessary to improve operations require primary legislation. At present, if a parent seeks a review of his assessment because his circumstances have changed, the agency is obliged to review every item of the existing assessment. Such a review can be immensely time consuming. Clause 12 will mean that the agency can consider just the specific circumstances that have changed and amend the assessment accordingly.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of the difficulties with the Child Support Agency arose specifically from the direction given by Ministers that the people taken on should not be members of the civil service? Many of the women who are now doing the job—I can say this from personal experience—are not only very low-paid civil servants, but very young and have little experience in what they are required to do. Is he aware, for example, that many of those women are expected to counsel people who genuinely say such things as, "When I put the phone down, I am going to commit suicide"? No civil servant should be put in such a situation. Will the right hon. Gentleman take responsibility for ensuring that those women, many of whom are in an intolerable situation, are given support, understanding and proper training before they are exposed to such pressures?
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the sensitivity of much of the work. I do not think, however, that we can say that all civil servants have sensitivity and those taken on from the private sector lack it. Training is necessary. At a very early stage, before the agency was ever established, we set up courses with the help of Relate, formerly the Marriage Guidance Council, to help those dealing with women who had difficulties with whether to name the parent of their child when they originally received the maintenance application form. There was a widespread welcome for the sensitivity with which that was handled and for the training and preparation that went into it. The head of the agency is looking at some of the specific points that the hon. Lady mentions, to ensure that they are always dealt with sensitively. I entirely agree with her that that is necessary.
  Mr. David Ashby: My right hon. Friend will know that right hon. and hon. Members receive, as I do, four, five, six, seven or eight CSA cases in every surgery. [HON. MEMBERS: "No they do not."] Well, I certainly do. One of the matters that comes to my attention time and again, which I have raised with my right hon. Friend, is that often people know that the agency is acting on wrong information, because that information is often fraudulent. They complain that benefits are being given fraudulently, that they have no control over the investigation of fraud and that they are never told of the results of the investigation.
  The agency simply has to go on what it receives, yet it knows that the information is wrong; that—possibly—the wife or the husband is living with someone, and it is not being given that information. The agency knows that it is wrong and people know that they are paying too much, yet the agency insists on continuing to take the same amount.
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right to say that many people believe that the other parent is giving false information to the agency and want to make it clear to the agency. I have emphasised to the CSA and the Benefits

  27
  Agency, partly in response to my hon. Friend, but partly in response to the experience of other hon. Members, that any such allegations should be pursued. Allegations are, of course, pursued by the Benefits Agency, as it is usually its role to do so. The difficulty is that it is not possible for the Benefits Agency to report the outcome of its investigation to someone who has made an allegation about fraud. It would not be right to have a sort of snoopers charter, so that one could make an allegation about somebody and get a report on the precise circumstances of that person once the investigation had been carried out. I assure my hon. Friend that those allegations are pursued, and that point will be re-emphasised by the record of this exchange in Hansard. That will stress the importance that is attached to the matter by everyone in the Benefits Agency.
  Mr. Ashby: My specific point relates to the appeals procedure. With regard to that procedure, will what both parties are alleging be transparent? The appeals procedure should be able to decide that a wrong amount has been paid because the facts are clear, for example, the documentation exists to show that a woman is living with another man, or there is photographic evidence. Will such evidence be produced in the appeals procedure to show that someone should not be paying quite so much?
  Mr. Lilley: The frauds involved will sometimes not influence the amount that the absent parent is required to pay. If there is doubt about the factual amounts, that can be dealt with by the existing appeals procedure, which is an assessment of the amounts and the accuracy with which they are calculated.
  With regard to the changes introduced by the Bill, under the current rules, when an absent parent is late in paying maintenance, interest is charged. That has proved difficult to implement and immensely complex. It will be removed and replaced by a set penalty.
  To limit the additional pressures on the agency, I propose to defer the take-on of cases of parents with care who have a court order or written agreement made before April 1993, but who are not on benefit. They will retain the right to use the courts if they wish to seek a variation in the amount of maintenance. I shall also offer them the opportunity to use the agency's collection and enforcement service for a fee.
  Mr. Frank Field: The Secretary of State keeps using the word "deferral". What is the time scale? When will those mothers, many of whom are working to keep their families, receive the help from the agency that they were promised in the original legislation?
  Mr. Lilley: None of the people affected is dependent on benefit. Nothing is set down in the Bill as to when the deferred decision would be made. However, it would be made only by, and with the approval of, the House.
  Mr. Field: The Secretary of State cannot give those answers and, from the Dispatch Box, also say that the Bill is not about saving the Treasury money. We are now talking about mothers, many of whom have been deserted, who are working and who, to their credit, are not on benefit, but who are being deserted by the Secretary of State's decision. The Secretary of State still will not give the House, and more importantly those mothers, a date when they can expect help from the CSA.
  Mr. Lilley: We are talking about couples who reached an agreement, before the agency was set up, which had no direct implications for the taxpayer. It seems to me that the agency's priority should be to deal with those who involve the taxpayer in their arrangements—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because we have an obligation to the taxpayer. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referring to us saving money for the Treasury. The Treasury does not have money; it is taxpayers' money—[Interruption.]
  Mr. David Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lilley: Yes, but I want to make progress after I have given way.
  Mr. Nicholson: I very much welcome the changes that my right hon. Friend is outlining and the Department's serious response to the serious report by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, of which I am a member, into maladministration. In response to the points made by the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), will my right hon. Friend stress the CSA's limited success in doing what all hon. Members expected it to do when it was set up, that is, pursuing those who had disappeared and abdicated their responsibilities?
  Mr. Lilley: I assure the House and my hon. Friend that that is a prime priority of the agency and that it is increasingly successful. Very large numbers of absent parents who had absconded, in the sense that they had broken off all contact with their children and the mothers looking after their children, have been traced and identified and are being pursued by the agency for maintenance. Some 77 per cent. of those tackled so far had not been paying any maintenance whatever. In 96 per cent. of cases, even if the father was paying some maintenance, the mother and child were dependent on benefit.
  After a slow start, the agency is now improving its performance month by month. The amount of maintenance collected by the agency this year is likely to be five times that which it collected last year. The amount is set to double again next year. In addition to the amount of maintenance that it collects, the agency arranges even more maintenance, which is paid direct by the absent parent to the parent with care.
  Next year the agency expects to collect or arrange a total of some £300 million of maintenance. The total savings, including those from people who are discouraged from claiming benefit or who leave benefit as a result, are expected to amount to £540 million next year.
  The Opposition parties have tabled reasoned amendments. Labour's amendment welcomes the new departure system and makes it clear that its only specific area of disagreement has narrowed to its proposal that we should ignore some maintenance when calculating income support. But the amendment is characteristically vague about how large the disregard of maintenance should be, how much it would cost and how the Labour party would pay for it.
  The fact is that Labour's original proposal of a disregard of £8 per week of maintenance would cost £165 million a year. Moreover, such a disregard would make it

  29
  harder for a parent with care to improve her standard of living by returning to work. It would be unfair to widows and lone parents whose former husbands were unable to pay maintenance and who therefore relied solely on income support. It would also be unfair to families who did not split up, but who had to pay through their taxes to support the children of people who did, some of whom were better off than they were.
  I remind the Opposition that the total cost of supporting lone parents in Britain is £8.5 billion a year. That has to be paid by taxes levelled on, among others, two-parent families. It is equivalent to £1,400 per couple to support the children of lone parents. In effect, taxes on couples with children who stay together have to be on average £1,400 a year higher to support lone parents.
  We accept that there must be help for lone parents in the interests of their children, but, unlike the Labour party, we are not in the business of piling yet higher burdens on those who stick together to provide double compensation for those who, sadly, split up. We believe that maintenance should be a stepping stone for lone parents to self-help, not a trap in dependency. All the surveys show that most lone parents want to get back to work. So we have put a disregard into the in-work benefits, not the out-of-work benefits. We have put a £15 a week disregard into family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit.
  On top of that disregard, we now propose a child maintenance bonus. That will give lone parents an interest in receiving maintenance. It is worth some £5 per week, which they can accumulate up to £1,000. It is cashable when they return to work. So it gives them both an incentive and help when they return to work, as many wish to do.
  Whereas the Labour party specifically welcomes the new discretionary departures, the Liberal party's sole objection to the Bill is that it is not sufficiently flexible. We heard that from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) just now. Of course, the Liberals would like every policy to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the mutually contradictory promises that they are in the habit of making to the electorate. They want to be able to promise mothers that they will receive more and fathers that they will pay less. The Liberals do not spell out in their amendment how they would make the system more flexible. We look forward to concrete proposals from the Liberal Democrats. But experience shows that if those who determine maintenance are given open-ended flexibility, they will invariably transfer most of the cost of support back to the taxpayer.
  The old court system resulted in fewer and fewer parents every year receiving maintenance, awards that in general were inadequate and dramatically inconsistent and a situation where even the cost of pet food took priority over the cost of supporting one's own child. Is that the sort of thing to which the Liberal Democrat party wishes to return?
  Ms Lynne: The Secretary of State does not seem to appreciate that we would put in place of the current proposals a far fairer system than the one that he is suggesting. I shall spell out that system when I make my speech, if the right hon. Gentleman will be patient.
  Mr. Lilley: We look forward with interest to that speech from the lone Liberal.
  30
  One thing that I hope neither Opposition party, nor any of us, will do today is indulge in rewriting history with the benefit of hindsight. All of us—the Government most of all, but also Parliament, Opposition parties, civil servants and the media—have a lot to learn from the experience of the Child Support Act. Not only was the Act passed with general acclaim, but the bulk of the criticism and concerns expressed at the time were almost the exact opposite of the complaints that emerged after it was implemented.
  Almost all the complaints assumed that the Bill did not go far enough to help women and anticipated criticisms from them. I looked up the Labour party's reasoned amendment on Second Reading. Every single item in the amendment asserted that the Bill did not go far enough to help women, whereas not a single reference was made to anticipating complaints from absent fathers.
  The Trades Union Congress, in its contribution to the consultation process that preceded the Bill, criticised our proposals as letting off middle-class fathers too lightly. It argued for a higher marginal rate of contribution from fathers who had met their basic maintenance requirement. The TUC's plea was endorsed by Labour during the Second Reading debate.
  At no point in the Second or Third Reading debates did Opposition Front-Bench Members call for a discretionary departure system or a recognition of past property settlements, which we are introducing in this Bill.
  The media also focused almost exclusively on the feminist critique of the original Bill, largely ignoring at that stage the potential criticisms from absent fathers. I am not trying to transfer responsibility on to the Opposition or anyone else. The Government have the main responsibility to foresee problems, since the Government have the lead role. Government propose, Opposition oppose, Parliament disposes and the media expose. But it has to be said that, with the distinguished exception of the Select Committee, few of those whose job it was to check and criticise the Executive can claim to have had better foresight than the Government. So I hope that we shall not have too much 20:20 hindsight vision from Opposition Members today.
  Every country that has introduced a child support agency has been through a similar process to that which we have experienced. There have been immense operational problems in establishing an entirely new method of handling maintenance, with resistance coming from many absent parents. Reforms have been needed in the light of practical experience. After a time, those reforms have led to a greater acceptance, and I believe that our reforms will do the same.
  We should not imagine that an issue as sensitive as child maintenance will cease to arouse strong emotions. Australia's Child Support Agency—even after six years of operation—still generates a great deal of constituency correspondence and heated political interest. However good the system—we are determined that ours should improve in every respect—a child support agency is like a lightning conductor in a thunderstorm. It is bound to attract highly charged attention. None the less, the policy and operational changes that we are introducing will firmly establish the child support arrangements that we have in place for the future.
  Mr. David Shaw: My right hon. Friend mentioned Australia, and he will know that the Select Committee looked at the Australian experience. Is he

  31
  aware that one of the interesting aspects of the criticism of child support operations in Australia is that many people there want to have a system that operates in a similar way to ours?
  Mr. Lilley: That is certainly the case. When I met the directors general of the Australian and the New Zealand systems, they told me that they had found that there was a great similarity between our systems, but that in some respects ours was superior in meeting directly a number of costs that they had ignored in their rather broad-brush approach. None the less, the changes that we are introducing take advantage of some of their experience and introduce some features that are similar to theirs, so that we shall get the best of both worlds.
  The Bill will give relief to hard cases, allay the resentment felt by many of those who transferred property in lieu of maintenance, streamline operations and give mothers a stake in receiving maintenance and help in returning to work. After the changes are enacted, no one will realistically be able to refuse to pay maintenance. As a result, more children should receive more maintenance more regularly, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "That this House insists that the Child Support Bill in the form proposed is unacceptable because although the introduction of an element of discretion to depart from the financial formula and the overdue recognition that clean-break settlements must be taken into account are welcome, the current proposals do not adequately address the problems that have undermined public confidence in the Child Support Agency, nor do they end a system under which children living in the poorest households are the least likely to benefit from increased maintenance payments; indeed the majority of those dependent on Income Support are left not one penny better off."
  The Secretary of State properly asked us not to rewrite history, but proceeded to do so in a remarkably selective passage with his account of what happened when the Bill was first produced in 1991. We have stoutly maintained our support for the principle behind the Bill, but consistently argued from the beginning that there were some difficulties£sadly, in the event, some of those arguments have been justified. A squabble about history is not necessarily the best way of looking to the future, but, in view of what the Secretary of State said, I am bound to point that out.
  I think that we can all agree that the Child Support Agency started out with admirable aims and sensible objectives. It was launched with social purpose and was designed to improve on a court system that was demonstrably unsatisfactory. The Secretary of State referred to the agency having a slow start. To use a word that was used earlier, that is not so much a lugubrious as an insanely bullish interpretation of what happened during the first year of the new system.
  I hope that no one will accuse me of overstating the case, but it has been a bruising and bad experience and, at times, has looked little short of a disaster area. Although there have been some improvements in performance, until now the system has failed to deliver its financial targets, has bred a great deal of mistrust and
  32
  bitterness and arguably and, most sadly of all, has put at risk the very principles that it was brought into being to defend.
  Dr. Robert Spink rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I shall not give way, as I want to make a little progress.
  Everyone in the House has been taken aback by the system's unpopularity and I agree that none of us anticipated that at the beginning. There are many causes. Perhaps I am being severe, but it is true to say that one has been Ministers' failure to recognise the scale of the problems and the depth of perceived injustice—the anger that led to non-co-operation, which in turn led to ever-increasing and destructive inefficiency—and, above all, to react to those problems in time.
  The Bill represents limited progress, and I would be ungracious if I did not say so. I recognised that fact in the reasoned amendment. The Bill forms part of the implementation of the proposals in the White Paper "Improving Child Support". We contend that it is incomplete, however, and we tabled the reasoned amendment on that basis.
  The main provisions of the Bill represent a retreat by Ministers. As the Secretary of State will remember, Opposition Members have long pushed and pressed the virtues of having some form of redress that would allow a departure from the financial formula in special and hard cases. We were repeatedly told that that form of discretion was impossible because it would open the floodgates, and I am grateful that the Secretary of State has accepted that he was wrong to take that attitude and that he has decided to move on that point.
  Mr. Lilley: Can the hon. Gentleman find a quotation in which I repudiate the idea completely? I said that we must not have an open-ended system and we have been careful to ensure that these proposals are not open-ended.
  Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State is optimistic about his attitudes. Once he finally reaches the right decision, he has a great ability to convince himself that he had always held to it. If he has always believed it, it is strange that he cannot explain why he did not move much sooner. The kindest thing that I can say to the Secretary of State is that, whenever the matter was raised by the Opposition, it was met by arguments of inertia with the straightest and deadest of bats, and there was no sign of movement until the crisis was so acute in terms of the system's credibility that something had to be done.
  Dr. Spink: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to the detail, may I press him on the principle that parents are responsible for their children? Does he recall composite motion No. 9 at last year's Labour party conference, which stated that the Child Support Act undermined the welfare state and removed from partners the right to extricate themselves from intolerable relationships? Does he agree with that? How does that fit with the principle that parents remain responsible for their children?
  Mr. Dewar: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I am delighted to know that he spends his time reading composite motions put forward at Labour party conferences. I confess that that is more than I do, but that is my fault. I shall take his point seriously because I presume that he is passing on a message from

  33
  Conservative central office brief and means it to be taken seriously. I clearly remember that, at the last conference, a motion that was too radically destructive of the case which I support was defeated by conference. The hon. Gentleman must look at what we have been saying consistently throughout this debate, which is that we do support the principle that parents are responsible for their children. It is important that parents accept responsibility for contributing towards the upkeep of their children and no one in the Labour party has been prepared to compromise on that.
  The Select Committee on the ombudsman charitably decided that it was implicitly acknowledged that, at least with the benefit of hindsight, the Secretary of State had got policy decisions wrong. We might qualify a little on the Committee's kindness in referring to "hindsight", but his decisions clearly were wrong and I am glad that there has been some movement.
  I am concerned not only to get the general principle of a departure from the financial formula established but to establish that we have got it right. That will be the job of the Standing Committee. I reassure the Secretary of State that I shall not encourage my hon. Friends unduly to delay the Committee stage. We have always believed that proper consideration should be given and important points should be properly aired. People on both sides of the argument would want and expect that. However, we can learn much from the harsh experience of recent months and it is important that we do so.
  I remember receiving a letter from the Secretary of State—it may satisfy his inquiry about his attitude—which no doubt went to many other hon. Members as the word processor chattered. The quotation that I particularly remember is:
  "we must not put the improvements in performance that we are achieving at risk by introducing unnecessarily disruptive changes".
  As a generalisation, that may sound plausible, but it was a response to my arguments for a degree of flexibility. Anyone who bothers to write the history of these matters will see, in looking back at them, that one of the main difficulties was the fact that the late Mr. Lilley did not respond to the crisis. In any event, I welcome the fact that he has been drawn to accept the right of redress.
  It is important that we turn to the practical details. Schedule 2 is the part of the Bill that we shall all scrutinise. It is currently drawn up to mean that the Secretary of State may, by regulation, include matters such as access costs; the cost of long-term disability of applicants or applicants' dependants; debts arising during the course of the partnership, which were for the joint benefit of both parents; and so on. I want to make it clear that I approve of that list. It is right and proper that those details should be part of the machinery. Some interesting arguments will arise, however, about, for example, debts incurred during a partnership. Furniture purchased for the benefit of both parents may become matters for debate and issue because of continuing hire purchase payments, and so on. It is inevitable that that will happen and we must live with that.
  The circumstances covered by schedule 2 are presented as a menu of what the Secretary of State may do. I assume from what the Secretary of State said in his speech that he intends to include the list in the first part of schedule 2 in the regulations that he will lay. An important distinction—I presume it is important, although the Secretary of State may want to comment on it—is
  34
  contained in paragraph 4(2) of new schedule 4B relating to additional cases. The right hon. Gentleman referred to them again today and some of them are extremely important in practical terms. He made particular reference to cases in which a person's life style is inconsistent with the level of his income. That is an important example, which could lead to some problems, because such cases are often attended with great bitterness. Complexities may arise because one party or perhaps both have formed new relationships with new financial implications.
  When the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate, I hope that he can tell me whether the first set of conditions in schedule 2 will be implemented in the regulations. Will the additional cases also be subject to the regulations, or is that an open possibility?
  Mr. Lilley indicated assent.
  Mr. Dewar: I note that the Secretary of State has acknowledged that the menu will be implemented in full and will be available to those who wish to use the machinery. That is helpful. I have always thought it curious that Ministers, who are always so reluctant to concede discretion to others, are so ready to exercise it themselves. On this occasion, in view of the assurances, that would be an unworthy thought.
  The White Paper suggested that just a minority of cases would qualify under the system. That may be true, but I wonder whether Ministers have formed any opinion on the likely consequences. I know—I am clear about the recollection—that the Secretary of State has said to me in the past that the gate in the Australian system is too wide. I have not ticked off pedantically the conditions listed in schedule 2, but it seems that we have broadly replicated those familiar to us from the Australian system.
  I am anxious to ensure that we have machinery that can handle appeals. I am conscious of what the report of the Select Committee on the ombudsman said about the disability living allowance precedent. I am also aware that, last year, there were just over 23,000 appeals concerning invalidity benefit. Ministers are now assuming that, in the first year of incapacity benefit, that number will increase to 140,000 appeals. Considerable problems will flow from that.
  It may be seen as an act of disloyalty on the part of someone who earned his corn in the law, if that is not too undignified a way of putting it, but even when we deal with what are meant to be informal tribunal systems, we have a habit of getting bogged down in formality. Precedents appear; case law emerges and legal representation for those who are rather more affluent begins to be offered, even if legal aid is not available. I am concerned to ensure that the proposed system remains an informal one.
  The official Australian report states:
  "A single review officer conducts the hearing. On the original application and response forms, each party can request alternatives:
  a hearing with the other party present;
  a hearing without the other party present;
  a hearing by telephone;
  a review based on written forms only with no personal appearance.
  A hearing usually lasts between 40 minutes and two hours.
  'It is the Agency's intention that these hearings be conducted with relative informality and privacy.'"

  35
  If that will work and give quick redress and justice on the basis of common sense in the individual case where hardship or injustice is alleged, perhaps we should struggle to keep it as informal as possible.
  Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: For the last time to that hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. Spink: On the issue of departure from the tribunal, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although he has said that he does not want too many precedents, most of those cases will have to be determined by reference to precedents that are fixed nationally, so that there is equality of judgment throughout the country on those matters?
  Mr. Dewar: That is an interesting assumption. I understand what the hon. Gentleman means; but the system has always been, or at least I have always wanted to regard it as such, one in which there is informality, in which people can represent themselves, in which the documents can speak for themselves and in which commonsense arbitration—it is perhaps more analogous to that than to other systems—emerges.
  I fear that, two or three years down the road, if I ever find myself back in law practice, which is very unlikely, I will—[Interruption.] They could not resist it. Pavlov's dogs live again. That is not a reference to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), but, when I come to think of it, it is quite appropriate. I can imagine myself reading specialist journals reporting cases—reporting precedents. That will lead to great difficulties and dangers. I leave it there, but I urge on the Ministers the need to be careful about that.
  In Australia, at least originally, when I saw the figures about 11 or 12 per cent. of maintenance assessments ended up in the review officer procedure. The equivalent here would be about 40,000 to 50,000 cases, which is an awful lot by any standards.
  I notice that in paragraph 9 of new schedule 4A there is a power for the chair to sit alone. That may simply be an administrative safety valve for an emergency, but it may, however, be an interesting precedent, and something that the Secretary of State wishes to consider.
  The latest estimate that I have, which reached me by fax as recently as today, is that in 1994–95 it is estimated—the year has not quite finished—that there will be 20,800 successful appeals in Australia using the review officer procedure. That is measured against the number of assessment cases to June 1995 of 287,000. I am talking about successful appeals, not the number of appeals. If that were rolled on as a precedent for this country—this might be misleading, but at least is an interesting rule of thumb—we would anticipate very large figures indeed.
  As many hon. Members who have followed those arguments know, in Australia the child support system is run by the internal revenue—the tax system. I was delighted to see that printed proudly across the bottom of the page of the letter that I received from Australia was the slogan:
  "Taxes: building a better Australia."
  I recommend that to the Chancellor in his current time of travail. It would be good for morale.
  Mr. Lilley: I think Australia has a Labour Government, which may be associated in the public mind with taxes, and we are glad to note that the hon. Gentleman thinks that taxes and Government go hand in hand. It is a good advertisement to the electorate before the next election.
  Mr. Dewar: I am delighted to be reminded that the Australians have a Labour Government. I think that the Australian precedents are very important in the specific argument, and that is one precedent that I suspect that this country will follow very shortly. I accept that we shall have to wait and see.
  I shall quickly discuss a couple of matters of some importance that are related to the departure machinery—the travel-to-work cost provisions and the capital and property transfers. They are, I understand—it was confirmed by the Secretary of State—applied in a broad-brush administrative approach initially and will then become factors in the application for a departure. I welcome both. It is proper that they should be taken into account. I have no quarrel with that in principle.
  The provision relating to 10p per mile over 15 miles as the crow flies would, no doubt, lead to some controversy. It is a matter of making a judgment about what is right, and I accept that the Government have that duty. We shall obviously want to consider carefully in Committee the way in which it will work, but I would certainly accept that it is in the interests of no one, in those tangled affairs, that someone who is liable to pay maintenance should be forced to give up his job. That machinery may build in some form of safeguard.
  I have some doubts and concerns about clean-break settlements. I entirely accept that the proposal is an attempt to deal with retrospectivity and, as such, I think that it is important. It is unfair that settlements that were made in good faith—probably with the good faith of both parties—before the CSA was thought of should now be ignored when assessments for maintenance are being made.
  I have a philosophical point to try on the Secretary of State which is of some practical importance. Let us consider a case in which a divorce settlement was made before 1993 and a capital sum was laid down by the courts that had, in part, been met by the transfer of property in a house. Is it right that, subsequently, on an entirely distinct and different point—the settlement of the maintenance payment for the child—that property transfer which was part of the court settlement between the spouses should be used to reduce the maintenance assessment? There is an important point of principle in that argument. It is one that can be considered in Committee—I say that as someone who will, perhaps, not be on the Committee.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: On a philosophical point, does the hon. Gentleman believe that it would be right for the Labour party to stop its traditional objections to contracting out work to the private sector, in view of the evident failure of the civil service to manage the job?
  Mr. Dewar: I have heard many irrelevant and slightly smug interventions, and I do not intend to bother with that one.
  A more general point that I raised in an intervention during the Secretary of State's speech is worthy of serious consideration and will, no doubt, be debated at later

  37
  stages. We say that it must be a clean-break settlement prior to April 1993. But as the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), recognises, at some stage there will be cases where the court has made a settlement or where a voluntary agreement has been reached between the parties—such cases will be unilaterally referred to the agency.
  It is important to consider future provision. There are other systems where, in clean-break settlements, as they are sometimes called, the property or capital transfers are taken into account in future negotiations. Under the Australian system, where there has been agreement between the parties, where it has been intended by the parties that it should impact on the maintenance settlement and that has been quantified and formally reported, if the Child Support Agency subsequently becomes involved because one of the parties starts to receive benefit, within limits, that policy is implemented. Those matters are worth considering, and I shall briefly explain why.
  My view of the subject is coloured because I was once a solicitor in an ordinary practice. In my matrimonial work, I constantly found myself persuading someone that it would be common sense to transfer the house as part of the arrangements—that it would be in the interests of the children to stay on in the house in the area and surroundings with which they were familiar. In such a case, the family, on both sides of the divide, would be traumatised, but the children would be particularly damaged.
  I did a reasonable enough job in persuading people that it would be sensible to agree to the transfer of the property on the basis that adjustments and compensations for that could be made in terms of other financial arrangements. The trouble now is that, because the possibility of action by the CSA at some future date cannot be excluded, the wise advice for a solicitor to give is not to transfer the matrimonial home. That is an expensive price to pay in terms of social stability and I am genuinely concerned about it. For that reason, I hope that Ministers will think long and hard before maintaining the backward-looking provision, but doing nothing in terms of looking to the future. That is a major point which is well worth considering.
  Another rather odd legislative change is the maintenance bonus. The machinery is familiar: it is child of back-to-work bonus. Under the provision, the parent with care who is not deriving benefit from the increased maintenance paid because of clawback against income support can be credited with £5 per week up to a maximum of £1,000. That sum is then payable when she—in most cases, it will probably be the mother—gets a job of 16 hours per week or more.
  I must confess that I understand the importance of job incentives and of encouraging people to look for work—indeed, the Labour party has plans in that regard. However, I am not sure about this provision. Maintenance is a right for the child and a duty for the parent who must pay it, and I do not think that the child's right should necessarily be dependent on whether a mother finds work.
  The provision poses another danger to which I referred in relation to the back-to-work bonus when I suggested that it was not so much a matter of jam today as one of jam tomorrow and perhaps no jam at all. In this case, it is a matter not of jam tomorrow but perhaps of jam in the next century. Parents with care must have great staying
  38
  power if they are to reach £1,000; it may become a millennium event for them. Some may experience a quicker return to work, but I think that it will prove be an odd and perhaps tantalising prospect for many.
  If it is such a good measure, why must it be postponed until April 1997? I would have thought that it would be possible to implement it in April 1996. Even if we take a gloomy view of the Bill's passage, it will be on the statute book by April 1996. No doubt the Under-Secretary will enlighten us on that point.
  I raise another point which leads to further important matters. Although the Secretary of State will deny it, I believe that the legislation represents a form of apology; it is a nod towards the great gap in the system. It fails to offer anything positive to those children of households which are dependent on income support. That concern lies at the heart of the Labour party's reasoned amendment to the Bill. We believe that the system is incomplete and fundamentally flawed and we have argued consistently for a disregard.
  I have listened to the Secretary of State's points, and he will not be surprised to learn that I have not been convinced by them. I believe that our arguments have gathered strength in recent times because the unhappy truth is that those who are most at risk are least likely to benefit under the legislation. I find that very difficult to square with the call for more money for more parents for more children which formed the climax of the Secretary of State's speech. If he believes in that objective, I believe that there is a very strong case for a disregard, without which we will not achieve or exercise the social purpose of the Child Support Act 1991.
  I commend to the Secretary of State the report of the Select Committee on the ombudsman, which was released this morning. It states:
  "Targets should place efficient service to the public before savings to the Treasury."
  I suppose that that might be known as Pawsey's law because the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) is Chairman of the Committee. That is an important message from a Committee which, like most Select Committees, has a majority of Conservative Members. I move an addendum to the report which I believe goes hand in hand with that message: when we are dealing with social policy, social objectives should be given as great a weight as—if not greater weight than—savings for the Treasury. That is not the current position, as is demonstrated by the Government's failure to give ground to the argument for a disregard which we have consistently urged on Ministers.
  Mr.Bernard Jenkin: We have been over the point in debate so often that the hon. Gentleman will probably know what I am about to say. Although the maintenance bonus is an incentive for the parent with care to return to work, perversely the maintenance disregard would have the reverse effect. Absent parents might even give up part-time work, because of the marginal benefit involved, in order to receive the disregard and become better off. Should not that perverse incentive be taken into account in Pawsey's equation, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned a few moments ago?
  Mr. Dewar: Pawsey's law has become Pawsey's equation, and it may become Pawsey's theorem by the time I have finished a philosophical debate with the hon.

  39
  Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). I do not believe that a small disregard would be a disincentive for finding work. If a job were so poorly paid that the disregard became a factor, I wonder whether it would be worth having that job at all. In any event, it would be subsumed to an extent in family credit. I do not think that that is a factor.
  The latest figures which were released by Miss Chant from the chief executive's offices show that in the current year 38 per cent. of maintenance is going to children and 62 per cent. to the Treasury. I freely concede that those figures are better than last year's. They are the latest figures available, and I take them at face value. However, I do not believe that that was the kind of balance that we envisaged when we first debated the matter in the early 1990s.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman refers to philosophical points. An important philosophical point to remember is that 100 per cent. of maintenance goes to the mother with care of the child, which, in some cases, removes the need for the taxpayer to support them. The idea that the natural situation is that everyone should be supported by the taxpayer and that maintenance is jam on the cake is absolute nonsense. All maintenance goes to and belongs to the parent and the child, not to the taxpayer.
  Mr. Dewar: I understand that point. I live in the practical world as well—I suppose that we all live in various different worlds. The Child Support Agency is founded on an important principle, but it also has a powerful social objective which I do not believe that it is achieving. A principal reason for its failure is the difficulty that we have just debated.
  As the Secretary of State knows, we were told originally that a £10 disregard would cost £400 million. That cost then fell to £340 million and by May 1994 it had become £290 million. At the last call, it was £205 million. The explanation for that reduction was that greater sampling had taken place which showed that fewer lone parents were claiming income support. That is a somewhat vague form of words. I welcome the fact that the cost has fallen, as it obviously strengthens our case for a disregard.
  It has always been assumed that we would opt for a £10 disregard. If the Secretary of State wishes to assist us by saying that he would accept a £5 disregard—he could take the £5 that he is using in his maintenance bonus calculations—according to his Department's answers, the cost would be £110 million. Although that figure is not insignificant, if he were to offset the cost of the maintenance bonus at £25 million, the cost of the disregard would fall to £85 million. If the Secretary of State opted for the £5 disregard—he cannot say that it is unimportant, because he picked that figure himself—the Opposition would welcome that as establishing the principle of the matter.
  Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: No; I said that I would not give way to the hon. Gentleman again and I must be a man of my word. We feel very strongly about that matter. We must help those children who are most at risk, and I rest my case on that point.
  40
  I welcome much in the non-statutory provision. The 70 per cent. of net income is no longer a guideline but a limit that cannot be broken. The Select Committee heard evidence that about 47,000 people were left with less than 70 per cent. of net income, so that measure is obviously important and it is very welcome. The suspension of fees until 1997 is a recognition of administrative failure. The question is whether they should be reintroduced in 1997. However, we welcome that moratorium.
  Some of the fine-tuning in the legislation must be examined with a critical eye. In that respect, I flag the reduction in the maximum level of payment in the formula. I believe that the child should share, as fully as the maintenance formula allows, in the affluence of the parent. I am not sure about the rationale behind that reduction.
  We must also remember the parliamentary question released mysteriously on 27 December which announced that 350,000 cases had been shelved as a product of the agency's desperation. According to answers to further parliamentary questions, I understand that they will be reinstated by the end of the year. We expect the Secretary of State to hold to that promise. Similarly, with regard to the deferral of cases that were to come into the ambit of the CSA in 1996, we believe that it is important to stress the word "deferral", as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said. There is a beguiling argument—which I suspect has been put to Ministers—that, because those people do not receive benefit and because they already have agreements or court orders, allowing a unilateral reference to the CSA would encourage them to depart from contract. That may indeed be a beguiling argument, but it would be wrong for the CSA to become an organisation dealing with those on benefit and in financial difficulties while the more fortunately placed escaped the net altogether.
  Administrative problems are at the heart of the matter, often adding insult to injury. It is worth reminding the Secretary of State of the Select Committee's comment that policy deficiencies had been
  "cruelly exacerbated by administrative incompetence".
  The foundation for that charge was considerable evidence of bad advice, maladministration and delay.
  We must do something about the compensation that is provided for people who have suffered in this way. It is remarkable that, by the end of January 1995, financial redress had been made in only 34 cases. That strikes me as very unsatisfactory, given the enormous stress that has attended the early history of the agency.
  I accept that the agency is very difficult to run, that running it has been a difficult job for all involved and that some improvements have been made, but we are still missing targets. I am concerned about, for example, the enormous difference between the number of maintenance application forms issued since April 1993—1.19 million—and the final number of maintenance assessments, which is 299,000. I realise that some 129,000 interim maintenance assessments could be included, but those cases have not yet been finalised. The number of applications cleared without assessment—403,000—strikes me as remarkably high. Many questions remain to be answered.
  In only 46 per cent. of cases has it been accepted that there is good cause for details not to be given. In 42 per cent. of cases that has not been accepted, and in 12 per

  41
  cent.—presumably as a result of pressure—the absent parent has been named. Already more than 16,000 cases have been referred for benefit reduction, and it looks as though that 42 per cent.—30,618 cases—will vastly increase the number. The shadow of what was initially described as a small problem is now beginning to loom.
  What we all want to know is, will the Bill work? Will it contribute to stability, and help to restore public confidence? There has been so much damage and bitterness. A difficult balance is involved: the interests of the various competing parties must be traded off—for they are competing parties, as we must recognise. We cannot duck that.
  According to the Government's own figures, the February 1994 changes are worth £85 million in 1995–96, £95 million in 1996–97 and £95 million in 1997–98. The new package, which looks much more dramatic, is worth £40 million in 1995–96, £65 million in 1996–97 and £85 million in 1997–98. It is worth less than the changes that were introduced in February 1994, and therefore will have no revolutionary impact.
  People tend to forget that changes in exempt income must be filtered through the formula. For instance, a reduction of £20 resulting from the banding of a capital settlement can easily end up as a reduction of only £10 in maintenance; £60 can be reduced to £20. I know that averages can be misleading, but a parliamentary answer to me suggested that the February 1994 figures were worth an average of about £8 a week to those paying maintenance, while the current crop will be worth between £5 and £10.
  Whether we have the balance right should be a matter for anxiety, and I suspect that we have not heard the last word on the subject. I accept—Miss Chant gave me the figure before yesterday—that the present average maintenance assessment, excluding income support cases involving a payment of £2.30 for a single child—is between £38 and £40 a week. I think that, if that amount is reduced, people may consider the arrangements a little more reasonable than they have been in the past.
  I am convinced that, indeed, we have not heard the last word. I think that, even as amended, the system is incomplete and will be unable to deliver its social targets fully; hence our reasoned amendment. For all that, any contribution to confidence building is important. That is our vital task: we must convince those who fear the system that they have nothing to fear, that the administration is not their enemy and that money paid will benefit the children in whose name it is collected. That does not seem too much to ask of the system.
  Dr. Spink: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you advise me? Can it possibly be right, according to the rules of the House, for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to say that he will spend another £110 million or so—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I can help the hon. Gentleman without his going any further. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is responsible for his own speech.
  4.55 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I welcome the Bill, because the evidence clearly showed that the workings of the Child Support Agency needed to be improved. I am
  42
  aware that the Government have accepted most of the recommendations in the second report of the all-party Select Committee on Social Security and, in some cases, have gone even further; as a Chairman of a Select Committee myself, I fully approve of their response.
  I applaud the measures contained in the Bill, which provide new help for parents with care—especially the administrative changes, which will simplify the procedures, speed up the maintenance process and encourage compliance by absent parents. Nearly all my constituents' complaints about the Child Support Agency have been associated with the agency's poor handling of cases and with inflexibility, and I am sure that the proposed changes will greatly assist. Nevertheless, I still support the principle of the Child Support Act 1991 that parents should pay for the maintenance of their children to the extent that they can afford to do so, and that taxpayers should have to help only when parents do not have the means to support their children. While I commend the Government for listening to the concerns of parents with care, absent parents and the groups that represent them, I am anxious for the original intention of the Act not to be forgotten.
  As the House knows, I have always considered it important for both sides of the story to be presented. I must tell Ministers that, for example, many lone parents with care feel that by limiting the maximum payable under the formula, the Government are signalling that rich absent parents do not have to share their wealth with their first children. It is vital for maintenance assessments to be both fair and consistent, but I regret to say that many lone carers have come to believe that those who oppose the agency's work have used unacceptable tactics to press their case, and have bullied the Government into succumbing to some of their demands.
  I personally have received a great deal of spiteful and threatening mail from anti-CSA groups as a result of expressing the views of lone carers in the Chamber. The latest communication that I have received from the "Network Against the Child Support Act" informs me that supporting the Act could cost a Conservative Member of Parliament his or her seat. Together with the letter, a list of Conservative Members is being circulated to NACSA members with the heading "Up and At 'em", and the instruction that it is time to strike because
  "There's plenty you can say to concentrate the mind of any insecure Tory politician."
  It would appear from the list that, fortunately, I am not considered to be in one of the 150 most marginal Tory-held seats, but I deplore such intimidation and harassment by any organisation. I believe that it is totally improper. I am not talking about normal lobbying procedures. I imagine that similar tactics are being used on Opposition Members of Parliament, too.
  I hope that the Government will take a strong line against those who seek to put unacceptable pressure on those of us who do not support the anti-Child Support Agency brigade. It is deplorable that such people should cause aggravation not only to Members of Parliament, who are perhaps used to rather vigorous lobbying and can deal with it a little better than most, but against the employees of the Child Support Agency, who I understand have been subjected to the most outrageous behaviour—for example, letters have been sent to them containing razor blades, and they have also received letters on coffin-shaped paper. I believe that I am correct

  43
  in saying that anti-CSA supporters were invited to target a particular named member of the CSA's staff in the campaign of harassment, merely for doing their job.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give me an assurance that now that the review of the CSA has been completed and this Bill is before Parliament, when the legislation is on the statute book, it will be given time to work effectively and that a period of stability will follow. More and more tinkering with the system will be extremely disruptive. We now need time for the CSA to get on with its work, without hindrance, so that a period of tranquillity can follow and the service for which it was designed—to put the welfare of children at the top of the agenda—can be delivered effectively and efficiently.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), particularly as she commented about the threats made to her and to other Members of Parliament. It is a sign of how unrepresentative this place is that an Act that is clearly affecting men and women equally has largely heard the male side of the case but not the female side—the mothers concerned. Although I share her criticism of much of the campaigning tactics of those who wish to see the Act replaced, some of those people—I object to their aggressive behaviour as much as she does—nevertheless have points of which we need to take account in the Chamber. It is surprising that for a Bill as important as this so few Members should be present today. There is clearly something wrong with our representative machinery that it delivers so few to such an important debate.
  I want to comment on the atmosphere in which we are having the debate, not only on how few Members are present but on how the Act is received in the country. Clearly, a large number of people—fathers, largely—disagree radically with what is being done to them. I place responsibility for that on the Treasury Bench for allowing matters to reach the state that they did before the CSA was introduced. I cannot pretend that I pick up—no matter where I go in the country—the feeling that the Act has failed. There is an appreciation of real difficulties in delivering, but I have not had people rushing up to me in the street, saying, "It is the most foul deed you have done in supporting the Child Support Agency." Many people when drawn on the issue are amazed that it took Parliament so long to act, not that it acted when it did.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) made an important plea in the Secretary of State's speech: we should send the Bill to a Special Standing Committee. It important that the Secretary of State bears that in mind, even if on this topic he had a 100 per cent. record of getting it right. Given that his performance is a little less than that, I would have thought it reasonable for him to say that, if he delayed the passage of the Bill for a couple of weeks, it may give great dividends at the end of the day, as the measure would be more effective when it finally reached the statute book.
  I disagreed with a number of things that the Secretary of State said and with the atmosphere that he was presenting—that we are debating almost the last major change to be made to the CSA. I would be amazed if that
  44
  was true. Perhaps he will be able to fence until the end of this Session of Parliament and not be forced to introduce another Bill, but I would be totally amazed if he did not have to introduce other regulations. Our plea at this stage surely should be that, given our incompetence as a legislative Chamber in getting the measure right, we should see reforms almost as a sign of success. We should think less of our pride as a legislature and more of not roughing up people and getting their lives on the wrong end of legislation. We should see it as the prize rather than a real sense of failure.
  My feeling today is that the measure still has massive support in the country, but we will need regularly to review and change it. The hon. Lady commented on the nature of the campaign outside in the country, which has been very tough. One can hardly attend a meeting with those who oppose the Act without feeling the violence that is in the air and wondering whether the meeting will remain peaceful or whether one will be up against a wall and made to feel the aggression and the sense of frustration that those people feel. We need to register that.
  It is important to understand why some people feel so strongly about the Act. Clearly, no Act that takes money from men and gives it to women will be popular, but the Government do not come to the House with clean hands. On a number of occasions, I asked about the collapse of maintenance for women on income support, to be met only by puzzlement by Ministers on the Treasury Bench. I wrote about it.
  The Government took action only when taxpayers were asked to pay 4p in the pound on income tax to meet the costs of raising children when one parent had deserted them. Not only is that a pretty horrendous sum for taxpayers to find—largely through the Government's inaction to work the liable relative section effectively—but it sent out a message to men in the country: the Government were not terribly interested whether they paid maintenance or not. The number of our constituents being chased was falling. The informal bushfire message was, "Don't worry. Start the second family. The Government won't chase you. You won't hear any more." On the basis that they did not expect to pay maintenance, a large number of men started second families and thought that they could manage.
  The Government panicked because the reaction of those men cost taxpayers 4p in the pound and letters started to arrive from the Child Support Agency. The iniquity of people caught by a retrospective Act and those whose marriages break up and who know that the agency exists are major sources of grievance. I hope to return to that theme.
  There are some good measures in the Bill and as the Select Committee proposed some of them, it would he ungracious of me not to mention that. The way in which the Government have got off the hook of giving a maintenance disregard is ingenious, although the timing is ingenious only to the Government and not to families. Instead of a disregard which would have been a disincentive for mothers who were returning to the labour market, there is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, a child back-to-work bonus called the child maintenance bonus.
  Why will the back-to-work bonus come into operation in 1996 while the child maintenance bonus will not begin to operate until a year later? Is that because the Secretary of State lost out at the Cabinet table while his colleague

  45
  at the Department of Employment got his legislation through? Women who benefit from the measure will have to have been on benefit and their ex-partners paying maintenance for eight years before they can reap the maximum return. That takes them to the year 2001. If the Secretary of State had thought that although that was not the solution it was at least an incentive to help mothers back into the labour market, he would have displayed a greater sense of urgency over this small but important reform. Perhaps the winding-up speech will explain that.
  The second issue is the deferral of cases. Somehow the statement was timed to be made just before Parliament rose for Christmas and we could not question the Secretary of State. I thought that it covered not only non-benefit but benefit cases. I will happily give way if I am wrong about that. We are not talking only about those who have so far featured in the debate, people whom the Secretary of State somehow thought were of less concern because they were not costing the taxpayer and would not be helped by the measure. It also covers those women who have failed to return their maintenance application forms. That is the hidden part of the collusion which the Government are clearly aiding and abetting. I shall come to that in a moment.
  When we add the deferred cases, which were announced just before Christmas, to those that have been announced since we get a grand total of more than 500,000 families whose cases have been deferred under the regulations. The Secretary of State looks puzzled. The two figures are the 180,000 cases that we have recently been given and the 340,000 that were announced just before Christmas. It is a sizeable number. I shall deal in a moment with the collusion that is going on under the Act.
  In effect, the Secretary of State has announced that he is deserting those mothers who have managed to get back to work. Because they have had a maintenance settlement in the courts, he is saying that they do not need the services of the Child Support Agency and can go back to the courts. But the reason for the Child Support Agency, at least according to the Secretary of State, was that the courts were failing in that they were arbitrary, that people, and especially mothers, had great difficulty in getting their cases heard fairly, and that settlements were absurdly low.
  Of course some mothers are leading their former partners a song and dance, but that is not generally the case and it is not the general impression that we get in our constituency surgeries about how the courts operated. Some fathers were represented in court and some mothers were not, and courts too readily accepted the father's costs of getting to and from work and agreed on very small maintenance payments. The totally unsatisfactory way in which the courts behaved, especially towards women with children, was one of the reasons for the establishment of the Child Support Agency.
  It does the Secretary of State no credit when he tells a large number of working women who do not depend on benefit and who are doing exactly what he wants them to do, that they should not worry about the CSA not helping them because they can use the courts. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to support people while they do precisely what he wants them to do, and then desert them at this stage because it is inconvenient to take them on to the books.
  When the Minister kindly allowed me to intervene I asked, "What does referral mean? Does it mean that the files will be closed?" No, it means deferral. It means that
  46
  there will be no action on any of those cases before the election at the earliest. Goodness knows how long after the election it will be if the Government are returned. Today we are formally deserting large numbers of working women who are trying to bring up their children. When one thinks sacramentally about what the agency does, it is clear that that will give powerful messages to women on benefit. They will ask how the Government find it so easy to desert those who have done precisely what the Government want them to do. If I were bringing up children and dependent on benefit I would think much harder about whether going back to work was sensible.
  When the Under-Secretary replies to the debate he must give us some hope that those women are not to be cast out into political limbo but that there will be a timetable for bringing them back within the arrangements of the agency so that they can use it to get redress and decent maintenance.
  Thirdly, I shall deal with the important question of collusion about which the Select Committee and hon. Members have warned the Government. Many parts of the legislation were wrong but we got right the protection for those women who would be threatened with violence by their ex-husbands or ex-partners if they tried to enforce a maintenance order through the CSA. Nobody who lives in the real world knew when we were passing that important safeguard that it was open to abuse. A handful of deferred cases has now risen to 16,000 in which the agency believes that both partners are colluding to defraud the taxpayer. That is sickening news for taxpayers, but it is also alarming for those women who have correctly claimed that an ex-husband or partner is threatening them not to enforce CSA orders on that person. They must know that as the number of people taking the taxpayer to the cleaners escalates, the patience of this place will clearly break. The safeguards, therefore, that we rightly put in place for women under threat of violence from ex-partners may be changed.
  I make a plea to the Secretary of State. I ask him to announce quickly changes in what is required from separated parents who claim that they cannot fill in the form for fear of being beaten up. Would it be unreasonable to expect such individuals at least to have told the police that they have been threatened? The agency should ask for that piece of information before accepting at face value that someone is being threatened with violence if they continue in their wish for the Child Support Agency to become involved.
  I believe that there is already one mother with children by three different partners who is telling the agency that her third partner, just like the other two, has threatened her with violence if she goes ahead with her application. As the rules stand at the moment, there is no automatic procedure to protect officers when dealing with such people. I hope that before the number of cases reaches 30,000, 50,000 or 100,000, as it will unless the procedure changes, we shall hear some comments from Ministers—before the Bill is given a Second Reading and before it goes into Committee. It is crucial that safeguards are put in place not merely for taxpayers, but for women who are genuinely in fear of their lives if they give information to the CSA.
  I now turn to the unfairness to parents to whom the Act is being applied retrospectively. I again underline the point I made at the beginning of my speech about the comments made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne. She

  47
  said how offensive most hon. Members have found some of the tactics of those who have campaigned to get the Act off the statute book. The campaign has probably taught male Members more about some of the violence that women have to put up with in marriages than any other tutorial to which we could be subjected. That does not mean that some of the sheer frustration of people who think that their lives are being ruined is not justified in some respects.
  The Government lost interest to a large extent in chasing fathers whose ex-partners were picking up supplementary benefit or income support. Under this Government, the percentage of single parents on benefit who had a maintenance order to help offset the cost to taxpayers more than halved. That was the message going out to the country. This Government, who talk tough, are anything but tough when it comes to it. The message was that it did not matter. One could start a second family and one would not hear any more. One could expect the whole of one's income to go to that second family. People made arrangements on that basis and they feel aggrieved, with some justification, that the Government panicked at the size of the bill—4p in the pound—that they were presenting to taxpayers for the cost of single parents on income support and that they acted as they did.
  The pleas that some of us have made have been simple. We have asked that we should make a distinction between families to whom the Act applies retrospectively and families to whom it has applied since it reached the statute book. Those families know perfectly well that the Child Support Agency is in existence and that all of us hope that it will work even more effectively than it is working now.
  The Government's response has been that such a distinction would be too complicated. They say that it is difficult enough now, that there is enough chaos behind the scenes and that they do not want to add to the complications. I swallowed that argument until the Secretary of State came forward with plans to put a cap on the contributions from richer parents. He made that move, of course, to help parents who, in previous elections, had strongly supported the Conservative party. They are the main beneficiaries of the cap under which no more than 30 per cent. of disposable income can be taken under the formula. If, however, a cap can be applied to this group, other caps could be applied. If it is simple to apply a cap to the maximum amount of income that will be taken, it should be quite possible to have a 20 per cent. cap for families for whom the Child Support Act 1991 is retrospective. In making one concession to individuals who, in previous elections, may have supported the Conservative party rather well, the Secretary of State clearly showed how we could also, with the minimum of fuss and difficulty, and without interrupting the formula, provide a 15 per cent., 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. cap for those for whom the Act is retrospective.
  I do not believe that some of the anger will go away until we recognise that it is a gross injustice for any Parliament to tax retrospectively. That is what we have done with the Child Support Act. It is important to deal with that partly because of the sense of grievance felt by many fathers. It shows up at meetings, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne explained; I have participated in such meetings as well. There is also something much
  48
  more important at stake than ministerial pride or even the pride of the House of Commons. The importance of the Act is that it is not just about trying to cap the contribution that taxpayers make towards the support of single parents although, as I have tried to explain, the Government allowed that bill to get out of hand. It was long overdue for steps to be taken to limit the growth of expenditure in a manner that did not put at a disadvantage the women and children who had been deserted.
  As I said in the previous debate, we are, for the first time, making a change in the whole direction of the welfare state. At one time, the House of Commons would take to itself more power and more responsibility. We are now putting responsibility back into the country, into families and individuals, and we are saying, "This is your decision and you must live by it." That is an important change. We are now thinking about the impact of legislation on character, an aspect that we have lost in the past 30 years. We should not throw away the reform of the Child Support Agency too quickly.
  My plea is this. Although the Bill is important and although I hope that it speeds on to the statute book after proper and open discussion, I cannot believe that it can or should be the last change we make. When we are dealing with the most intimate side of people's lives, we should be more than willing to come back to the House with reform measures when we find that things are not working properly. It is a foolish politician who dabbles in this area who thinks that he has somehow got the right solution. Clearly, we have not had the right solution. I would be amazed if this modest measure got the balance right now. I look forward, however, to the debates on this measure and future measures as we try to get this most important reform right.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. David Faber: I am delighted to take part in this debate and especially delighted to follow the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I have had the pleasure and privilege of serving on his Select Committee on Social Security since it was set up at the beginning of this Parliament. Into no other investigation have we put so much thought and so much time. No other investigation has caused us so much concern or has brought before us so many heart-rending issues as has our investigation into the Child Support Agency. It is rare that legislation comes before the House which owes so much in its entirety to the work and findings of a Select Committee. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birkenhead for the manner in which he has chaired the Select Committee and for the constructive manner throughout in which he has taken forward the arguments about the Child Support Agency.
  I have listened to comments about the Bill being committed to a Special Standing Committee. I confess that, after just three years in the House, I have no direct experience of such a Standing Committee nor do I know how it operates technically. The Social Security Committee, however, has taken an enormous amount of evidence and has already spent a great deal of time discussing the agency. Since many of the measures in the Bill have already been gone through in some detail by the Committee, I hope, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that we shall be able to move forward to get many of those measures on to the statute book as quickly as possible to help those whom they are meant to help.

  49
  In concluding his speech, the hon. Member for Birkenhead returned to a theme with which he has dealt in the Chamber and which has run throughout the deliberations and reports of the Select Committee. The Child Support Act, as originally passed, was a major landmark in social security legislation because it redefined the responsibilities of the state and the individual. This redefining has, of course, gone on in one of the most sensitive areas of policy, involving as it does not only the breakdown of family life but the children in that family. There is no doubt that under the Act and the agency, certain responsibilities have been restored to the individual in place of the previous state support.
  We hear a great deal today about rights and responsibilities and the balance that needs to struck between them. There can surely be no greater responsibility in our lives than that which we owe our children. I am therefore pleased that the Government have brought a Bill forward that reflects many of the concerns of the Social Security Select Committee and, indeed, of constituents of hon. Members throughout the House, which have been expressed in mailbags and at surgeries. It was inevitable that an Act of such a nature would arouse strong and polarised views. Similarly, its implementation was never going to be easy in the face of breaking down long-held beliefs and supposed rights felt by absent parents and parents with care. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the problems which exist in Australia and New Zealand several years after the supposedly successful implementation of their own child support Acts.
  The underlying principle of the Act has been continuously supported by the overwhelming majority of hon. Members and by virtually every member of the Select Committee. Yet the practical applications of it and the operations of the agency since it was implemented have contrived to cause sufficient problems and ill-feeling throughout the country—possibly—to undermine the very existence of the agency. That is why the Government have kept its workings constantly under review. They have responded positively not only to the Select Committee reports, but to the concerns that have been expressed in hon. Members' mailbags, at their surgeries and at meetings in their constituencies throughout the country. For that reason, I believe that the agency is no longer facing the crisis that it was—possibly—a year or so ago.
  It was conceivable at one time that we could have been standing here today debating the potential collapse of the agency, so great had its overload become. Over the past few months, however, the whole atmosphere and nature of the debate surrounding the Child Support Agency has changed for the vast majority of hon. Members and has changed throughout the country for all but a few die-hards who still implacably oppose the principles which lie behind it.
  This Bill is, of course, part of a much wider range of packages which my right hon. Friend announced a few weeks ago in the White Paper. It is therefore only natural that today's debate should focus on some of the measures in regulations as well as those in the Bill. It is only right that the Government should act in the interests of not only the absent parents but of the parents with care and, most particularly, the very people whom this Act is supposed to help, the children.
  50
  There can be no doubt that in setting up the agency and in the Act's implementation over the past two or three years, the major problems that have faced the agency have revolved around two principal areas. They have revolved, first, around the retrospective nature of some of the legislation, which we have heard discussed today, and, secondly, around the application of the formula, which has led to high—often, indeed, impossibly high—assessments of payments to be made by absent parents.
  The Act as drafted took no account of previous property or capital settlements. The so-called clean-break settlements often involved the wholesale transfer of property, very often the family home, in exchange for deliberately low maintenance payments. The arguments about clean-break settlements have been rehearsed many times in Committee and on the Floor of the House. Transfers were often made between the separating couple and very rarely reflected the true interests of the children. Of course as we all know, a clean break from our children is impossible or should be technically impossible. Even under the old court-based system, parents with care could always return to the court to have their maintenance reassessed if they so wished. Nevertheless, a combination of the misconception that clean breaks were possible and a strong sense of natural justice have combined to make this the most contentious of all issues.
  The Government are right to point out that, often, such settlements are deliberately engineered to maximise the burden on the taxpayer. In many cases, however, they are not engineered and we continually heard evidence in Committee that they are a real bone of contention. Little sums it up better than the evidence that we received from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which told us:
  "it is wrong, and against the rules of natural justice … to overturn agreements which everyone—the Courts and the Government—accepted at the time were final and people have organised their lives accordingly. People have got on with their lives, made new ones and it has been one of the biggest causes of antagonism against the whole of the Child Support scheme".
  That last sentence is most telling. For anyone struggling to get over the trauma of a separation or a divorce, the ultimate ambition is to get on with one's own life. For many, unfortunately, this legislation has made it impossible for them to do just that and has all too often opened up old wounds to which they need never have returned.
  The system of departures is in clauses 1 to 9. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out, schedule 2 contains the real meat of the issue: the rules of departures. This system of departing from the rigorous formula which did not often allow such departures is most welcome. It introduces an air of discretion which was sorely lacking in the original legislation. The Bill proposes that the absent parent will have to prove either to the agency or, if the agency says that it is too complicated for it, to the tribunal which will be set up, that any property or capital settlement made prior to April 1993 does not fully reflect the true circumstances of that settlement.
  I have no doubt that such a move will go a very long way to helping many of those absent parents who have been hardest hit by the agency, often because of the large sum of money which they have been asked to pay. I am only sorry that that requires primary legislation. I am especially pleased, therefore, that the Government have introduced alongside the Bill, by regulation, an immediate

  51
  broad-brush formula change, which will be extremely helpful in the short term to some of the absent parents who are suffering the worst hardships.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained in some detail how the departure system will work in relation to the current formula. In addition to the issues which arise from previous property settlements, absent parents or, indeed, parents with care, as my right hon. Friend was keen to stress, may apply for a departure because of additional expenses which they may undertake and which may not be reflected in the formula. The allowance for high travel-to-work costs will be most welcome, especially in rural areas such as my constituency. Many of my constituents who live in west Wiltshire work in Bristol or Bath and often have long journeys to work each day. It has become increasingly difficult for them to survive while meeting their travel costs and increased maintenance payments. That has made many people angry. The need for primary legislation has meant, inevitably, that there will be a delay. I welcome the broad-brush allowance, which my right hon. and hon. Friends will be introducing in regulations, based on the distance as the crow flies between the absent parent's home and his workplace. That will go a long way towards alleviating, in the short term, many of the problems with regard to long journeys to work.
  Other qualifying conditions for a departure from the formula should also be praised. In particular, expenses resulting from long-term illness or disability will now be allowed. That will greatly ease the worry of many absent parents who suffer such illnesses or difficult disabilities. The costs of caring for stepchildren will also, although admittedly in exceptional cases, be considered. That will help alleviate another major bone of contention that has run through the agency's workings throughout its operation.
  I welcome most warmly the decision to take into account the high costs of travel to maintain contact with the children of the marriage. One of the most heart-rending problems which the agency has caused has been that which we have all witnessed in our surgeries and in our mailbags—the breakdown in communication between some absent parents and their children.
  In some instances, the problem has arisen because of a breakdown in relations between the divorced parents. There is no doubt some parents with care do, however regrettably, use their children to blackmail the absent parent or to cause stress after the marriage has ended. All too often, the difficulty in respect of the contact between the absent parent and his or her child has arisen simply because the costs have become prohibitively high.
  In today's society, there can be no excuse for preventing absent parents from seeing their children whenever and wherever they can within the remit laid down by a court. Children desperately need a healthy, full and loving relationship with both parents. That is sometimes all too sadly forgotten by family law practitioners and, I hesitate to say this, by the judges.
  I want to refer briefly to some of the arrangements in the Bill for helping the parent with care. All too often the parent with care has been forgotten in the deliberations with regard to the agency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State correctly highlighted—and the hon.
  52
  Member for Garscadden confirmed it—that the only major complaint in the Opposition amendment is that the Bill lacks a maintenance disregard.
  Members of the Select Committee are aware that the maintenance disregard divided us. I have no doubt that it would have been superficially attractive for any amounts between £150 million and £350 million to have been spent on a maintenance disregard to soften the blow. Contrary to the hon. Member for Birkenhead, I believe that the new child maintenance bonus—which the hon. Member for Birkenhead described as ingenious—is an imaginative and sensible way of giving an incentive to the parent with care to move from a benefit dependency back into work.
  The bonus will accrue at a weekly rate of up to £5 and it will enable parents with care to receive a lump sum of £1,000 when they move back into work. I understand that the provision will benefit 60,000 parents with care and it would be churlish of the Opposition not to welcome it.
  The Bill contains much else that is especially welcome, most notably in relation to the work burden which the agency must undertake and the efforts over the past few months to ease that burden. As other hon. Members have done so in passing, I want to pay tribute to the staff of the Child Support Agency, many of whom we found in our visits to the various offices to be among the most highly motivated staff in the Department of Social Security. The previous chief executive confirmed that point.
  The staff work long hours and extremely hard. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) said, some of the staff have been the target of quite unnecessary vilification at work, and, I am sad to say, at home. All hon. Members would deplore that.
  Mr. Frank Field: I forgot to make a similar point in my speech and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make it now. However, does he realise that one reason why the staff are so highly motivated is that this is one of the few reforms which the House has passed with which large numbers of people in the country agree?
  Mr. Faber: I agree entirely: not only do large numbers of people agree with it, but we found that there is an underlying desire among those who work in the agency to make the provision work and to see that it works. They are motivated because they understand that the provision will benefit the people they are trying to help.
  Dr. John Reid: I have no criticism of the motivation of the people who work in the Child Support Agency. However, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to believe that the administration of the agency is yet anything other than a shambles. The administration is an utter shambles. Several cases were brought to my attention at the weekend. In one, a lady has been waiting six years, but she has received no maintenance despite long conversations with seven different people in the CSA. In another case, a gentleman received letters indicating diametrically opposed positions on the same day, one through me and one direct from the appeals system. Whatever the motivation, the administration is still greatly lacking with regard to the aims set by Parliament.
  Mr. Faber: The hon. Gentleman used strong language when he referred to a shambles. I do not know whether

  53
  he heard the beginning of my speech, but I made the point that, a year or so ago, I might have agreed with much of what he said. The agency faced a severe crisis then. However, I do not get the impression that the agency is still in a shambles. My impression is that much has been done over the past few months.
  Reference has been made to the report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. In his evidence to the Select Committee on 1 February, the ombudsman noted, having spoken to the new chief executive of the agency,
  "I formed a very positive view of Miss Chant's resolution to put matters on a firm and better footing."
  The agency is doing much to ensure that matters are placed on a better footing and that more people are being devoted to the job in hand to get it done.
  Motivation in the agency is high. The staff need the support and help which I believe they are now receiving. We have seen a major turn around in the past few months and over the past year.
  Mr. Charles Hendry: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever difficulties exist in relation to the administration of the Child Support Agency, the members of staff who deal with the correspondence and inquiries of hon. Members on behalf of our constituents have always been courteous and helpful and always try to expedite matters as quickly as possible?
  Mr. Faber: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have seen no signs to the contrary. However, in some ways, it is a sad reflection that we need a specific targeted telephone line for Members of Parliament. My only criticism of the agency is that it would be nice occasionally if some of our constituents, who clearly have great problems getting through to the agency, had the silver service that is available to us.
  We have a wonderful service and the people who are targeted to look after us do their job extremely well, as do all the staff. However, it would be nice if, occasionally, some of the administrative burden was taken from us and if our constituents could obtain answers directly from the agency. That is what the new chief executive is trying to achieve. Work is being undertaken to improve the system. I am sure that the House would want to send its strongest support to those who work in the agency.
  I have referred to the agency's work burden and to what the Bill does to alleviate that burden. The deferment of non-benefit cases where a court order or a written maintenance agreement was in place prior to April 1993, is most welcome. Such a decision should have been taken on policy grounds and not purely on administrative grounds. In that respect, I differ with the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
  Where agreement is not reached, one parent or the other should have the right to call in the agency or to use its collection service. However, I cannot for the life of me see any reason why, where maintenance has been agreed amicably and a court order has been handed down in a proper manner, the agency should have any role to play. If the taxpayer is happy, the parents are amicably happy about the arrangement and, most important, if the children are adequately cared for within the arrangement, I see no reason why the state in the form of the agency should be involved. I hope that the deferment of those cases will be indefinite. We have not heard a date until which they will be deferred.
  54
  We have also heard talk of the 30 per cent. cap that has been put on assessments. That is an important move. Many of the public relations problems that the agency has faced have arisen out of nothing more than the total amount which the absent parent has been asked to pay. It seems right that some cap should be put on the total sum that a parent can be asked to pay and 30 per cent. seems the right amount.
  The Bill and the regulations accompanying it contain other measures which reflect the views of the Select Committee and are therefore, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead pointed out, warmly welcomed. It would be churlish not to welcome them. Interest payments on arrears and the fees which were charged by the agency have caused huge resentment among absent parents. They were seen as an extra burden on top of everything else. Non-enforcement of arrears and the interest on those arrears in certain circumstances, coupled with the deferment of fees for at least two years, will help remove the administrative irritation which has created so much opposition to the agency.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and the hon. Member for Birkenhead referred to the activities of the anti-CSA organisations. My hon. Friend complained that, as parliamentarians, we were unduly targeted and lobbied by those who opposed the Child Support Agency. I submit that, as parliamentarians, we are used to being lobbied and we are able to look after ourselves. Threats such as, "You will lose your seat at the next election," do not always wash with us in any case.
  What is more sinister and what we as Members of Parliament, our families and those who work within the agency should not have to put up with is threatening behaviour and campaigning. I have received several personal threats. Such behaviour is simply intolerable. If people want to change the way in which the agency operates, they should concentrate on political campaigning and put any personal threats to one side.
  In that context, I should like to comment on some of the press and media reporting of the issue and in particular on the few, but tragic cases of suicide which the press and media have sought to attribute to the activities of the CSA. Divorce is always traumatic; it is always extremely difficult for the people involved. In many cases, all too tragically, it may lead to suicide or suicidal feelings. It is irresponsible and wrong for the media and people associated with the campaign against the CSA to suggest that the agency was directly responsible in any way for the suicide of certain people. However tragic and desperate those cases may have been it would be wrong not to see them in the wider context of a separation and divorce, which the people in question will clearly have gone through. It was irresponsible of the media to have pretended otherwise.
  I wish to sound one small note of disappointment and one word of related caution about the Bill. In its report, the Select Committee unanimously recommended that the Government consider replacing the term "absent parent" with "non-custodial parent". Throughout our report the term "non-custodial" is used. I have no doubt that for hundreds of thousands of fathers throughout the country and a few mothers, the term "absent parent" is pejorative and even insulting. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter.

  55
  The Government's official response to the Select Committee report was disappointing. They gave the following reason:
  "'Non-custodial' is not appropriate for two main reasons: firstly, in the 1989 Children Act 'custody' was replaced by residence as the legal arrangement for the care of children; and, secondly, the term implies that the person with care of the child also has 'custody' of that child, which may not actually reflect the position."
  We could debate all day the implementation of the Children Act 1989. It would make an interesting debate for a Wednesday morning. It is one of the most abused pieces of legislation that the House has passed in recent years. It is often deliberately misrepresented by the very practitioners who are paid to implement it, from the courts down.
  Although "residence" may now be the technical legal term, the term "custody" is widely understood, especially when used in the term "shared custody". I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider the matter. The term "absent parent" causes great grief to many people. It is a pejorative term and it can be considered an insulting term.
  My word of warning is not directly associated with the Bill but it arises out of the Bill. The Bill highlights the appalling difficulties in dealing with social issues. At the weekend there was a great deal of media comment in which the imminent publication of a White Paper on divorce law reform was predicted. If such a White Paper is published, I have no doubt that it will broadly reflect the Green Paper that the Government published last year. If that is so, it will undoubtedly contain much that is admirable for those involved and much that is good for the children. However, I have to warn the Government that it will also contain much that is anathema to many people, especially many absent or non-custodial parents and many who have gone through the trauma of divorce. I hope that the Government will take note of the strength of feeling that has greeted the Child Support Agency and think very carefully before introducing divorce law reform on the Floor of the House.
  Legislating for children and divorced couples in today's society is, I am sad to say, something that we have to do but which is nigh on impossible to achieve satisfactorily. Divorce is probably the most traumatic event that any person can go through in his or her life. It is even more traumatic than bereavement in the family. As we have seen only too accurately from the Bill and the publicity surrounding it, the problems and trauma can stay with people for many years, possibly for ever.
  I congratulate the Government and particularly my hon. Friend the Minister, who has done so much to listen and act on the problems highlighted by the Select Committee and all Members of Parliament, as they have seen them reflected in their constituencies. The Bill will improve provision for assessment, collection and enforcement of child maintenance payments. It will make payments fairer and improve the service offered by the agency. Above all, I hope that it will ensure that maintenance is paid to the children.
  5.56 pm
  Ms Liz Lynne: There comes a time with everything when it becomes beyond repair. I believe that we have reached the point at which the Child Support Act
  56
  1991 is beyond repair. We are all in favour of the principle. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are in favour of all parents paying for the upkeep of their children. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the operation of the Child Support Agency and the Act.
  The Bill before us tinkers at the edges. It does not go nearly far enough. The Government have had their chance and they have failed. The Child Support Act has had its chance and has also failed. That is why I tabled a reasoned amendment. I felt that this Bill did not go far enough. That is why I would like to see the original Child Support Act repealed. I honestly wish that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen had come out and said today that they were in favour of repealing the Act. I am disappointed that they were unable to do that.
  Mr. Frank Field: Where does it say in the hon. Lady's reasoned amendment that that is what the Liberal Democrats propose?
  Ms Lynne: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a reasoned amendment declines to give a Bill a Second Reading. Whether or not it says that it declines to give a Second Reading, that is what it does.
  Mr. Field: I am aware that the Liberal Democrats, of whom I usually speak with great favour, as the hon. Lady knows, are against the second Bill. She speaks about the first Bill, which has become an Act. Why did she not table an amendment which said that she wanted to scrap the Act?
  Ms Lynne: I tabled such a reasoned amendment, but because it did not relate to the Bill before the House today, it was ruled out of order. I said in the reasoned amendment that I would like to see the Child Support Act repealed. It was ruled out of order. The official Opposition also tabled a reasoned amendment. It declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill before us today. I am in favour of the principle that all parents should support their children. We have here an Act that is crumbling before our eyes, and the Government are putting a coat of whitewash on it. I do not believe that that is enough.
  The Bill contains the sound of silence on many issues. My noble and learned Friend Earl Russell, in a letter to the Chairman of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, said that
  "almost every important substantive decision is left to be made by regulation and the Bill itself creates little more than a series of regulation making powers."
  There are 30 clauses in the Bill and three schedules, and I have counted 42 mentions of regulations, orders or "may be prescribed". That is government by decree, and it is neither democratic nor efficient. It is not democratic because we cannot adequately debate what is before us today.
  Schedule 2 of the Bill deals with the creation of powers to make regulations for departures from the formula, but it does not say specifically what those powers will be. The schedule does not say exactly what will happen. It is all regulation, orders and "may be prescribed". We want flexibility in the formula, but the Government talk about departures from the formula without spelling out what they mean.
  The problem with the Act was that it was totally inflexible but the Bill does not make any changes to that whatsoever, and that is why I cannot support it. How can

  57
  we possibly debate a sequence of regulation-making powers? That is what we have been asked to do today. The Government may say that we need flexibility, and I agree, but we need flexibility not only in the Act, but in the Government.
  Hon. Members will have received a deluge of letters and studies about how the Act is working. The majority of members of the all-party child support monitoring group, of which I happen to be the vice-chair, have been told that the Government's proposals will not make a blind bit of difference to parents with or without care. Hon. Members will still get letters about the matter and people in their surgeries who are concerned about it because this Bill will not change much at all.
  The Act is discredited, and it should be repealed. It does not have the confidence of anyone it affects—either the parent with care or the parent without care. If the Act does not have the confidence of those people, how can it possibly work? The parents will not co-operate.
  We have talked about a maintenance disregard, but there is nothing in the Bill for such a disregard for a parent with care. The so-called absent parent would have an incentive to pay if he thought that the parent with care was going to get more money for the child, as the child must be at the centre of the scheme.
  People who lose income support can also lose passported benefits such as free school meals. The Government have come up with a maintenance bonus of £5 a week if a parent gets work for more than 16 hours. The ceiling on that bonus is £1,000, but that would quickly be eaten up by child care costs. The Government should be talking about a child care disregard and tapering benefits if they want to get people back to work.
  What about the much-trumpeted opportunity for departure from the formula in the Bill? The Government say that we need more flexibility, but they still seem to be wedded to the idea of the formula. Or are they? They are not wedded to the formula for pre-1993, non-benefit cases, and they say that those can still be decided by the courts. The Government say that they might get around to those cases in the future, but they are dealing only with benefit cases at the moment because they want to get money back for the Treasury.
  Departures may be allowed—in the Secretary of State's words—in certain "tightly defined circumstances". It would be up to the Secretary of State to judge—according to unspecified regulations—whether an appeal for a departure is granted. I do not believe that parents with or without care will be mollified by that.
  In April, property settlements of over £5,000 will be taken into account, and that will make a marginal difference. For example, someone who has settled for £25,000 will be £9 a week better off. After 1997, more departures from the formula may be addressed.
  The Act should not have been made retrospective in the first place, and that is why it is so discredited. The principle was good, but I cannot believe that it can be made to work now. People should have been fully consulted before the Act was brought in. They were not, and that is why it is in such a shambles.
  Mr. Hendry: Is the hon. Lady saying that there should be no element of retrospection at all? If so, does she think that it would have been fair that an absent or non-custodial parent who got divorced the day after the Act came into
  58
  force would have to pay £20 or £30 a week for child care, whereas someone divorced the day before the Act came into force would pay nothing?
  Ms Lynne: I do not know whether it would have been fair, but it would have been a way to make the Act work. The reason it is not working is because of its retrospective elements. Some people have made clean-break settlements, taken out hire purchase agreements, married again and had two children by their second family. The Act did not work because it was retrospective. That proposal may or may not have been fair, but it would have made sure that the Child Support Act worked a lot better.
  Mr. Frank Field: While we understand why the hon. Lady wants the Child Support Act removed from the statute book, we all know that it will not be removed. We must look for reforms, and I regard the retrospective nature of the measure as its fatal weakness. In the circumstances, will she support the idea that—as there is a 30 per cent. cap on disposable income on richer parents regarding their contribution of maintenance—there could be a cap of 20 per cent. or 15 per cent. on those families for whom the Act is clearly retrospective?
  Ms Lynne: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. If the Bill is passed today, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion could be a way forward. I would like to see the Bill defeated and also the repeal of the Child Support Act, but, sadly, I think that that will not happen.
  Let us look at some other matters, such as the 15-mile travel-to-work disregard. As the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) said, it is 15 miles as the crow flies and does not take into account the route taken to work. Nobody can get to work as the crow flies. A 15-mile trip to work makes 30 miles a day and 150 miles a week, but the money will be paid only after those 150 miles have been travelled, and at a rate of 10p a mile. No company gives 10p a mile for travel costs, and hon. Members would be extremely worried if they were offered 10p a mile for their travel costs.
  I am pleased that the costs of travelling to see a child may be taken into account if there is a departure from the formula and if the regulations state that a parent can appeal against it. That does not go far enough, and it will not deal with my constituents who have been affected by the measure. A man was in my surgery the other week in floods of tears—all hon. Members will have had such cases—because he used to visit his son, who lives miles away. I doubt whether the man lived far enough away to be covered by the new measures in the Bill, but he lived far enough away from his son for it to cost him too much money to visit. His maintenance payments had increased and he told his ex-wife that he could not get there. Their divorce had been very acrimonious and when the son asked his mother why daddy wasn't coming to see him any more she said, "Because daddy doesn't love you any more". That was why the man was in floods of tears—he had telephoned his son, who refused to speak to him. It is not an isolated case, as it is happening in constituency after constituency. Now, we have this Bill and it is not good enough.
  What about appeals? They will not be independent. I am glad that housing costs may be taken into account for the second family and the children of that family, but the Child Support Act 1991 was a Government initiative and it is not doing what it set out to do. I supported it in the

  59
  first place because of what it set out to do. I sincerely thought that the Secretary of State and the Minister were listening to what we and the all-party child support monitoring group were saying. If they had been listening, they would have come up with a little more than we have in this Bill.
  The White Paper said, "Children come first." That has a very hollow ring today. The Act is in a shambles and neither parent—the one with or the one without care—has seen any benefits from it. If the non-co-operation continues, case loads will get longer, settlements will take longer and the morale of support agency staff will get lower. People are already refusing to work for the CSA because they do not want the hassle and I cannot blame them.
  The 1991 Act should not have been retrospective. Just before Christmas, 340,000 cases were deferred. The Government are indulging in crisis management. This is the second time that they have had to come to the Dispatch Box to make changes. How many more times will they have to come here to change the Act? Why do they not wake up to the fact that it is fundamentally flawed, and that parents with care and so-called absent parents alike see it as a Treasury support Act? In response to the report of the Social Security Select Committee, the Secretary of State said that they should base performance targets on benefit reduction. Even he was admitting that it is a Treasury support Act.
  Children's welfare must come first, which is why I want the Act repealed. We must go back to the drawing board, reconsider, have proper consultation with all interested parties—not piecemeal consultation, or consulting and not listening—and come back with a unified family court system, which is something that the majority of people on all sides of the debate want. It has not been tried before. The Government could then set up a collection agency. They could use CSA staff if they must, but they will have to rename the agency and use it as a collection agency. Even the Children Act talked of the necessity for a unified family court system that could deal with maintenance and all family law issues. The court would have to have full investigative powers. The collection agency would have to be allowed to do its job. The Act and the courts have failed—they were not proper family courts—and no one has collected or enforced the settlements. People got away with not paying and no one bothered to chase them. We need co-operation and flexibility, and a unified family court system would provide that.
  The Child Support Act has not worked because the Government did not consult properly beforehand. As I have said, and will continue to say, the principle that all parents should support their children is right but, if we are not careful, the agency will sink further if more people do not co-operate. People were hoping that, after their representations, the Government would produce something concrete so that they could say, "Yes, the Government have listened to us." But we have got this meagre Bill. I hope that in the long term we will repeal the 1991 Act and start again from the beginning with full consultation. In the meantime, I will vote for the reasoned amendment.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am pleased to be able to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne). I had not expected to get the opportunity to speak, as I thought that the House would be packed and we would be overwhelmed by hon. Members wishing to speak. I am pleased to find that I have a chance to join the discussion about what I would describe as the VSA, or various support agencies, because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have taken immense pains to consult and to listen to the results of those consultations. It has not been an easy row to hoe and I am obliged to my hon. Friend for accepting a number of the points that were important to me, even though I hardly flatter myself into believing that mine were the only representations that weighed with him.
  The new Bill will go a long way to meeting many of the problems. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale that, if we could only repeal the Child Support Act 1991, and start again, we would have some sort of magic formula. The fact that the unified family court system has some considerable merits does not exclude the likelihood that people would come in equal numbers to our surgeries to complain about its behaviour as readily as they now complain about the Child Support Agency.
  The truth of the matter is that this is a delicate part of human affairs. It is full of pain, anger, dismay and, in many cases, financial difficulty. In those circumstances, no new name or formula will eradicate people's desire to complain to Members of Parliament or anyone else who will listen. It was a bit rich of the hon. Member for Rochdale to complain that discretion was not tightly defined—the very nature of discretion is that it should not be so tightly defined, so I have difficulty with that idea.
  The way in which Ministers have handled controversy over the agency is a vindication of our political system. When one sees Ministers traipsing through the Lobby late at night, or being summoned back from important international meetings to play their part in the voting arrangements of this place, one sometimes thinks that it is a barmy way to run the country. There is tremendous merit, however, in having members of the Executive drawn from ordinary constituencies and having to face their own electors and correspondents. This issue has been a good example of that.
  I listened with care to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), who made an admirable speech. Like him, I regret the fact that the 1991 Act was retrospective, but the changes will help. It is important for us to consider the context in which the Act was brought into being. It is terribly important to remind young people of the continuing responsibility to children that they must undertake when they have children of their own.
  The CSA is a tangible and recognisable statement by society that children should not be "lightly entered into"—in the words of the old Church of England marriage service—but are a continuing responsibility and are now recognised as such. Few people enter marriage with the intention of allowing the relationship to break down but, these days, thousands of people every year go into marriage with their hopes and their confidence in their capacity to sustain the relationship over a long period at such a low level that we are all paying the heavy cost of that. It is not just the financial costs, although my right

  61
  hon. Friend the Secretary of State reminded us that it costs £8.5 billion to support single parents. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said in a remarkable speech, that is a massive sum for taxpayers to bear. It is also a huge cost in human misery and pain, not merely for the parents, although it can be extremely costly in emotional terms, but for the children, some of whom never recover from the experience and many of whom take many years to overcome the difficulties.
  We must be careful not to consider the Child Support Agency's financial remit as an isolated element in the whole business of sustaining marriage in a better way. One or two hon. Members have already said that, where good relations exist between former spouses, it is important that the CSA should respond in ways that do not damage those good relations. For example, there are endless stories about people whose good arrangements for seeing their children are in danger of being undermined. I hope that the new discretions and concessions will make that easier to deal with.
  One of the reasons why the CSA appears to be an isolated element of our provisions for coping with family breakdown is cross-departmental boundaries. Given that it is now clearly predictable that, if a marriage breaks down, the parent without care will be required to pay for the maintenance of the children of that marriage, cannot that be taken into account and codified before divorce is granted? In new cases, it is unnecessary to have a long, drawn-out procedure continuing after the divorce. Manifestly, in cases where the parents were divorced before the setting up of the CSA, we can do nothing about that, but we must look carefully at making the CSA's demands part of the divorce settlement.
  I am delighted that travel-to-work costs and pre-existing debts are being taken into account. Many couples enter into those financial commitments with no idea that their marriage will break up. Some couples enter into financial commitments, such as a job that involves heavy travel costs, or costly home improvements, with the desire to save their marriage, and others enter into those commitments with no idea that their marriage will break down. It has always seemed grossly unfair to expect those commitments to be totally ignored and it is a tremendous step forward that they will be taken into account.
  On penalties for late payment, how willing is the CSA to accept responsibility in cases where its actions are involved in the delays? I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister about the clear case of a constituent of mine who knew that his assessment was grossly more than it should be. He offered to pay the sum that he thought appropriate, but the CSA refused to accept payment of less than its original demand. Many months later, after an enormous amount of to-ing and fro-ing—I have seen the correspondence—the CSA finally admitted that my constituent's original contention was wholly correct. Had he paid what was originally demanded, the agency would have had to repay him more than £3,000, but because it would accept nothing less, he is now being taxed with not only arrears but interest on those arrears. That is simply not on and I hope that, under the new arrangements, the agency can be flexible in that respect.
  Discretion is a great historical difficulty for Social Security Ministers. Whenever new social security legislation is introduced, the desire is to have no discretion but to have clear, straightforward and simple legislation. Within 10 minutes, however, the first pressure
  62
  group, whether for the disabled or some other group, presents a cast-iron case for saying that the formula cannot work and the Minister, usually to the applause of the assembled House, gives way and an element of discretion creeps in. Before long, the system is so full of discretions that everyone complains that it is grossly unfair and the anomalies are hopeless, and the Government of the day are pilloried for running a system that does not work.
  That is exactly what will happen in this case. The CSA was created with a clear remit to have as crisp and clear a formula as possible, with no discretions. We have now discovered that there must be some discretion in the system. I record for posterity that I welcome the arrival of discretion, but I am fully aware that, some years down the track, we shall all complain that the system is not predictable.
  I share the concern of the corn-fed shadow Minister—although he claimed to be corn fed, he would agree that he is not a chicken—that appeals may become too formal. For different reasons, he and I both have considerable experience of the children's hearings system in Scotland, which is the equivalent of the juvenile court. Given how long that system has existed—it was introduced in 1967—it has maintained a degree of informality that many courts would welcome. I hope that we can arrive at an appeals system that is as informal as possible.
  I am amazed at the relatively small number of hon. Members in the Chamber for the debate. The subject has dominated my surgery week after week, and I am sure that it must have dominated the surgeries of many other hon. Members. I hope that their absence is a tribute to the recent manifest improvements in the workings of the CSA and the public's perception of it. I trust that it has nothing to do with any fear of intimidation by opponents of the Act, about which we have heard from other hon. Members. It is important to draw attention to the disgraceful behaviour of some people opposed to the CSA.
  It is a symptom of one of the weaknesses in our current political system that single-issue groups are becoming increasingly important within it. I accept that they frequently provide Back Benchers with helpful information and useful ammunition for use in debates and in Committee, because we cannot draw upon the resources of Whitehall Departments for our research. Some of those groups, however, have got so carried away by their own effectiveness and organisation that they are becoming violent, threatening and damaging to the political process. Whether it be animal rights, the CSA or anything else, I am now predisposed to vote against violent pressure groups, almost regardless of the validity of their argument, simply because, in a democracy, I regard their actions as disgraceful. After all, those pressure groups have great access to considerable powers of persuasion without going down that violent route.
  The Bill is welcome because it enshrines a great many of the improvements for which hon. Members on both sides of the House have lobbied Ministers. I commend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary for having taken on board so many of the anxieties that have been expressed. I am sure that the hon. Member for Birkenhead is right: we shall need to revisit the system when the changes to it have settled down. Should we need to modify it yet again, no one should regard that as a defeat.

  63
  I would be sorry if the CSA was regarded as separate from the rest of society's efforts to keep families together. Changes in the way in which we support families and children and those threatened by divorce should be taken into account when we consider the work of the CSA. Its work should not be corralled into a separate box, because it impinges greatly on the way in which families, and second families in particular, function. The CSA's very existence says something loud and clear about the way in which British people view the breakdown of a marriage.
  6.32 pm
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) commended the Under-Secretary. Perhaps I should just add that, faced with the summer Government reshuffle, he was one of the few Ministers who viewed that event almost with happiness. It is credit to his stoicism that he has ridden the storm and continues to take responsibility for the Child Support Agency.
  I did not agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), except about the number of regulations, diktats and orders that the Government issue after a Bill has been passed. The Government's growing tendency to rely on such regulations is unacceptable. I do not agree with the hon. Lady that the CSA's current operations are a shambles. That is far too strong a word, given the problems that the agency has faced.
  I am more in agreement with the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber). A year ago, I, too, came close to thinking that the CSA was almost beyond hope. I thought that if it were not to be scrapped, it needed to be reformed radically. A year later, I am convinced that we can make the system work, although I do not believe that the Bill goes far enough to achieve that.
  One of the problems with the CSA is almost a repeat of those encountered with the disability living allowance. A completely new computer system had to get up and run for the United Kingdom without any pilot project. The staff had to amend that system as they worked, so the backlog which built up is partly due to that untried computer system. Now the system is beginning to work.
  I know about the gradual success of the system because I visited the local CSA centre in Birkenhead under a fortnight ago. That centre deals with all the cases from Wales and the north-west of England. It employs 800 staff—700 whole-time staff—and deals with about 1,500 case applications a week. At any one time, 40,000 cases are awaiting assessment, so the centre's work load is enormous. In addition to those staff, there are 1,700 field staff nationally, about four of whom are attached to each Department of Social Security office.
  Those field staff, who are often overlooked, are among the most important staff of the agency. They represent the CSA's interface with the public. They meet people to discuss their applications and they already exercise some discretion as they negotiate the terms on which arrears are paid. I know from the staff that, in some cases, it will take 15 years for the current arrears to be paid. That is a symptom of the strain that the system has been under as staff have tried to get it off the ground.
  64
  Those field staff will be charged with a further discretion, as they will chase down the relevant data and trace those absent fathers who have proved difficult to track down. I know from my discussions with the staff that they now enjoy higher morale than previously, because they feel that they have gone through the trough and have come out the other side. They now believe that they are far more successful than the courts ever were in tracking down parents who have failed to take responsibility for their children.
  I disagreed with the hon. Member for Rochdale, who argued that we should abandon the current system in favour of a new court-based one. Given the two years' experience gained by the CSA, to abandon it for something new presents me with another nightmare. I would rather the current system was made to work. A court system would not necessarily deal with parents who deny parentage. How would it deal with a mother who did not marry the father of her children? The CSA is seeking to deal with such difficult cases and a court system might be unable to tackle them.
  The agency staff to whom I spoke welcome the proposed changes to regulations, but they believe that the current formula is still too complex. Although the staff understand the hugely complex calculations that they must make, they are thankful that a computer system does those calculations for them. The calculations are made to the penny. As a result of minor changes to the data fed into the system, two separate calculations can be made, resulting in two quite different maintenance assessments. I suggest that that arrangement is one of the reasons for the large number of wrong assessments, for which the CSA was criticised in the recent report by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Has it ever been considered that calculations should be made to round pounds rather than pennies? That might not solve all the problems, but it might lead to fewer wrong assessments being made.
  The staff told me that they felt that the proposals in the White Paper demonstrated that they, as the staff who must implement our proposed changes, had been listened to for the first time. I hope that the Government will not consider the Bill as the final reform of the CSA. I hope that they will continue to review its work and, if necessary, return to the House where it is obvious that further change needs to be made. I do not think that that is a reason to criticise the Government. It is something to welcome, and it demonstrates an openness that we might wish to be shown in other aspects of the implementation of Government policy.
  I ask the Minister to take special care, as the new changes are introduced, to ensure that the targets that are set for the agency are achievable. Staff must play an important part in consultation before the targets are set.
  The Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has said that efficient service should be given higher priority as a target than benefit savings. I was told that benefit savings were notional anyway; therefore, they were difficult targets to achieve and perhaps, for the same reason, could be easy targets for the agency to say that it had achieved. The value of benefit savings as targets is questionable.
  I wish to echo and emphasise the opinions expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in the intervention that she made on the speech of the Secretary of State, when she

  65
  called for greater support for civil servants, especially those who take telephone calls from members of the public.
  I was able to visit the call handling section at Birkenhead, where there are 50 people, the newest staff. That is the highest pressure point of the agency, and I watched the staff taking calls and heard them describe the problems that they have to tackle. They receive initial training and are then given hands-on work to do and learn as they go along.
  Thought must be given to ways in which we can support the staff, who tell me—I was astonished when they said it—that all the telephone calls that they receive from absent parents are abusive. I said, "Surely not all?" but all the absent parents who telephone have wound themselves up to such an extent that they ring the agency, and they are abusive or angry and aggressive in their interactions with staff.
  The staff told me that many of the telephone calls from parents with care are also abusive. If the calls are not abusive, they are from people who are upset. Frequently, the staff become upset when they find themselves talking to people at the other end of the telephone who are in desperate circumstances.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I am grateful to the hon. Lady, to whom I could listen for a long time, for giving way. Did she sense, as I did when I was there, listening to exactly the same things, that one of the reasons people were previously so angry when they came on the telephone was that they had tried to get through and failed so often? The system that we have introduced, which is in use in Birkenhead and employs many more people on the telephones, cuts through that. People are not now so wound up and, after they have spoken to the team, they feel much better about matters, often because they have been able to get through and to have a simple question answered.
  Mrs. Kennedy: I think that that would be borne out by what I was told, but I was given the impression that people were full of anger or were upset when they first came on the telephone. The staff on the receiving end had to deal with that. As the Under-Secretary says, better systems are in place now. Staff are able to talk people down from their high emotional state, but that takes a toll on staff. Thought needs to be given to what training and support can be given to the staff who do that work.
  Disappointingly, the threats continue. I had gained the impression that the hoo-ha had, to an extent, died down. At one time, we received a great deal of mail about the Child Support Agency, but it appeared to slacken off. However, staff at Birkenhead told me that they continue to have to cope with unacceptable behaviour from some of the people with whom they deal. Indeed, an X-ray machine has been installed at Birkenhead to help to intercept, as they come through the door, the fake bombs that have been sent to the agency, and the razor blades—which have been mentioned—which continue to be received frequently, so much so that a team of people check the mail and open it. That is all that those people do, all day long. Unfortunately, the X-ray machine does not intercept the excrement that is occasionally posted to the Child Support Agency offices.
  66
  It is important that Members of the House understand the pressures that we have imposed on civil servants as we expect them to carry out perhaps the most controversial piece of legislation and the most dramatic change in the way that we deal with families in our society.
  As recently as Christmas, threats were made to some of the staff and the families of staff, especially those who have been unjustly identified in the media. I wish to add my name to those of hon. Members who have commended the work of the staff and condemned the actions of those who have threatened or endangered in any way the health and well-being of the staff, who have simply tried to do the best job that they can.
  It is not all doom and gloom. When I met the agency staff, I became aware of how much more positively they were feeling. They are starting to receive thank-you letters. The agency's work is not universally disregarded, and a range of people benefit from it; in particular, parents with care are starting to benefit.
  I am told that about 95 per cent. of the parents with care with whom the Birkenhead office deals are women. Those women are starting to write to agency staff to thank them when their maintenance is sorted out. Those parents with care are also able to say that, because maintenance is now part of the benefits on which they depend, they have options that they did not have previously, when they depended entirely on means-tested benefits. Some women have written to say that they are going to college. Some are even taking jobs, because there is less fear of the poverty trap. Some parents with care say that they feel better about their position.
  Unfortunately, that is not the case for all parents with care. Not all absent parents are happy, and people on benefits whose ex-partners—or the absent parents of their children—are on benefits receive little or no help. I am told that Birkenhead has abandoned only those cases where the parent with care has failed to return the form—much has been said about why parents with care do not return the forms—or where no maintenance can be paid. Those are cases where the absent parent is on benefit and there is little financial return for the child or the parent with care or, indeed, the Treasury—the taxpayer. However, staff at Birkenhead told me that they would not abandon a case where the parent with care insisted that some attempt be made to gain maintenance.
  Perhaps we need to accept the fact that the agency will not be able to sort out the feckless fathers—if one wants to call them that—whom many hon. Members on both sides of the House wanted to be brought to book and made accountable for their own children. As there is no financial benefit to the taxpayer, the temptation has been to abandon those cases altogether.
  On page 10, the White Paper talks about producing a scheme designed to ensure that
  "the system produces fair and consistent results".
  I want to take issue with the use of the word "fair". It has been used by speaker after speaker in the debate, and I wonder why we seek to invest with fairness a system that will continue to implement a rigid formula, although with some discretion.
  The word "fairness" has certain connotations. When one is dealing with family breakdown or the type of very sensitive circumstances with which the agency deals, there will always be someone who is able to say, with

  67
  some justification, "This is not fair," so I object to the use of the word. We need to take more account of whether the system works efficiently and effectively than of whether it is fair. By that, I am not saying that it should be unfair; it is simply that connotations accompany that word.
  In the most recent major debate that we held on the issue, one hon. Gentleman—I hope that he will forgive me for not remembering who it was—spoke about not requiring the Child Support Agency to exercise the judgment of Solomon. It does not seek to apportion blame; it simply seeks to calculate maintenance on the basis of a formula.
  For me, the hardest and least fair cases are those where the absent parent is a man who has, in his terms, lived an honourable life. He is married with children and his wife leaves him, takes the children and, in some cases, the house as well. He sees himself as having lost everything. He does not deny that he is required to pay maintenance; he wants to pay maintenance because he sees it as a continuation of his responsibility. In some cases, his former wife worked, so between them they maintained their home. After the break-up of the family, she may find a new partner who is wealthy enough for her not to work, so she gives up work. The absent parent finds that his own maintenance requirement is increased because his former wife has given up work. In no circumstances could one persuade that person that the case was fair. We must disentangle the concept of fairness, and say that it is the right and proper maintenance for him to pay as his children will benefit from his wealth and income as a result.
  The question we need to ask ourselves about the Bill is whether the changes proposed—either in regulations or the Bill—increase the agency's efficiency and performance. The Bill contains half the changes to child support announced in the White Paper and allows for departures from the usual rules for determining maintenance assessments. Those departures will be allowed only in cases where the absent parent incurs necessary expenses that are not allowed for in the formula and where failure to take them into account would result in hardship.
  How do we define hardship? The White Paper states that it will not be defined in arithmetical terms. Who will define it? Will the agency staff define it? The system will result in a number of appeals. The Child Support Agency will first decide whether a departure from the formula should be allowed. If either parent is unhappy with the decision, he or she can ask for the matter to be considered by the child support appeal tribunal.
  If the independent tribunal service deals with appeals, will it deal with those appeals as well as those arising from the new incapacity benefit and from the jobseeker's allowance? I foresee a strong likelihood of logjams of appeals. Sufficient resources, adequate training and supervision must be provided if past mistakes in dealing with such backlogs and logjams are not to rear their ugly heads again.
  Mr. Rowe: I am listening with great attention to the hon. Lady's interesting and constructive speech. Her point about logjams of appeals is important. Is there not scope at least for considering whether, if it becomes apparent that many people are appealing for no reason other than to try to defer making any payments, there should be a mechanism for trying to control that?
  Mrs. Kennedy: I hope that in Standing Committee there will be an opportunity to examine the appeals procedure, which will be put under great pressure as a result of the changes. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. In my experience of dealing with appeal tribunals, it is the length of time that it takes for tribunals to be set up, and evidence to be collected and presented, that creates great problems. If there were a sifting system before that part of the process, would it be necessary to have an appeals procedure against a wrong decision at that stage? We must look at that possibility, but we must not make the grounds for appeal so restrictive that we build up more hostility to the agency and its work. We need the appeals system and its decisions to be supported and abided by, by both parents.
  There will be a number of grounds for departure from the formula. There are the travel-to-work costs, the cost of caring for stepchildren, which is welcome, certain debts from the former relationship and the existence of pre-April 1993 capital and property settlements, which is not currently reflected in the assessment. Those factors are not listed in the Bill but are some of the items that will be determined by regulation.
  I have three criticisms of that system. First, although regulations would allow for flexibility, I am concerned that there will be a consequent lack of parliamentary scrutiny of them. Secondly, as the Child Poverty Action Group states:
  "we are concerned that the system of departure is rather convoluted, that CSA clients who are already confused by the different review and appeal routes will be even more perplexed as to what is happening"
  as a result of the changes. I would go along with that. My third criticism is that, despite the promise of more staff, the agency may not be able to cope with the number of applications for departure that are bound to follow. Account must be taken of that.
  Other changes to child support that are not contained in the Bill but are to be made by regulations are due to take effect in April. I understand that they have not appeared in draft form yet. It is questionable whether they can be effectively implemented by an already over-burdened agency. The changes appear in the White Paper and we have a summary, but they have not yet been published—
  Mr. Burt: They were published last week.
  Mrs. Kennedy: I beg the Under-Secretary's pardon. I must obtain a copy. The point that I am making still holds good—the fact that the agency will have to have the changes ready for implementation by the end of April will place it under a lot of pressure. Thought must be given to a system that is to be introduced across the United Kingdom. Any absent parent who has had a complaint will look to the new regulations to see if his or her case can be reviewed. The backlog of cases will be enormous if the system is not handled properly.
  As the departure system requires primary legislation and will not be introduced until at least 1996, the changed regulations allow for a broad-brush adjustment to the formula to allow for past property settlements. Where the absent parent has transferred more than £5,000 of his or her share of equity, the allowance will fall into three bands. That allowance recognises only that the transfer took place;

  69
  it will not precisely reflect the settlement. Only when the new departure system is introduced will we be able to give more detailed consideration to such cases.
  One of the reasons I shall support my hon. Friends' amendment, not the Bill's Second Reading—
  Mr. Dewar: That is a relief.
  Mrs. Kennedy: I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench will be relieved to hear that.
  The measure helps absent parents more than it does parents with care and contains nothing to combat the poverty of lone parents and their children. The lump sum bonus will not be introduced for two years, unlike the provisions for absent parents, which are to be introduced in four weeks. I concur with the criticisms of that issue made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). There is no mention of a maintenance disregard and absent parents on income support can, at present, have £2.30 deducted from their benefit in lieu of child maintenance, bringing them below subsistence level. The Social Security Advisory Committee has expressed concern at the increasing number of deductions that can be made from benefits—a retrograde step.
  In previous debates on the subject I have asked for special consideration of, and investigation into, the effects on children of family break-up. Much of what we have been doing has focused on the costs and the financial benefits and returns for children. I asked for the Rowntree trust to be commissioned to carry out further research into the effect on children of family break-up. The welfare benefit system puts increasing pressure on families in poverty and makes it financially beneficial for partners to break up and live separately. We should be looking to reform that system so that lone parents are given support and helped out of the poverty trap. But parents who stick together should not be financially disadvantaged, the one compared to the other. We have an opportunity to do that. We cannot achieve that goal with the Bill, but the issue is becoming increasingly important.
  Last week in Kensington in my constituency I went on a police patrol with my local constabulary. As well as the pleasure of driving around in a fast response car with flashing lights and going through red lights, I witnessed the patrol dealing with some serious incidents. One such incident the police described as a disturbance—I would have called it a riot. Sixty young people with an average age of 12 were fighting in a terraced street in my constituency. Although their average age was 12, most of them were drunk. They had got the alcoholic drink from somewhere—the police are investigating that. Problems are being created in our society as the result of the breakdown of families and one of the contributing factors is our benefit system. It behoves us to look at that system carefully to see whether there are ways in which we can reform it and make such incidents less likely to happen.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Charles Hendry: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate on the Child Support Bill. I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), whose speech typified the sensible and constructive approach that most hon. Members have adopted to the debate. The only sad part of her speech was when she informed us that she would not vote with the Government
  70
  tonight. Until that point, many of us had been seduced by her charm into thinking that she might; but we must live with that disappointment.
  The Child Support Agency has been the subject of letters which have filled our postbags, and it has prompted many visits to our surgeries over a considerable time. Although we are now seeing a diminution in the number of such cases, hon. Members must not underestimate the importance that should be attached to reforming the workings of that agency.
  At the outset of my speech, I pay a warm tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. They have listened to all reasonable arguments in an effort to ensure that the agency will work better, while the principles that lie behind it are retained. Their work has built on that of the Social Security Select Committee under the leadership of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Their joint approach characterises the desire to find a way forward that enshrines the principles of the Child Support Act 1991 and of the agency while making the agency more acceptable to the people who are affected by its decisions.
  It is with sadness that I exclude from my tribute the speech by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne). She did nothing to add to the value of the debate. She gave a typical Liberal commitment. She said that we could afford to pay more benefits to more people but that no one has to pick up the tab. In the best Liberal tradition, she promised everything to everyone in the knowledge that her party will never be in a position to deliver anything.
  I also pay tribute to the work of community groups which, in most cases, have lobbied sensibly. I include in that group the child support action group in my constituency. Its approach to the issue could not be more different from the aggressive and objectional attitudes of some extreme groups elsewhere. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), I deplore completely the attitudes of the most extreme groups and the way in which they have intimidated many people. For example, they reminded my constituents that I hold a marginal seat—as if I were not aware of that already. I think about it every day and I shall live with that fact until the next election, when I shall increase my majority by leaps and bounds. That is only a small example of their intimidatory tactics.
  We should be aware of another worrying factor. Even the more responsible groups which oppose the Child Support Agency have sought to create unnecessary fear. People who are worried about being investigated and who have turned to those groups for advice and support have received an unrealistically high estimate of the demands that the agency would place upon them. Every constituent who has been given a figure by a local group has discovered later that the real amount that he is expected to pay is much less than he feared initially. Even those groups which have sought to be more responsible than others have created fear in the community, and I believe that the House should deplore that consequence.
  Today, we are examining the way in which the Government have listened to people's concerns and have decided to take action to ensure that the principles of the Act are retained while the agency is made more workable. Many hon. Members are concerned about the way in

  71
  which the agency has affected those people who have acted responsibly towards the children who no longer live with them.
  For example, a father in my constituency bought a house for his ex-wife following the marriage break-up. She then sold the house, spent the proceeds of the sale and moved from Derbyshire to the Western Isles of Scotland where she lives on income support. He made what he felt at the time was an extremely responsible commitment to his children, but found subsequently that he was being chased for more money and that he could no longer afford to visit his children in Scotland. That is patently wrong and I welcome the fact that capital transactions and gifts from one partner to another will be taken into account in determining the level of maintenance payments.
  I am also satisfied by the inclusion in the legislation of changes to travel-to-work rules. In my constituency—which is a commuter belt—people travel significant distances to work. However, we may wish to examine in Committee the limit of 15 miles as the crow flies. The Peak district is a mass of small, narrow, winding roads and one cannot travel to work as the crow flies because the old footpaths which were built on those routes are not widely used by commuters. Therefore, people travel significantly greater distances than 15 miles even though the actual distance between two points may be no more than that.
  I welcome the recognition in the legislation of the fact that debts from former relationships should be taken into account on occasion. Two of my constituents whose marriage broke-up had bought a house with a small mortgage, but they borrowed a significant amount of money to renovate it and make it livable. In those circumstances, I think that it is reasonable that debts and loans should be taken into account.
  The Government have recognised many of the practical problems which resulted from the original workings of the Act. I welcome, too, the fact that the full mortgage will now be taken into account when there is a second family. That will help those who have second families by taking into account the actual costs involved in maintaining them.
  The legislation contains a number of practical measures which will enable absent parents to provide more realistic support for their children. Arrears in payments will be limited to six months where the Child Support Agency has been at fault. That measure is extremely welcome, as is the fact that no fees will be charged for those assessments that are made between April 1995 and April 1997.
  The cap on amounts payable to 70 per cent. of income should prove extremely helpful. In the past, hon. Members have told their constituents that, in principle, they should not expect to pay more than two thirds of their salary in maintenance, only to find that they have had to pay much more than that. The 70 per cent. cap will be a great comfort to many people who are worried about the extent of their monetary commitment.
  I believe that the measures represent responsible and reasonable steps, particularly where the legislation will be retrospective. Like some of my colleagues, I have general reservations about retrospective legislation. However, I have been persuaded—I made the point by way of
  72
  intervention during the speech by the hon. Member for Rochdale—that it would not be fair to treat those who were separated or divorced after the Act came into force differently from those who were divorced before the operation of the Act. That would not be good legislation and it would create rifts within communities, workplaces, villages and towns. We were correct to avoid that consequence, and we welcome the Government's response in recognising people's legitimate concerns. There is always a danger with retrospective legislation that people will have moved on and built new lives based on their current and foreseeable circumstances.
  My hon. Friend the Minister knows of a constituency case with which I have been dealing. My constituent had what he believed was a cast-iron legal case: he had passed over property to his wife, and made a commitment to pay 5p a year towards the maintenance of his children in addition to a significant capital transfer. He assures me that he would never have made the commitment if he had been advised that at any point in the future it could be opened. He now finds that, because of the workings of the Act, the position has changed. My constituent may have been badly advised by his lawyers—I suspect that he was—but I think we are right to recognise that, having made a significant capital transfer in the past, he is less able to pay than others who have made no such transfer.
  I have many reasons for supporting the Bill, because of the reasoned way in which the Government have put their case. One reason, however, is the flawed argument advanced by the Opposition. Many Opposition Members suggest that all who are unhappy about the claims being made on them will be entitled to appeal, but we know that—seductive though that is—it is not true. It is a liberal little suggestion, intended to be attractive; but ultimately, if there are to be exclusions and special appeals, by definition they will be available in only a small minority of cases. To suggest the possibility of a general appeal is to undermine the principle on the basis of which the Child Support Act was passed.
  The Government are right to suggest a maintenance bonus when people return to work, rather than a general maintenance credit. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has come up with a much more realistic incentive for people to resume employment. Conservative Members know that the main barrier preventing single parents escaping from poverty is inability to work.
  In an excellent and wide-ranging speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) spoke of his objection to the term "absent parent" when applied to the parent who is not looking after a child. I agree: I think that we should consider the term "non-custodial parent", to avoid being gratuitously offensive to many parents who are deeply involved in caring for their children and making the decisions that are necessary for their proper upbringing.
  Much anger is felt by parents who believe that they are contributing not just to their children but to their ex-partners, helping to maintain their standard of living and enabling them not to have to work after what may have been an acrimonious divorce or separation. I hope that we can deal with that problem as well.
  The workings of the agency have improved beyond recognition in the past couple of years. The number of complaints has fallen dramatically—although it has not fallen enough—and I welcome the pressure exerted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon.

  73
  Friend the Minister to secure a faster and more efficient response. Not only have there been delays in replying to letters, but in far too many instances letters have been lost and people have been asked for the same information not once but twice or three times. The agency sends a letter saying that a substantive reply will be sent within a certain number of days, and no reply is received after two or three times the period specified. That needs to be corrected quickly: such a correction would constitute the most rapid way of regaining people's support for the principle that underpins the Child Support Agency.
  The principles of the 1991 Act remain paramount. They enjoy the support of people of all political persuasions, throughout the country. The Bill will make the Act work better—and that is in the interests of all of us, of our constituents and, above all, of the children in our constituencies.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Today we are examining, and trying to understand, a changing map of income distribution and life chances, especially as those factors affect children. In the case of earlier generations our analysis would have included low pay, unemployment and the risk of disability; today we should also include family changes and insecurities as one of the major causes of poverty and dependency.
  It is no surprise that—as the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) mentioned earlier—another Government Department, the Lord Chancellor's Office, is currently grappling with the fine detail of divorce law reform. Recent reports suggest that we may soon have a White Paper, and possibly legislation. That reform raises issues similar to those that we are now discussing.
  It is also no surprise that another piece of social security legislation—the Pensions Bill, which is now making its journey through another place—has recently been amended significantly to allow for the impact of divorce on women and to entitle them to a share of the pension. That gives us a third example of the way in which, at long last, the force of trends in our society has caused family change to have an impact on the policy agendas that count. Indeed, there are many more examples.
  We need to become more familiar with such complex territory if Parliaments and Governments are to make wise decisions in the future. The issues are more difficult than some with which the House has had to deal in the past: they are not only complex but emotional, raising fundamental questions about relationships between individuals, their families and the state. We are dealing with the raw edge of policy, and it is not surprising that that rawness should show itself not only in our debates but in our constituency surgeries.
  Two couples visited me recently, on separate occasions. In both cases, one parent—the husband in one instance, the wife in the other—had discovered that his or her partner had had a child in a previous relationship; the existence of the child had come to light only as a result of the CSA's intervention. Each had had to contend with that dramatic information in the context of a new relationship. That husband in Croydon kept repeating, "I never knew: it is all new to me," as, understandably, he tried to get to grips with the matter. It is not surprising that the agency's blood-and-thunder policy has been so controversial.
  74
  The policy undermines a basic assumption that has been made by society and the welfare state—that a certain family model prevails. We have often assumed, at least implicitly, the existence of that model, based on the durability of marriage and the proposition that children are born within marriage. It has been assumed that their parents will remain married, happily or otherwise, at least until the children are in their teens or early 20s. As we know, that model is being increasingly challenged. I am always struck by the summary fact or projection that, by 2000, which is very soon, probably only half the children in Britain will have what we used to think of as a typical childhood—namely, being born in families in which the parents are married, and spending all their childhood and young adulthood with parents who are married, happily, I hope.
  Already, 30 per cent. or more of children are born outside marriage. Those who are born inside marriage will sometimes see the divorce of their parents. It emphasises the point which many have emphasised in recent years: if we make policy on an assumption about typical families, increasingly we get it wrong. I repeat the point that it is not surprising that our policy agendas are becoming cluttered with significant items that deal with the impact of family change. Although I do not believe that all family change is associated with insecurity, much of it is, and therefore policy is grappling with family insecurity.
  We are again assembled here to consider the financial costs of family change and how we as a Parliament and, indeed, the Government, grapple with those family costs. The issues are clear. The key questions are: what are the costs of family change? Who pays those costs? Who does not? What will be the implications of our answers on our law and our policy making? One fact that is abundantly clear from the Child Support Act—I mentioned it in a previous debate—is that children are very expensive. I sometimes think that, if a Department of Social Security or a Child Support Agency sent a bill to all parents itemising the cost of our children—the clothing, the shoes, the housing, the heating, the telephone calls, many of us would run away and desert.
  The serious point that I am making is that, for parents who have had the misfortune to divorce or who live in other circumstances and are not living with their child, it is a shock when an agency says, "This is the cost of having a child in modern Britain." Most of us never see that bill, thank goodness, but for those who do, it is a shock, and I am not surprised that when confronted with it people say, "If I pay this bill for my child, I cannot live; I cannot spend the money that I want to spend on other things."
  I sometimes get weary when people talk about all the expenses that should be taken into account before calculating the costs of one's child. I sometimes think that all parents should get to grips with the fact that paying for one's own children should be one of the early responsibilities that we take on and should not be at the bottom of the list after all sorts of other expenses are calculated. Having children is expensive. It brings joys, no doubt, but it also brings obligations—some financial. That is the issue with which we are trying to get to grips in difficult circumstances.
  Some of the facts are clear, but possibly need restating. I am talking in general terms and in averages, and that, no doubt, is unfair to individuals. After divorce, women and children tend to be poorer, and fathers who have not

  75
  paid their maintenance in the past tend to be better off. Not only are their living standards unaffected, but if they are not paying maintenance they are often better off. It has been calculated that one in four children born this year in Britain will have parents who divorce before the child reaches the age of 16. Increasingly—although we are talking about minorities—we are talking not about tiny groups, but about many children in our society.
  We are not just talking about divorce. The fastest-growing proportion of one-parent families are those that are headed up by a single, unmarried mother, who tend to be the most vulnerable, the most insecure, and certainly the poorest. While a staggering seven out of 10 one-parent families—I hope that this evidence is reasonably current—are on income support, the proportion of single, unmarried mothers is higher at about 85 per cent., according to the evidence that I have seen. The fastest-growing group—the single, unmarried mother—is also the poorest.
  Since becoming a Member of Parliament just two and a half years or so ago in 1992, one of the things that has made the deepest impression on me as a constituency Member of Parliament is seeing a single, unmarried mother who presents at my advice surgery, often with child in arms, perhaps to get some help with heating, or perhaps her child has asthma or perhaps the mother has a health problem. When one finds out more about the circumstances, there is usually an absent father. I use that term advisedly. When one asks about the father—somewhat nervously—often he is not a factor. He is not around. He is certainly not paying any maintenance. He is not now involved with his own family. That equates with the evidence from the Department of Social Security survey a while ago on one-parent families, which showed that more than four out of 10 children—possibly 43 per cent.—had no contact with the absent parent, normally the father, following the breakdown of the family. That is a worrying fact. I see such a family every week in my surgery.
  The real issue is about what happens to the absent parent and why he often becomes absent. What that tells us about young men and the formation of those families requires a great deal of study and concern, not quick judgments. It worries me deeply. As I recall, from the studies that have been made of one-parent families throughout Europe and the European Union, there is something particularly British in the phenomenon of the large number of single, unmarried mothers. While many of the trends that we are discussing are on the march in the same direction throughout Europe, whether east, west, north or south, the large number of single, unmarried mothers seems to be a particularly British issue.
  We should be concerned about that because there is an equation between being in a one-parent family, particularly one headed by a single, unmarried mother, and dependence on the state. While right and left may draw different conclusions, none of us can be happy about a situation in which so many of those young and vulnerable families, which include so many children, are now dependent on the state for housing—it is often poor, local authority housing that is badly heated, in bad repair and often has mould on the walls. They are dependent almost entirely on the state for income and often have far
  76
  too much contact, because of ill health or poor welfare, with the social services department, the hospital and other parts of the national health service.
  Mr. Jenkin: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to his comment about the ratio of single-parent families in this country compared with those in our European competitor countries? He spoke about dependency. Are those two states in any way connected? In particular, does he think that perhaps the most highly developed social welfare system in Europe for a great many years, certainly in the early post-war years, that of Britain, has led to or has any connection with the high rate of divorce and single parenthood? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to proffer an alternative suggestion.
  Mr. Wicks: I have an alternative analysis. I do not think that I would follow Charles Murray's new right analysis in the United States in terms of a correlation between welfare provision and the development of certain family forms. If I am told that there is evidence for that happening I will accept it because I have respect for evidence, which is an unusual characteristic in the House. I take evidence rather seriously.
  The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) has made an interesting point. Most young women in Europe are significantly postponing the birth of their first child into their mid or late 20s or early 30s and sometimes later. That explains why the average European Union—I mean European woman. I stumbled over European Union when I looked at the Secretary of State because I did not want to upset him. The average European woman is now having just 1.5 children, a child fewer than in the early 1970s.
  Why are women in Europe having fewer children and successful career women having their children later? Why is it that a significant number of young women in Britain—I am talking not about those aged 12 or 13 but about women in their late teens and early 20s—are having children in disadvantageous economic and housing conditions? We should ask questions about the options and opportunities, or the lack of them, that we offer those young women. In a planned way or somewhere between planning and non-planning, such women have children and get locked into the cycle of dependency. That is a rather different perspective.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Is not one of the problems that has been identified over the past 10 to 20 years that many such young women feel that they can strike a blow for independence largely because they will receive benefits which at that early age seem to be worth a lot of money? It is only later that they realise that they are trapped in a state close to poverty because they are not provided with the amount of money that they had hoped they would get. The state is partly to blame for leading them into that predicament.
  Mr. Wicks: Young women who think that on income support they can live the life of Reilly are making a grave mistake. When I see such families and sometimes visit the housing that has been allocated to them by public authorities, I feel sad that our young people and their children will live in that way not just for a few years but perhaps throughout the lifetime of those children. That is a poor option and I am desperately worried that too many of our young people and their children have to live that way.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Does my hon. Friend think that one of the reasons giving rise to that trend is that in a

  77
  constituency such as mine over 50 per cent. of women who are registered as available for work have not worked for 10 years or have never worked in their lives and are very young? That is certainly worth investigation and should form part of a detailed study of trends and families in our society. The opportunities for work and for building their lives and gaining independence which may be available to young women in our European partner countries are not available to young women in my constituency. Therefore their roles are different.
  Mr. Wicks: I accept that, and it reminds me of a related issue in a recent parliamentary answer from the Department of Employment. It drew on labour force survey data which showed that about six months ago 1 million of Britain's children lived in households in which the head was unemployed. The figure may be lower now because of falling unemployment. I hope that it is. The majority of people in that group were victims of long-term unemployment—that is to say, the head of the household had been unemployed for more than a year.
  That relates to my hon. Friend's point because in some communities children are growing up without the model of a mother or father who has to get up early, have a shower, dress, go into a place called work, earn a wage that enables him to be independent and come home in the evening. Analysing and picturing such children becoming unemployed enables us to explain some of the issues that concern the House. It need not be like that. While seven out of 10 of our one-parent families draw income support, in other societies, such as that in Sweden, which I do not say is perfect, the head of seven out of 10 one-parent families is in the labour market. Although on average their incomes are lower than those of two-parent families, there is not the same poverty and the same dependence on the state.
  Although on the political right there is talk of a dependency culture, I prefer to speak about a dependency state because the word culture seeks to blame the victim. We should be blaming ourselves for what has happened to the framework of rights and full employment policies which has undermined opportunities for young people. I certainly see the challenge in social policy, and it relates to the Child Support Act 1991, and how to move resources from dependency and breakdown to investment.
  During Question Time it was revealed that social security spending is now at a record level. I do not take comfort from that because, if anything, there is a correlation between record levels of state benefit and social insecurity. That is an exaggeration because we need to understand the benefit totals and take account of other factors such as demography. The fact that we are now spending a large proportion of public money to keep people on low state benefits when many desperately need opportunities to become independent worries us all. I ask again: how do we move from spending resources on breakdown and shift them towards what I call investment in people? That is one of the key challenges.
  Not many people need to be reminded, because the mood has changed in th House, that whatever our critique of the Child Support Act—and I have joined in the critique of its practice—we cannot turn the clock back to a court-based system that depends on maintenance collection. That did not work in the past and it is not the future. I turn again to the survey from the Department of Social Security on lone parents which was undertaken by York university. It showed that only 39 per cent. of
  78
  one-parent families had ever received maintenance and that only 29 per cent. received it regularly. When I say "regularly", that does not imply that the amounts were high enough; they were often very low. I would be loth to accept a critique of the Child Support Act 1991 which assumed that the past was better. It was not. It failed people and it especially failed women and children. For too long in social policy and in society, we have pursued a principle of women and children last. It is time that we changed that.
  I have never said that I support the principle of the Act and gone on to undermine it. I have criticisms of it, but I truly support the principle of parental responsibility. Through the Select Committee report, the White Paper and the Bill, we are properly addressing the issues. Whatever our disagreements about details, we are properly addressing areas where the Act may have been overbearing or unfair, to men largely. I accept that and I shall be interested in the details when the Bill goes into Committee. I accept that there is a proper agenda about men's issues. I am, however, sometimes disgusted by the way in which the debate has been heavily dominated by men's concerns and by the way in which the needs of women and children have often been largely neglected.
  Many of our children are involved. There are 2 million children in one-parent families. I repeat that seven out of 10 of them are dependent on income support. A wiser Parliament would listen harder than this one does to the silent voices in the debate and would not listen only to those who shout loudest. Many of the silent voices are those of women and, if they could speak, of their children who have been the major victims of family change. Family change in Britain has been a social revolution, but it has not been a bloodless one. Most of the victims have been women and children and we should ask hard questions about women and children.
  This is the point where I profoundly disagree with the development of our child support legislation compared with that in, for example, Australia. When Baroness Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, rolled a hand grenade with the pin half out in the direction of the Department of Social Security—when she made her speech—the Department did not know what was coming. It had to grapple with the problem and it was a difficult one with which to grapple. Too soon, the Treasury, whose short-termism makes it a poor promoter of social policy, got its claws into the concept and realised that this was a way in which to raise revenue. It went in for a process of strangulation of an infant social policy. We have not recovered since.
  I was last in Australia in 1990; I cannot, therefore, present the House with an up-to-date account. Others know the position there as well as I do or possibly better. In Canberra, I visited the Australian taxation office which collects child maintenance. Everyone I met, whether politicians, civil servants or people in the voluntary sector, told me that there was a clear disregard for lone parents so that they got some of the maintenance. I know that they get the maintenance in our system, but in Australia, there is no deduction of dollar for dollar. In Australia, lone parents were better off as a result of child support legislation. Everyone told me that that was the oil that made the new machinery work.
  I was told on several occasions that mothers often rang up the Australian taxation office and asked how everything was going and what their share of the child

  79
  maintenance would be that week. There was, therefore, a constituency of support in favour of the legislation among custodial parents and among a wider public. People said, "This legislation seems to be controversial, but it seems to be a sound piece of social policy. It is truly a Child Support Act."
  I regret the way in which we have a party political conflict about the issue. Any suggestion by the Opposition that we should have a disregard is met with the cry, "Is that another expenditure commitment?" I believe that if there had been a disregard from the start, we would have oiled the wheels. In future years, the share of money coming to the Treasury would probably have been higher than is likely under the present system which has suffered from the Treasury's mean-mindedness.
  We have to get this one right; I echo the comments of colleagues on both sides of the House. Sadly, this issue is one of growing importance. There is a rising proportion of children suffering financial, social and emotional insecurities in their childhood. We need to bring about a cultural revolution whereby we make it clear to both parents that whatever may happen to a relationship or a marriage and even though, sadly, many of our children will spend much of their childhood not living with both parents, both parents must take on the financial and other responsibilities for their children.
  The issue of how we balance the rights of parents against their responsibilities is one of the key concepts in social policy. I have never felt that it is a useful political debate either to emphasise rights or to emphasise responsibilities. It is the balance between the two that is crucial. Just as I champion the development of the child benefit scheme as a universal provision or just as I champion the growth of child care and provision for the under-fives, so I shall champion, with equal sincerity, the view that parents must take the major responsibility for their children. If that belief is lost in the future, we face the prospect of a lost generation of children. The issues today could not be more important.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. David Ashby: The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) could have ended his excellent speech by explaining to us why he intended to vote against the Bill. I fail to understand why he intends to vote against it, as much of what he said was in favour of the Bill. I also fail to understand why the Opposition intend to vote against the Bill.
  The Child Support Agency touches virtually everyone in some way or another. It has had a fantastic effect. I am very surprised that although the Child Support Act 1991 has had so much effect on parliamentarians and on individuals outside, we have here in the Chamber only about seven hon. Members on one side and only about eight on the other. There are no Liberal Democrats here at all at this stage.
  The setting up of the Child Support Agency was the most fundamental and revolutionary step. It has been described as part of an infant social policy; it is more than that. It is the most enormous social policy, which goes into the homes of many people and affects so many more. It has replaced a system that was based on people—the way in which people react, the work that people do and
  80
  people's individual problems—by, in many ways, a mathematical formula. In its original conception, it was a most socialist bit of legislation. I was part of the pack that chased the original Act through the House of Commons. I followed it and chased it through, yelled loudly and said how good it was. Yet I find myself saying that it is not the sort of legislation that one would expect a Conservative Government to enact.
  Mr. Duncan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ashby: Let me develop my argument. Many Conservative Members concentrated on the fact that people received benefits, so the fathers must be chased to pay the people and the benefits, but I do not think that they appreciated that the Child Support Act would give an agency control over every person involved in a marital dispute, a separation and an eventual divorce and that there was to be total state involvement. I so welcome the Bill because we have stepped back from the brink and are now into deferment.
  However, I do not want deferment. I want permanence. There are areas in which most people can look after their own affairs better than the state and this is one of them. The state need only interfere in and become involved with payments. Individuals can make up their own mind about what they will pay each other and decide how they will work it out between them, what the property transfer will be and how they will go about their own business. That is what should happen and we should encourage it as much as possible. We may see great encouragement of such policy in future legislation. The only trigger to involve the state should be the provision of benefits. I do not know whether that answers the point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) wanted to intervene, but I shall happily give way.
  Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I remain puzzled at his initial accusation that the Bill is a socialist piece of legislation, or, at least, that the initial Act was. Ever since the war, the state has taken on more and more responsibility for individuals and, indeed, the taxpayer has been forced to pick up the tab for split marriages. Of course, the state is involved in paying benefits, but surely, in trying to reverse the dramatic trends since the war, the Bill is the exact opposite of a piece of socialist legislation.
  Mr. Ashby: My hon. Friend does not understand exactly what socialism is in that case. Socialism is the state telling people what is better for them than they know themselves. Socialism is the state telling people what they should be doing and not what people feel that they ought to be doing. Socialism is the state taking over one's will and one's powers to be able to negotiate and discuss with one's partner what one thinks is best. That is what socialism is and that is what the Bill does. One's entire financial future is set to be taken over by a body based in Belfast, which will dictate exactly what one should or should not do and what one should or should not pay one's wife in respect of the children, regardless of whether the children will benefit or not.
  I totally endorse and most sincerely welcome deferment, as it is a fundamental step back from the original Act. However, if we were to start again, I hope that with hindsight and knowledge of what has happened,

  81
  we would not go down this path. But we have gone down it and we must try to make the best of it. I welcome the Bill for that reason if for no other.
  Various hon. Members have spoken about the morale of the agency staff. The absence of flexibility in the legislation must have affected their morale. It must have been extremely frustrating for them to have common sense dictated to them time and again over the telephone by various people who were asking them why they did not do this or that, or why they did not take into account this or that. The staff must have known that not taking into account such aspects was crazy, and not having flexibility in the rules must have affected them. Lack of flexibility has certainly been a source of tremendous confrontation between clients and staff of the Child Support Agency.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), I have been lobbied by very concerned people who have been affected by the Child Support Agency. I deplore threats and I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who raised the issue of terror tactics, was absolutely right to say that we should never give in to them. I have received many blackmail-type letters telling me that I would not be re-elected. Fortunately, all of them come from places far from my constituency, such as Manchester. Some of the letters may have come from Bury, North, but they have certainly not come from my constituency.
  In my constituency, the most helpful organisation has continually told me that it supports the Child Support Agency and its fundamental aim. It is headed by Nick Jeffreys, who has acted like a social worker in the area. He has taken disgruntled and upset clients to see the right people for sound advice. Mr. Jeffreys also gives sound advice and, by and large, the organisation has done much to defuse the situation. People who have lobbied me in my constituency have been helpful and constructive. They have convinced me of the problems with the Child Support Act and, when one looks at the Act and the changes in the Bill, one sees that they have convinced the Government, too. So, far from being outrageous, such people have been absolutely correct. We must welcome the fact that the Bill addresses many of the issues that they raised. We are obviously listening and altering things as we need to.
  Although I said that I would not have started from such a point in looking for maintenance for children, legislation is now in place and we must make the best of it. Nothing is written in tablets of stone. I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary saying that time and again. He has listened time and again, too. He has given counter-arguments at times, but at other times he has certainly accepted what has been said and been most constructive about it. We cannot write such legislation in tablets of stone, because we are talking about human nature, and the effects of anything that we do on human nature are never clear. We hope that the changes in the Bill will resolve most of the problems—we expect that—but they might not. We must have flexibility and always listen.
  Above all, we must remember that we are trying to balance the needs of the child and the needs of the mother and recognise that civil rights and human liberties are involved. Hitherto, it could have been said that we did not achieve that balance. Certainly, we were not taking account of the civil rights of the people who were involved.
  82
  So many of us represent rural areas. However, the travel-to-work area is not taken into account in these matters. If someone does not earn very much, travel to work can involve a great deal of money. Most people in my area work in Leicester, almost 30 miles away. According to the new provisions, a travel-to-work distance of 15 miles will be considered. That means that about £25 will have to be disregarded before those people receive something back, because we are talking about a provision in the Bill for 15 miles a day before 10p a mile is paid.
  We all know how much Members of Parliament receive per mile for travelling expenses. Why do we expect other people to have lower costs per mile than we have? Why do we expect people to have lower costs per mile than what the RAC and the AA estimate are the true costs of running a car? I suppose that one of my constituents driving to Leicester might drive a 10-year-old car as he probably cannot afford anything better.
  Mr. Duncan: He can take the bus.
  Mr. Ashby: The problem is that there are no buses and they do not arrive at the right time anyway. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton is aware of the problem with buses in his area: catch a bus, indeed. He is as aware as I am of how difficult it is to take a bus to Leicester.
  A father has visited me on several occasions and he wants to know where the justice is in his case. There are four children in his family: he has kept two and his wife has kept two. The two he has kept are being disregarded. He told me, "I have my children for five days and my wife has her children for five days. On normal Saturdays and Sundays, my wife's two come to me, so I have four children for two days." The agency disregards the fact that he feeds and keeps his wife's two children on those extra two days.
  In that father's case, the agency also appears to disregard the fact that he has the other two children when it assesses what must be paid to the wife. Although it claims otherwise, it further seems to disregard the fact that the wife now has a boyfriend who seems to be keeping her quite well. That father feels that he is very much worse off than the wife. He feels that there is an injustice and I tend to agree with him with regard to the present formula.
  What people require most of all is justice. People might wince when they have to pay a large amount, but they do not rebel until they come across injustice. People are really seeking justice and that is why I welcome the appeals procedure. I sincerely hope that if the appeals procedure is used properly, it will do much to resolve injustice.
  One of the fundamental problems experienced by the people who come to my surgeries is the belief that the CSA has not listened to them properly when they say that the facts are not the facts that the agency says has been presented to it. People present me with the facts and they can often produce letters and photographs to verify those facts.
  The CSA should be triggered off by the fact that a wife is on benefit. Should not that be the first port of call? The first question that the agency should ask is whether the person is entitled to benefits. The agency should listen to husbands who say that a person should not receive benefits. If the agency did that, and inquired properly into whether benefits were being triggered, it might be able to get rid of many of its cases.

  83
  There was a very interesting answer to a question today about people on benefit. We were told that 720,000 people are earning nothing, but their spending is above the average. People do not get money from nowhere. It seems that 720,000 people may well be making claims that they should not be making.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ashby: I would be happy to know whether the figure that I have quoted is incorrect.
  Mr. Jenkin: I would not dream of disputing my hon. Friend's figure. However, on being approached by the CSA, many single parents have asked themselves whether they should be entitled to benefit. A very large number of single parents—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will enlighten us about this when he replies to the debate—have left the benefits system as a result of an approach by the CSA. That seems to be grist to the mill of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) and I wanted to help him with that point.
  Mr. Ashby: I am delighted to hear that. I wish we had some figures to prove that point. Perhaps they will be provided when my hon. Friend the Minister replies later.
  I am a tremendous believer in the welfare state helping those who really need help. However, there is an awful lot of fraud. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister does not accept that there is as much fraud as I suggest there is. I believe that there is an enormous amount of fraud. The depth of fraud is much greater than any Government have acknowledged or were prepared to acknowledge.
  I see fraud from the other side, time and again. As a member of the Bar, I am involved in areas where most of my clients are unemployed and have never been employed. Is it right to say that crime gives rise to unemployment? As far as I can make out, half the people with whom I am involved have never wanted to be employed. I do not find that unemployed people turn to crime; it is the other way round. It is the criminals who are unemployed. I see those people in confidence. I cannot disclose what is said. One feels so inadequate. Virtually every one of those people who comes before the courts seems to be involved in some sort of benefit fraud.
  When people come to my surgery and they describe the CSA's involvement in their cases, I see the same pattern time and again. On occasion, I ask whether the person in my surgery wants me to do something about the problem. When the answer is "Yes," I telephone the fraud inquiry section in Leicester. The telephone rings and rings. When I try later at 4.30 pm, it rings and rings again. Finally, someone answers and says, "They've all gone home." I cannot do anything about the problem.
  I am not sure whether the fraud inquiry section is as good as we try to make out. It seems to be quite happy to pursue people across the fenlands to discover whether they should be working or whether they are on benefits. I have seen that on television. It was all high profile, with the television cameras trained on those people. No doubt the people on the programme had been alerted to come along and see the kind of work that the section does.
  84
  However, I have reported fraud on many occasions and I cannot describe how dissatisfied I am with the way in which fraud is investigated by the Benefits Agency.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are other elements of fraud, which might be described as legitimate fraud? For example, in a case of which I am aware, it is claimed that an ex-wife who was in employment, and who was earning a substantial income including overtime, stopped earning overtime as soon as she became aware of the CSA arrangement. As she did that, her pay slips showed that she was earning below the stated level for the period required. As soon as she had submitted her pay slips, she went back to working overtime.
  Mr. Ashby: That is absolutely right. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, because that complaint has been raised with me on several occasions. That system is fairly well known. The hon. Gentleman has obviously been told about that in his surgeries, so he knows that it goes on. I know that it goes on and I know how dissatisfied I am. We have to tackle the problem, because people who play the game by the rules and behave properly are profoundly dissatisfied when they find out what happens. They are legitimately dissatisfied and unhappy and that reflects on all of us.
  I have made the point about fraud. I could go on talking about it. My hon. Friends know how often I have raised it. I feel that we must do more about fraud. We must fundamentally change our fraud organisations so that we can investigate it properly. We should possibly take it away from the Department of Social Security and return it to the police. We must do something to bring fraud investigation to the forefront. It is costing the country millions of pounds. That money could legitimately and properly be used to help people. That comment is not Treasury based. The Treasury has properly put money into budgets to be used to help people. When it is misused, it does not help the people whom it is supposed to help. We should be tough and tight on fraud.
  I welcome most aspects of the Bill. I have some concerns about some of the changes. They will put enormous pressure on the Child Support Agency. At times, I feel that the Bill will be another nightmare. I am thinking, for example, of the new payment provisions. Implementation will be a bureaucratic nightmare for the Child Support Agency. It will increase the work load greatly. At present, we receive complaint after complaint about what is happening in the CSA. Here we are trying to change things. We are putting another burden on it, which will cause more problems. I hope that hon. Members realise that we are trying to improve things, but that the changes will place an added work load on the agency. We shall see more delays as a result of that.
  In general, I welcome the Bill. It is an improvement on the original Act. It provides greater flexibility in case assessments. It allows affected parties to appeal. It provides for special payments in certain circumstances. It is a valuable piece of legislation to that extent. We must appreciate that if we are to have an appeal procedure, there must be a full opportunity to examine the facts on both sides.
  I intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ask a question about appeals. He seemed to say that the CSA would not be able to look at facts on appeal. If we are not to look at facts on appeal,

  85
  we ain't going to get justice. It is justice that people want. In cases in which there has been continued misrepresentation and an aggrieved party knows that the facts stated are wrong, he should be able to produce such evidence as is necessary to show that he is right.
  8.13 pm
  Ms Mildred Gordon: The Bill is a skeleton Bill. Many of the details, such as amounts of money, qualifying criteria and procedures to be followed, will be given in the regulations, which are not yet available. Yet there is sufficient in the Bill and there are sufficient omissions of important changes that the public wanted for me to feel confident that, when I opposed the Child Support Bill that became the 1991 Act, I was correct.
  I said in 1991 that if the Government really wanted to improve the system of child maintenance, they would set up family courts and an agency or service to collect or enforce maintenance. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) was criticised for proposing that we should have family courts. It was said that family courts had failed, that there was no going back and that that was that—we had this system and we had to stick with it and do the best that we could. I remember everyone saying some years ago that the rating system had failed. People on both sides of the House agreed with that. The poll tax was introduced. It was a head tax which everyone, even those on income support, was to pay. They would be watchdogs to see that councils did not overspend. People said that there was no going back and the poll tax was there to stay.
  Yet the public outcry about the poll tax was such that it did not stay. The Government were forced to change it and we now have the council tax. I predict that the public outcry about the CSA will not only continue but increase and that the agency will have to be changed. If the Government have any sense, they will start to think about introducing a family courts system, as outlined in the Children Act 1989.
  Any Bill that deals with the maintenance of children should have children's welfare at the heart of it. I attacked the first Child Support Bill because it appeared to me then that the Government's main interest was in clawing back benefit. No one wants to pay unnecessary taxes. No one likes paying taxes, although most people see the necessity of paying taxes and do so, even if unwillingly. Everyone believes that parents should be responsible for their children, not merely financially but in every other way, and that if they can afford to take financial responsibility, they certainly should do so.
  We do not seem to agree that the state in a civilised society also has responsibility for children. The Bill does not recognise that responsibility. There is still a benefit penalty. The Bill does not remove it. By the end of January, 15,500 parents with care were penalised by reduced benefit directions. There are 40,000 more in the pipeline and thousands more are intimidated by the benefit penalty, which forces them to sign the maintenance forms when they feel that it might harm them and their family to make contact with the divorced or separated partner.
  Mr. Duncan: Why does the hon. Lady think that the state should continue to pay benefits to a family which happens to be split when, if the family had remained
  86
  together, the state would not have been obliged to pay any such benefits? Does that not provide through the state an incentive to families to split?
  Ms Gordon>: I thought I said clearly that where absent parents can afford to support their children, they have the responsibility to do so; they should have that responsibility. I also said that the state had a responsibility to children and that no one in a civilised society should want to see children go hungry. I set up the all-party parliamentary Child Support Act monitoring group. We have received report after report from respectable voluntary agencies recognised by the Government, saying that mothers go hungry. They say that mothers whom they meet give their children money for chips and have no lunch themselves. They say that when they visit such mothers, they find empty refrigerators.
  A citizens advice bureau in Sussex reported a single parent with five children under seven whose benefit was reduced by £20 per week to repay rent, water rates and community charge arrears and a social fund loan to buy furniture. She was finding it difficult to manage on £75 a week. If that woman had been in a relationship in which there was violence and she had been afraid of making contact with the father of her children because she thought that it would be traumatic for the children, that £75 would have been reduced to £65 a week. Those children would go hungry, and we surely cannot accept that. The welfare of children must come first.
  Mr. Burt: The hon. Lady must concede that if the lady to whom she referred signed the forms and went to see a child support officer to set out her circumstances, she would be allowed good cause not to comply with the Child Support Agency and her family would not need to go hungry.
  Ms Gordon: There must be some differences of opinion, or there would not be 40,000 women whose reasons have been rejected and 15,000 women who have suffered the benefit penalty. Those women must have had good reasons to appeal, or they would not have put themselves in a position where they could possibly suffer a penalty of a reduction in their already low income by nearly £10.
  It is poor families who have their water, gas and electricity disconnected, and who get into serious trouble. I see such families all the time, because I represent one of the poorest areas in the country. I know very well the sort of difficulties which those people can get into, through no fault of their own. Those people have often managed miraculously on what they have, but the money is just not enough. It should be left to the parent—nearly always a woman—to make the decision whether or not to apply to the agency. The parent knows why her relationship broke up and the effect that that has had on the children.
  Mr. Burt: I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, but she must see the other side. She is asking for a mother to have unilateral control over whether she asks the father for maintenance or relies on the state. That cannot be the case, because she would then be giving carte blanche to a bloke to wander off and abandon her and to let the state pick up the tab. There has to be someone who decides whether there is a proper good cause, and that is what the agency's officers do. The fact that they accept 50 per cent. of the reasons which come before them

  87
  suggests that they exercise a good deal of sensitivity on the matter. To have no rule at all—which is what the hon. Lady is asking for—would surely do no one any good.
  Ms Gordon: I am not saying that there should not be a rule, and I never have asked for that. My question is—who are the people who make the decision, and how do they do it? Will it be half-trained civil servants, making a decision on the basis of a rigid formula? Or should it be a family court, which can listen to the problems of that family and take a rounded view of each case? That is a completely different situation. I am not asking for anarchy, and I never would.
  There is nothing in the Bill to give immediate help to the poorest of parents with care who are on income support. All of the voluntary organisations have called for a disregard, which would not only raise the standard of living of those parents with care and their children, many of whom are going hungry—that is not a sob story, but a fact—but would give an incentive to the absent fathers to pay the maintenance regularly. The fathers might pay if they knew that some of the money was going for the benefit of their children, and not to the state.
  The changes which will benefit absent fathers will be put into effect in four weeks, but the only benefit for mothers with care is the bonus that has been deferred for two years. It will take four years before mothers can reach the maximum amount specified, but they need help now. What happens to mothers who want to stay at home to look after small children? It is perfectly legitimate to want to be at home with small children, and not leave them to go out to work.
  What happens to a mother who takes a job, is made redundant from that job, goes on income support and then goes back to work later? Will she get the bonus, or will it be lost because she lost her job? That is not clear at all. The Bill says that the agency will save up the money in those circumstances where women take a job, but it does not say whether interest will be counted on that money while it is held back. The money will be given to the mother
  only on the occurrence of a prescribed event
  which seems to be when the mother gets a job.
  We do not know whether the mother will have to work a certain amount of time before she gets the bonus. That is very unclear, but it seems to me that she will not receive much benefit. That is especially relevant when most of the jobs which women can get are part-time, low-paid and insecure jobs. If a mother is going to look after her children properly she wants to make sure that she gets her maintenance, income support or whatever her lifeline is. She can take employment only if she has a secure job. I would not advise a mother to take an insecure, part-time low-paid job because that would do her and her children more harm than good.
  Mr. Duncan: If the hon. Lady reads the Bill carefully, she will find that it makes provision for a much more simplified and effective review procedure in the event of a change in circumstances. The problem of a mother with care taking a part-time job and then perhaps having to go back on benefit is very sensibly addressed by the Bill.
  Ms Gordon: That is better than the former situation, in which a mother had to wait for six months. We do
  88
  not know how the system will work, and having a part-time insecure job is still a problem. A mother wants security and to be able plan ahead for herself and her children.
  The changes in the Bill do not help low-paid absent fathers either. A man on income support still has to pay £2.50 a week, which may leave him with a very low amount on which to live. That is punitive, and the changes are overwhelmingly in favour of wealthy absent fathers.
  Clause 18 states that parents with care who had pre-1993 settlements will not be helped. The big benefit of the system was to be that mothers who had maintenance arranged by the courts which was not being paid would be able to go to the agency. Some mothers thought that they would not have to go back to the court, and that the agency would sort it all out. All of them have been disappointed, as the agency has done nothing of the sort. The Bill is saying that the agency is not even going to look into those cases. It is not interested in them, and it is really interested only in parents who are on income support. That is quite obvious.
  Voluntary agencies have outlined about 40 different changes which they thought would be needed in the Act to make it work, and some of those have been taken into account. The grounds for departure from the formula now take account of the cost of travel, the cost of maintaining contact with children, the cost of supporting stepchildren, disability, illness, clean-break settlements, debt from previous relationships and certain other expenses. That is all to the good, but the Bill gives no information on the costs that will be allowed and does not give the criteria for deciding whether those are essential costs. It does not specify how much discretion the child support officer will be allowed.
  The Bill states that the intention is to limit the number of potential beneficiaries. It stresses that the system of departures will be available only to a "small minority of cases", and that the amount by which an assessment can be reduced or increased will be strictly limited. So there is not as big an improvement as has been trumpeted.
  Many other changes are necessary, as the voluntary agencies have outlined. For example, the care and maintenance of older children in tertiary education is very expensive and should be acknowledged. There is also the matter of child care costs. If a second wife goes to work, her child care costs could be £90 to £100 a week for each child.
  Again, I can only stress that each case is individual and that only family-based courts can be seen to be just. If we want fathers to pay maintenance and not to try to wriggle out of it—not that the majority of fathers want to, as they want their children to be well looked after—and to pay it regularly, they have to see it as a just decision. If they are able to put their point of view to a family court and if all the factors are taken into account, even if they disagree with the decision, they have to see it to be fair and just. The Government would get a better system and fathers would pay more regularly.
  If one tries to impose a rigid formula, as has been done, even though some changes might take the edge off some of the worst grievances, many more will be left and it creates bitterness, which is eroding relationships. Couples often manage to find a modus vivendi that helps the children after very traumatic divorces. Now much bitterness has been stirred up and children have been

  89
  upset. It has been happening throughout the country and I am not making it up. The Minister's mailbags undoubtedly show it to be true—those are facts.
  A Catch 22 is built into the complaints system, in that the absent parent cannot take up the matter unless his payments are up to date, but he is probably complaining because he cannot afford to pay and therefore cannot bring them up to date. If he cannot afford to pay and to cancel out the debt, he cannot take his case to the tribunal. It seems that fathers will have to go first to the Secretary of State, which means the Child Support Agency officers, who will be flooded with cases.
  The system has proved to be inefficient. I have had some most intemperate letters from Miss Chant, the head of the agency, which I intend to send to the Minister. They make me doubt whether she should be there at all. I cannot see that the new system is going to work—there will be a huge backlog and it will be another fiasco.
  The Secretary of State is making a second attempt to patch up this ill-thought-out Act because he is under pressure from his Back Benchers, who are in turn under pressure from their constituents. Each time that he makes a change, it brings new problems, injustices and unfair situations. In the end, the Government will have to give up this Act and all the alterations to it. They will have to face facts and move to a system of family courts, and the sooner that they do so, the better for the parents and children of this country.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) understandably concentrated on those people who live in her constituency who have very little money. From what she said, it was clear that their main experience of life is having to manage the myriad benefits that exist. They have to learn the system if they are to survive, and they do so very quickly to ensure that they can use to their best advantage all the very different benefits that are available.
  That is understandable, but the fact that people have to do that perhaps also illustrates one of the grave problems of the advance of the welfare state since the war. They have to do it because there are not enough jobs around. One might argue strongly that the existence of those benefits in that form is the reason why they are not around. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar also concentrated on the detail of the workings of the Child Support Agency. She looked at every detail and clause essentially to find out how the Bill can best be worked by its beneficiaries.
  We should not lose sight of the larger picture and social policy into which the Bill fits. We run the risk of not being able to see the wood for the trees by concentrating so much on the detail, without realising the significance of the Child Support Agency as a change in the social policy of post-war Britain.
  During the past week, Mr. Amitai Etzioni has been in town and has attracted much publicity. He is the champion of the new communitarian thinking that is beginning to occupy many a brilliant mind in Britain and the United States. If my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) had not been compelled to take a Trappist vow by sitting on the Front Bench as a Whip, we would have heard quite a lot from him in the past few days on those themes. Essentially, communitarianism is a
  90
  search for the sort of social stability and patterns of social life that we have lost, not merely in this country but in many western democracies since the war, which the Bill and the Child Support Act 1991 that preceded it are attempting to address.
  Community is the new buzzword—to try to find some green and promised land that can allow us to return to those stable family relationships and patterns of behaviour that have disappeared in such large numbers and compelled the state to pick up the pieces. In the search for that promised land, many ambiguous themes go with the notion of community.
  If we were to use the word community simply and to apply it to family life and the sort of problems that the Child Support Agency is trying to solve, the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar and I might both say that we believed in it. I suspect that the hon. Lady and the Leader of the Opposition see it as a means of extending state power, however, whereas I see it as a means to reduce it. We applaud the idea of community, but I would argue that all the virtues of family life for which the CSA and other measures are searching have been suffocated by Government and cannot be restored unless the Government retreat from many areas of life. The hon. Lady's whole speech clearly illustrated the poor effects of the dead hand and the over-extension of Government intervention into every nook and cranny.
  In assessing how we want community and the restoration of proper family life to arise once again in Britain, I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who has left the Chamber. He said that this legislation is socialist, but it is the opposite. Since the war, the Government have had to pick up the pieces of changing patterns of social life. The number of one-parent families has risen dramatically and, instead of families—split though they may be—being compelled to sort out the problems for themselves, the state has been picking up the pieces. The point of the Bill is that it is the first social legislation in post-war Britain, if not ever, to reverse the trend of the state taking on responsibility for family life and to compel parents once again to do just that.
  This is the first Bill to have turned the corner from the state producing many more benefits and more dependent people and to say instead that, if parents who have split up can afford to bring up their children in the way that they would have done had they remained together, they should do just that. As such, it is the most crucial, important and significant legislation in social policy since the war and it is the duty of every hon. Member to ensure that it survives.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am enjoying my hon. Friend's speech and I am also enjoying the spectacle of one or two of the faces of Opposition Members who are listening but showing puzzlement. The reason is that, for the state to withdraw from aspects of people's private lives, we are having to increase its power. I wonder whether my hon. Friend can explore that theme because, however popular the ideas of Mr. Etzioni and communitarianism might be becoming on the Opposition Benches, supporters of communitarianism and family life, which is what the Bill is all about, fail to understand that to reinforce the moral

  91
  atmosphere around which families coalesce requires the state to take on or make judgments about aspects of people's lives in a way that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are supposed to be brief and to the point, not mini-speeches.
  Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) for presenting such a cogent and reasoned exposition of his view. He has hit on an important point which is that, if one attempts to roll back the frontiers of the state, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People once said in a memorable speech, severe problems of transition arise. It is those very problems that the Act and now the Bill address. One could simply say that single mothers with an absent husband who could afford to bring up a child should be excluded from the benefit system. However, that would be unduly cruel and unjustifiable in a modern, civilised society. The proper legislation to bring about the transition from the state paying for that child to the absent father with means doing so must involve the state in setting up a system whereby the mother, if she is to come off benefit, can receive money from someone who can pay—the absent father. The Bill tries to deal with the problems of that transition.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will take note of the point that I am about to make, which deals with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North has just raised. Whereas the state has the right to intervene in the family finances of a split couple where the mother is on benefit and therefore making demands on the state, it does not have the right to intervene in the family finances of a couple where the state does not support the mother and children. The Bill should draw a line to distinguish between cases where, perforce and often for good reasons, the mother is on benefit and those where the couple has means and the mother is not on benefit because she is kept by the absent father under some lasting court settlement.
  Mr. Dewar: I am curious about the consequences of the hon. Gentleman's point. As he knows, a proposal has been made that certain cases that were to come within the ambit of the CSA in 1996 should be deferred, "deferment" being the operative word. As those are cases where no benefit is involved, does he argue that they should be permanently excluded?
  Mr. Duncan: Yes, I do. Indeed, I would think for an eternity before bringing them within the aegis of the CSA. This may be a slight and peculiar disagreement with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, but it happens to be my view. In cases where the mother is not on benefit, except through the court system, the CSA has no right to intervene in the finances of her family. That is where I would wish to see the line drawn. Where the mother or, in some cases, the father, is on benefit, CSA rules should apply. I draw the line so that those who do not rely on the state for benefit should not come within the ambit of the CSA.
  The Social Security Select Committee has drawn up two reports on the CSA. Unlike the Select Committee on Employment, where there has been more theatrical discussion of current issues, the cross-party assessment by
  92
  the Social Security Select Committee has been sensible and purposeful, and has looked into the details of the CSA during the past year—[Interruption.]
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That Committee has a good Chairman.
  Mr. Duncan: Indeed, it has a Labour Chairman, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who handles it in a way that ensures that there is cross-party co-operation and a proper study of everything that comes before us. That, rather than television theatricals, is exactly what the Select Committee system should be about. The value of our work is evident in our reports. When we attract television attention and comments by journalists when, for instance, a Minister with something to say appears before us, it is for absolutely the right reason—so that those who attend our Select Committee proceedings learn something rather than just watch a purposeless spectacle, as they have so often done with the Employment Select Committee which, I regret to say, is bringing the entire Select Committee system into disrepute.
  The Social Security Select Committee's first report made some suggestions, most of which were taken up by the Government. However, there were clearly still some problems. Injustices were arising from the workings of the CSA; its administration was over-burdened and those working in it, many of whom faced a vulgar and disgusting campaign against them by the sort of people who would send razor blades in envelopes through the post, did a good job but could not wholly cope. It is therefore right that, by and large, the various recommendations that we have made in our second report have been taken up by the Government. We made 22 proposals, most of which have been incorporated in the Bill. In some cases, the Secretary of State has gone even further. I am grateful to him for that. I commend the Under-Secretary on the way in which he has handled the matter with a cool head and open ears to ensure that solutions to problems that have genuinely arisen have been incorporated in the Bill.
  The Bill assists the process of reversing trends that have devastated some families since the war. It is crucial that the legislation that we have put in place is allowed to work, and assisted so that it can work properly. We shall see that, by handing back responsibility to parents for the care of their children and by reversing the scope of the state to go into many nooks and crannies of family life, we have taken a first step towards introducing the sort of communitarianism that many people are debating so actively. By reducing the size of the state, we shall reverse the way in which the state has displaced so much private virtue, private responsibility, liberty and freedom. Most Opposition Members' definition of community and communitarianism is a cloak for wishing to extend state power and, in nicer language, simply to have more of the same and do more of the same damage.
  This is a truly revolutionary Bill. Britain has been gasping for such a Bill for many a decade and I urge everyone in the House to support it.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Jack Thompson: I have really enjoyed tonight's debate. It has been one of those rare occasions in the House in recent years when I have felt that Back Benchers have had some influence on the decisions that are being made.

  93
  The comments of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) related more to the 1991 Act than to this Bill. My view of that Act is that there was general support for the principle of the Child Support Agency arrangement that absent parents should contribute towards the upkeep of their children. But the argument at that time, last year and now is about the conditions that apply to the legislation. The political differences between the two sides of the House seem to be about those conditions.
  I am not entirely in favour of the Bill because it does not go far enough, and for that reason I shall vote for the amendment, but it is a step forward from the 1991 Act and the changes that were made last year. It offers a more humanitarian approach. The terms of the 1991 Act were Conservative based, whereas we are now moving towards a more socialist attitude to our business.
  I always try to look at any legislation objectively to see what is or is not of benefit to my constituents and the area that I represent. As a result of the 1991 Act, I accept that absent parents became more responsible for their former families. Today, Conservative Members in particular have drawn attention to the militant attitude of some critics of the 1991 Act. I have had many dealings with absent parents in my constituency, however, and they have never criticised the basic principle behind that Act. They have always said that they believe that absent parents should make a contribution, but they questioned the way in which the Act operated.
  From my experience of the 1991 Act, the sad thing to note has been the heartache that it has caused to both partners in a marriage, but particularly to the children involved. I am sure that every other hon. Member has had a similar experience, because we have all had to deal with problems to do with that Act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) has said, at one time we had to deal with problems caused by the horrendous poll tax, which also caused heartache to many of my constituents, but I believe that the 1991 Act has caused as much, if not more heartache.
  I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that the 1991 Act has aggravated the problems faced by people when their marriage breaks up. I have seen constituents who told me that their separation and eventual divorce was reached on fairly reasonable terms. Genuine attempts were made to resolve the problem to look after the interests of the children in particular. In many ways, that reflects how matters stood before the CSA existed, when the courts decided that an absent parent should make a financial contribution towards the children of a marriage. Those parents made that contribution based on the court instruction and, more often than not, they also helped to pay for clothing, holidays and various other things needed by the children. Such arrangements worked fairly reasonably, but once the CSA became involved, matters became acrimonious. Formerly acceptable arrangements between ex-partners suddenly became contentious and that affected the children one way or another.
  In two cases in my constituency teachers told me about watching a certain pattern develop because of the involvement of the CSA. They told me that when the parents of children in their classes got divorced, the work of the children affected initially declined and they became less attentive. With the help of the school, those children gradually overcame their problems and began to work properly again, but once the CSA became involved, the
  94
  standard of those children's work fell right back to where it was before. The CSA's involvement has meant that the relationships between people have gradually declined until matters have become extremely difficult and the children involved have suffered.
  The significant mistakes in the original 1991 Act were slightly eased by the modifications announced last year, but even those changes caused problems, as other hon. Members have already said. The confusion created by the operation of the original Act was compounded by further confusion as attempts were made to resolve cases.
  On a number of occasions, I had to refer to the so-called local office for my area of mid-Northumberland, which was in Falkirk. Many of my constituents who had to telephone that office to try to resolve their problems were not enamoured by the gentle, nice Scots voice at the other end of the line. In my part of Britain, our relations with the Scots were not too good for many years, although we are overcoming that problem now. There was genuine resentment, however, at the fact that the local office was in mid-Scotland. I am pleased to note that the Minister responded to that, because we now have a local office in my town, to which the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) now have to go to get their cases dealt with. The Minister's response was important, because my constituents were glad to be able to go to their local office instead of having to ring Falkirk and trying to understand a difficult foreign dialect.
  In one difficult constituency case the parent made his contributions through the courts, generally through direct debit. The CSA then got involved and he received a demand for the payment to be made through it. The ex-husband continued to pay through the courts and at the same time tried to pay through the CSA. He paid twice because no one told him that he did not have to pay through the courts any more. I had to write to the CSA to get its staff to write a letter to that man, because he was an honest citizen, who felt that he had to continue to carry out the instructions from the courts until someone said differently. Eventually he was advised to stop paying through the courts and make his payment through the CSA.
  I recall the previous debates that we had on the CSA and I appreciate the Secretary of State's response to previous attempts to modify the 1991 Act. Those attempts have been acknowledged by all hon. Members, including the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Although the Secretary of State's actions were somewhat out of character, bearing in mind his right-wing views on many other issues, progress was made. Perhaps it is too little, and perhaps it is too late.
  I, like many other right hon. and hon. Members, will attempt to explain the issue. Obviously, all my constituents who are involved with the CSA believe that there will be changes, but I understand that some of the changes will not come into force until 1997. People continue to suffer the problems.
  There will be a long delay regarding certain elements of the Bill when it becomes an Act. There are elements that are there under the regulations, as I understand it.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind one matter. I mentioned it earlier when I intervened on the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) when he was talking about fraud. I quoted the instance of a constituent who explained to me that his wife was in

  95
  full-time employment and was being paid overtime, and that when she became involved with the CSA she stopped working overtime, which meant that her pay slips were down. She was then able to claim income support, which meant that her ex-husband paid more, because that block of pay slips was used as evidence. When that exercise was completed, she returned to working overtime. That is unfair.
  I know of the reverse happening in another case. A constituent who works seasonal overtime was assessed on his seasonal overtime, which was unfair.
  One way in which the Secretary of State might overcome that problem is to consider annual income. It is better to consider a person's annual income than to consider a five-week period.
  Mr. Burt indicated assent.
  Mr. Thompson: The Minister is nodding his head. I think that the problem should be properly recognised and overcome, because it is an important problem for my constituents and those of other Members of the House.
  Although I welcome what has been proposed, it has not gone far enough. That is why I will vote for the Labour amendment. The Secretary of State promised that there would be a further review of the issue, and I hope that we shall have another opportunity to consider it.
  The Secretary of State has been repeatedly accused of using the Child Support Act 1991 to reduce benefit costs. I would not disagree with that comment. He has constantly denied it, saying that it is not a saving and that it will not be used to allow tax reductions in future, but that it is there to improve the service and make the system fairer. I am not convinced of that.
  However, the Secretary of State could convince me, and I think many others, if he would allow a small maintenance disregard. That would show clearly that he is interested in children—I believe that that is the essence of the argument—and it would provide greater benefits for poorer families. It would also satisfy those absent parents who are making their contribution, expecting that their children will be better off financially.
  I seek clarification from the Secretary of State or the Minister when he replies of the changes that will take place. I understand from the speeches that have been made that regulations will be introduced, which will be the short-term proposition; then, if the Act is passed as it stands or even if it is amended, it will be introduced and brought into force in about 1996 or 1997.
  I read the memorandum submitted to the Social Security Committee by the chief executive of the Child Support Agency. There is a small element near the end, under the conclusions:
  "6.8 Whilst we consider these achievements significant"—
  one might argue about that—
  "much work clearly remains to be done."
  The important part is:
  "We are currently preparing our Business Plan for 1995–96, which is bound to be a testing year."
  I would not argue with that. The interesting thing about that is that, if one is preparing a business plan for 1995–96, one must include what has been suggested in the changes in the regulations and look forward to the projected
  96
  changes under the Act in 1997. Will that not cause confusion in preparing a business plan? From my experience of involvement in preparing business plans, one needs to look a long way ahead. If those things are going to take place, some very quick decisions must be made about the regulations and very positive proposals must be made when the Bill becomes the Act.
  Mr. Burt: To save time, yes, the agency has been working on assumptions. It obviously knows what is in the House's mind. Naturally, it cannot anticipate the House passing everything, but it is fair that it should work on assumptions. So those matters have been taken into consideration. I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Thompson: I am grateful to the Minister. That allows me to sleep a little easier tonight.
  As I said earlier, when the Bill becomes an Act it will partially humanise the Child Support Act 1991. If only it went a little further. I should like the next stage to take place, and my colleagues and I will campaign genuinely to humanise the Child Support Agency.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have talked about the problems that give rise to the need for a Child Support Agency, and the reason why we need legislation to control the difficult position of separated parents, of divorced people and of children, with single-parent families in many cases. It is a question of the laws in this country as regards aspects of divorce.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) mentioned family courts. I know that it would be difficult to introduce appropriate legislation, but it would help if we were able to begin at the beginning and modify the divorce laws—I understand that some proposals have been put forward on that. We do not necessarily want to make it more difficult to obtain a divorce, but we should produce a different pattern, with more counselling—of which I am strongly in favour.
  There should be more counselling for people, from the time when they decide not to live together any longer until they embark on divorce. They should receive proper, professional advice, which costs money, to resolve the problems before they arise. I have experience, as have many hon. Members, of people—generally young people—who come to my surgery, and when I start to talk to them about their problems I find that they are divorced. When I start to probe into why they are divorced I often find that it is for the most petty reasons, which could have been resolved with the proper guidance and help at the right time. There might be fewer cases for the Child Support Agency or the divorce courts if there were a different procedure for dealing with people in the run-up to that difficult time.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I think that we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) who brings many years of practical experience to resolving the problems that beset the early years of the Child Support Agency. I listened with great interest to his comments and was particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister was able to respond on the subject of average incomes—an issue raised in the hon. Gentleman's speech. I also support the hon. Gentleman in his efforts to persuade the Government to humanise the Child Support Agency. As he suggested towards the end of his speech, the avoidance

  97
  of marriage breakdowns in the first place must be the highest social objective that we should attach to everything that we do here.
  I wish briefly to respond to one or two of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) who said, with great relish, that he disapproved of the CSA becoming involved in any non-benefit cases. The argument that he promulgates—that those not on benefit provide no locus for the state to interfere in the arrangements—would stand up if the courts had proved perfect at solving all the problems between such couples. But the courts have always been a cumbersome mechanism, and have always been a state mechanism. All we have done with the CSA is to substitute for one state mechanism a more effective state mechanism—we should keep that in proportion.
  There is nothing magical and apolitical about the operation of the courts. The law that the courts interpret is made here, just as the regulations for the Child Support Agency are made here. I hope that—and with all due respect to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—the CSA will prove a little cheaper than the average family lawyer.
  I had hoped to follow the speech by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) as I feel that she represents—1 must phrase this carefully—many of the problems that the CSA faces. However, I do not think that she represents the solution. While we must satisfy the concerns that she expresses—I am sorry that she is not in the Chamber as I say my few words about her—I do not think that we shall ever satisfy her and the particular demands that she makes.
  We in this country are not subject to government by consensus of voluntary agencies. The 40 or so voluntary agencies to which the hon. Lady referred make all sorts of suggestions for their own reasons—not least to ensure that they remain popular with the various interest groups that they purport to represent. That does not necessarily mean that all their suggestions are the most practical and balanced.
  The hon. Lady expressed disappointment that the system of departures offered in the Bill will be limited to a small number of cases. That was always bound to be the problem when introducing a system of discretion or appeal into the process of allocating maintenance. There would either be wide gateways, in which case the whole system would become discretionary like the courts, or narrow gateways, in which case very few people would qualify under the appeals system.
  We must take comfort from the fact that we have introduced a system of appeals in order to deal with the least satisfactory cases under the formula rather than introducing a general system which makes people feel that they have received a fair hearing. No formula-based system could achieve that objective.
  I was interested to hear the comments by the hon. Member for Garscadden about the system in Australia and the rubric which appears at the bottom of its Child Support Agency stationery:
  "Taxes: building a better Australia."
  I do not recommend that to the hon. Gentleman as a substitute for a proper policy with regard to the Child Support Agency. However, if he were to substitute the word "Britain" for "Australia" it would portray accurately the likely Labour party policy at the next general election. I am sure that that slogan would prove very effective.
  98
  I do not apologise for the fact that the Child Support Agency saves taxpayers' money indirectly. Opposition Members who have sought to deny that fact have made a mistake. The majority of people in this country resent the idea of the state picking up the tab for the maintenance of children whose parents, between them, should be able to afford to pay for them.
  I notice that the Liberal spokesperson, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), is nodding in agreement. I think that it is inconsistent for her to advocate scrapping the Child Support Act 1991 and starting again if she agrees with that principle. This is the best chance that we have of getting a proper child support system off the ground. If we destroy this Act it is unlikely that we will get a second chance.
  Ms Lynne rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: I have little time left, but I will give way to the hon. Lady.
  Ms Lynne: I am grateful. I nodded my head because I agree that parents should pay for their children's upkeep. However, the Child Support Act is not working and a family court system would be much better.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention because she has demonstrated once again that the Liberal Democrats will say one thing and then another and seek to satisfy all discontented parties without ever producing a consistent policy.
  I was pleased to be involved in preparing the report by the Social Security Select Committee and I welcome the Bill. I think that the discretionary element that it introduces in dealing with departures from the formula is justified.
  A case in my constituency has troubled me and I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could explain how it would be dealt with under the new legislation. When an absent parent suffers from severe diabetes and faces significant medical and dietary costs, would that qualify for consideration under the new appeals system?
  I am pleased with the maintenance bonus. I think that it is preferable to the disregard which is the Opposition's alternative incentive bonus. The formula includes several new aspects, such as the travel-to-work bonus and the maintenance cap and it takes full account of second families.
  I make no apology for the maintenance cap. It will not apply simply to better-off families, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) suggested. The cap applies to an income percentage; it is not an absolute cap in cash terms. Therefore, the income cap will apply equally to a single person who lives at home, perhaps with a parent, and who has low housing costs and a low income, and to a parent who has a second family, all the allowances and a large income. I am also pleased that the amount of additional maintenance payable will be halved.
  When considering amending the Child Support Act, it is important to focus on its original objectives. I detect a growing measure of consensus across the House.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) spoke eloquently of the purpose and intent of the Bill, sounding almost as if he would be supporting the Government tonight—until he was brought up short by some of my hon. Friends. I urge him to join us, none the less.

  99
  The House may be reflecting public opinion. Conservative Members, perhaps, are more enamoured of the ideas of Charles Murray; as has already been pointed out, Opposition Members may be more attracted by those of Mr. Etzione. All of us, however, see a growing need to re-establish society, whatever "society" means; my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher said that it meant families, communities, villages, towns and businesses. The Bill and the Act that it amends aim to restore some of the bloom and to remove perverse incentives that we have put into the system, which have encouraged families and communities to fragment. That is the effect of too much state support: it removes people's incentive to depend on each other within their own communities.
  There are other issues that we could pursue on a future occasion—the possibility, for instance, of restoring the married couple's tax allowance and the child tax allowance. Those proposals, however, belong to a future Bill, or perhaps a future Budget.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, of which I am a member, has conducted its own investigation of the CSA and, in particular, the complaints that have been received: some 30,000 have been received since the agency's inception. Little foresight or planning was involved in its establishment, and those moving into it from other Departments were given only six weeks' training, despite the complexity of the legislation involved. That caused many problems. I do not know whether the increase to 10 weeks will improve matters.
  The stopping of all new cases will of course ease the position. The Department of Social Security used to work hand in hand with the CSA, telling the agency who was on benefit and who was not. I can give two constituency examples that sum up the CSA: it is possible that not all the problems were the agency's fault, but most of them were.
  A constituent of mine, a young lady with three children receiving family income support, was reported to the CSA as receiving benefit. The CSA duly sent her a form; it wanted to know her husband's whereabouts, because she was entitled to child support. She wrote back to the agency, explaining that her husband had been dead for five years. The agency did not believe her, because it had been told that she was receiving family income support and therefore assumed that she must have a husband. It sent her another form, insisting that she sign it and explain where her husband was. I am afraid that I cannot give the second example, because there is not enough time.
  Such things would not happen if we had the family courts that were mentioned the other day. I believe that the position will become worse because of the new appeals system; cases are backing up, and a crisis is set to explode again. I am sure that the Parliamentary Commissioner, Mr. Reid, will have another flood of complaints to deal with.
  Given those 30,000 complaints, people may wonder what compensation has been paid. In fact, hardly any was paid: 16 people received compensation. That was a
  100
  shambles in itself. As the Select Committee has said, the whole idea of the CSA and the complaints system was a shambles. The Committee said:
  "We criticise the Department for not ensuring that such measures to deal with complaints and backlogs were introduced sooner."
  In other words, everyone in the Department allowed the backlog to build up until it became a big mushroom, which exploded at the end, and we see the consequences of that.
  In the Select Committee, we had the Minister in front of us, and I recall that when we questioned him he said that it was not his responsibility to oversee what was going on; that he was responsible only for putting the Act in place and that it was up to the officials. We disagreed with him. We thought that it was his responsibility to have briefings with officials and, if things were going wrong, to see that they were put right. He did not. His attitude was, "It was not my department. It was not my area. It was somebody else's. I was the Minister. I was there only to put the Act in place." We criticised that. It is in the report—
  Mr. Burt: I did not say that.
  Mr. Campbell: The Minister did say that. He said that it was not his responsibility. He said that he was a Minister, that he was not there to oversee the day-to-day running of the CSA. We told him that he should have been aware of what was happening, that he should have been aware of the backlog and the mess that it was in.
  I say this quite honestly. I think that a bigger mess is coming and that the Minister will be in trouble again. I believe that the review procedure will just pile up again. People are crying out for reviews, because they do not know what is happening or what they will have to pay. One gentleman came into my office only two weeks ago. He had filled in the form last June. He wanted to pay his money. He was not one of these "getter outs". The first letter that he received from the CSA was in November. It said that he would have to pay £70 a week and that he owed £2,000—to the mother of the child in this case. What sort of agency is that? What sort of set-up is that? No wonder people's backs are up. Here was a young lad who was working, who wanted to pay his money yet he got a letter after six months to tell him that he was in debt for £2,000 and that he must pay £70 a week—after being in the courts and paying £20.
  That has been the problem with the CSA. The Minister never looked at it. That is one of the criticisms of the ombudsman. The Minister never planned it. He should have looked at what happened to the disability allowance. He never did and that has been the problem. I hope that the new measure will be better, but I very much doubt it.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Keith Bradley: This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. Although there has been some comment about the lack of numbers in the Chamber, there have been 14 Back-Bench contributions, all giving various thoughtful comments about the way in which the legislation has worked to date and about the hopes and aspirations for the changes that will come about through the Bill. It is worth while briefly pulling together one or two of those themes and pressing the Minister on one or two of the points.

  101
  A number of hon. Members raised the point about whether, before it goes into Standing Committee, the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee or other scrutiny Committee to ensure that the detail is properly considered. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that proposal.
  On behalf of the Opposition, I add our tributes to the staff who have laboured under great difficulties during the years since the agency was set up. I reinforce the point that adequate resources are required in future for the training of all the current staff and the new staff who will be taken on to deal with the consequences of change to the formula and of the departure appeal system, to ensure that there is no erosion in confidence as a result of the pressures that they have to undertake. Although we welcome the Bill because of the way in which it addresses some of the problems that have been identified, I would not go as far as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who suggested that the Bill is revolutionary. The debate would have been different if the Bill had fallen into that category.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) and others that if this debate had taken place 12 months ago, there might have been a different response from hon. Members. That is because there is some recognition that the major shortcomings of the original legislation are at last being addressed. The Secretary of State was less than generous in his comments about our reasoned amendment to the original legislation, in which we highlighted property settlements.
  Mr. Lilley: I specifically mentioned that, but it was only in the context that future property settlements might bring about the problem that the hon. Gentleman mentions. There was no reference to the so-called retrospective aspect, which is what has caused concern.
  Mr. Bradley: I shall return to the issue of property settlements. I had the distinct feeling that the Minister was being less than generous, or even perhaps lugubrious, as he has been throughout the debate, on that point.
  I shall look briefly at both elements of the package—the regulations and the Bill—because although that is a package, the Bill has sometimes been confused with some of the regulations that will be presented in less than four weeks. I share the concerns of my hon. Friends about the lack of time for proper parliamentary scrutiny of those regulations and the speed at which they will come into effect. They were laid only last week. I thought that the Government would have learnt a lesson from trying to rush through changes without proper parliamentary scrutiny. The lack of such scrutiny may again lead to further administrative chaos, the agency will fall into disrepute and there will be a subsequent public outcry if the Government do not get it right.
  Now is not the time to rub the Minister's nose further into the report that was issued today and I do not intend to do that. We want to look forward. I hope that he will allow proper scrutiny of the regulations. We all have to try to rebuild confidence, and the Government must ensure that the changes are adequate and relevant and that the agency can implement them efficiently rather than add to the chaos. To ensure public confidence, the Minister should provide details of precisely when the regulations will be debated before they are implemented on 18 April. I urge him to do that.
  102
  It is clear that, while many changes to the formula and the introduction of the appeals system are welcome, we have missed an opportunity to tackle other fundamental issues. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has highlighted, the failure to introduce a child care disregard is particularly disappointing and is the principal reason for our clear, reasoned amendment, which concisely presents our position on the Bill.
  Many organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux and the Child Poverty Action Group have supplied powerful evidence showing the struggle by lone parents to bring up children on benefit. A disregard would help at the point at which they need money, and would provide an incentive for absent parents to pay. The proposal in the Bill to allow parents with care to accrue a lump sum which is paid on taking work may help some people in the longer term, but by no means all children will benefit. I shall return to that matter. Moreover, the implementation date of the proposal is more than two years away, whereas many of the regulations, which we shall debate, will come into force in merely four weeks' time, as I have said.
  The second point, which may be more contentious, is the benefit penalty to which many hon. Members have referred. I ask the Minister to look carefully at that point and to initiate further research into reduced benefit directions. As he knows, from next month, the reduction will be £9.30 a week for the first six months and then £4.65 a week for a further year. Clearly, that is harsh. A large amount of money will be taken from families, particularly lone parents, on benefit. Although I accept some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) about collusion in these matters, I suggest that we need further information and research to ensure that families who are struggling to bring up children on benefit are not being unfairly penalised.
  Thirdly, in changing the standard formula, the Government have not taken the opportunity to tackle two other contentious aspects—the parents as carer element and the fact that new partners' income, in a small number of cases, increases the maintenance assessment. We stress that the introduction of the departure appeal does not negate the need to ensure that the formula is as fair as possible at the starting point. If it is, fewer people, we hope, will need to resort to the departure appeal system.
  Many other matters are dealt with through the regulations—the first part of the package. Again, I press the Minister to tell us when the House will have the opportunity to debate them.
  It is interesting to note that the first nine clauses of the Bill introduce the departure system. Again, I take issue with the Secretary of State. We believe strongly that we have called for an appeals system throughout the process. He was rather disingenuous to deny that point. Although the Government expects that departure will not be used often, the grounds cover a wide variety of circumstances, as outlined in schedule 2. Many of the departure criteria are the result of the broad-brush approach, which has been introduced through regulations and changes to those regulations, especially in terms of travel-to-work costs, the interpretation of extravagant life style or substantial assets and the existence of pre-April 1993 capital and property settlements.

  103
  As I said that I would, I return to the point about pre-April 1993 capital and property settlements. The answer given by the Secretary of State on that point was unsatisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden outlined clearly how past and future settlements of property could be considered. I reinforce his request to the Minister to look again at that point. I also ask that, when the Bill goes into Committee, we shall be able to pursue that point more fully.
  There is obvious concern that the new system will not be able to cope with the number of departure requests, that not enough staff will be employed in the process and that the child support appeal tribunals will not be able to cope. The Floor seems to be shaking underneath me at this point. The strength of the argument is obviously getting through to the whole House. Will the Minister comment on the fact that it is possible under the provisions of the Bill for the chair of the appeals tribunal to sit alone? Perhaps it is a recognition of the number of cases that may be brought forward by the departure appeals. Has the Secretary of State decided that he does not wish to add further chaos to the administration of the system by introducing that procedure?
  Further, given that the details of departure circumstances will be given in regulations and that the Secretary of State has the power to prescribe other circumstances, it is difficult to know how they will be interpreted in practice. The Secretary of State can also, of course, prescribe limits on variations from the standard formula. We shall pursue that point further in Committee, but suffice it to say at this stage that a number of other costs should be taken into consideration. I am thinking of work-related costs, particularly the expensive child care costs that a mother may face on returning to work.
  Clause 10 provides for a maintenance bonus for parents with care on income support or jobseeker's allowance along similar lines to the proposed back-to-work bonus available to those on part-time earnings in the Jobseekers Bill. Much of the detail of the bonus will obviously follow in regulation. The White Paper states that, if maintenance is paid, income support claimants will receive a credit of up to £5 each a week. That credit will be paid as a lump sum of up to £1,000 when the claimant leaves income support to take up work of 16 hours a week or more. As many hon. Members have already pointed out, the claimant will take several years to accrue that maximum. Given the average length of an income support claim, the majority of payments will be well below that amount. The limit of £5 a week compares with the back-to-work bonus weekly credit of 50 per cent. of earnings over the small earnings disregard.
  The back-to-work bonus is to be introduced in October 1996. Given the similar training and systems that will be required for both bonuses, it is miserly not to introduce the maintenance bonus at the very latest at the same time as the back-to-work bonus comes in under the jobseeker's allowance. Even that is a highly unsatisfactory delay, given that the CSA is having to implement significant changes which favour absent parents. A way should be found for the Benefits Agency to introduce the maintenance bonus in October 1995.
  Time is extremely short and the state of the building is extremely worrying, so I shall quickly mention clauses 18 and 19, about which we have heard so much. They refer
  104
  to delays in bringing forward maintenance agreements pre-dating April 1993. I shall not rehearse the arguments further, but the deferral prevents the very groups of parents with care who had most to gain from applying to the CSA from doing so. It also penalises second families, where the father has received increased demands from the CSA, but his partner cannot apply to the CSA to take into account her children from a previous marriage.
  The reluctance to deal with that group fuels accusations that the Government are concerned only with those on benefit and benefit savings and reinforces the view that the Bill is Treasury led, rather than being drafted to address the real needs of maintenance payments and the cost of children.
  It is important that we properly and adequately scrutinise the Bill in Committee. We intend to be constructive in that task, and we shall not unduly delay the progress of the Bill. The Bill does not come into effect until 1997, so there is adequate time for proper scrutiny. As I said, we shall be constructive. Although we recognise that the Bill attempts to address the appalling shortcomings of the original legislation, we believe that we may have an opportunity to address other matters further in Committee.
  As the Bill addresses key issues for which the Opposition have been pressing for many months, and as the Government have finally recognised those points, we shall not vote against Second Reading tonight. However, the failure to recognise the injustice of not allowing the parent with care, normally the mother who is on benefits, to gain from child maintenance payments is unacceptable. That is why we have tabled our amendment.
  The Government's continued failure to address that issue leads us to believe that, yet again, they are more concerned with the diktats of the Treasury than with finally getting the matter right and ensuring that the real costs of caring are recognised in the legislation and that mothers benefit properly from a proper maintenance system.
  Madam Speaker: I do not know why hon. Members are concerned about a few vibrations. Throughout its history, the House has withstood more than that and smiled back at it.
  9.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I shall certainly smile back at the various vibrations that have come my way over the past 24 hours. I am delighted to respond to the vibrations that have arisen from the debate.
  I thank all my colleagues for their usual constructive contributions to a subject that we have debated on many occasions, most often in the right spirit. That spirit was demonstrated once again today. I shall respond briefly to two or three of the points raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), although I have a great deal of ground to cover in relation to concerns raised by other Members.
  With regard to the regulations that were laid last week, we have no problem with a date. That is in the hands of the usual channels. I have no problem with the debate, but I do not think that a date has been set yet. However, that is not a particular problem.

  105
  I do not think that the Bill should go to a Special Standing Committee. The issue has been trawled extensively and we want to get on with it, as the hon. Member for Withington indicated. I cannot see any point in bringing the Bill before a Special Standing Committee to take yet further evidence. One of the reasons why we have reached this stage is that we all listened to the evidence about the workings of the CSA over the past two years. I do not believe that we need take such matters any further.
  The background to the debate can be characterised in two ways. First, as several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) said, the fact that this is a reform Bill as opposed to a Bill to abolish the CSA is a success in itself. We have come some way in relation to the concerns of the hon. Member for Broadgreen about whether the CSA could succeed. I have told the agency staff that the fact that we have reached this stage is a measure of the fact that we have proved the point about the principle behind the CSA.
  We have tried to listen. The Select Committees have played their role, as have all Back Benchers and the constituents who have lobbied us. We have tried to respond to the concerns that have been raised about policy and administration.
  In response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) about the particular strictures identified by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), I felt that the hon. Gentleman was slightly unfair in trying to suggest that I was avoiding responsibility. That was not the case.
  I pointed out to the Committee that there are different functions within the Department in terms of the day-to-day responsibility for the running of the agency and the Minister's policy-making job. However, I have to take responsibility from the Dispatch Box for everything that the agency might do. But in no sense was I suggesting that it was a hands-off approach, that it was up to the agency and that it was not my problem.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: We agreed to a passage that reads:
  "We consider that Ministers were at fault in being so easily satisfied with the assurances of officials."
  Mr. Burt: A passage that I could read out suggested that my job in dealing with the day-to-day work was to be much more positive and to say to the chief executive:
  "'This is not good enough, we must change this. Bring me your proposals for how we can deal with this basic problem of communication.' Over a period of time, of course, those changes are made."
  I said that it was our role to prompt those changes. That was my particular job. However, I hear the hon. Gentleman's criticism. The Government will respond in due course.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the pile-up of reviews. In the year to date, the Department has received 22,100 applications for second-tier reviews. It has cleared 22,500. There is a backlog of some 8,000, which ought to be cleared towards the end of this month. That is a measure of the steps that we have taken to deal with some of the problems that have rightly been raised. In no sense have we ever considered that we should have a hands-off role.
  106
  Various tributes have been paid to the work of the staff of the Child Support Agency. I am grateful for that. The hon. Member for Broadgreen referred to the important issue of field staff. I was grateful that she did that. The staff have been in day-to-day contact with many people affected by the agency. They have put up with a great deal. They work extremely hard.
  I am pleased when any hon. Member takes the opportunity to go and see the work of the regional centres of the CSA. For all the criticism of the CSA and its work, few hon. Members have gone to see it at first hand to understand the process and how it can be undertaken. I should be grateful to any hon. Member who visited a centre. Those who have done so have seen the improvements and the work that has been done. I appreciate what they have said about it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) raised the issue of the telephone service. He appreciated the telephone and handling service that Members of Parliament received. He expressed concern that such a service was not available to constituents. We have taken great steps to improve the telephone service available to all members of the public. We have a charter target time of responding to 80 per cent. of calls to the national inquiry line and the Child Support Agency centre lines within 20 seconds. The figures for the year to date for the national inquiry line show that we hit that target in 92 per cent. of cases. For the CSACs, we hit the target in 61 per cent. of cases. That is not as good as we would like, but it is far better than it used to be. It is right that we deal with concerns raised by constituents as well as those raised by Members of Parliament.
  The fact that we are still here endeavouring to put right the administration of the CSA is one part of the background to the Bill. The second part of the background, which was referred to by several hon. Members, is the wider problem of family background and family breakdown. We could spend a great deal of time on that subject. I appreciated the speeches made by the hon. Members for Corydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) and for Broadgreen and by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). A great deal in the subject ought to worry the House of Commons.
  Family breakdown is responsible for more misery and despair that I see in my surgeries than virtually anything else. Damage is done over a period of time, not only at the time of the breakdown. The breakdown is the culmination of a variety of pressures on families. The change that is occurring in the country as a result of that growing pattern is immense. It leads to huge consequences for not only child support but housing, education and wider social issues, which may involve destructive children and such problems. I suspect that we shall return to the issue many times. It is a matter of great seriousness, on which the House needs to put its collective heads together.
  The two issues to which I have referred form the background to the Bill. Several of my colleagues rightly concentrated on the proposals in the Bill and the wider proposals in the White Paper. A broad welcome was given by the vast majority of hon. Members who spoke to the measures introduced in the Bill. A particular welcome was given to a more flexible system, which we call the departure system. It provides the opportunity for some of the hard cases that cannot be dealt with by the formula to be dealt with in a different way.

  107
  I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) saw the need to respond to what he considered to be the good, sensible pressure from his local group. Several hon. Members commented that, although some of the national groups had given a great deal of trouble, some of the local groups were sensible and straightforward. We have done our best to respond to those who have been sensible and responsible. We have not had any time for those who have caused harm or distress to members of the agency or others in the way in which they have gone about their protest.
  The travel-to-work concession that we are seeking to bring in was welcomed by hon. Members. The concession is calculated on a straight-line basis, and there is a sensible reason for that. We could work out by computer from post code to post code the distance between where people live and where they work, but a straight line means that one does not get arguments about how people get from their homes to their place of work. There will always be arguments—often raised by spouses—about what route people have taken and whether they are going slightly too far to avoid a maintenance assessment. We decided that the best way to deal with the matter was on a straight-line basis.
  My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak said that there would be anomalies in some districts where straight lines might look simple on the map but, because of geography, would not be so simple on the ground. In that area, the departure systems will assist in the broad-brush elements that are to be brought in by regulation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) welcomed the change that we had made in relation to property and so-called clean-break settlements. Again, we are trying to bring in a more immediate opportunity for relief through a broad-brush system in the regulations, and that will come into effect soon. But we recognise that there can be a broad-brush approach only if the departure system is behind that, and if we are giving proper and adequate consideration to the problems that people may raise concerning the regulations.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) tried to claim some spurious credit for the appeal system, which he has always been on about. The point that we are trying to make is that we know that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that system over a period of time, and we have not dismissed it. But if we do not want to go back to a second-guess system of total discretion, where do we draw the lines and boundaries? We offered opportunity after opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to enlighten us, but he did not.
  When we produced the Bill, we showed that we had tackled that knotty problem by bringing forward gateways. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to chastise the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he tried to go about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) said that the gateways had been the essence of the system, and it was the Government who thought of them rather than the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead rightly said that the way in which my right hon. Friend has given support to the parent with care through credit rather than a disregard
  108
  was not only ingenious, but an incentive to go into work. We thought carefully about a disregard, but we felt that it would not do the job as well as a credit system.
  Mr. Frank Field: Does not the Minister agree that we could have had both systems?
  Mr. Burt: That is possible, but we would find ourselves with a problem to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred. We would be giving an unfair advantage to some parents who would be able to get a supplement on their income support that was not available to others. We would again be looking to the state and the taxpayer to provide a bonus, when the Government are trying to wean people off benefit and off the dependency state to which the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West referred. A credit system fulfils the Government's objectives. We reject the benefit dependency culture, and we spend a lot of time encouraging people away from that and into work.
  The prize for the most cynical speech of the evening goes, without doubt, to the lady in green, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne). It is some time since the House was treated to such a neat about-turn for the spurious purpose of picking up some stray Labour votes. That was the gist of what the hon. Lady had to say. I would have had rather more time for her principled position in favour of family courts if we had heard that argument advanced week after week in a principled manner by the Liberal Democrats. We heard nothing about that subject at all until tonight, when it was pulled out of a hat like a rabbit. The hon. Lady knows full well that it is very easy to promise something that has no chance of coming about, because it offers her the opportunity to be all things to all men.
  Ms Lynne: I proposed family courts because the Child Support Act is not working and the Bill does not go nearly far enough. It is a disgrace for the Minister to stand there and pretend that it does. He will have to come back time and again because the Act will continue not to work.
  Mr. Burt: It is the collective view of the rest of us that the Child Support Act has an opportunity to work, is working better and is the preferred option of the House. The hon. Lady never quite escaped the charge levelled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that she was offering the absent parent the chance to pay less and the parent with care the opportunity to receive more, which struck me as typically Liberal.
  Ms Jean Corston rose—
  Mr. Burt: No, I will not give way. The hon. Lady has not been in her place throughout the debate.
  A number of other issues were raised and I shall go through them briefly. We had a useful, but brief talk about Mr. Amitai Etzioni, whose extremely interesting lecture I attended the other week with other hon. Members. Much in his principles started on these Conservative Benches—not on the Opposition Benches—such as self-reliance and the opportunity for people to work together without state interference.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) dealt with the difficult issue of whether we should constantly be looking for further reforms and progress, or whether we should have some stability. We must balance that by not shutting ourselves off from the possibility of further reform, but it is now important that we give the

  109
  system some sense of stability. That is why I appreciated the way in which the hon. Member for Withington dealt with the matter. We want to improve the operation of child support, but it is crucial that we make the general public understand that we have made the major reforms and that there is a structure on which people can rely. If we do not do so, we shall have failed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury asked whether the term "absent parent" is a good one; hon. Members on both sides of the House might welcome a slightly off-the-hoof response. I have had reservations about that term and so has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are accordingly renewing a suggestion made some time ago—we are not fixed in our view of that term. Originally, we tried to come up with a better term, but no one found one that was acceptable. If hon. Members want to try again, I am open to the suggestion, as I have been moved by the way in which a variety of good parents, who do not feel that they are absent, have felt that they have been unfairly characterised by the term. It was never meant to be pejorative, but that is what people felt, so let us see what we can do about it. I am very open to that.
  With regard to whether we should spend more time discussing the matter, I want colleagues on both sides of the House to know that I am conscious that the agency must implement what it is changing extremely well. We have all suffered from the poor implementation of the 1991 Act and it is crucial that we implement these changes well. I am prepared to allow proper time not only for consideration, but for the practical putting into effect of the matters that we have been discussing.
  Tonight's Bill is the culmination of a great deal of thought and consideration that have been given to child support during the past 18 months. Through two Social Security Select Committees and innumerable debates and questions, the basic principle behind child support—that parents should be financially responsible for their children before the taxpayers, in so far as they can afford it—has come through unchallenged.
  The Child Support Agency's role in dealing with child support has been challenged, but it has also been given approval to continue. The Government have heard, listened and responded to proper concerns about the agency's operations and have authorised and initiated reforms, some of which are in the Bill. The main part of the Bill's reforms demonstrates that we are a listening Government—not merely to one section that is affected by the revolution in child support, but to all sides.
  With regard to parents with care of the child, their concerns are still paramount. The average payment of maintenance, which was too low, is now higher, reflecting the change in the needs of children.
  The changes that we are making tonight will encourage compliance and, therefore, the payment of maintenance, which must be helpful. The maintenance credit bonus will be of significant assistance in helping people back into work and will be of benefit to all parents with care, especially those who depend solely on income support. The formula changes will assist parents without day-to-day care of the child, and Parliament must show the taxpayer that it remains constant to its view that the burden must be held by the parent, not by society at large when parents can afford to pay. That is rightly parents' responsibility.
  110
  It is right that the burden on the taxpayer is lifted; it is right to ensure decent maintenance for children; it is right that the system of administration should be improved; and it is right that this reform package, which both improves the formula and introduces appropriate flexibility to the system, should have the full support of the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 290.

  Division No. 104]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davidson, Ian

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Ainger, Nick

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

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

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dewar, Donald

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dixon, Don

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dobson, Frank

  Ashton, Joe

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dowd, Jim

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Barron, Kevin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Battle, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Eastham, Ken

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Etherington, Bill

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Benton, Joe

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fatchett, Derek

  Berry, Roger

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Betts, Clive

  Fisher, Mark

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Blunkett, David

  Foulkes, George

  Boateng, Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bradley, Keith

  Galloway, George

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gapes, Mike

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Garrett, John

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

  George, Bruce

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burden, Richard

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Byers, Stephen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caborn, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Gunnell, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hain, Peter

  Chidgey, David

  Hall, Mike

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hanson, David

  Church, Judith

  Hardy, Peter

  Clapham, Michael

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hodge, Margaret

  Coffey, Ann

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hood, Jimmy

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hutton, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ingram, Adam

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jamieson, David

  111

  Janner, Greville

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Alan

  Purchase, Ken

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Radice, Giles

  Khabra, Piara S

  Randall, Stuart

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Redmond, Martin

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Reid, Dr John

  Lewis, Terry

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Litherland, Robert

  Rogers, Allan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rooney, Terry

  Llwyd,Elfyn

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Salmond, Alex

  McAllion, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheerman, Barry

  McCartney, Ian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Macdonald, Calum

  Short, Clare

  McKelvey, William

  Simpson, Alan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McMaster, Gordon

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

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McWilliam, John

  Snape, Peter

  Madden, Max

  Soley, Clive

  Maddock, Diana

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mahon, Alice

  Spellar, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Marek, Dr John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Straw, Jack

  Martlew, Eric

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Meale, Alan

  Timms, Stephen

  Michael, Alun

  Tipping, Paddy

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Touhig, Don

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Turner, Dennis

  Milburn, Alan

  Tyler, Paul

  Miller, Andrew

  Vaz, Keith

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wallace, James

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Walley, Joan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morley, Elliot

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Watson, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mudie, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Murphy, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Worthington, Tony

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  O'Hara, Edward

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Olner, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Parry, Robert

  Ms. Estelle Morris and

  Pearson, Ian

  Mrs. Barbara Roche.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 287,Noes 40.

  Division No. 104]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davidson, Ian

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Ainger, Nick

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

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

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dewar, Donald

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dixon, Don

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dobson, Frank

  Ashton, Joe

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dowd, Jim

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Barron, Kevin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Battle, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Eastham, Ken

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Etherington, Bill

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Benton, Joe

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fatchett, Derek

  Berry, Roger

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Betts, Clive

  Fisher, Mark

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Blunkett, David

  Foulkes, George

  Boateng, Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bradley, Keith

  Galloway, George

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gapes, Mike

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Garrett, John

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

  George, Bruce

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burden, Richard

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Byers, Stephen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caborn, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Gunnell, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hain, Peter

  Chidgey, David

  Hall, Mike

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hanson, David

  Church, Judith

  Hardy, Peter

  Clapham, Michael

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hodge, Margaret

  Coffey, Ann

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hood, Jimmy

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hutton, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ingram, Adam

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jamieson, David

  111

  Janner, Greville

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Alan

  Purchase, Ken

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Radice, Giles

  Khabra, Piara S

  Randall, Stuart

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Redmond, Martin

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Reid, Dr John

  Lewis, Terry

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Litherland, Robert

  Rogers, Allan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rooney, Terry

  Llwyd,Elfyn

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Salmond, Alex

  McAllion, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheerman, Barry

  McCartney, Ian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Macdonald, Calum

  Short, Clare

  McKelvey, William

  Simpson, Alan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McMaster, Gordon

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

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McWilliam, John

  Snape, Peter

  Madden, Max

  Soley, Clive

  Maddock, Diana

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mahon, Alice

  Spellar, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Marek, Dr John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Straw, Jack

  Martlew, Eric

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Meale, Alan

  Timms, Stephen

  Michael, Alun

  Tipping, Paddy

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Touhig, Don

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Turner, Dennis

  Milburn, Alan

  Tyler, Paul

  Miller, Andrew

  Vaz, Keith

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wallace, James

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Walley, Joan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morley, Elliot

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Watson, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mudie, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Murphy, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Worthington, Tony

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  O'Hara, Edward

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Olner, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Parry, Robert

  Ms. Estelle Morris and

  Pearson, Ian

  Mrs. Barbara Roche.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Amess, David

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Ancram, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Arbuthnot, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  112

  Ashby, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Atkins, Robert

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Forth, Eric

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Baldry, Tony

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  French, Douglas

  Bates, Michael

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gale, Roger

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gallie, Phil

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Body, Sir Richard

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Garnier, Edward

  Booth, Hartley

  Gill, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bowis, John

  Gorst, Sir John

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hague, William

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burns, Simon

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burt, Alistair

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Butcher, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butler, Peter

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Churchill, Mr

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Clappison, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Horam, John

  Congdon, David

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

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

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

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

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jack, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Day, Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Duncan, Alan

  Key, Robert

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dunn, Bob

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knapman, Roger

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

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

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evennett, David

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Faber, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fabricant, Michael

  Legg, Barry

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Leigh, Edward

  113

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Luff, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Maclean, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Malone, Gerald

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mans, Keith

  Sproat, Iain

  Marland, Paul

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Steen, Anthony

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stephen, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stern, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Streeter, Gary

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Sumberg, David

  Merchant, Piers

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mills, Iain

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thomason, Roy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Norris, Steve

  Tracey, Richard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Tredinnick, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Trend, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Page, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Paice, James

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Viggers, Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Walden, George

  Pawsey, James

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Waller, Gary

  Pickles, Eric

  Ward, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Watts, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Richards, Rod

  Whittingdale, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Willetts, David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wood, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Yeo, Tim

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sackville, Tom

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  Division No.105]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Elletson, Harold

  Alexander, Richard

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Arness, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Ancram, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Faber, David

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Ashby, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Atkins, Robert

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Forth, Eric

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Baldry, Tony

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bates, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gale, Roger

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gallie, Phil

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Booth, Hartley

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowis, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gorst, Sir John

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Hague, William

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butcher, John

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Butler, Peter

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harris, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawksley, Warren

  Churchill, Mr

  Heald, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Congdon, David

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

  Cran, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

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

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jack, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dorrell Rt Hon Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Gwllym (Cardiff N)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Key, Robert

  115

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

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

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Knox, Sir David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shersby, Michael

  Legg, Barry

  Sims, Roger

  Leigh, Edward

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lightbown, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Luff, Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sproat, Iain

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir Jonn

  Maclean, David

  Steen, Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stern, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stewart, Allan

  Mans, Keith

  Streeter, Gary

  Mariland, Paul

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, John (Hendon South)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thomason, Roy

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mills, Iain

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tracey, Richard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tredinnick, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Viggers, Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Walden, George

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Page, Richard

  Ward, John

  Paice, James

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Waterson, Nigel

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Watts, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Pawsey, James

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Whitney, Ray

  Pickles, Eric

  Whittingdale, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Willetts, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Richards, Rod

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Riddick, Graham

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wood, Timothy

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Yeo, Tim

  Robathan, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  116

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Lewis, Terry

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Loyden, Eddie

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Madden, Max

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Maddock, Diana

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Mahon, Alice

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Cann, Jamie

  Pickthall, Colin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Rooney, Terry

  Corston, Jean

  Simpson, Alan

  Gapes, Mike

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gerrard, Neil

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Tyler, Paul

  Hall, Mike

  Wallace, James

  Heppell, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Illsley, Eric

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Mr. David Chidgey.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time,and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills.)

CHILD SUPPORT BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Child Support Bill it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State in respect of expenditure incurred by him under or by virtue of the Act;

(2) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided; and

(3) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
Statutory Instruments, &c.
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
  That the Gaming Licence Duty (Games) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 442), dated 22nd February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.

  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES
  That the draft Undertaking by the Secretary of State for Scotland with the consent of Her Majesty's Treasury and the agreement of Caledonian MacBrayne Limited, which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

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

  HALLMARKING
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9508/93 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 9th June 1994, and 8251/94 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 17th October 1994, relating to the marking of articles of precious metal; and supports the Government's view that the proposed procedures for manufacturers' marking of articles of precious metal would not provide an adequate level of consumer protection and that the proposal will therefore need substantial amendment if it is to be acceptable.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

  ENVIRONMENT
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Barry Field be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Den Dover be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITIONS

  Sudan
  10.28 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: I wish to present a petition signed by members of various churches in Golders Green. Some 300 people have signed the petition, which concerns the civil war in Sudan and the peace talks held by various Governments from the horn of Africa. It states:
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons encourage Her Majesty's Government to support these peace talks about the war in the Sudan in co-operation with their European partners and to urge all the parties to the conflict to take the quest for peace seriously.
  And the Petitioners thank the House of Commons for its help in this matter.
  To lie upon the Table.

Live Animal Exports
10.29 pm
Dr. Lynne Jones: I have a petition from 760 signatories, all of whom are concerned about the export of live animals, particularly veal calves. The petition was initiated by one of my constituents, Mrs. J. D. Collier, who was soon joined by colleagues and students at St. Philip's sixth form college, where she worked, and then by their friends and relatives. The petition reads:
The Humble Petition of St Philip's Sixth Form College, Hogley Rd, Birmingham B16, and friends
Declares that animals are mistreated in transit and young calves are subject to cruel treatment before slaughter.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House acts through legislation to stop the export to the continent of livestock.
And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray &c.
To lie upon the Table.

Scottish Enterprise Tayside
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
10.30 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: My debate this evening is about the Keathbank mill project in Blairgowrie. It is also about how public funds are used to assist tourist capital projects schemes in Scotland and Tayside.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will know that, in 1990, the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill passed through Parliament. Part I of that Bill, now an Act, created Scottish Enterprise and local enterprise companies. He will also know that, from 1 April 1994, Scottish Enterprise was given responsibility for business development activities in the tourist industry; thus, Scottish tourist board activities under the section 4 scheme of capital assistance were transferred to Scottish Enterprise.
In a Scottish Office press release of 29 June 1993, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), states:
I shall be looking to the Enterprise Network to contribute to the formulation of the national tourism strategy and to integrate its training and business supportive activities into the new framework.
During the passage of the Bill to create Scottish Enterprise, and at the time of the transfer of responsibility for capital grants for tourist projects from the STB to Scottish Enterprise, Ministers assured myself and other hon. Members that projects in the pipeline would not lose out because of the change in the agency with responsibility for grants.
I submit that the Keathbank project, which is vital to tourist activity in east Perthshire, has lost out. Scottish Enterprise Tayside accepts that there have been continuing negotiations between the Scottish Development Agency, the STB and Scottish Enterprise Tayside, that the project has been in three phases and that some of the officials involved have worked for the SDA and Scottish Enterprise Tayside, thus giving continuity of contact.
On 13 March 1995, in answer to a question about what changes had been made to the statutory provision for public support towards tourist-related capital projects with the transfer of responsibility from the Scottish tourist board to Scottish Enterprise, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), replied, "None."
So now we know. Scottish tourist board powers have been transferred to Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise Tayside, and there have been no changes in the statutory provision. We also know that the STB, following the practice initiated by the Highlands and Islands development board, allowed work to start on projects where another Government body was giving assistance; in the case of the Keathbank project, it was at that time the SDA. The letter dated 25 March 1991 from the STB, signed by Anne McGinnis, of the investment and planning division, states:
"The Board has no objection to work starting on the project as the majority of this relates to assistance offered by the Scottish Development Agency. I understand that there might be some intrusion into the areas which are being considered by my Board but this will not"—

119
this is important—
"prejudice your application for financial assistance."
There is also the fact that another project was in hand at the time called PRIDE, the programme for rural initiatives and development. It is interesting to note that, in a letter, Gordon Langlands, who was head of business development for the Scottish Development Agency at the time—he transferred to Scottish Enterprise Tayside later—said:
"It was also agreed that as a short-term measure, it might be possible to undertake some essential works which enable M and W Stephens Limited to relocate the Keathbank Mill and this would have the effect of buying some time to consider these particular points."
Of course, PRIDE at that time made it quite clear that an eligible project had to meet
"PRIDE's employment and income objectives; involve the development of property; is within an eligible area as shown in the accompanying map."
Keathbank met all those requirements. PRIDE also stated:
"Projects which involve property development to accommodate manufacturing, service, commercial, or crafts activities can be considered."
Keathbank met all those requirements. I suggest that the project was an SDA initiative: it began with the SDA. In 1985, Keathbank mill was advertised for sale by Thomas Thompson of Blairgowrie, and in that year there was a report on Blairgowrie for Tayside region by Mackay Consultants, which recommended that the mill should be developed for tourism. That was agreed by the SDA, TRIO, Perth and Kinross district council and the Blairgowrie area development association.
In 1987, Art Enterprises Ltd. was approached by Bob Bruce of the Blairgowrie area development association who asked if it would be interested in purchasing Keathbank mill with help from the Scottish Development Agency because the SDA's feasibility study had concluded that a private developer was required for Keathbank mill. The SDA commissioned architects to design a visitor attraction for a £3 million-plus development. Bob Bruce approached Mr. Peter Stewart-Blacker to take over the project with a promise of Government and SDA help as private sector capital was required. Peter Stewart-Blacker agreed to put in that capital.
In 1988, there was an initial appraisal and broad agreement to fund the purchase and carry out the conversion of the mill by the SDA and the Scottish tourist board. Perth and Kinross district council had responsibility for a car park, landscaping, signposting and enhancement of banks of the river with help from the Countryside Commission for Scotland. Architects and quantity surveyors were appointed.
In 1989, the mill was bought by Art Enterprises on the strength of letters of support from L. and R. Consultants, which proposed the business plan with the architects, the quantity surveyors, the Scottish tourist board and the SDA. Several meetings took place. In March, the sale from Perth and Kinross district council was concluded. At that time, funding was still being discussed with the SDA.
On 1 November, Gordon Langlands stated that land and buildings included in the PRIDE guidelines were eligible for expenditure. The car park and bridge were completed
120
during the winter, but no signposting or further improvements on the far bank were carried out by the district council or the Countryside Commission.
In 1990, a letter from the SDA, which I have sent to my hon. Friend the Minister and from which I have quoted, said that a start would not prejudice the grant application. The go-ahead for phase 1, workshops and offices, was given and was completed by July 1990. This was all carried out in negotiation with Mr. Gordon Langlands of the SDA, who is now with Scottish Enterprise Tayside.
On 17 October, an application was made to the Scottish tourist board. Accounts were awaited and there was still no agreement on the grant. In January 1991, the Scottish tourist board asked for more details, but it had spoken to the SDA and agreed a £38,000 grant. In March, the SDA draft offer of grant was sent to Art Enterprises and was revised by both solicitors. In March 1991, phase 2 began and there were problems with the quantity surveyors, who rewrote the whole bill of quantities. It became apparent that phase 2 would exceed the budget. That led to the letter from Anne McGinnis of the Scottish tourist board from which I have already quoted. Building completion was delayed from 15 June to 1 July to 1 August and the eventual handover was on 15 August 1991. This work was intended to make the building wind and watertight.
On 15 August, the mill opened with free admission due to the lack of fitting-out. It closed two weeks later. In September, £98,000 was paid by Scottish Enterprise Tayside conditional on the STB paying it £38,000, which was never received. There were negotiations with quantity surveyors and architects regarding the underestimate of capital costs.
Gordon Langlands of SET was kept informed and he said that SET would look at phase 3 grants with the STB, but that it needed new projections in the light of the £100,000 overspend and the obvious profit and loss implications affecting profitability. In September 1992, discussions took place with architects, quantity surveyors and Scottish Enterprise Tayside on the increased cost of phase 2. The STB requested a new feasibility study as capital costs had risen dramatically. There were increases of about £150,000 which affected the profitability of the project. Again, there were problems with the accounts. One partner was in hospital and eventually retired. His assistant left due to a reported nervous breakdown. These were the accountants working for Peter Stewart-Blacker of Scottish Enterprise.
In August, there was a meeting with the Scottish tourist board which was not prepared to look at grant aid for the project because of increased costs unless Art Enterprises could show viability, taking into account increasing depreciation due to the additional capital costs. Contact was maintained with Scottish Enterprise Tayside which was prepared to continue to look at grant aid once accounts were forthcoming and the final bills of the building phase settled.
Responsibility for section 4 funding at this point transferred from the Scottish tourist board to SET, but the project was told that no cash was available. On 19 March 1993, Mr. John Gardiner requested the Art Enterprises accounts for 1992. According to another member of SET, Jack Martin, SET had to look at grants or investments as Mr. John Gardiner was the investment analyst. Art Enterprises was approached again by Gordon Langlands and it was proposed that it be included as part of the

121
financial management service pilot scheme as it had a history of lateness in delivering accounts which would affect its grant application. The scheme started shortly afterwards. Art Enterprises entered an agreement to have accounts.
The matter goes on; I shall not bore the House further other than to say that I could continue to relate the saga at length. On 18 November 1994, Mr. David Gosling, the divisional director, and Mr. Bryan Barbour, the regional director of the Edinburgh Woollen Mill visited the mill and were impressed. However, they were worried about the car park, the general lack of interpretative facilities and the unfinished state of the mill, particularly the steam engine and the water wheel. They felt, however, that the location was ideal, provided improvements were carried out in time for the season beginning in April 1995.
I have a long list of telephone calls from 1992 to 1995. I shall not bore the House with all of them, but I shall let my hon. Friend the Minister have copies. I believe that I have demonstrated clearly that the project, in three phases, has been adversely affected by the change from the Scottish Development Agency to Scottish Enterprise and then to Scottish Enterprise Tayside, and by the change from the STB to Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise Tayside.
All I ask is that Blairgowrie be treated equally with everywhere else in Scotland and particularly with Dundee. I ask that Keathbank be seen, as I believe it is, as the Discovery centre of east Perthshire; after all, it is the only covered attraction that is likely to be available in east Perthshire in the foreseeable future. I ask for the pledges given by Ministers during the passage of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill—I have copies of the pledges given on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading—to be implemented and I ask for the pledges given in written answers and in debates on the structure of the tourist industry and activity in Scotland to be implemented. The Art Enterprises projections which have been given for 1995, 1996 and 1997, which I understand are acceptable to Scottish Enterprise Tayside, demonstrate that the project will go from a net profit of £35,867 in the first year to £56,118 in the second year to £85,596 in the third year.
This is a viable project which certainly merits consideration and support. If nothing else, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will recognise that these are important matters and they cannot simply be brushed aside because the matter has been, I think, adversely affected by the changeover. I am not saying that Art Enterprises cannot be accused of making some mistakes—it probably has, but that is not what is important. What is important is whether we are to have a viable, worthwhile project in east Perthshire to meet tourists' needs. We ought to have such a project.
I have given my hon. Friend some written questions which he has passed on to the chairman of Scottish Enterprise and I shall be pressing for answers to them. In addition, I expect that the statement by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West, on 29 June about the change should apply equally to Blairgowrie and Dundee. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say that this project should receive proper and adequate consideration in the near future.
10.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on securing the debate. I know that he has a long-standing interest in encouraging tourism and economic development in his constituency and the surrounding area. I also pay a significant tribute to his tenacity in pursuing this case on behalf of one of his constituents. I thank him for the courteous and helpful way in which he has put forward his arguments. In my response, I shall deal with two particular points about the Keathbank mill project: the viability of the project and the question of the retrospective aid. I shall then touch on some of the other points that my hon. Friend has made.
I must tell my hon. Friend that viability has, of course, yet to be established. It is a substantial project with costs made up from a number of separate elements. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, while I have been made aware of the costs and sums of money involved, I have not thought it appropriate to go into those in detail tonight. Scottish Enterprise Tayside has indicated to Mr. Stewart-Blacker that it may be prepared to provide a significant sum, by way of grant, towards the cost of the project subject to its satisfaction, which it must ensure, as to the overall viability and confirmation of the availability of other funding. Mr. Stewart-Blacker has indeed been asked where that other funding will come from and, as I understand it, has yet to provide a satisfactory answer. My hon. Friend may well have acknowledged in his speech that something may have come in at the 11th hour.
Specifically on the question of viability, the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise Tayside wrote to Mr. Stewart-Blacker on 9 March pointing out that before a decision could be made on the viability of the further development of the mill, Mr. Stewart-Blacker needed to provide a response to 10 points detailed in the letter. Those points, as I understand it, have not yet been answered. Mr. Stewart-Blacker may have submitted his responses to those points in the past 24 hours, in which case, of course, they will be duly considered. Until the information is available, Scottish Enterprise Tayside cannot be satisfied that the project is commercially viable.
I turn to the issue of retrospection, which is slightly more difficult, and whether the works already undertaken on the mill should be considered for financial assistance. I should point out that this is at present a secondary consideration and that unless and until it can be established that the further development of the mill is a commercially viable project, there can be no question of any financial assistance being made available. Scottish Enterprise Tayside has told Mr. Stewart-Blacker that the provision of assistance in respect of expenditure already incurred would be contrary to the operating guidelines laid down by Scottish Enterprise. I confirm that that is certainly the case. It reflects the general principle that financial assistance for economic development should make something happen that would not otherwise happen.
Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will recall that I said that the Scottish tourist board and the Highlands and Islands development board, in relation to tourist-related projects in particular, allowed that to happen.
Mr. Kynoch: If my hon. Friend will be patient, I will try to refer to the question of the application, or whether there was an application, to the Scottish tourist board.

123
As I said, the general principle is that financial assistance for economic development should make something happen which would not otherwise happen. It would obviously be a misuse of funds—as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North would agree—and of public expenditure to provide assistance for a project that would have gone ahead without such assistance.
Where an individual or company has gone ahead with a project before assistance has been secured, the view taken normally is that that demonstrates that the assistance was not essential to the project going ahead and that therefore it should not be eligible for consideration.
However, my hon. Friend quite rightly referred to the assurances given to Mr. Stewart-Blacker in 1991. With regard to the point that my hon. Friend raised about the history of the project pre-1991, Scottish Enterprise Tayside gave Mr. Stewart-Blacker a grant of £92,000, fulfilling a promise made by the SDA which was, of course, for phase 1 of the project. I know that my hon. Friend accepts that.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that Mr. Stewart-Blacker received assurances from the Scottish tourist board in 1991 that work on the mill at that time would not prejudice the application for financial assistance that he made or was considering making to the STB. However, no properly completed application was ever made to the tourist board. I am aware that an application was made in 1990, but it was recognised by everyone concerned at the time that the necessary supporting information was not available. That information was sought on several subsequent occasions, but it was never received.
In 1993, responsibility for capital assistance to tourism-related projects was transferred from the Scottish tourist board to the Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands enterprise networks. There was no change in the statutory position: it was simply announced in answer to a parliamentary question—which I had tabled—that the Scottish tourist board would no longer accept applications for such assistance and that support for business development activities would be consolidated in the enterprise networks.
The Scottish tourist board transferred all outstanding applications for assistance to the relevant enterprise company on 29 June 1993. That did not include Mr. Stewart-Blacker's application for assistance, as the Scottish tourist board had received no further information and thus, understandably, two and a half years after the application was originally submitted, it considered that no outstanding application was present. In those circumstances, it took the view that any such application should be considered as lapsed.
In those circumstances, any assurances given by the Scottish tourist board in relation to the provision of its financial assistance cannot be held to apply to the different financial assistance regime operated by Scottish Enterprise Tayside. No commitment was ever made by Ministers on that point. Indeed, no such commitment was ever needed, as no complaints were made to the Department about the impact on individual cases of the transfer of responsibility from the tourist board to the enterprise networks.
124
I should now like to deal briefly with the suggestion that Scottish Enterprise Tayside was in some way responsible for Mr. Stewart-Blacker's failure to provide the financial information to support his 1991 application for assistance, because of the unsuccessful financial management service pilot which Scottish Enterprise Tayside helped to fund. My hon. Friend has not referred to that in the numerous letters with which he has understandably and rightly bombarded my officials and my Department.
As my hon Friend is aware, Scottish Enterprise Tayside provided very substantial sums in financial assistance for the initial development of the mill. I have already referred to the £92,000. One of the conditions of that assistance was that Mr. Stewart-Blacker provide regular annual accounts to Scottish Enterprise Tayside. Unfortunately, he failed to do that.
Mr. Bill Walker: I recommend that my hon. Friend the Minister look at the agreement. The onus also lay with Scottish Enterprise Tayside to ensure that that happened.
Mr. Kynoch: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I suspect that Scottish Enterprise Tayside has had some difficulty. I know that my hon. Friend will give many excuses and explanations for the failure of the company to produce those accounts. The long and the short of it is that, sadly, the information has not been forthcoming.
As a result of his difficulties in producing accounts, Mr. Stewart-Blacker was offered the opportunity to participate in a pilot scheme whereby he received consultancy assistance at the expense of Scottish Enterprise Tayside. The scheme was not successful for three reasons. My hon. Friend has touched on some of them.
First, the three staff assigned by Mr. Stewart-Blacker to work with the consultant left the business and valuable time was lost in retraining new staff. Secondly, once the 15 consultancy days which Scottish Enterprise Tayside had agreed to fund were used up, Mr. Stewart-Blacker did not fulfil his part of the agreement to retain the consultant at his own expense to conclude the project. Thirdly, there were problems with computer hardware, but it was replaced by hardware suppliers at their own cost.
So there were significant delays, but my hon. Friend is not necessarily right in pointing the finger of blame at Scottish Enterprise Tayside for the failure of Mr. Stewart-Blacker to produce proper accounts. Indeed, I have to say that Scottish Enterprise Tayside has gone out of its way to assist Mr. Stewart-Blacker with his financial monitoring systems.
My hon. Friend has touched, certainly in correspondence, on the Discovery quay project in Dundee. It has been suggested that Scottish Enterprise Tayside may have given more favourable treatment to Discovery quay than to Keathbank mill. I have to tell my hon. Friend that that is not the case. However, the two separate projects were competing for public expenditure resources. The Discovery quay project was fully appraised and investigated before Scottish Enterprise Tayside agreed to provide financial support. The actual and potential economic benefits of Discovery quay are considered by Scottish Enterprise Tayside more than to justify its intervention.

125
I should also remind my hon. Friend that Scottish Enterprise Tayside is not a centrally directed organisation which simply carries out the Government's bidding.
Mr. Ernie Ross: May I remind the Minister that the concept of Discovery quay was aimed at regenerating the city of Dundee? It was not one simple project to be given assistance. It was for the regeneration of a city that was in decline following the decline of the jute industry. There is hardly a comparison.
Mr. Kynoch: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not entirely disagree with him. The point that I was trying to make was that a project was submitted which was properly financially appraised. For that reason, it received funding.
I have no reason to believe that the location of Keathbank mill in Blairgowrie is a factor which affects adversely the consideration by Scottish Enterprise Tayside of the application for financial assistance. I assure my hon. Friend that I believe that Scottish Enterprise Tayside has tried hard to look at all areas within its area of responsibility. I attended the opening, which I know that my hon. Friend attended, just the other day of the Acorn business centre in Perth. It is certainly outwith Dundee and it was clearly for the benefit of a different part of that area.
It would be inappropriate for me to let this occasion pass without referring to the boost given to the tourist industry in Perthshire by the achievement of European Union objective 5b status for the area. I know that my hon. Friend—this is a little wind-up—considers that this additional European finance is simply a reimbursement of our national contribution to Europe. Nevertheless, the change in status for Perthshire must represent good news for the tourist industry, which will now be eligible for additional assistance.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Kynoch: I do not have much time left. I should like to complete my speech so that I can respond to my hon. Friend's points. I know that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has a great interest in tourism, but with respect I should like to concentrate on this issue.
My hon. Friend may wish to note that one of the projects which Scottish Enterprise Tayside has submitted for objective 5b funding involves expenditure of more than £200,000 for a landscaped walkway by the River Ericht in Blairgowrie from Keathbank mill bridge—surprise, surprise—which is adjacent to the project at the centre of this debate, to the Blairgowrie bridge. So I do not think that the area is being neglected.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for initiating the debate. I hope that I have outlined the current position to him. The provision of assistance to small businesses is always a difficult matter, particularly when the business in question believes that it is entitled to more support than it is offered. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that Scottish Enterprise Tayside has acted reasonably and constructively in this matter and that it will continue to promote the interests of tourism in the whole of Perthshire.
As for Keathbank mill, Scottish Enterprise Tayside stands ready to provide substantial sums of assistance to the project once the information necessary to support the application for assistance has been submitted. My hon. Friend says that the information has been submitted. I hear what he says, but if the information has not been submitted, I hope that my hon. Friend will pass the message that I have given him to his constituent and urge him to submit all the information available at the earliest time. I hope that it will be given fair wind and that it will be proved to be a viable proposition. Of course, that is up to Scottish Enterprise Tayside, not to me.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the planned timetable for the extension of existing prisons with new house blocks; and what are his estimates of the cost of the programme.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 20 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the timetable and cost of the programme currently underway to build additional houseblocks at existing prisons.
  Construction of most of the houseblocks in question has now begun (the last two are programmed to start in May this year). Although completion dates vary, it is planned that six of the new blocks will be ready for use by early 1996, and the remaining ten will become available for occupation during the course of the 1996–97 financial year. The overall cost of the programme is £115 million, including £31 million for ancillary facilities needed to support the increases in population at the establishments concerned. When complete, the programme will deliver 2,000 places.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the net operating cost per prisoner place for each of the prisons and remand centres excluding contracted-out prisons in England and Wales from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995. [14571]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. George Howarth, dated 20 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the net operating cost per prisoner place for 1994–95 for each of the prisons and remand centres in England and Wales, excluding contracted out prisons.
  Figures for 1994–95 will be published later this year in the Prison Service Annual Report for 1994–95. Figures for 1993–94 have been published in Section A of Part Two of the Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Private Sector Contracts
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the names of those companies who have won contracts to run court or prison escort services; and what was the cost of those contracts in each case.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison 2
  Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. George Howarth, dated 20 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about companies who have won contracts to run court or prison escort services and the cost of the contracts.
  Four contracts have been awarded for prisoner escort and custody services. The names of the contractors and the estimated cost of the contracts over five years at time of award, are as follows:

  Area 3—Securicor Custodial Services Ltd:

  £96 million

  Area 4—Group 4 Court Services Ltd:

  £47 million

  Area 6—Group 4 Court Services Ltd:

  £69 million

  Area 7—Group 4 Court Services Ltd:

  £41 million

  The cost of the contracts for Areas 3 and 7, which are already in operation is 25 per cent below the cost of previous arrangements. This represents a saving of £10 million a year. The cost of the contracts for Areas 4 and 6 is estimated to be 15 per cent below the cost of previous arrangements. This represents a saving of £13 million a year.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the companies which have won contracts to run contracted-out prison establishments; and what was the cost of those contracts in each case.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. George Howarth, dated 20 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the companies who have won contracts to run contracted out prisons and the cost of the contracts.
  Four contracts have been awarded for contracted out prisons. The names of the contractors and the estimated cost of the contracts over five years at time of award, are as follows:

  Wolds Prison—Group 4 Remand Services Ltd:

  £21.5 million

  Blakenhurst Prison—UK Detention Services Ltd:

  £57 million

  Doncaster Prison—Premier Prison Services Ltd:

  £66 million

  Buckley Hall Prison—Group 4 Prison Services Ltd:

  £33 million

  The cost of these prisons is 15–25 per cent below the cost of comparable public sector establishments. This represents a saving of £5 million a year from the four prisons already under private management.

  Key Performance Indicators
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest figures for the key performance indicators for each prison from 1 April 1994 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  3
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle dated 20 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the latest figures for performance against the Prison Service's key performance indicators from 1 April 1994 to the latest available date.
  The available information is set out in the enclosed tables. I should explain the following points:

  KPI 1 escapes:

  the attached figures show the number of escapes from each prison, including escapes from escort outside the prison (but excluding prisoners who were immediately recaptured) from 1 April to 31 December 1994 inclusive.

  KPI 2 assaults:

  the attached figures show the number of offences of assault by prisoners on staff, prisoners and others which are proved in disciplinary proceedings and which result in a punishment being awarded, and the rate of assaults as a proportion of the average population (expressed at an annual rate), from 1 April to 31 December 1994 inclusive.

  KPI 3 overcrowding:

  no prisoners have been held three to a cell in units of accommodation certified for one person during the current financial year.

  Young offender institutions

  KPI 2: Assaults

  Closed

  KPI 1: Escapes

  Number

  Percentage of average population

  KPI 5: Regime Hours

  KPI 6: Time Unlocked (Weekdays)

  Aylesbury

  0

  71

  43.5

  26.5

  9.3

  Castington

  0

  51

  24.6

  24.3

  9.3

  Deerbolt

  4

  57

  19.8

  25.1

  10.8

  Dover

  0

  29

  14.5

  23.4

  9.2

  Glen Parva

  2

  127

  22.2

  22.5

  9.0

  Guy's Marsh

  0

  14

  10.2

  42.0

  13.3

  Hollesley Bay1 (Warren Hill)

  0

  29

  11.6

  27.4

  8.0

  Huntercombe

  0

  29

  17.4

  26.4

  10.4

  Onley

  2

  126

  35.8

  24.0

  12.0

  Portland

  0

  28

  10.1

  29.6

  10.7

  Stoke Heath

  1

  44

  22.2

  28.9

  12.5

  Swinfen Hall

  0

  13

  9.6

  30.8

  10.1

  Werrington

  9

  62

  77.3

  42.3

  13.5

  Wetherby

  7

  26

  24.4

  37.8

  12.0

  1 Includes Hollesley (open prision) for assaults.

  KPI 2 Assaults

  KPI 1: Escapes

  Number

  Percentage of average population

  KPI 5: Regime hours

  KPI 6: Time unlocked (weekdays)

  Open YOIs

  Hatfield

  —

  12

  9.9

  38.4

  13.3

  Prescoed1

  —

  —

  —

  43.2

  —

  Thorn Cross

  —

  20

  15.9

  46.4

  12.5

  Remand Centres

  Brinsford

  3

  94

  27.5

  23.7

  9.9

  Feltham

  0

  172

  28.8

  32.3

  8.0

  Hindley

  1

  59

  27.9

  22.6

  8.5

  4

  KPI 4 sanitation:

  96 per cent. of prisoners had access to sanitation 24 hours a day at the end of January 1995. We are on course to provide all prisoners with access to sanitation at all times by the end of February 1996.

  KPI 5 purposeful activity:

  the attached figures show the average number of hours a week which prisoners spent in regime activities in the period 1 April to 31 December inclusive.

  KPI 6 time unlocked:

  the attached figures show the average number of hours which prisoners were unlocked on weekdays at the end of January 1995.

  KPI 7 visits:

  all establishments have provided prisoners with the opportunity to exceed minimum visiting entitlements throughout 1994–95.

  KPI 8 cost per place:

  information about the average cost per prisoner place for individual establishments is not available in a meaningful form until after the end of the financial year, because of variations in the phasing of expenditure in-year. Figures for 1993–94 are published in the Prison Service's Annual Report for that year, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  5

  KPI 2: Assaults

  KPI 1: Escapes

  Number

  Percentage of average population

  KPI 5: Regime hours

  KPI 6: Time unlocked (weekdays)

  Lancaster Farms

  0

  63

  24.3

  23.6

  12.0

  Low Newton

  0

  38

  20.8

  23.0

  8.5

  Moorland

  0

  114

  33.0

  25.2

  10.5

  Northallerton

  0

  31

  25.4

  23.8

  10.3

  Reading

  0

  36

  27.3

  27.0

  10.5

  Rochester

  2

  53

  29.3

  30.6

  11.5

  1Precoed appears under Usk for assaults and time unlocked.

  Female establishments

  KPI 2: Assaults

  KPI 1: Escapes

  Number

  Percentage of average population

  KPI 5: Regime hours

  KPI 6: Time unlocked (weekdays)

  Local

  Holloway

  5

  127

  34.3

  20.2

  9.5

  Pucklechurch

  0

  32

  67.7

  17.8

  12.0

  Closed

  Bullwood Hall

  1

  16

  17.6

  31.1

  12.5

  Cookham Wood

  0

  20

  18.0

  30.0

  10.5

  New Hall

  3

  41

  31.6

  28.3

  12.0

  Styal

  1

  28

  16.2

  35.1

  13.3

  Open

  Askham Grange

  —

  1

  1.3

  48.9

  24.0

  Drake Hall

  —

  3

  1.8

  37.1

  24.0

  East Sutton Park

  —

  0

  0

  37.1

  24.0

  Local Prisons/Adult Remands

  KPI 2: Assaults

  KPI 1: Escapes

  Number

  Percentage of average population

  KPI 5: Regime hours

  KPI 6: Time unlocked (weekdays)

  Bedford

  1

  24

  10.5

  22.9

  10.0

  Belmarsh

  0

  75

  13.5

  15.9

  11.2

  Birmingham

  1

  73

  12.7

  20.9

  7.2

  Blakenhurst

  0

  77

  16.4

  26.2

  14.0

  Bristol

  0

  21

  6.3

  23.3

  11.8

  Brixton

  1

  68

  15.1

  19.4

  8.8

  Bullingdon

  0

  77

  16.6

  24.1

  10.5

  Canterbury

  0

  8

  4.2

  24.9

  12.0

  Cardiff

  0

  46

  14.9

  24.5

  11.9

  Chelmsford

  1

  25

  9.2

  16.1

  7.5

  Doncaster1

  1

  132

  36.2

  —

  12.0

  Dorchester

  0

  4

  2.7

  21.4

  10.3

  Durham

  2

  31

  6.8

  19.3

  10.5

  Elmley

  1

  47

  10.3

  23.0

  10.5

  Exeter

  1

  31

  10.5

  22.4

  9.0

  Gloucester

  0

  30

  16.1

  22.0

  9.5

  Highdown

  0

  60

  14.0

  21.3

  11.0

  Holme House

  2

  31

  6.8

  16.3

  9.0

  Hull

  1

  68

  23.1

  21.0

  12.0

  Leeds

  0

  118

  15.2

  15.8

  7.0

  Leicester

  1

  36

  14.3

  23.0

  10.0

  Lewes

  1

  25

  10.0

  18.2

  8.2

  Lincoln

  2

  35

  7.7

  20.3

  11.2

  Liverpool

  2

  55

  6.1

  17.7

  7.2

  Manchester

  1

  56

  9.0

  19.9

  13.1

  Norwich

  1

  41

  14.7

  22.4

  9.0

  Pentonville

  2

  68

  12.6

  28.0

  10.5

  Preston

  1

  48

  13.0

  19.1

  6.5

  67

  Local Prisons/Adult Remands

  KPI 2: Assaults

  KPI 1: Escapes

  Number

  Percentage of average population

  KPI 5: Regime hours

  KPI 6: Time unlocked (weekdays)

  Shrewsbury

  1

  26

  12.7

  21.9

  10.0

  Swansea

  4

  27

  17.2

  22.1

  12.0

  Wandsworth

  0

  112

  16.8

  24.2

  10.0

  Winchester

  0

  29

  9.9

  22.1

  7.5

  Wolds

  0

  39

  16.4

  22.5

  13.8

  Woodhill

  0

  81

  20.8

  24.8

  12.0

  Wormwood Scrubs

  0

  38

  6.3

  22.9

  11.2

  1Doncaster opened June 1994. A comparable figure is not available for regime hours. Figure for time unlocked is agreed performance as specified in the establishment contract.

  Performance against key targets

  Dispersals

  KPI 2: Assaults

  KPI 1: escapes

  Number

  Percentage of average population

  KPI 5: Regime hours

  KPI 6 Time unlocked (weekdays)

  Frankland

  0

  40

  12.7

  20.3

  10

  Full Sutton

  0

  53

  13.1

  25.1

  10.5

  Long Lartin

  0

  29

  10.9

  22.4

  11

  Parkhurst

  0

  30

  17.5

  19.1

  10.3

  Wakefield

  0

  24

  4.6

  21.0

  11.4

  Whitemoor

  6

  90

  25.5

  21.3

  10.3

  Category B

  KPI 2: Assaults

  KPI 1: Escapes

  Number

  Percentage of average population

  KPI 5: Regime hours

  KPI 6: Time unlocked (weekdays)

  Albany

  0

  15

  4.8

  26.0

  11.3

  Blundeston

  0

  25

  8.7

  23.6

  12.0

  Dartmoor

  3

  29

  7.4

  24.4

  10.0

  Garth

  0

  19

  5.0

  20.2

  9.1

  Gartree

  0

  8

  3.9

  28.9

  12.3

  Grendon

  0

  4

  5.3

  28.8

  13.0

  Kingston

  0

  2

  1.9

  26.5

  12.5

  Maidstone

  0

  23

  6.7

  22.0

  11.4

  Nottingham

  1

  8

  5.2

  26.0

  12.0

  Swaleside

  1

  41

  10.9

  23.4

  10.0

  Open Prisons (male)

  KPI 2: Assaults

  KPI 1: Escapes

  Number

  Percentage of average population

  KPI 5: Regime hours

  KPI 6: Time unlocked (weekdays)

  Ford

  —

  5

  1.5

  37.5

  13.3

  Hewell Grange

  —

  1

  0.8

  42.6

  24.0

  Hollesley Bay1

  —

  —

  —

  39.0

  24.0

  Kirkham

  —

  1

  0.3

  49.0

  13.5

  Leyhill

  —

  0

  0

  40.7

  24.0

  Morton Hall

  —

  2

  1.7

  47.3

  24.0

  North Sea Camp

  —

  0

  0

  62.8

  16.5

  Rudgate

  —

  1

  0.5

  47.7

  14.0

  Spring Hill

  —

  1

  0.7

  39.8

  16.0

  Standford Hill

  —

  2

  0.7

  42.3

  14.5

  Sudbury/Foston

  —

  1

  0.3

  45.7

  14.5

  1Hollesley Bay: assault figures appears under Warren Hill.

  8

  Prisoners
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average number of hours prisoners spent out of cell for each of the last 20 years.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 20 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average number of hours prisoners spend out of cell for each of the last 20 years.
  At the end of March 1994, prisoners were spending an average of 10.6 hours out of cell on weekdays. In January 1995 (the latest available information), this figure had increased to 11.2 hours.
  It is not possible to provide figures for each of the last 20 years, as information on the average number of hours prisoners spend out of cell was not collected before April 1993, when the Prison Service became an executive agency. Nor is it possible to provide average figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95. The information which is routinely collected and monitored relates to the number of prisoners unlocked for at least 12 hours on weekdays, which is one of the Service's key performance indicators, not the average time prisoners are unlocked.

  Young Prisoners
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of recorded incidents of self-harm among 15-year-old boys and girls by individual penal institution in each of the last 10 years.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. George Howarth, dated 20 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of recorded incidents of self harm among 15 year old boys and girls in each penal institution in each of the last 10 years.
  I regret that the information you have requested is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Illegal Immigration
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what measures he proposes to take to control, at the channel ports of entry, illegal immigration from the rest of the European Union into the United Kingdom;

  (2) what measures he proposes to take to control further illegal immigration.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Immigration officers apply a document check to all passengers arriving at Dover, and examine non-EEA nationals to assess their admissibility under the immigration rules. In addition, immigration officers conduct surveillance on car and freight traffic to combat clandestine immigration by concealment in vehicles and containers. The number of clandestine entrants detected in the Dover area increased from 256 in 1993 to 379 in 1994.

  My right hon. and learned Friend recently announced measures, including additional resources for the
  10
  immigration and nationality department and the immigration appellate authorities, aimed at speeding up the processing of asylum applications.

  We have been examining further ways in which the system of immigration control can be made more effective and hope to bring forward new measures shortly.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to instigate within the Council of Ministers further to control illegal immigration into the European Union through all European Union ports of entry.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Government strongly support measures to combat illegal immigration into the European Union and are participating actively in a number of measures currently under consideration in the third pillar. They do not at present have any separate initiatives of their own to propose.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received from the governor of Wandsworth prison in respect of the background details of the suicides that have taken place in Wandsworth prison in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 20 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what reports he has received from the governor of Wandsworth prison in respect of the background details of the suicides that have taken place in Wandsworth prison in each of the last three years.
  Each death in custody is always the subject of an internal Prison Service investigation, the results of which are then reported to Prison Service headquarters. Each of the six suicides which have occurred at Wandsworth prison in the past three years was reported in this way. Ministers are not routinely briefed on the content of these investigation reports.

  Mr. Abeey Dykes
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to deport Mr. Abeey Dykes following his conviction. [14430]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The question of deportation will be considered in the light of whatever sentence is imposed by the court.

  Street Watch Schemes
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a list of all the street watch schemes, by police force area, which have been registered with his Department. [14368]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  It is not a requirement to register street watch schemes with the Home Office.

  I have today placed in the Library a list of all the street watch schemes, by police force area, which are known to us.

  We are working closely with forces in England and Wales, and Crime Concern, for the development of street

  11
  watch. Where they are established, street watch schemes have been very successful in reducing crime.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of civil servants employed by(a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his Department's responsibility, and (c) public and other bodies under his Department's responsibility for each year since 1979, divided into (i) full-time equivalents, (ii) overtime, (iii) casuals and (iv) other; and whether he will also provide for each year his estimates of (A) civil service job reductions due to privatisations, (B) civil service job reductions due to contracting out, (C) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for his Department or its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditures, in 1994 prices. [14765]

  Mr. Howard
  The civil service covers the permanent staff of central Government Departments and next steps agencies. The staff of other bodies are outside the civil service.

  The annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" gives details of the number of civil servants employed by my Department and its agencies, including full-time equivalent staff and casuals, from 1993 onwards, and of staff leaving the civil service.

  "Public Bodies", published annually since 1982, contains staffing information for those bodies not covered by "Civil Service Statistics".

  Details of running costs and civil service pay bill for my Department can be found in annexe 3 of my Department's annual report (CM 2508). Annexe 4 gives details of overtime from 1989–90 onwards.

  Copies of all of these publications are available in the Library.

  The remaining information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Polling and Public Survey Organisations
  Mr. Donohue
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the employment of polling or public survey organisations by his Department during the current and previous financial years, on the organisations employed by his Department, on the values of individual contracts for these services, on the total amounts of money spent and on the purposes of the research undertaken by these organisations. [14514]

  Mr. Howard
  The polling and public survey organisations employed by the Home Department since 1 April 1993 are in the following list, together with the purpose of research undertaken by those organisations. The fee paid to successful contractors is not shown as this is regarded by the Central Statistical Office as a matter of commercial confidentiality. The total amount of money spent was £661,000.
  12

  Organisation

  Purpose of Research

  1.

  Carrick James

  Cycle helmets

  Fieldwork:

  April 1993

  Purpose:

  Survey of young people between the ages of 10–16 years in Great Britain regarding cycle riding, cycle helmet wearing and advertising recall.

  2.

  Cragg Ross Dawson

  Specials Creative and Development Research

  Fieldwork:

  April 1993

  Purpose:

  Reactions for new advertising campaign on the views of Specials.

  3.

  Harris Research Centre

  Eleven discussion groups plus an interview survey of 1,200 women and ethnic minorities in England, Scotland and Wales.

  Fieldwork:

  June—July 1993

  Purpose:

  To explore reasons why potentially eligible women and members of ethnic minority groups might wish or not wish to apply for work as firefighters.

  4.

  Sample Surveys

  Car Crime Advertising

  Fieldwork:

  September 1993

  Purpose:

  To examine recall of car crime campaign and changing attitudes to car crime.

  5.

  GFK Marketing

  Smoke Alarms Home Audit

  Services

  September 1993

  Fieldwork:

  Purpose:

  To measure smoke alarm ownership and maintenance procedures.

  6.

  OPCS

  Omnibus Survey questions on public experiences of and attitudes towards the police. 2,000 adults in England and Wales.

  Fieldwork:

  October 1993

  Purpose:

  To assess public response to the police service Quality of Service Programme.

  7.

  BMBR

  Special Constables Recruitment advertising research

  Fieldwork:

  November 1993

  Purpose:

  To examine awareness of the attitudes towards Special Constabulary, including recent recruitment advertising.

  8.

  Research Surveys of Great Britain

  Witness intimidation: Strategies for prevention

  Fieldwork:

  November—December

  Purpose:

  1993

  One public survey was carried out by Research Surveys of Great Britain to obtain information on people's experience of intimidation. (Another survey was done by Home Office Staff).

  13

  Organisation

  Purpose of Research

  9.

  BMRB

  Smoke Alarms Post Advertising Research

  Fieldwork:

  January 1994

  Purpose:

  Survey of adults in England and Wales regarding smoke alarm ownership and maintenance carried out on them.

  10.

  Reflexions Market

  Special Creative

  Research Ltd.

  Development

  Fieldwork:

  February 1994

  Purpose:

  A survey of a number of adults in England asking the opinions of new advertising executions for the specials; including perceived target audience, communication, motivation potential (to joining the specials), style and tone of voice of advertising.

  11.

  BMBR

  Smoke Alarms

  Fieldwork:

  February 1994

  Purpose:

  Post advertising campaign survey to measure fire precautions in general.

  12.

  BMRB

  Specials Advertising

  Fieldwork:

  Evaluation

  Purpose:

  March 1994

  Awareness of advertising, knowledge, awareness of specials.

  13.

  BMRB

  International Commercial

  Fieldwork:

  Crime Survey

  Purpose:

  March—April 1994

  Information gathered will help development of national and local government strategies for crime prevention. All Businesses could benefit; reduction in crime should also benefit customers.

  14.

  SCPR

  Survey of offenders on probation.

  Fieldwork:

  Purpose:

  April 1994

  The survey aimed to give a picture of the types of offender on probation and to provide quantitative information on the workings of the probation service.

  15.

  NOP

  Assessing the expandable side-handled baton

  Fieldwork:

  May 1994

  Cost:

  £3,888

  Purpose:

  Part of a project to assess the merits of expandable side handled batons involved a face-to-face survey to assess the attitudes of the public towards the acceptability of the new baton.

  14

  Organisation

  Purpose of Research

  16.

  Tim Grosvenor Associates

  Fifteen discussion groups amongst residents of five areas currently served by 'Parish Special Constables.'

  Fieldwork:

  May—June 1994

  Purpose:

  To assess public reactions to the Parish Special Constables initiative.

  17.

  NOP

  Partners against Crime Campaign

  Fieldwork:

  September—October 1994

  Purpose:

  To assess level of support for local community crime prevention and Neighbourhood Watch

  18.

  Public Attitude Surveys Ltd.

  Immigration and Nationality User Survey

  Fieldwork:

  October 1994

  Purpose:

  People in the Granada TV region were surveyed on the qualitative survey of applicants and representatives to establish the most important quality of service aspects from a users prospective.

  Concentrates on issues such as provision of information, speed of response, clarity of correspondence, etc. if not concerned with users' perception of the decision.

  19.

  OPCS

  Census of mothers in prison

  Fieldwork:

  November—December 1994

  Purpose:

  A survey of imprisoned mothers to determine their numbers, and arrangements for the care of their children.

  20.

  SCPR

  Survey of 500 persons living in the London area and currently eligible to apply for United Kingdom citizenship. Applicants and non-applicants questioned about their reasons for applying/not applying.

  Fieldwork:

  February—April 1995

  Purpose:

  To assist workload planning by B4 Division of Immigration and Nationality Department.

  21.

  RSGB

  Omnibus Survey questions on attitudes to gambling and casinos.

  Fieldwork:

  February 1995

  Cost:

  £3,000

  Purpose:

  To provide background information for a review of current policy on gambling.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the next quinquennial review of the Commission for Racial Equality is due to take place. [15446]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The quinquennial review of the Commission for Racial Equality is now beginning and it will continue into the summer.

  Publicity and Publications
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure of(a) all forms of publicity and (b) all publications and pamphlets produced for his Department and for all the agencies and public bodies for which his Department is responsible for each year since 1979, including the budgeted figure for 1995–96, (i) including and (ii) excluding privatisation-related expenditures and expressed in 1994 prices; and if he will supply information for the period from 1 April 1993 to 1 March 1995 showing (1) the nature and (2) the purpose of each publicity campaign and of each publication involving the expenditure of more than £50,000. [14630]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: Publicity campaigns and publications involving expenditure of more than £50.000 between 1 April 1993 and 1 March 1995 were as follows:

  a) television advertising to encourage home owners to purchase, install and maintain smoke alarms;

  b) press advertising to encourage applications to the accelerated promotion scheme for graduates in the police;

  c) television and press advertising and the publication of brochures to recruit more special constables;

  d) television advertising to encourage people to register to vote;

  e) press advertising to encourage the public to renew passports in good time;

  f) press advertising to encourage people to become members of boards of visitors;

  g) press advertising to encourage applications to the Prison Service accelerated promotion scheme;

  h) the production of leaflets to support the "Make a Difference" initiative to encourage more people to undertake voluntary work;

  i) the production of a booklet advising on protecting people and property against bombs;

  j) television, radio and press advertising and publications about car crime prevention;

  k) publication of the Citizenship Foundation pack "You, Me, Us" designed to help primary school children develop their moral and social responsibility reasoning;

  l) publication of the home security leaflet and poster "Beat the Burglar";

  m) publication of the truck theft leaflet, poster and sticker "A load on Your Mind";

  n) publication of "Your Practical Guide to Crime Prevention" advising on security on a wide range of subjects;

  o) television, radio and press advertising to encourage the general public to get involved in preventing crime in their community and publication of the booklet "Partners Against Crime"; and

  p) publication of the leaflet "Domestic Violence—Don't Stand For It" directed at victims of domestic violence.

  The other information requested could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Transport Accidents (Legal Process)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he or his Ministers have had with the Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor and the Transport Secretary on reforms to the legal process of inquiry and potential prosecution following transport accidents leading to injury or death.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]: Discussions between Ministers are confidential. However, a Home Office-led interdepartmental group of officials was established in November 1990 to consider the relationship between coroners' inquests and public inquiries into disasters. Its membership included officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of Transport.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total number of civil servants employed by(a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his Department's responsibility and (c) public and other bodies under his Department's responsibility, for each year since 1979, divided into (i) full-time equivalents, (ii) overtime, (iii) casuals and (iv) other; and whether he will also provide for each year his estimates of (A) civil service jop reductions due to privatisations, (B) civil service job reductions due to contracting out, (C) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for his Department or its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditures, in 1994 prices. [14764]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The civil service covers the permanent staff of central Government Departments and next steps agencies. The staff of other bodies are outside the civil service.

  The annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" gives details of the number of civil servants employed by my Department and its agencies, including full-time equivalent staff and casuals—from 1993 onwards—and of staff leaving the civil service.

  "Public Bodies", published annually since 1982, contains staffing information for those bodies not covered by "Civil Services Statistics".

  Details of running costs and the civil service paybill for my Department can be found in the tables on pages 97 and 98 of my Department's annual report (CM 2804). The table on page 99 gives details of overtime from 1989–90 onwards.

  Copies of all of these publications are available in the Library of the House.

  The remaining information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Konver II Programme
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those projects that have been submitted to the European Union for inclusion in the Konver II programme. [14332]
  17
  Mr. Eggar
  I have not sent any projects to the European Commission. The hon. Member has misunderstood the procedure.

  On 1 July 1994, the Commission published a notice outlining the purposes of Konver grants, setting out criteria for geographical eligibility, and inviting national programmes, not projects, to be sent to it by 1 October. After revising its views on the determination of the eligible geographical areas, it subsequently amended the date for programmes to 1 March 1995, when the British programme was duly sent. On 21 December 1994, the Commission determined the financial allocation available to each member state and drew up a "provisional" list of eligible geographical areas.

  The national programmes set out the purposes for which member states propose to use Konver grants in more detail, but consistently with the terms of the notice. They do not describe individual projects. They also include member states' final proposed lists of eligible areas.

  When, later this year, the British programme has been agreed with the Commission, applications for grants to individual projects will be considered by the Government in accordance with the terms of the programme. Allocations and payments of grant will proceed thereafter.

  I am aware that many prospective applicants have, on their own initiative, been preparing applications for some time. The Government offices in the English regions, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and Northern Ireland Departments will be glad to advise them, so far as is possible while the final terms of the British programme—like those for other member states—are not yet agreed with the Commission.

  Deregulation Advisory Committee
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what results have been achieved following the establishment of the deregulation advisory committee; how many members it comprises; how many sub-committees it contains; how many members comprise those sub-committees; what is the total cost of public funds of the initiative in terms of(a) staff salaries, (b) office costs and (c) incidentals and if he will make a statement on the progress he hopes to make in the next three months. [14812]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The deregulation task force has 16 members, including the chairman, the right hon. Francis Maude. It has a flexible working structure. At present, it is focusing on 10 broad areas of work: small business/licensing, enforcement, tax, health and safety, food and drink, environment, financial services, employment, transport and longer-term issues. Fourteen additional business representatives currently assist the task force on particular issues.

  Task force members are not paid for their work, but they receive travel and subsistence expenses. Administrative support for the task force is provided by the deregulation unit in my Department, which also has the overall task of stimulating and monitoring progress to minimise regulatory burdens. Details of the total running costs of the deregulation unit are available in the DTI annual report which was published on 2 March and is available for inspection in the Library of the House.

  The deregulation task force will issue its first annual report soon.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when he expects to present to Parliament the official text of part II of the European Green Paper on telecommunications liberalisation;

  (2) when he expects to produce the explanatory memorandum from the Government on the implications of the European Commission Green Paper, part II, on telecommunications liberalisation.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I expect to submit to Parliament shortly the official text of part II of the European Commission's Green Paper on the liberalisation of telecommunications infrastructure and an explanatory memorandum on it.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Tam Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Sir Charles Powell about the western response to the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [15102]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Terrorist Organisations (Disarming)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Prime Minister when a Minister first intimated publicly that the Government's position on disarming terrorist organisations had changed to allow Ministers to discuss the possibility and modality of disarming. [14854]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's line regarding dialogue with Sinn Fein and the decommissioning issue has been consistent throughout. It is important not to confuse the issues of ministerial participation in exploratory dialogue and Sinn Fein participation in inclusive talks.

  We have always made it clear that, in judging the right time for ministerial involvement, we have to be clear that Sinn Fein is willing to address all necessary issues and that progress has been made in having serious and substantive exploration of them. Ministers need to be clear that, if and when they take part, constructive discussion, particularly in achieving substantial progress on the decommissioning of arms, would be facilitated and accelerated by their joining the dialogue.

  But, as a matter of principle and political reality, Sinn Fein cannot be admitted into an inclusive political talks process until substantial progress has been made on the decommissioning of weapons. This is exactly the point my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made in Belfast on 14 December last year.

  Public Holidays
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy in respect of the entitlement of employees of the NHS to time off on the national holiday planned for 8 May; and if he will make it his policy that the status of the employers within the health service will have no bearing upon employee entitlement to public holidays. [14694]
  19
  The Prime Minister
  It is the Government's policy that the national holiday on 8 May will be observed by all national health service employers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, instead of the customary bank holiday on May 1. In recognition of the different traditions regarding bank holidays in Scotland, it will be for NHS employers in Scotland to decide whether or not to give staff a holiday on 8 May.

  Entitlement to bank and public holidays for NHS staff employed on national terms and conditions is governed by an agreement of the General Whitley Council.

  Royal Family (Publicity Services)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the expenditure for each year since 1984 in support of the royal family in respect of publicity services; and if he will provide a breakdown between different members of the royal family. [14611]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 March 1995]: Expenditure by COI on publicity services for the royal household for each year since 1984–85 is as follows:

  1984–85 £182,000

  1985–86 £172,000

  1986–87 £181,000

  1987–88 £205,000

  1988–89 £183,000

  1989–90 £375,000

  1990–91 £292,000

  1991–92 £318,000

  1992–93 £237,000

  1993–94 £290,000

  Further information is not available in the form requested.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1994,Official Report, column 267, if he is now able to publish research carried out by his Department on the lengths of periods of disqualification from unemployment benefit following a finding of voluntary unemployment. [14369]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 20 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked to reply to your question about research we commissioned into periods of disqualification from unemployment benefit.
  When I wrote to you on 24 November, I undertook to forward the results of this research, which were expected by the end of 1994. May I reiterate my letter to you of 18 January which contained details of the findings.
  Information about periods of disqualification from unemployment benefit, including those imposed following a finding voluntary unemployment, was gathered as part of research we commissioned into wider adjudication issues. I am enclosing an extract from the research data which provides a snap shot picture of average periods of disqualification imposed during October 1994. The results show
  20
  that 29% of disqualifications overall are for the full six months and that the average period for the remainder is 89 days. For leaving voluntary cases the proportion of disqualifications for the full six months is 25%.
  I hope this is helpful.
  NB: I have arranged for a copy of the annexes to be placed in the Library.

  Polling and Public Survey Organisations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the employment of polling or public survey organisations by his Department during the current and previous financial years, on the organisations employed by his Department, on the values of individual contracts for these services, on the total amounts of money spent and on the purposes of the research undertaken by these organisations. [14511]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department funds a comprehensive range of research and evaluation work to assist in achieving the aim of promoting a competitive, efficient and flexible labour market. The forward programme is advertised in the Employment Gazette and potential contractors, some of whom may conduct polling and public survey work, are invited to register an interest in projects within the programme. Contracts are awarded following competitive tendering in line with Government purchasing procedures. Details of all research and evaluation work commissioned within the Employment Department group are published in our annual reports on research and in regular research updates in the Employment Gazette.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of civil servants employed by(a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his Department's responsibility and (c) public and other bodies under his Department's responsibility, for each year since 1979, divided into (1) full-time equivalents, (2) overtime, (3) casuals and (4) other; and whether he will also provide for each year his estimates of (A) civil service job reductions due to privatisations, (B) civil service job reductions due to contracting out, (C) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for the Department or its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditures, in 1994 prices. [15096]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The civil service covers the permanent staff of central Government Departments and next steps agencies. The staff of other bodies are outside the civil service.

  The annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" gives details of the number of civil servants employed by the Department and the Employment Service agency, including full-time equivalent staff and casuals, from 1993 onwards, and of staff leaving the civil service.

  "Public Bodies", published annually since 1982, contains staffing information for those bodies not covered by civil service statistics.

  Details of running costs and the civil service pay bill for the Department can be found in annexe A, table (iv)

  21
  of the Department's annual report, Cm 2805. Table (iii) gives details of overtime from 1989–90 onwards.

  Copies of all of these publications are available in the Library.

  The remaining information sought can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Burns International
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what contact his officials have had with Burns International to discuss a variation to the tender to provide his Department with office services; and if he will make a statement; [14874]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that a full cost assessment is made of any changes proposed by Burns International in its tender for office services and that they are compared against the cost of the in-house bid. [14876]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 20 March 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions relating to various aspects of the recent successful tender by Burns International (Burns) for Regional Office Support Services within the Employment Service (ES).
  22
  My decision to award contracts to Burns in ES Northern Region, Office for Scotland and Office for Wales was reached following a market test carried out in accordance with Efficiency Unit guidance. It represents best value for money for the ES and therefore better value for money to the taxpayer. Since that decision in January, discussions have taken place between Burns and my people focusing on aspects of service delivery and final contract price. Such post tender negotiations, with our preferred tenderer, are part of our standard procurement process and are undertaken in order to finalise contractual detail prior to contract signature. I can assure you that any changes proposed by Burns in order to meet the requirements set out in the competition for this work will not involve amending the price that they will charge the ES.
  Within ES market testing, it is our policy to ensure that any variations to the tender price which result from post tender negotiations are fully assessed in line with Efficiency Unit guidance. This assessment involves full financial comparisons with the tender proposals of other bidders, including the in house bid team, to ensure that the preferred tenderer continues to offer the ES best value for money.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Stockport and High Peak Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress Stockport and High Peak training and enterprise council is making in meeting the criteria for the award of a three-year licence. [15442]

  Mr. Paice
  I am pleased to announce that Stockport and High Peak training and enterprise council has now completed the process of meeting the rigorous standard we set for the award of the new three year licences. Its licence will be effective from April 1995.

TREASURY

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of civil servants employed by(a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his Department's responsibility and (c) public and other bodies under his Department's responsibility, for each year since 1979, divided into (i) full-time equivalents, (ii) overtime, (iii) casuals, and (iv) other; and whether he will also provide for each year his estimates of (A) civil service job reductions due to privatisations, (B) civil service job reductions due to contracting out, (C) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for his Department or its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditures, in 1994 prices. [15091]

  Mr. Nelson
  The civil service covers the permanent staff of central government departments and next steps agencies. The staff of other bodies are outside the civil service.

  The annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" gives details of the number of civil servants employed by my Department and its agencies, including full-time equivalent staff and casuals, from 1993 onwards, and of staff leaving the civil service.

  "Public Bodies", published annually since 1982, contains staffing information for those bodies not covered by "Civil Service Statistics".

  Details of the running costs and civil service pay bill for my Department can be found in table 12.2 of my Department's annual report, Cm 2817. Table 12.3 gives details of overtime from 1989–90 onwards.

  Copies of all these publications are available in the Members' Library.

  The remaining information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Barings Bank
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date requests to close the New York office of Barings by the Securities and Exchange Commission were first communicated(a) to the Bank of England or (b) departmental officials.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: On (a) as my right hon. and learned Friend told the House on 27 February, Official Report, columns 693–704, he has asked the Board of Banking Supervision to investigate fully and urgently all aspects of the Barings episode and to report back to him. He expects to publish the full report subject only to the need to protect the legitimate confidentiality of innocent third parties and any other legal constraints. On (b) Treasury officials were not approached.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date concerns expressed by Mr. James Bax as to Barings operations in Singapore in a memo of 1992 were first drawn to the attention of representatives of the Bank of England or departmental officials.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: There was no requirement to bring this to the attention of the
  24
  Treasury, and no one did so. As for the Bank, my right hon. and learned Friend told the House on 27 February, columns 693–704, that he has asked the Board of Banking Supervision to investigate fully and urgently all aspects of the Barings episode and to report back to him. He expects to publish the full report subject only to the need to protect the legitimate confidentiality of innocent third parties and any other legal constraints.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what communications were received by Treasury officials as to developing problems at either Barings in the United Kingdom or in Singapore from overseas financial authorities in each of the last 24 months separately.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: None.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Barings ever discussed with the Bank of England or Treasury officials a dispensation enabling Barings to breach rules in respect of cap on investments rules in the period between 1 December 1994 and 26 February 1995.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: Such dispensations are not matters for the Treasury and officials were not approached. As for the Bank, my right hon. and learned Friend told the House on 27 February that he has asked the Board of Banking Supervision to investigate fully and urgently all aspects of this episode and to report back to him. He expects to publish the full report subject only to the need to protect the legitimate confidentiality of innocent third parties and any other legal constraints.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the Bank of Japan was approached by Barings in January 1995 on matters relating to exposure in the Market first made known to Bank of England and or departmental officials.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: There would have been no need for any such information to be made known to Treasury officials and, as far as I can ascertain, it was not. As for the Bank, as my right hon. and learned Friend told the House on 27 February he has asked the Board of Banking Supervision to investigate fully and urgently all aspects of the Barings episode and to report back to him. He expects to publish the full report subject only to the need to protect the legitimate confidentiality of innocent third parties and any other legal constraints.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date warnings by SIMEX in January and February as to Baring's exposure in the market were first communicated to the Bank of England and or departmental officials.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: Treasury officials received no such information. As my right hon. and learned Friend told the House on 27 February columns 693–704, he has asked the Board of Banking Supervision to investigate fully and urgently all aspects of the Barings episode and to report back to him. He expects to publish the full report subject only to the need to protect the legitimate confidentiality of innocent third parties and any other legal constraints.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the number of banks which have closed in the last 30 years; on what dates they closed; and what was the value of their assets.
  25
  Mr. Nelson
  Full information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The following table lists United Kingdom authorised banks which have entered into administration, liquidation or provisional liquidation since 1980. It does not include banks which have ceased to be authorised by the Bank of England but which remained solvent. In most cases the value of assets has been taken either from statements of affairs or press releases and will be best estimates made at the time.

  United Kingdom authorized banks which have closed since 1979

  Closure date

  Value of assets £

  Merbro Finance

  1982

  4 million

  First Guarantee Trust

  1982

  3 million

  Chancellor Finance

  1983

  1 million

  Goodwin Squires Securities

  1983

  negligible

  Trinity Trust and Savings

  1983

  4 million

  Bremar Holdings

  1984

  22 million

  Castle Court Trust

  1984

  7 million

  Cross and Bevingtons Finance

  1984

  negligible

  St. Martin le Grand Securities

  1984

  negligible

  Eastcheap Investments

  1984

  1 million

  Spring Gardens Securities

  1986

  1 million

  Oriental Credit

  1986

  10 million

  PL Investments

  1987

  1 million

  Consumer Credit Investments

  1987

  1 million

  British and Commonwealth Merchant Bank

  1990

  410 million

  Authority Bank

  1991

  49 million

  Chancery1

  1991

  164 million

  Edington

  1991

  33 million

  Wallace Smith Trust

  1991

  215 million

  Bradford Investments

  1991

  1 million

  BCCI (United Kingdom branches)

  1991

  $3.2 billion

  Rafidain Bank (United Kingdom branch)2 3

  1991

  201 million

  National Guardian Mortgage Corporation

  1992

  12 million

  Mount Banking Corporation

  1992

  188 million

  Deacon Hoare

  1992

  1 million

  Equatorial Bank

  1993

  83 million

  Roxburghe Bank

  1993

  34 million

  Wimbledon and South West Finance3

  1994

  24 million

  Baring Bros and Co. Ltd.3

  1995

  5.2 billion

  1 Came out of administration and is now subject to company voluntary arrangement.

  2 In provisional liquidation

  3 Still authorized under the Banking Act.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which local authorities or Government bodies had money deposited with Barings bank.

  Mr. Nelson
  It is for individual authorities and Government bodies to decide what details to disclose about their use of bank accounts. In any case, following ING's takeover of Barings, depositors' funds have now been unfrozen.

  Monetary Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the extent to which the deflationary measures which he has taken since August 1994 will benefit the financiers of the real economy at the expense of manufacturing industry; and what steps he will take to prevent this.
  26
  Mr. Nelson
  The role of monetary policy is to deliver low inflation. Monetary policy has been tightened since August 1994, so as to take no risk with inflation. A stable macro-economic environment with low inflation is the best way to ensure sustained real growth and will benefit all sectors of the economy.

  Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each year since 1970 the United States and United Kingdom trade surplus/deficit in manufactures as a percentage of gross domestic product, the terms of trade for manufactures and the change in the relative unit value of exports of manufactures compared to each other and to the main manufacturing countries.

  Mr. Nelson
  The value, and united values for UK imports and exports of manufactures, and relative export unit value indices for the United Kingdom, United States and other main manufacturing countries can be found in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics" published monthly by the Central Statistical Office. UK GDP can be found in "Economic Trends, Annual Supplement" also published by the Central Statistical Office. Alternatively, the data can be found on the Central Statistical Office's computer database.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the change in relative export unit values for manufactures since 1979, together with the change in import penetration and in the United Kingdom share of the export trade in manufactures.

  Mr. Nelson
  Estimates of import penetration and the UK share of world trade in manufactures can readily be derived from figures for import volumes, domestic demand, manufacturing export volumes and world trade in manufactures. These data and figures for relative export unit values for manufactures can be found on the central database of the Central Statistical Office, which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library.

  Exchange Rates
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the £/DM exchange rate in 1965, 1975, 1985 and currently.

  Mr. Nelson
  At close on Wednesday 15 March, sterling stood at DM2.22. Information on sterling's exchange rate against the deutschmark can be found in table 7.1 of "Financial Statistics" published by the Central Statistical Office; a longer back-run of data is available in the annual supplement to "Economic Trends", also published by the CSO.

  Export Values
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects United States relative export values for manufactures to fall to the 1978–80 average; and if he will publish a table showing United Kingdom export unit values for manufactures relative to those of the United States for each year since 1987 and for each quarter since the third quarter of 1992.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: It is not the Government's practice to publish forecasts of relative export values for the United States.

  Unit value export prices of manufactures for the main manufacturing countries can be found in the "Monthly

  27
  Review of External Trade Statistics", published monthly by the Central Statistical Office, or on the Central Statistical Office's computer database.

  Taxpayers
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers there were in the last financial year whose taxable earnings averaged £1,000 or more per day.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 14 March 1995]: A reliable estimate is not available.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the benefits of introducing a higher marginal income tax rate for those taxpayers earning more on average than £1,000 per day.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 14 March 1995]: We believe that high income tax rates damage incentives and growth. Our policy is to have a tax system with low marginal rates—so that people keep more of every extra pound they earn—and a broad tax base.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Boxing
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the total amount spent by his Department on boxing in schools for each of the last three years. [14691]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has not given any direct funding for boxing in schools in the last three years. However, through Sportsmatch, it awarded a grant of £5,000 in October 1994 to the non-contact "Kid Gloves Scheme".

  Digital Audio Broadcasting
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what action his Department is taking in response to the Radio Authority's second policy statement on digital audio broadcasting; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans his Department has to bring forward legislative proposals to encourage the development of digital audio broadcasting in the United Kingdom;

  (3) when his Department plans to bring forward proposals for a regulatory and licensing regime for digital audio broadcasting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government hope to set out later this year a regulatory framework for digital broadcasting. We, therefore welcome this publication which is a useful sttement of the Radio Authority's current position.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the cost of his Department's expenditure on water and sewerage in(a) the current year and (b) each of the three previous years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department did not occupy its own HQ premises until May 1993. Only in one of our buildings, occupied since October 1993, do we pay water charges directly. The following is a breakdown of those charges along with those of my agencies.
  28

  £

  1994–95

  DNH (Grove House)

  1,516

  Royal Parks Agency

  213,339

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency:

  Her Majesty's Tower of London

  16,426

  Hampton Court Palace

  41,886

  Kensington Palace

  1,853

  Banqueting House

  2,512

  1993–94

  DNH (Grove House)

  683

  Royal Parks Agency

  166,754

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency:

  Her Majesty's Tower of London

  15,476

  Hampton Court Palace

  17,954

  Kensington Palace

  1,735

  Banqueting House

  2,351

  1992–93

  Royal Parks Agency

  129,278

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency:

  Her Majesty's Tower of London

  14,271

  Hampton Court Palace

  14,911

  Kensington Palace

  1,598

  Banqueting House

  2,165

  1991–92

  Royal Parks Agency

  188,335

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency:

  HM Tower of London

  9,174

  Hampton Court Palace

  17,044

  Kensington Palace

  1,465

  Banqueting House

  1,964

  Television Reception
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate he has of(a) the erection costs and (b) the annual rental, insurance and technical maintenance costs which fall on communities of below 200 inhabitants that are dependent upon the provision of a private booster mast for the reception of television broadcasts. [14573]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: The Department does not hold this information. The current "Self Help Television" guidance booklet, issued by the BBC and Independent Television Commission, includes some indicative figures but suggests that communities should seek a quote from a competent television engineer and obtain estimates from manufacturers and installers. The BBC or ITC will offer advice to groups about the possibilities of self-help schemes.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total number of civil servants employed by(a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his Department's responsibility, and (c) public and other bodies under his Department's responsibility, for each year since 1979, divided into (1) full-time equivalents, (2) overtime, (3) casuals and (4) other; and whether he will also provide for each year his estimate of (A) civil service job reductions due to privatisations, (B)

  29
  civil service job reductions due to contracting out, (C) civil service job reductions from other transfer of responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for the Department or its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditures, in 1994 prices. [15089]

  Mr. Horam
  The civil service covers the permanent staff of central Government Departments and next steps agencies. The staff of other bodies are outside the civil service.

  The annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" gives details of the number of civil servants employed by my Department and its agencies, including full-time equivalent staff and casuals, from 1993 onwards, and of staff leaving the civil service.

  "Public Bodies", published annually since 1982, contains staffing information for those bodies not covered by "Civil Service Statistics".

  Details of running costs and the civil service pay bill for my Department can be found in chapter 7 and tables 8.4 and 8.5 in chapter 8 in my Department's annual report, Cm 2820. Table 7.7 gives details of overtime from 1989–90 onwards.

  Copies of all these publications are available in the Library of the House.

  The remaining information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total number of civil servants employed by(a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his Department's responsibility and (c) public and other bodies under his Department's responsibility, for each year since 1979, divided into (i) full-time equivalents, (ii) overtime, (iii) casuals and (iv) other; and whether he will also provide for each year his estimates of (A) civil service job reductions due to privatisations, (B) civil service job reductions due to contracting out (C) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for his Department or its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditures, in 1994 prices. [14768]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The civil service covers the permanent staff of central Government Departments and next steps agencies. The staff of other bodies are outside the civil service.

  The annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" gives details of the number of civil servants employed by the Lord Chancellor's Department and its three agencies, HM Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office, including full-time equivalents and casuals from 1993 onwards, and of staff leaving the civil service.

  "Public Bodies" published annually since 1982, contains staffing information for those bodies not covered by "Civil Service Statistics".
  30
  Details of running costs and the civil service pay bill in cash terms for the Lord Chancellor's Department and its agencies can be found in chapter A, tables 4 and 5, chapter C, and Chapter D, tables 5 and 6, of the departmental report of the Lord Chancellor's and the Law Officer's Departments, Cm. 2809. Chapter A, table 5, and chapter C give details of overtime from 1989 onwards.

  Copies of all these publications are available in the Members' Library.

  The remaining information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Industrial Injury
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many claims under £2,500 for industrial injury have been made since 1990; and how many to the same amount were made in the previous four years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of his Department's expenditure on water and sewerage in(a) the current year and (b) each of the three previous years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Expenditure by the Lord Chancellor's Department on water and sewerage was:(a) £556,394 in the current year to the end of January; and (b) £857,977 in 1993–94, £772,652 in 1992–93 and £840,024 in 1991–92.

  Mr. Darius Guppy
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the application for legal aid by Darius Guppy has been approved; and what assessment he has made of whether the proceeds of the crime of which Mr. Guppy was convicted have been accounted for.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Mr. Guppy has made a number of applications for legal aid in the past 12 months, in respect of various proceedings. Most recently, his application for criminal legal aid to Redbridge magistrates court was granted on 24 February 1995. The confidentiality provisions in section 38 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 prevent the disclosure of information on an applicant's financial means.

HEALTH

  Health Records (Access)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she now intends to make regulations under section 8(3) of the Access to Health Records Act 1990 in order to provide a complaints procedure for patients who
  31
  have been denied access to their health records under the Act, in line with the commitment given by the Under-Secretary of State for Health on 4 July 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  Complaints about non-compliance with the Access to Health Records Act in relation to hospital records can already be made, using the hospital complaints procedure. We are considering the need for regulations under the Access to Health Records Act and will make an announcement in due course.

  Depo-medrone
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what approach her Department has made to Upjohn, the manufacturer of depo-medrone, to request it to vary the provisions of the licence so as to include epidural use; and if she will publish the details of discussions and correspondence that have taken place between her Department and Upjohn.

  Mr. Sackville
  No such approach has been made to Upjohn. The present product licence for depo-medrone does not recommend the use of the product by the epidural route. The company holding the licence for the product would be required to provide the necessary supporting information to the Medicines Control Agency to support any changes to the licence. Correspondence between companies and the Medicines Control Agency regarding product licences are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment she has made of the frequency with which(a) depo-medrone and (b) other drugs are used for purposes for which they are not licensed;

  (2) what is her Department's policy regarding the use of (a) depo-medrone or (b) other drugs for purposes which are not licensed.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information regarding the use of medicines in an unlicensed manner is not available centrally since doctors are not obliged to report such usage. In accordance with the exemption in section 9 of the Medicines Act 1968, if a doctor believes that the use of an unlicensed medicine, or use of a licensed medicine in a manner which is not specified in the product licence is appropriate for a patient, he or she may administer it on their own responsibility. They may also seek advice from relevant professional bodies, but it is for doctors to use their training, knowledge and experience to weigh carefully the likely benefits of a medicine against the anticipated risks before choosing the most appropriate treatment for a particular patient. It is also for doctors to discuss the risks and alternatives of any proposed treatment and to obtain the patient's consent before administering it.

  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the outcome of discussions between departmental officials and relevant medical professional bodies concerning current clinical practice referred to in her answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), on 21 October 1993,Official Report, columns 315–16; and what specific advice her Department has issued to doctors on this issue.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr.32
  Blunkett) on 2 March 1994, column 757. We have decided that no further guidance on depo-medrone is needed at present.

  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the use of polyethylene glycol as one of the constituent parts of depo-medrone.

  Mr. Sackville
  Polyethylene glycols of various molecular weights and grades have been used extensively in the pharmaceutical industry, as solvents, vehicles and solubilising agents. Depo-medrone is a licensed medicinal product. A product licence is granted only after the careful consideration of evidence to demonstrate to the licensing authority that the product is safe, efficacious and of satisfactory quality for the indications and routes of administration intended. The assessment includes not just the active drug substance but an assessment of the whole formulation of the product, in the context of the terms of the licence. This includes the safety of any excipients such as polyethylene glycol.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive care beds are currently operational in(a) London and (b) the rest of England and Wales: and what were the corresponding figures for the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is provided in the table on the average daily number of available designated intensive care beds in London and the rest of England. In addition to these services provided in units designated as intensive care units, intensive care can also be delivered in a variety of hospital departments, such as neo-natal intensive care, coronary care units, accident and emergency departments, renal units and high dependency units. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  London

  England 1

  1989–90

  484

  2,033

  1990–91

  459

  2,024

  1991–92

  459

  2,017

  1992–93

  480

  2,045

  1993–94

  501

  2,105

  1 Excluding London.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State of Health what was the expenditure on the NHS in each year since 1965 showing any percentage increase or decrease from the pervious year taking account of(a) inflation, (b) NHS inflation, (c) the impact of demographic changes on activity and unit costs and (d) the impact of technological advance on activity and unit costs.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the table. We have no means of adjusting these figures for the impact of demographic changes on the national health service as a whole or of technological change.

  Information on estimated growth in demand for hospital and community health services from demographic changes is in the departmental report (Cm 2812).
  33

  Gross National Health Service expenditure1

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  Adjusted by general inflation2 (1993–94 prices)

  Percentage change over previous year

  Adjusted by NHS inflation (1990–91 prices)3

  Percentage change over previous years

  1971–72

  2,000

  14,251

  —

  16,554

  —

  1972–73

  2,281

  15,029

  5.5

  17,433

  5.3

  1973–74

  2,592

  15,980

  6.3

  18,075

  3.7

  1974–75

  3,426

  17,653

  10.5

  17,976

  -0.5

  1975–76

  4,511

  18,530

  5.0

  18,377

  2.2

  1976–77

  5,149

  18,634

  0.6

  18,546

  0.9

  1977–78

  5,689

  18,123

  -2.7

  18,817

  1.5

  1978–79

  6,525

  18,697

  3.2

  19,531

  3.8

  1979–80

  7,755

  19,040

  1.8

  19,344

  -1.0

  1980–81

  10,103

  20,964

  10.1

  19,890

  2.8

  1981–82

  11,329

  21,434

  2.2

  20,557

  3.4

  1982–83

  12,353

  21,818

  1.8

  21,027

  2.3

  1983–84

  13,114

  22,135

  1.5

  21,279

  1.2

  1984–85

  14,102

  22,664

  2.4

  21,567

  1.4

  1985–86

  14,923

  22,737

  0.3

  21,695

  0.6

  1986–87

  16,044

  23,729

  4.4

  21,942

  1.1

  1987–88

  17,653

  24,789

  4.5

  22,354

  1.9

  1988–89

  19,628

  25,834

  4.2

  22,595

  1.1

  1989–90

  21,148

  26,017

  0.7

  22,946

  1.5

  1990–91

  23,673

  26,963

  3.6

  23,673

  3.2

  1991–92

  26,813

  28,734

  6.6

  —

  —

  1992–93

  29,393

  30,292

  5.4

  —

  —

  1993–94

  30,419

  30,419

  0.4

  —

  —

  1994–954

  31,946

  31,320

  3.0

  —

  —

  1995–965

  33,441

  31,753

  1.4

  —

  —

  1 Information on National Health Service expenditure is not available on a comparable basis before 1971–72.

  2 Measured by the GDP deflator.

  3 Figures for NHS inflation not available after 1990–91.

  4 Forecast outturn.

  5 Plan.

  St. Mary's Hospital
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about St. Mary's hospital and its energy-saving potential.

  Mr. Sackville
  St. Mary's hospital is the first of two demonstration hospitals in which a range of energy-saving technologies are being used. The aim is to achieve significant savings in fuel consumption and reduce environmental pollution.

  First and second year appraisals have identified significant reductions in fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions, increasing from 35 per cent. fuel savings in year one to 44 per cent. in year two. This equates to annual savings of £51,000 in fuel bills and a reduction of 1,000 tonnes in carbon dioxide emissions.

  Practice Nurses
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the annual change in pay received by practice nurses in each regional health authority in each of the last five years. [15370]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Female Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health. what was the percentage of female obstetricians and gynaecologists in each of the last five years. [13328]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table.
  34

  Females obstetricians and gynaecologists—England (whole time equivalent) 1989–1993

  As at 30 September

  Percentage

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Female

  22

  22

  23

  24

  26

  1. Grades covered are: consultant, staff grade, associate specialist, senior registrar, registrar, hospital practitioner and clinical assistants.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets have been set in the last 10 years in relation to the increase in the number and percentage of female obstetricians and gynaecologist; and when they should be achieved. [13329]

  Mr. Malone
  None. In the 10 years between 1983 and 1993, the percentage of female consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology rose from 11 to 15 per cent.—an increase of 8.8 per cent. per annum between 1988 and 1993. The number of female consultants in the specialty rose from 80 to 130. Some 35 per cent. of senior registrars in the specialty are women.

  National Continence Day
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial support she has given and will be giving to National Continence Day; and if she will make a statement. [14231]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department is providing £160,000 this year to support National Continence Day, which will be held on 21 March 1995, and for on-going work in this area.
  35
  Over 3 million adults and half a million children in the United Kingdom are estimated to suffer from incontinence. The majority of them—around 70 per cent.—could be successfully treated. Many others could have their quality of life improved by the provision of the right type of incontinence aids, but only one in six sufferers seeks help.

  The Department of Health, working jointly with the Continence Foundation, has produced publicity items which refer people to their pharmacists for advice or give the numbers of the Continence Foundation and the Enuresis Resource and Information Centre helplines.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS trust hospitals published annual accounts for 1993–94; what was the total amount paid by those hospitals in salaries and expenses to their chief executive; and what was the total amount paid by those hospitals in salaries and expenses to their boards of directors; [14770]

  (2) which NHS trust hospitals pay their chief executives more than £75,000 per annum; and if she will give the amount of the salaries; [14771]

  (3) which NHS trust hospitals paid their board of directors more than £400,000 in 1993–94. [14772]

  Mr. Malone
  All 292 national health service trusts in operation in 1993–94 published annual accounts for that year. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 16 February, column 808 in respect of the available information on remuneration of members of NHS trust boards.

  Polling and Public Survey Organisations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the employment of polling or public survey organisations by her Department during the current and previous financial years, on the organisations employed by her Department, on the values of individual contracts for these services, on the total amounts of money spent and the purposes of the research undertaken by these organisations. [14500]

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

  Lynfield Mount Hospital
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will instruct Bradford Community Health trust to make public the report of the external review team into the secure unit at Lynfield Mount hospital in Bradford. [14813]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Bradford Community Health national health service trust has agreed to prepare copies of the report, suitably edited to preserve confidentiality of patients and staff. These will be made available to the hon. Member and other interested local bodies shortly.

  General Practitioners
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) patients there are on general practitioners' list and (b) full-time equivalent general practitioners in each family health service authority area. [15081]
  36
  Mr. Malone
  This information is contained in "General Medical Services Statistics", which are published twice yearly, copies of which are available in the Library.

  GP Fundholding
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what comparative assessment she has made of the benefits and costs of joint commissioning and general practitioner fundholding. [15085]

  Mr. Malone
  General practitioner fundholders are able to achieve improved patient benefits because they purchase services directly on behalf of their patients and ensure services are more sensitive to individual patient needs. This is the crucial difference between fundholding and other models of purchasing. Fundholding GPs, like other GPs, should be involved in health authority purchasing.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average amount spent in the private sector by fundholders in each year since 1991–92. [15035]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 9 December 1994, column 401.

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what legal restrictions there are on future uses of St. Bartholomew's hospital site. [15084]

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for the North Thames regional health authority. The right hon. Member may wish to contact Sir William Staveley, the chairman, for details.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of civil servants employed by(a) her Department, (b) the agencies under her Department's responsibility and (c) public and other bodies under her Department's responsibility, for each year since 1979, divided into (1) full-time equivalent, (2) overtime, (3) casuals and (4) other; and whether she will also provide for each year her estimates of (A) civil service job reductions due to privatisation, (B) civil service job reductions due to contracting out, (C) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for the Department or its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditures, in 1994 prices. [15094]

  Mr. Sackville
  The civil service covers the permanent staff of central Government Departments and next steps agencies. The staff of other bodies are outside the civil service.

  The annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" gives details of the number of civil servants employed by the Department and its agencies, including full time equivalent staff and casuals, from 1993 onwards, and of staff leaving the civil service.
  37
  "Public Bodies", published annually since 1982, contains staffing information for those bodies not covered by "Civil Service Statistics".

  Details of running costs and the civil service pay bill for the Department can be found in table 12 of the Department's annual report (Cm 2512). Table 13 gives details of overtime from 1989–90 onwards.

  Copies of all of these publications are available in the Library.

  The remaining information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  GP Remuneration
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the published and non-published research done by her Department or commissioned by it on variation of general practitioner NHS income in each of the last five years. [15082]

  Mr. Malone
  Each year, the Department of Health and the General Medical Services Committee jointly commission an inquiry into the gross earnings and expenses, from all sources, of a sample of general practitioners. Surveys are conducted by the Inland Revenue and the results are reported, in confidence, to the Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration.

  GP Staff
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent staff are employed by GPs in each family health service area; and if she will break down the figures by staff category; [15005]

  (2) how many (a) practice nurses and (b) practice managers there are in each family health service area. [15005]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is contained in "GMS Statistics 1 April 1994 England and Wales", copies of which are available in the Library.

  GP Fundholders
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average amount spent by fundholders out of savings in extending premises and the average amount of improvement grants given to non-GP fundholders in the latest available year. [15003]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the amount of savings spent by general practitioner fundholders on premises improvements is not available centrally. However, the National Audit Office report on GP fundholding estimates, from regional health authorities, that about one-third of savings have been used to improve practice premises for the benefit of patients, for example, to provide a wider range of services.

  In 1993–94, about £26 million was spent on improvement grants for all GPs in 1993–94. A breakdown of this figure between fundholders and non-fundholders is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the average savings by fundholders in each year since 1991–92. [15007]

  Mr. Malone
  Average savings made by fundholders in the first three years of the scheme were £50,000 per fund in 1991–92, £50,000 per fund in 1992–93 and £55,000 per fund in 1993–94. These savings are being reinvested 38
  in improving patient care. Following independent audit by the Audit Commission, fundholders savings are held by family health services authorities on behalf of the patients of fundholders.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has about the total savings by individual GP fundholders; and what information she has on how these savings are being spent by individual GP fundholders. [14990]

  Mr. Malone
  Regional health authorities are responsible for managing the fundholding scheme in their area. Information about an individual fundholder's savings is not routinely held centrally.

  Consultant Clinics
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average annual number of consultant clinics held in(a) fundholding practices and (b) non-fundholding practices. [15036]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Hospices
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of hospices and Macmillan services in each region; and what information she has on the number of hospices in each European country. [15083]

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the tables.

  Table 1: In-patient palliative care units and Macmillan services by region, England (January 1995)

  Region

  In-patient units

  Macmillan Services

  Anglia and Oxford

  20

  61

  Northern and Yorkshire

  26

  83

  North Thames

  19

  79

  South Thames

  25

  54

  North West

  27

  86

  South and West

  27

  61

  West Midlands

  11

  52

  Trent

  10

  57

  Total

  165

  533

  Sources:

  St. Christopher's Hospice Information Service and Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund (for Macmillan services).

  Table 2: Palliative Care Services (Including Day and Home Care) by European Country (October 1994) (NB. These figures are approximate)

  Country

  Palliative Care Services

  Austria

  4

  Belgium

  20

  Bulgaria

  1

  Croatia

  1

  Cyprus

  1

  Czech Republic

  7

  Denmark

  1

  Finland

  4

  France

  32

  Germany

  35

  Gibraltar

  1

  Greece

  2

  39

  Table 2: Palliative Care Services (Including Day and Home Care) by European Country (October 1994) (NB. These figures are approximate)

  Country

  Palliative Care Services

  Hungary

  2

  Iceland

  1

  Italy

  169

  Lithuania

  1

  Luxembourg

  1

  Malta

  1

  Netherlands

  5

  Norway

  4

  Poland

  30

  Portugal

  2

  Romania

  3

  Russia

  12

  Spain

  60

  Sweden

  10

  Switzerland

  7

  Total

  417

  Source:

  St. Christopher's Hospice Information Service.

  Performance-related Pay (Nurses)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates she has made of the costs of introducing performance-related pay for nurses. [14991]

  Mr. Malone
  The Government are proposing local pay for nurses which does not mean individual performance-related pay. Local pay provides the opportunity to reward the contributions which staff make to the provision of high-quality, cost-effective patient services. Arrangements for calculating local pay are a matter for individual trusts or other employers.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what total NHS efficiency savings, in real terms, are expected in each of the next five years. [14992]

  Mr. Sackville
  Hospital and community health services are expected to improve their efficiency by at least 3 per cent. in 1995–96, equivalent to an extra £600 million for patient care. No decision has been taken on the efficiency target for 1996–97 or any subsequent years.

  Cardiac Bypass Operations
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cardiac bypass operations were done in each of the last five years; what projections she has on the likely numbers of these operations in each of the next five years. [14993]

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of cardiac bypass operations is as follows:

  1988–89: 10,203

  1989–90: 11,402

  1990–91: 13,195

  1991–92: 14,850

  1992–93: 17,119

  It is for each district to make an assessment of future demand.

  Casualty Departments
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patient episodes there were in casualty departments in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [15001]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is available in Department of Health statistical bulletin 12/94, copies of which are available in the Library.

  London Chest Hospital
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has in relation to the London Chest hospital. [15002]

  Mr. Malone
  Ministers await the outcome of public consultation conducted by East London and The City health authority.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fundholding and non-fundholding practices she and her Ministers have visited in the last year. [15004]

  Mr. Sackville
  A total of 40.

  Contracting Costs
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has done on the comparative administrative costs of contracting on a cost per case basis and for block contracts; and what are the findings. [15008]

  Mr. Malone
  None. Health authorities and fundholding general practitioners are responsible for selecting the most appropriate type of contract to suit their patients' needs, taking account of value for money and the characteristics of the service being purchased.

  Dental Services
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists who have not given notice to leave the dental list have given written notice to each family health service authority to de-register some or all of their continuing care arrangements for adult patients in each month since July 1992; and how many patients have been de-registered by family health service authority and in total.

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: Information about the numbers of patients de-registered will be placed in the Library.

  At the latest date for which figures are available, there were 20,712,569 adult patients registered with national health service dentists, an increase of 0.6 per cent. on July 1992.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many family health service authorities have referred patients who have been unable to obtain treatment from a general dental practitioner to(a) the community dental service, (b) the hospital dental service and (c) a salaried dentist in each month since July 1992.

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 13 March 1995]: The available information is shown in the tables.
  41

  Table 1: General Dental Service: number of Family Health Services Authorities who referred patients to the Community Dental Service, Hospital Dental Service or a Salaried Dentist in each month from July 1992 to July 1994

  England

  Month

  Number of FHSAs

  1992

  July

  42

  August

  35

  September

  30

  October

  33

  November

  34

  1993

  December/January

  36

  February

  33

  March

  30

  April

  31

  May

  32

  June

  30

  July

  34

  August

  30

  September

  31

  October

  33

  November

  30

  1994

  December/January

  38

  February

  34

  March

  37

  April

  33

  May

  35

  June

  33

  July

  38

  1. The Christmas period totals cover the months of December and January.

  Table 2: General Dental Service: number of Family Health Services Authorities who referred patients to the Community Dental Service, Hospital Dental Service or a Salaried Dentist in each month from August 1994 to February 1995

  England

  Number of FHSAs referring patients to salaried

  Month

  dentists

  CDS

  HDS

  1994

  August

  15

  14

  4

  September

  12

  20

  7

  October

  12

  16

  4

  November

  12

  15

  4

  1995

  December/January

  12

  20

  6

  February

  12

  25

  5

  1. The Christmas period totals cover the months of December and January.

  2. Information is only available from August 1994.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWALTH AFFAIRS

  Middle East
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's role in facilitating progress in the middle east peace process.
  42
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to Israel, the occupied territories and Jordan demonstrated our strong support for the peace process and the strength of our bilateral relations. The Prime Minister announced an additional £7 million of aid for the Palestinians, bringing our total package to £82 million over three years.

  Wartime Intelligence Material
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will declassify the wartime decrypts designated(a) ZGA, German naval attachés in Tokyo, (b) ISOS, Alwehr traffic, (c) ISK, Alwehr machine cipher traffic, and release them to the public Record Office.

  Mr. Hurd
  Following the release of the Dir/C archive in 1993 and 1994, GCHQ is continuing to review wartime intelligence material issued by the Government code and cykpher school. This includes the material referred to by my hon. Friend which will be reviewed in turn for possible release. One of these reports, on communications between Berlin and the naval attaché in Tokyo, is already in the Public Record Office as Z/P/ZG/248 in ADM223/4.

  China (HIV-AIDS)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had from organizations and individuals concerned with HIV and AIDS about the Chinese Government's refusal to allow people with HIV and AIDS entry into China, with particular reference to the fourth world conference of women in Beijing.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have had some queries from non-governmental organizations who are concerned with AIDS asking whether people with HIV or AIDS will be able to enter China to attend the UN fourth world conference on women in September. We have raised this with the Chinese who have stated that their existing HIV-related entry restrictions will continue to apply. We are considering with our EU partners what further action to take.

  Visa Applications
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs what is the current waiting time for interview for applications for settlement visas in(a) Bombay and (b) Islamabad.

  Mr. Baldry
  Waiting times to first interview for applicants in settlement queues in Bombay and Islamabad as at 31 December 1994.

  Months

  Bombay

  Islamabad

  Queue 1:

  Persons with a claim to the right of abode, dependent relatives over 70 years old, special, compassionate cases.

  —

  3

  43

  Months

  Bombay

  Islamabad

  Queue 2:

  Spouses and children under 18 years.

  3

  3

  Queue 3:

  Finance (e) s and others applying for the first time for settlement.

  3

  6

  Queue 4:

  Re-applicants.

  5

  9

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British passport holders remain in Sierra Leone; and what advice they have been given about their continued presence.

  Mr. Baldry
  Some 800 British passport holders remain in Sierra Leone. Of these, approximately, 350 have the right of abode in the United Kingdom.

  Since 26 January the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been advising dependants and those with no pressing reason to stay in Sierra Leone to leave.

  Diplomatic Relations
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries whose existence Her Majesty's Government officially recognise.

  Mr. Baldry
  The countries whose existence we officially recognise are as follows:

  Afghanistan

  Albania

  Algeria

  Andorra

  Angola

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Argentina

  Armenia

  Australia

  Austria

  Azerbaijan

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belarus

  Belgium

  Belize

  Benin

  Bhutan

  Bolivia

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei

  Bulgaria

  Burkina

  Burma

  Burundi

  Cambodia

  Cameroon

  Canada

  44

  Cape Verde

  Central African Republic

  Chad

  Chile

  China

  Colombia

  Comoros

  Congo

  Costa Rica

  Croatia

  Cuba

  Cyprus

  Czech Republic

  Denmark

  Djibouti

  Dominica

  Dominican Republic

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  El Salvador

  Equatorial Guinea

  Eritrea

  Estonia

  Ethiopia

  Fiji

  Finland

  France

  Gabon

  Gambia, The

  Georgia

  Germany

  Ghana

  Greece

  Grenada

  Guatemala

  Guinea

  Guinea-Bissau

  Guyana

  Haiti

  Holy See

  Honduras

  Hungary

  Iceland

  India

  Indonesia

  Iran

  Iraq

  Irish Republic

  Israel

  Italy

  Ivory Coast

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kazakhstan

  Kenya

  Kiribati

  Kyrgyzstan

  Korea

  Korea (North)

  Kuwait

  Laos

  Latvia

  Lebanon

  Lesotho

  Liberia

  Libya

  Liechtenstein

  Lithuania

  45

  Luxembourg

  former Yugoslav

  Republic of Macedonia

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Mali

  Malta

  Marshall Islands

  Mauritania

  Mauritius

  Mexico

  Micronesia

  Moldavia

  Monaco

  Mongolia

  Morocco

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Nauru

  Nepal

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Nicaragua

  Niger

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Palau

  Panama

  Papua New Guinea

  Paraguay

  Peru

  Philippines

  Poland

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Romania

  Russia

  Rwanda

  St Kitts and Nevis

  St Lucia

  St Vincent

  San Marino

  Sao Tome and Principe

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  Slovakia

  Slovenia

  Solomon Islands

  Somalia

  South Africa

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  Sudan

  Suriname

  Swaziland

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Syria

  Tajikistan

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Togo

  46

  Tongo

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Tunisia

  Turkmenistan

  Tuvalu

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  United Arab Emirates

  United States

  Uruguay

  Uzbekistan

  Vanuatu

  Venezuela

  Vietnam

  Western Samoa

  Yemen

  Zaire

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries with which Her Majesty's Government does not have diplomatic relations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The countries with which we do not have diplomatic relations are as follows:

  Bhutan

  Iraq

  Korea (North)

  Libya

  Korea
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what decision was reached concerning diplomatic relations following discussions held in Geneva between representatives of Her Majesty's Government and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have discussions with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in the UN framework, but it would be premature to establish diplomatic relations.

  Tiger Conservation Schemes
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make additional resources available for tiger conservation schemes. [13019]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Minister of State, Foreign Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad)Official Report, column 763, on 27 October 1994, and the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, on 24 November 1994, Official Report, columns 24–42.

  Social Development Summit
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will evaluate the progress made at the world summit for social development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Negotiations on the declaration and programme of action for the United Nations world summit on social development were successfully completed in Copenhagen during the summit, 6 to 12
  47
  March 1995. The final official text of the summit declaration has not yet been published.

  Newspaper Announcements
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, by type and number, the announcements placed by(a) his Department and (b) the Overseas Development Administration in (i) The Times, (ii) the Daily Telegraph, (iii) The Independent and (iv) other publications in the last 12 months for which information is available. [14337]

  Mr. Baldry
  The only announcements we issue concern official functions and diplomatic appointments. We do not keep a record of this information.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much(a) his Department and (b) the Overseas Development Administration have spent listing official engagements in newspapers in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [14336]

  Mr. Baldry
  Nothing.

  Service Attaches
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department has spent on service attachés; defence advisers and support staff in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [14334]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The costs of service attachés, defence advisers and support staff met by the FCO are included with all other diplomatic service staff costs. Since the expenditure is not accounted for separately, it would be possible to identify it only by incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which costs incurred by service attaches; defence advisers and support staff are met by his Department; and if he will give a breakdown of these costs for each overseas post. [14335]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The FCO meets the cost of residential and office accommodation for service attaches, defence advisers and their support staff. In addition, some local administration costs are met such as utilities and some communications. The expenditure is included with that for all other diplomatic service staff. Since it is not accounted for separately, it would be possible to identify it only by incurring disproportionate cost.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total number of civil servants employed by(a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his Department's responsibility, and (c) public and other bodies under his Department's responsibility for each year since 1979, divided into (i) full-time equivalents, (ii) overtime, (iii) casuals and (iv) other; and whether he will also provide for each year his estimate for (a) civil service job reductions due to privatisations, (b) civil service job reductions due to contracting out, (c) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of responsibilities, (d) the total of all other staff undertaking work for his Department or its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (e) total
  48
  manpower expenditures, in 1994 prices. [14767]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The civil service covers the permanent staff of central Government departments and next steps agencies. The staff of other bodies are outside the civil service.

  The annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" gives details of the number of civil servants employed by my Department and its agencies, including full-time equivalent staff and casuals—from 1993 onwards—and of staff leaving the civil service.

  "Public Bodies", published annually since 1982, contains staffing information for those bodies not covered by "Civil Service Statistics".

  Details of running costs and the civil service pay bill for my Department can be found in table 36 of my Department's annual report—Cm 2802. Table 37 gives details of overtime from 1989–90 onwards.

  Copies of all of these publications are available in the Members' Library.

  The remaining information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Menwith Hill Station
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many GCHQ staff are located at Menwith Hill station in north Yorkshire; what are their main duties; to whom they report; if they are required to obtain warrants from him or Ministers in other Departments to intercept communications; how many warrants have been issued in each year from 1992 to date to GCHQ staff at Menwith Hill station; and if he will make a statement. [14811]

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces on 9 March 1995,Official Report, column 346. All interception of communications on public telecommunications systems in the UK is subject to the provisions of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. It is not our policy to comment on the detailed operations of the intelligence and security agencies.

  Polling and Public Survey Organisations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the employment of polling or public survey organisations by his Department during the current and previous financial years, on the organisations employed by his Department, on the values of individual contracts for these services, on the total amounts of money spent and on the purposes of the research undertaken by these organisations. [14499]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), on 27 October 1994,Official Report, column 761. The FCO has not conducted any public opinion surveys since January 1994.

  The purpose of the research undertaken by public survey organisations is to provide information useful to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as background for Government policy.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Belgian Government concerning the public statements given by Ruber Orian concerning extradition and aspects of the Lockerbie case. [15103]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Exhibitions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Royal Assent for the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [15250]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 15 May to Friday 19 May 1995.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to Adult Learners Week to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [15122]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 8 May to Friday 12 May 1995.

  £

  Heating

  Lighting

  Repairs and maintenance

  Furnishings

  1991–92

  200,000

  130,000

  9,706,000

  —

  1992–93

  202,000

  140,000

  8,311,000

  —

  1993–94

  219,000

  141,000

  8,506,000

  890,000

  1994–95

  216,000

  157,000

  7,580,000

  1,008,000

SCOTLAND

  Brucella Melitensis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of brucella melitensis were reported in each year since 1985.

  Sir Hector Monro
  No cases of brucella melitensis have been recorded in Scotland since 1985.

  National Continence Day
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what financial support he has given and will be giving to National Continence Day; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has had regarding the forthcoming National Continence Day; and if he will make a statement.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will conduct a survey of the energy efficiency of(a) the heating and (b) the lighting in all the buildings for which the House of Commons Commission is responsible.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  A survey of energy efficiency has already been undertaken and was considered by the Committee last summer. The Director of Parliamentary Works was asked to report progress on the matter on an annual basis. The next such report is expected by July.

  Consultants
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission whether the House of Commons Commission employs, on a consultancy basis(a) an architect and (b) a designer.

  Mr. Beith
  Yes.

  Heating and Lighting
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission how much was spent by the House of Commons Commission, in each of the last five years on(a) heating, (b) lighting, (c) repairs and maintenance and (d) office furniture.

  Mr. Beith
  Prior to 1991–92 the Department of the Environment was responsible for these matters and expenditure records are not available. Figures for office furniture are not recorded separately from general furniture and furnishings. The figures given are for total House of Commons expenditure on new furnishings and maintenance of existing furnishings.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A total of £10,500 has been allocated to fund National Continence Day in Scotland. The resources are being directed towards the servicing of a telephone helpline facility at the Continence Resource Centre, Southern General Hospital NHS trust, Glasgow and also the printing and distribution of information leaflets and advertisements in some Scottish newspapers. No representations have been received. The Scottish Office is happy to support the campaign to raise awareness of this condition and to encourage sufferers to seek advice and treatment.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost of his Department's expenditure on water and sewerage in(a) the current year and (b) each of the three previous years.
  51
  Mr. Lang
  The charges for water and sewerage for the buildings occupied by the Scottish Office for the relevant years were:

  Date

  £

  1991–92

  473,079

  1992–93

  343,771

  1993–94

  320,574

  1994–95

  413,726

  Civil Servants (Fast Stream)
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of those accepted for fast-stream entry for which his Department is responsible(a) in 1991, (b) in 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994 were women.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 9 March 1995]: The proportion of women as a total of those selected for fast-stream entry to the Scottish Office in 1991 and 1992 can be found in the Civil Service Commissioner's report for the relevant years, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  The figures for 1993 and 1994 are 36 per cent. and 50 per cent. respectively.

  Temporary Contracts
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for this year and each of the past five years, how many employees in (i) his Department and (ii) all executive agencies for which his Department is responsible who have been employed on temporary contracts of(a) 51 weeks or (b) fewer than 51 weeks duration are re-employed in the same or similar position at a later date.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]: This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what positions in (i) his Department and (ii) all executive agencies for which his Department is responsible are filled by employees who are employed on temporary contracts of(a) 51 weeks or (b) fewer than 51 weeks duration.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]: At 1 March 1995, the number of casual staff, expressed as full-time equivalents, employed in the Scottish Office core was 146.5. A further 111.5 casual staff were employed in its executive agencies, excluding the Scottish Prison Service. The following table shows the grade equivalents at which these staff were employed:

  Number of casual and permanent staff in post (full-time equivalents) the Scottish Office and its executive agencies

  SO Core

  Agencies Exclude SPS

  SPS

  Quarter

  Permanent

  Casual

  Total

  Percentage Casual

  Permanent

  Casual

  Total

  Percentage Casual

  Permanent

  Casual

  Total

  Percentage Casual

  1989

  1 April

  6,273.0

  257.5

  6,530.5

  3.9

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  3,803.5

  10.0

  3,813.5

  0.3

  1 July

  6,239.0

  364.5

  6,603.5

  5.5

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  3,884.5

  9.0

  3,893.5

  0.2

  1 October

  5,683.0

  219.5

  5,902.5

  3.7

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  3,858.5

  8.0

  3,866.5

  0.2

  52

  Casual staff employed by the Scottish Office and its executive agencies (other than SPS) at 1 March 1995 (full-time equivalent)

  Grade equivalent

  SO Core

  Executive agencies (excluding SPS)

  Administration

  EO

  —

  1.0

  AO

  6.0

  —

  AA

  121.0

  48.5

  Professional

  Gr 6

  0.5

  —

  Gr 7

  0.5

  —

  SEO

  2.5

  1.0

  HEO

  —

  5.5

  EO

  9.5

  1.5

  AO

  1.0

  9.5

  AA

  1.0

  20.5

  Industrial

  Industrial

  4.5

  24.0

  At 1 January 1995, the Scottish Prison Service employed 45.0 casual staff.

  The length of contract tends not to be set at a fixed length in advance, but is subject to on-going review.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance has been issued in respect of the recruitment and appointment of non-permanent employees in (i) his Department and (ii) all executive agencies supervised by his Department.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]: At present the Scottish Office and its executive agencies, excluding the Scottish Prison Service, generally recruit staff, excluding casual appointments, on fixed-term appointments for initial periods of two or three years with the possibility of extension or making permanent.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the full terms of employment as specified to employees in his Department and all executive agencies for which he is responsible who are employed on a temporary contract of(a) 51 weeks or (b) fewer than 51 weeks duration.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]: I am placing in the Library the terms of employment for casual staff in my Department and executive agencies. Casual staff are not normally employed on a continuous basis for a period exceeding 12 months.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employees in (i) his Department and (ii) all executive agencies supervised by his Department have been employed on temporary contracts of(a) 51 weeks or (b) fewer than 51 weeks duration for this year and each of the past five years, in each case specifying what percentage of the respective total work force these employees constituted.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]: The information requested is shown in the following table. The official staffing returns from which this information has been extracted do not include details on length of contract.
  53

  Number of casual and permanent staff in post (full-time equivalents) the Scottish Office and its executive agencies

  SO Core

  Agencies Exclude SPS

  SPS

  Quarter

  Permanent

  Casual

  Total

  Percentage Casual

  Permanent

  Casual

  Total

  Percentage Casual

  Permanent

  Casual

  Total

  Percentage Casual

  1990

  1 January

  5,703.5

  162.5

  5,866.0

  2.8

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  3,822.0

  7.0

  3,829.0

  0.2

  1 April

  5,703.0

  218.0

  5,921.0

  3.7

  572.0

  26.0

  598.0

  4.3

  3,999.5

  7.0

  4,006.5

  0.2

  1 July

  5,649.5

  199.0

  5,848.5

  3.4

  579.5

  104.5

  684.0

  15.3

  3,977.5

  3.0

  3,980.5

  0.1

  1 October

  5,642.0

  155.0

  5,797.0

  2.7

  584.0

  101.5

  685.5

  14.8

  3,944.5

  4.0

  3,948.5

  0.1

  1991

  1 January

  5,632.0

  166.0

  5,798.0

  2.9

  591.5

  26.5

  618.0

  4.3

  3,906.5

  4.0

  3,910.5

  0.1

  1 April

  5,475.0

  103.0

  5,578.0

  1.8

  807.0

  145.5

  952.5

  15.3

  4,004.0

  4.0

  4,008.0

  0.1

  1 July

  5,427.5

  178.0

  5,605.5

  3.2

  812.0

  146.5

  958.5

  15.3

  4,086.0

  4.0

  4,090.0

  0.1

  1 October

  5,360.5

  134.0

  5,494.5

  2.4

  835.5

  107.5

  943.0

  11.4

  4,109.0

  5.0

  4,114.0

  0.1

  1992

  1 January

  5,343 5

  152.5

  5,496.0

  2.8

  840.0

  55.0

  895.0

  6.1

  4,202.0

  6.0

  4,208.0

  0.1

  1 April

  5,147.5

  78.0

  5,225.5

  1.5

  984.5

  74.5

  1,059.0

  7.0

  4,228.5

  8.0

  4,236.5

  0.2

  1 July

  5,140.5

  133.0

  5,273.5

  2.5

  993.5

  161.0

  1,154.5

  13.9

  4,257.0

  8.0

  4,265.0

  0.2

  1 October

  5,180.0

  160.0

  5,340.0

  3.0

  990.5

  77.0

  1,067.5

  7.2

  4,479.5

  11.0

  4,490.5

  0.2

  1993

  1 January

  5,218.5

  170.0

  5,388.5

  3.2

  1,003.5

  58.0

  1,061.5

  5.5

  4,523.5

  10.0

  4,533.5

  0.2

  1 April

  4,923.0

  149.0

  5,072.0

  2.9

  1,175.0

  104.0

  1,279.0

  8.1

  4,625.0

  19.0

  4,644.0

  0.4

  1 July

  5,073.0

  204.5

  5,277.5

  3.9

  1,205.5

  170.5

  1,376.0

  12.4

  4,653.0

  18.0

  4,671.0

  0.4

  1 October

  5,058.0

  168.5

  5,226.5

  3.2

  1,191.0

  89.0

  1,280.0

  7.0

  4,607.0

  17.0

  4,624.0

  0.4

  1994

  1 January

  4,924.5

  151.5

  5,076.0

  3.0

  1,185.0

  58.5

  1,243.5

  4.7

  4,600.0

  16.0

  4,616.0

  0.3

  1 April

  4,835.0

  142.5

  4,977.5

  2.9

  1,199.5

  57.5

  1,257.0

  4.6

  4,498.5

  14.0

  4,494.5

  0.3

  1 July

  4,557.5

  136.0

  4,693.5

  2.9

  1,358.0

  174.5

  1,532.5

  11.4

  4,472.5

  22.0

  4,440.5

  0.5

  1 October

  4,498.0

  125.5

  4,623.5

  2.7

  1,308.0

  106.0

  1,414.0

  7.5

  4,408.5

  32.0

  4,453.5

  0.7

  1995

  1 January

  4,428.0

  140.0

  4,568.0

  3.1

  1,299.5

  91.5

  1,391.0

  6.6

  4,271.0

  45.0

  4,316.0

  1.0

  Notes:

  1. Historic Scotland became an Executive Agency on 1.4.90.

  2. Scottish Fisheries protection Agency became an Executive Agency on 1.4.91.

  3. Scottish Agricultural Science Agency became an Executive Agency on 1.4.92.

  4. Scottish Office Pensions Agency became an Executive Agency on 1.4.93.

  5. Student Awards Agency for Scotland became an Executive Agency on 5.4.94.

  6. Traditionally, staff in the Scottish Prison Service have been shown separately from Scottish Office staff. Prior to the Scottish Prison Service becoming an Executive Agency on 1.4.93, staff in Prisons HQ (179 at 1.4.93) were included in Scottish Office Core. Since that date they have been included in SPS figures.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the band D council tax for 1995–96 for each local authority in Scotland.

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: The information requested is given in the following table:

  Local authority

  Band D council tax £

  Borders

  413

  Central

  444

  Dumfries and Galloway

  406

  Fife

  491

  Grampian

  409

  Highland

  424.12

  Lothian

  490

  Strathclyde

  451

  Tayside

  475

  Orkney

  467

  Shetland

  428.22

  Western Isles

  524

  Berwickshire

  58.5

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  108

  Roxburgh

  107

  Tweeddale

  90

  Clackmannan

  186

  Falkirk

  104

  Stirling

  133

  Annandale and Eskdale

  124

  Nithsdale

  129

  Stewartry

  89

  Wigtown

  123

  54

  Local authority

  Band D council tax £

  Dunfermline

  124

  Kirkcaldy

  163

  North East Fife

  158

  Aberdeen City

  190

  Banff and Buchan

  99

  Gordon

  90

  Kincardine and Deeside

  64

  Moray

  99

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  99

  Caithness

  86

  Inverness

  118

  Lochaber

  142

  Nairn

  114

  Ross and Cromarty

  149

  Skye and Lochalsh

  115

  Sutherland

  102

  East Lothian

  130

  Edinburgh City

  245.36

  Midlothian

  150

  West Lothian

  91

  Argyll and Bute

  188

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  130

  Clydebank

  167

  Clydesdale

  190

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  186

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  190

  Cunninghame

  165

  Dumbarton

  199

  East Kilbride

  169

  Eastwood

  99

  Glasgow City

  225

  Hamilton

  194

  55

  Local authority

  Band D council tax £

  Inverclyde

  167

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  151

  Kyle and Carrick

  220

  Monklands

  233

  Motherwell

  179

  Renfrew

  189

  Strathkelvin

  240

  Angus

  99

  Dundee City

  233

  Perth and Kinross

  110

  Source:

  Press details checked, where available against statistical returns to the Department.

ENVIRONMENT

  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the yearly cost of bed-and-breakfast or temporary accommodation in the London borough of Wandsworth in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The net costs of housing homeless households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, as reported by Wandsworth on its revenue outturn returns, for the years 1990–91—the earliest period for which revenue outturn data are available—to 1993–94 were as follows:

  £000

  1990–91

  1,069

  1991–92

  1,132

  1992–93

  1,314

  1993–94

  898

  Data on local authorities' expenditure on bed-and-breakfast 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 1979–80, are in the Library.

  County Councils (Cash Reserves)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the amount of cash reserves held by each county council.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 13 March,Official Report, column 421.

  Local Government
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities which have established an office in Brussels; what is the cost of these offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My Department does not collect this information.

  New Homes
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new homes were completed privately by housing associations and by local authorities in 1994(a) in England and Wales, (b) in Southwark and (c) in Lambeth.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  It is estimated that housebuilding completions in England and Wales during 1994 amounted to 125,800 private enterprise dwellings, 33,700 housing association dwellings and 1,400 local authority dwellings; a total of 160,900 dwellings.

  During the 12 months up to the end of September 1994, housebuilding completions in the London borough of Lambeth were reported at 96 private enterprise and 195 housing association dwellings; a total of 291 dwellings. Figures for the last three months of 1994 have not yet been sent to the Department.

  Figures for Southwark are not available as this local authority has not sent the Department any statistical returns about housebuilding in its area since March 1986.

  Business Rates
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will amend regulations so that all security measures taken by small businesses are excluded from being taken into account when business rates are set.

  Mr. Robert. B. Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on Tuesday 21 February,Official Report, columns 139–42.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the method being adopted to evaluate the submissions made in response to the consultation paper circulated as part of the review of radioactive waste management policy.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have received a large number of responses to the review of radioactive waste management policy. Each of these is being given careful consideration. A statement of conclusions will be made in due course.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports he has received concerning breaches of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 by the disposal to sea from nuclear facilities of radioactive acid.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has received no such reports.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent incidences of significant environmental contamination by radioactive tritium have been reported to his Department by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; and what steps have been taken to discover the cause of such contamination.

  Mr. Atkins
  There have been no recent instances of significant environmental contamination by radioactive tritium reported by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Disposal of radioactive waste, including tritiated material, is regulated by HMIP under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. As part of this regulatory function the inspectorate carries out a monitoring programme to confirm that the environmental impact of such disposals is minimal. The results are published in HMIP's annual monitoring programme
  57
  report on radioactive substances, a copy of which is in the Library. The most recent report for the calender year 1993, shows an increase in the levels of tritium in the leachate arising from some landfill sites. An investigation and an enhanced monitoring programme have been instigated to examine this issue. The quantities of radioactive tritium are, however, such that the radiological impact of these discharges is negligible.

  Rural Development Commission
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the items of expenditure by the Rural Development Commission in north Yorkshire during the last financial year.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Rural Development Commission provided financial support for numerous schemes and individuals in north Yorkshire in 1993–94. Expenditure by programme was as follows:

  Programme

  £000

  Redundant Building Grants

  340

  Loans and ACCORD

  864

  Marketing Grants

  34

  Partnership Workspace

  413

  Wholly Funded Workspace

  1,015

  Rural Development Programme

  215

  Rural Counselling Grant

  12

  Training and Enterprise

  5

  Village Hall Legislation Scheme

  15

  New Entrants Training Scheme and Productivity Centre

  21

  Total

  2,940

  In addition, the commission provided a grant of £125,000 for Yorkshire rural community council in support of the council's work across the whole of Yorkshire.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current financial support provided by the Government for the Rural Development Commission in north Yorkshire.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Rural Development Commission is funded in part by grant-in-aid from the Government and in part by receipts from its operations and services. The commission also administers the rural transport development fund on behalf of the Department of Transport.

  Government funding for the commission is not allocated to specific geographical areas. It is for the commission to decide where its money will be spent in accordance with its corporate plan.

  Sewerage (Rotherham)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussion he has had with Yorkshire and Trent water companies to maintain improvements in sewage and sewerage in Rotherham.

  Mr. Atkins
  None.

  Housing in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of responses 58
  received by his Department to the consultation on licensing houses in multiple occupation; and what percentage of these responses was favourable to a licensing scheme.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on the consultation paper "Houses in Multiple Occupation—The Case For Licensing"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The period for responses to my Department's consultation paper on the case for licensing houses in multiple occupation closed on 18 February: we have received 379 responses. Approximately two thirds were from local housing authorities and fire authorities. About three quarters of the responses were in favour of introducing some form of licensing system, although there was a wide variety of opinion on the details. We are now considering what action to take in the light of these, and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Local Government (Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received to date concerning his decision to refer back to the Local Government Commission its recommendations on Lancashire.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We have not decided to refer Lancashire back to the Local Government Commission.

  Development Corporations
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the method used by each development corporation to estimate the changes in employment in its respective area; and if he will make a statement. [14331]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The urban development corporations undertake surveys of the businesses in their respective areas to obtain details of employment levels. They supplement that information with information on employment taken from planning and grant applications.

  Ofwat
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 263, regarding charges by Ofwat, if he will give details of the normal Treasury accounting guidance of charging practices for Government Departments. [14515]

  Mr. Atkins
  Treasury accounting guidance for Government Departments is contained in the publication "Government Accounting", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Vanadium and Nickel
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is proposing to take to reduce levels of(a) vanadium and (b) nickel in the atmosphere to below the guidelines set by the World Health Organisation. [14681]

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to my pursuant reply of Friday 17 March 1995,Official Report, column 732.

  Levels of vanadium and nickel measured in urban and rural areas in the United Kingdom on behalf of the

  59
  Department of the Environment have not approached or exceeded guidelines set by the World Health Organisation.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the ambient level of(a) vanadium and (b) nickel in (i) rural and (ii) urban areas in England expressed in nanograms per cubic metre at ground level. [14700]

  Mr. Aitkins
  Annual average concentrations of vanadium and nickel expressed in nanograms per cubic metre—ng/m3—measured by the Department of the Environment monitoring stations in England and Wales are presented in the table.

  Site

  Date

  Level (ng/m3) vanadium

  Level (ng/m3) nickel

  Urban Sites1

  Annual average

  Central London

  1991–1992

  15

  5

  Brent

  1991–1992

  —

  12

  Leeds

  1991–1992

  —

  15

  Motherwell

  1991–1992

  —

  9

  Glasgow

  1991–1992

  —

  9

  Rural sites2

  10-year average

  —

  —

  Chilton, Oxon

  1982–1991

  6.1

  3.3

  Styrrup, Notts

  1982–1991

  8.1

  5.6

  Wraymires, Cumbria

  1982–1991

  3.3

  2.6

  Source:

  1Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics. HMSO No. 16, 1994.

  2Cawse P.A., Baker S. and Law, D.V. (1994) A Survey of atmospheric trace elements in Great Britain, 1972–1991. AEA/CS/18358008/REMA-039. AEA Technology, Culham, Oxon.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the current EU health guidelines for the level of(a) vanadium (b) nickel, (c) particles, (d) sulphur dioxide and (e) nitrogen dioxide expressed in nanograms per cubic metre, per day and annual average atmospheric concentrations. [14701]

  Mr. Atkins
  Air quality limit and guide values for concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and particulates, and a limit value for concentrations of lead, are specified, in terms of microgrammes per cubic metre, in European Council directives 85/203/EEC, 80/779/EEC and 82/884/EEC respectively. The table shows the values in microgrammes per cubic metre. These can be converted into nanograms per cubic metre by multiplying by 1000. The limit value for sulphur dioxide is dependant on the level of suspended particulates measured over the same period:

  ug/m3

  Nitrogen dioxide

  limit value 98 per cent. of hourly means

  200

  guide value 98 per cent. of hourly means

  135

  guide value 50 per cent. of hourly means

  50

  Lead

  limit value—annual average

  2

  60

  Reference Period

  Limit value for SO2

  Associated value for suspended particulates1

  Sulphur dioxide—limit values

  Year.

  80

  >40

  Median of daily values.

  120

  ≤40

  Winter (1 October to 31 March).

  130

  >60

  Median of daily values.

  180

  ≤60

  Year (made up of units measuring periods of 24 hours).

  250

  >150

  98 per cent, of daily values.

  350

  ≤150

  1 Measured by the gravimetric method.

  Reference period

  Guide value for SO2

  Sulphur dioxide-guide values

  Year. Mean of daily values.

  40 to 60

  24 hours. Daily mean value.

  100 to 150

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the ambient level of(a) vanadium and (b) nickel in (i) rural and (ii) urban areas of Wales. [14698]

  Mr. Atkins
  No measurements are currently made of vanadium and nickel in air by the Department of the Environment in urban or rural areas in Wales, but the annual average levels of vanadium and nickel at a rural site in Wales in 1979 are presented in the table.

  Site

  Date

  Level (ng/m3) vanadium

  Level (ng/m3) nickel

  Rural site1

  Trebanos, West Glamorgan

  Average 1979

  7.3

  46

  Source:

  1 Cawse P A (1981) A survey of atmospheric trace elements in the UK. AERE-R 9886. Environmental and Medical Sciences Division, AERE Harwell, Oxon.

  Suffolk County Council
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to monitor the spending of Suffolk county council year on year and to improve the evaluation of what the authority bids for each year from his Department. [14617]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Local authorities do not make bids in respect of their general revenue spending. The Secretary of State announces his proposals for the local government finance settlement annually and he takes account of their representations before reaching his final decisions. Authorities are required to provide information about their budget requirements and their spending annually to my Department.

  Particulates
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those district and metropolitan councils that are monitoring particulate levels at ground level; and what results have been collected by his Department. [14699]

  Mr. Atkins
  Results of particulate monitoring undertaken by local authorities in collaboration with the Department of the Environment are available in "UK Smoke and Sulphur Dioxide Monitoring Networks Summary Tables for April 1992 to March 1993". Data on automatic fine particulate monitoring—PM10—are available in "Air Pollution in the UK: 1992–93". LR1000(AP).

  Both reports are available from the National Environmental Technology Centre, Culham, Oxfordshire.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of civil servants employed by(a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his Department's responsibility and (c) public and other bodies under his Department's responsibility, for each year since 1979, divided into (1) full-time equivalents, (2) overtime, (3) casuals and (4) other; and whether he will also provide for each year his estimates of (A) civil service job reductions due to privatisations, (B) civil service job reductions due to contracting out, (C) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for the Department or its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditures, in 1994 prices. [15088]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The civil service covers the permanent staff of central Government Departments and next steps agencies. The staff of other bodies are outside the civil service.

  The annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" gives details of the number of civil servants employed by my Department and its agencies, including full-time equivalent staff and casuals, from 1993 onwards, and of staff leaving the civil service.

  "Public Bodies", published annually since 1982, contains staffing information for those bodies not covered by "Civil Service Statistics".

  Details of running costs and the civil service pay bill for my Department can be found in table 7 of my Department's annual report, Cm 2807. Table 8 gives details of overtime from 1989–90 onwards.

  Copies of all of these publications are available in the Members' Library.

  The remaining information sought can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Air Pollution Control
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the 1995–96 charging scheme for local authority air pollution control under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. [15395]
  62
  Sir Paul Beresford
  Charges to cover the costs of local enforcing authorities in regulating processes which are subject to part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 were introduced in April 1991. With the approval of the Treasury, and following consultation with local authority associations and industry, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales have made a revised scheme specifying the scale of fees and charges to take effect from 1 April 1995. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is revising the identical, parallel scheme for Scotland on the same basis.

  The standard application fee is increased by £25 to £990, the application fee for a former Alkali Act works is increased by £15 to £595, the substantial change fee is increased by £15 to £635, and the annual subsistence charge is increased by £20 to £605. No change has been made to the remaining fees and charges.

  To help businesses with the budgetary planning, for the first time this year, the scheme will allow operators to pay their annual subsistence charge in quarterly instalments.

  The scheme will be laid before both Houses and a copy placed in the Library.

  Countryside Commission
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the dates of appointment for each of the current members of the Countryside Commission and the total remuneration each has received to date. [14468]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: Dates of first appointment and total remuneration received up to 31 March 1995 are listed in the table. However, it should be noted that commissioners other than the chairman received no remuneration before 1 April 1992. The figures do not include expenses, which were dealt with in my hon. Friend's reply of 13 March, column 409.

  Date appointed

  Remuneration £

  Sir John Johnson KCMG

  1.4.91

  138,830

  Rachel Thomas

  1.10.87

  15,280

  David Retcher MBE

  1.7.88

  15,280

  Sarah Ward

  1.8.91

  15,280

  Sir Richard Carew Pole

  26.9.91

  15,280

  Professor Allan Patmore CBE

  28.9.92

  12,866

  Lord Denham

  1.8.93

  8,687

  Rodney Swarbrick CBE

  1.8.93

  8,687

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures the Government are taking to help disabled people. [12989]

  Mr. Hague
  The Government's plans for ending discrimination against disabled people were set out fully
  63
  in the White Paper published on 12 January. These include new initiatives in education and transport, in addition to the measures in the Disability Discrimination Bill for new rights in employment and access to goods and services and the establishment of a National Disability Council. These proposals, which are clear, flexible and fair, have received widespread support.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about his proposals to restrict housing benefit expenditure. [12994]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  From October, we propose that housing benefit in the deregulated private sector will be limited for rents which are above the general level of rents for similar properties in the same area. Local authorities will have discretion to pay more housing benefit in individual cases of exceptional need.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 1995 on the proposed changes to housing benefit eligibility of sentenced prisoners will come into force. [13000]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The relevant regulations were laid on 10 March and are due to come into effect from 1 April 1995.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the total savings in housing benefit that will arise from his proposed changes in that benefit in the first year of operation. [13013]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The savings to housing benefit from the restrictions on rents above the general level in the locality, the increase in non-dependent deductions, and the restriction on housing benefit claimants temporarily absent from home are estimated to amount to around £75 million in 1995–96.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reforms of the benefit system he is planning to help unemployed people back to work. [13003]

  Mr. Lilley
  I have set in hand eight major initiatives to help unemployed people move back into work more easily and increase the opportunities and rewards of work.

  These initiatives include:
  a reformed system of benefits for unemployed people, focused on jobseeking;
  a £10 weekly premium in family credit for 345,000 families in full time work;
  the removal of barriers impeding the initial move into work; specific help with child care costs;
  a back to work bonus of up to £1,000 to encourage part-time work on benefit
  reducing costs on business to encourage employers to take on the long-term unemployed and to boost jobs
  and a pilot study of a new in-work benefit for people without children.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he estimates will be the increase in administrative costs for the Benefits Agency 64
  and his Department arising out of the introduction of incapacity benefit. [13004]

  Mr. Hague
  The increase is estimated to be about £55 million for 1995–96; £47 million for 1996–97; and about £2 million per annum thereafter.

  Child Support
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many absent parents he estimates will see a reduction in their maintenance assessment as a result of the introduction of the travel costs allowance in the child support formula. [13005]

  Mr. Burt
  It is estimated that, in the long run, 55,000 absent parents will benefit from this allowance each year.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received pressing for repeal of the legislation in response to his recent White Paper, "Improving Child Support".

  Mr. Burt
  None. Those responses received continue to support the principles of the Child Support Act 1991.

  Income Support, Leicester
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants there are in receipt of income support in Leicester, South. [13006]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total value of spending on family credit since its introduction. [13007]

  Mr. Burt
  Total spending on family credit from its introduction in 1988 to March 1994 was £4,076 million. Estimated expenditure for 1994–95 is £1,480 million.

  Benefit Payment Card
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce a benefit payment card. [13008]

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Somerset and Frome (Mr. Robinson) on 20 February 1995,Official Report, column 71.

  Pensioner Households
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households had(a) a fridge, (b) a car, (c) a freezer, (d) a telephone and (e) a television in 1979; and how many have them today. [13009]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is in the table.
  65

  Percentage of all pensioner households with access to consumer durables

  Pensioner couples

  Single pensioners

  All pensioners

  1979

  1991–92

  1979

  1991–92

  1979

  1991–92

  (a) Fridge or fridge freezer

  94

  99

  82

  98

  88

  99

  (b) Car/van

  48

  66

  21

  29

  34

  49

  (c) Freezer or fridge freezer

  42

  85

  21

  62

  32

  75

  (d) Telephone

  64

  95

  51

  88

  57

  92

  (e) Television

  99

  99

  92

  98

  96

  99

  Source:

  Households Below Average Income Series.

  Funeral Expenses
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had from funeral directors about his proposals to cap payment of funeral expenses under the social fund. [13010]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received approximately 55 letters from individual funeral directors and two requests for meetings from funeral directors' national associations.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to receive the views of the Social Security Advisory Committee on his proposal to cap payments towards funeral expenses under the social fund. [13012]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Social Security Advisory Committee's report was received on 15 March in the Department. I am now in the process of considering the recommendations.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the jobseeker's allowance will be used in the same way as income support to decide the district allocation for social fund purposes. [14154]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The income-related element of jobseeker's allowance will be used in a like way as income support for unemployed people when deciding on budget allocations to the discretionary social fund.

  Habitual Residence Test
  23. Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the length of time taken to process appeals against the habitual residence test; and if he will make a statement. [13011]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have received a number of inquiries about the habitual residence test. I am unaware of any representations about the time taken to process appeals. The responsibility for administering and hearing social security appeals rests with the president of the independent tribunal service, who I understand has also not received any representations regarding this matter.

  Mortgage Interest Payment
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to next meet the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Building Societies Association to discuss payment of mortgage interest by his Department. [13015]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Officials are engaged in on-going discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and 66
  Building Societies Association on the proposals for income support mortgage interest.

  Young People (Income Support)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who have been refused income support since the entitlement was restricted. [13016]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.

  Rowntree Report on Inequality
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to meet Sir Peter Barclay to discuss the findings of the Rowntree report on inequality in income and wealth. [13017]

  Mr. Burt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has no such plans. The Rowntree report was commented on by my right hon. Friend during the debate on Tuesday 14 February,Official Report, columns 812–826.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new measures he is taking to assist disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [13204]

  Mr. Hague
  The Government's plans for ending discrimination against disabled people were set out fully in the White Paper published on 12 January. These include new initiatives in education and transport, in addition to the measures in the Disability Discrimination Bill for new rights in employment and access to goods and services and the establishment of a national disability council. These proposals, which are clear, flexible and fair, have received widespread support.

  Polling and Public Survey Organisations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the employment of polling or public survey organisations by his Department during the current and previous financial years, on the organisations employed by his Department, on the values of individual contracts for these services, on the total amounts of money spent and on the purposes of the research undertaken by these organisations.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Most of the Department's research contracts are let following a process of competitive tender. The Department announces its research programme annually and potential contractors are invited to register an interest in relevant projects.
  67
  A list of contracts let by the Department to polling or public survey organisations in the current financial year is set out below:

  Organisation Amount £

  British Market Research Bureau (BMRB)

  Contributions Agency Customer Survey 1994

  152,691

  Resettlement Agency Customer Survey 1994

  36,310

  Industrial Facts and Forecasting Research Ltd. (IFF)

  Forecasting demand for Social Security Advice Line for Employers

  42,594

  Staff Attitude Survey 1994

  86,362

  Market and Opinion Research International (MORI)

  Child Support Agency Customer Survey 1994

  265,531

  Child Support Agency Survey on the Phasing Option

  10,100

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS)

  Family Resources Survey (FRS) (joint project with Social and Community Planning Research)

  2,960,000

  Disability survey development work

  9,420

  Public Perceptions of Occupational and Personal Pensions

  40,000

  Retirement Survey follow-up

  395,166

  Study to compare the contents and methods of FRS and Family Expenditure Survey

  3,500

  Omnibus Survey on Contributions Statement

  8,800

  Public Attitude Surveys Ltd. (PAS)

  War Pensions Agency Customer Satisfaction Survey 1994

  92,837

  Educational Compliance Visits

  35,516

  Council Tax Benefit (Second Adult Rebate) Research

  7,656

  Housing Benefit: LA Anti-Fraud Incentives scheme

  25,397

  Income Support Review

  17,531

  Benefits Agency Customer Satisfaction Survey 1994

  208,738

  Research on the service provided by the War Pensions Welfare Service

  31,020

  Research Services Ltd. (RSL) Evaluation of One Stop Initiative

  63,620

  Social and Community Planning Research (SCPR)

  Industrial Injuries: Income and Resources of recent claimants

  12,244

  Women, Pensions and Divorce

  397,870

  Pension Scheme Dispute Resolution

  112,625

  Employers' Pension Provision

  177,300

  68

  Organisation Amount £

  Direct Payments of Mortgage Interest

  33,577

  Satisfaction with Benefits Agency Local Office Services

  38,230

  Customer Satisfaction: Methodological Issues

  18,115

  Secondary Analysis of Benefit Agency Customer Satisfaction Survey

  15,875

  Management of money in later life

  40,400

  The Department also commissions research from independent research institutes, universities and other non-survey research organisations. Full details of all projects commissioned as part of the research programme are contained in the social research yearbook published annually.

  In addition, the Department has contracted a number of market research agencies to develop and monitor public information campaigns and projects through the Central Office of Information.

  Research contributes to the development and implementation of new policies and the monitoring and evaluation of existing policies. It also plays an important role in providing customer feedback on the Department's services. The Department's external research budget for 1994–95 is £4,000,000.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on how many occasions in each year since 1987 payments have been triggered under the cold weather payments scheme in each parliamentary constituency in Scotland; [14497]

  (2) if he will list all the weather stations which are used by his Department within Scotland to assess whether payments are necessary under the cold weather payments scheme and the parliamentary constituencies associated with each of these. [14483]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Since 1991, the weather stations which are used for the cold weather payment scheme have been linked to post code areas to enable automatic payment. All weather stations and the areas they cover are listed in the schedules to the cold weather payment regulations, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Information is not available in respect of the number of occasions since 1987 payments have been triggered in each parliamentary constituency. The information that is available is in the statistical holdings section of the Library.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of civil servants employed by(a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his Departments's responsibility and (c) public and other bodies under his Departmnet's responsibility, for each year since 1979, divided into (1) full-time equivalents, (2) overtime, (3) casuals and (4) other; and whether he will also provide for each year his estimates

  69
  of (A) civil service job reductions due to privatisations, (B) civil service job reductions due to contracting out, (C) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for the Department or its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditures, in 1994 prices. [15090]

  Mr. Hague
  The civil service covers the permanent staff of central Government Departments and next steps agencies. Some of the staff of other bodies are outside the civil service.

  The annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" gives details of the number of civil servants employed by this Department and its agencies, including full-time equivalent staff and casuals, from 1993 onwards, and of staff leaving the civil service.

  "Public Bodies" published annually since 1982, contains staffing information for those bodies not covered by "Civil Service Statistics".

  Details of running costs and the civil service pay bill for this Department can be found in figure 32 of this Department's annual report 1995–96 to 1997–98. Figure 35 gives details of overtime from 1989–90 onwards.

  Copies of all these publications are available in the Members' Library.

  The remaining information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Temporary Contracts
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what positions in (i) his Department and (ii) all executive agencies for which his Department is responsible are filled by employees who are employed on temporary contracts of(a) 51 weeks or (b) fewer than 51 weeks duration.

  Staff employed on temporary contracts of fewer than 51 weeks

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  1 January 1995

  Number

  Percentage of total workforce

  Number

  Percentage of total workforce

  Number

  Percentage of total workforce

  Department of Social Security

  2,729

  3.0

  3,176

  3.4

  5,205

  5.5

  Executive Agencies

  2,637

  3.0

  3,123

  3.5

  5,116

  5.6

  Notes:

  1. Part-time staff are counted as half-units and totals are rounded to whole units.

  2. Numbers of staff employed in the executive agencies are included in the departmental figures.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Attorney-General what opportunities he foresees for further expansion of the system for prosecution appeals against over-lenient sentences. [12980]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General's power to review a sentence was recently extended to cover cases
  70
  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]: As at 1 January 1995, there were no staff employed on temporary 1995, there were no staff employed on temporary contracts of 51 weeeks. The available information for those employed on contracts of fewer than 51 weeks is in the table. More precise details of the positions held could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Clerical, secretarial and support grades

  Executive and professional grades

  Department of Social Security

  5,068

  137

  Executive Agencies

  5,008

  108

  Notes:

  1. Part-time staff are counted as half-units and totals are rounded to whole units.

  2. Numbers of staff employed in the executive agencies are included in the departmental figures.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) for this year and each of the past five years, how many employees in (i) his Department and (ii) all executive agencies for which his Department is responsible who have been employed on temporary contracts of(a) 51 weeks or (b) fewer than 51 weeks duration are re-employed in the same or similar position at a later date;

  (2) how many employees in (i) his Department and (ii) all executive agencies supervised by his Department have been employed on temporary contracts of (a) 51 weeks or (b) fewer than 51 weeks duration for this year and each of the past five years, in each case specifying what percentage of the respective total work force these employees constitute.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]: The information requested for the period prior to April 1993 and concerning staff who have been re-employed is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  There were no staff employed on temporary contracts of 51 weeks as at 1 April 1993, 1 April 1994 or 1 January 1995. The available information is in the table.

  of serious fraud. All the most serious offences tried in the Crown court, which are those that give rise to greatest public concern, are now covered.

  Combat 18
  36. Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General what discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the head of the Crown Prosecution Service relating to prosecution policy concerning Combat 18. [12984]
  71
  The Attorney-General
  I frequently meet the Director of Public Prosecutions. Cases with a racial element are discussed as and when they arise.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has now received a report from the Metropolitan police concerning Combat 18. [12986]

  The Attorney-General
  No. A report will be submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service by the Metropolitan police once they have concluded their inquiries.

  Barings Bank
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent meetings he has held with the Serious Fraud Office to discuss Barings bank. [12985]

  The Attorney-General
  I frequently meet the director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss matters of departmental interest, including particular cases.

  Asil Nadir
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the case of Asil Nadir. [12987]

  The Solicitor-General
  A warrant has been issued for the arrest of Asil Nadir. The Crown is ready to proceed as soon as he returns or is returned to the jurisdiction.

  Public Interest Immunity
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Attorney-General what changes he has made in his policy for advising on public interest immunity certificates since the prosecution of directors of Matrix Churchill. [12982]

  The Attorney-General
  Any advice in relation to public interest immunity is based on the law as it stands at the time that advice is given.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Security Forces
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to reduce the present numbers of security forces in Northern Ireland while IRA weapons are still outstanding; and if the release of prisoners will be negotiable.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Adjustments in the level of military support to the Royal Ulster Constabulary are based solely on the operational judgment of the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding. On the basis of their advice my right hon. and learned Friend was able to announce on 14 March the relocation to Great Britain of one of the two additional units deployed to Northern Ireland in 1992. The unit and its intended successor will be ready to deploy fully trained at short notice should the need arise.

  The decommissioning of arms is required in its own right and cannot be linked to prisons or other unrelated issues. We have made it absolutely clear that there is no. question of an amnesty. There are no political prisoners in the United Kingdom and those who have committed crimes must serve their sentences according to law.

  Telecommunications
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans exist to cut off British Telecom (Northern Ireland) from the rest of the United Kingdom network and allow it to stand alone as a separate business entity.

  Mr. Ancram
  I am not aware of any such plans, which would be a matter for the board of British Telecom.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for British Telecom (Northern Ireland) to be one of the first private sector companies to be established as a cross-border utility with joint Government-Executive influence.

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Brucella Melitensis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of brucella melitensis were reported in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Ancram
  Brucella melitensis has never been recorded in Northern Ireland.

  National Continence Day
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has had regarding the forthcoming National Continence Day; and if he will make a statement; [14230]

  (2) what financial support he has given and will be giving to National Continence Day; and if he will make a statement. [14232]

  Mr. Moss
  No representations have been received about National Continence Day. The Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland is funding a freephone helpline and arranging publicity for National Continence Day. Health and social services boards in Northern Ireland will be distributing information leaflets, and continence advisers will be manning stands at shopping and health centres throughout Northern Ireland to support the campaign, raise awareness of this condition and encourage sufferers to seek advice and treatment.

DEFENCE

  War Widows
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of living post-1973 war widows who have at any time been in receipt of an attributable forces family pension.

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not available. An attributable forces family pension ceases on death or remarriage and we have no record of whether those whose pensions ceased on remarriage are still living.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many post-1973 war widows in receipt of an attributable forces family pension have subsequently remarried, in each year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Soames
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  73
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of living post-1973 war widows currently in receipt of an attributable forces family pension.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 719.

  Royal Flight
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in 1993–94 the royal flight was used by(a) members of the royal family, (b) Ministers, and (c) others.

  Mr. Soames
  During financial year 1993–94, the Queen's flight was used by the royal family on 968 occasions; by Her Majesty's Government Ministers on 89 occasions; and on 21 occasions by other VIPs, such as visiting foreign dignitaries.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of his Department's expenditure on water and sewerage in(a) the current year and (b) each of the three previous years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The statistics sought are not held centrally and could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  RAF Recruitment
  Sir John Cope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of potential pilots recruited into the RAF in each of the last five years had university air squadron experience;

  (2) how many potential pilots were recruited into the RAF in each of the last five years.

  Mr Soames
  The information requested is contained in the table below:

  Financial Year

  Total Number of recruits who entered pilot training

  Total former UAS

  Percentage former UAS

  1994–95

  70

  57

  81

  1993–94

  74

  52

  70

  1992–93

  116

  65

  56

  1991–92

  170

  68

  40

  1990–91

  254

  95

  37

  University Air Squadrons
  Sir John Cope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of the university air squadrons in each of the last five years showing(a) the cost of staff, (b) the cost of aircraft, (c) the cost of airfields and (d) other costs.

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Sir John Cope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flying students joined university air squadrons in each of the last five years; and how many completed initial flying training with such squadrons.
  74
  Mr. Soames
  Information on the number of undergraduates who joined the university air squadrons as flying members is only available for the last three years, and is as follows:

  Financial year 1992–93: 348

  Financial year 1993–94: 346

  Financial year 1994–95: 404

  Information for earlier years could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The total UAS student pilot establishment is 725.

  Records are not maintained centrally on the number of UAS students who successfully complete the entire UAS flying syllabus. However, of those ex-UAS pilots who enter initial officer training each year, it is assessed that historically around two thirds will have successfully completed the UAS flying syllabus.

  In the future, the UASs are committed to train all potential pilots up to a common standard for entry into basic flying training in the Royal Air Force.

  Railway Wagons
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what military purpose his Department requires to purchase 27 45-tonnes pallet vans and 40 modified container flat wagons, as set out in contract number PDS1A/29; what consideration has been given to leasing or hiring such equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The railway wagons will be used at Army base ammunition and ordnance depots for movement of stores both within the depots and to deliver to other customers via the main line railway system. They are needed as part of the modernisation of the Army's wagon fleet and to meet the increasingly exacting health and safety at work regulations.

  In producing these wagons, full consideration was given to the options of leasing or hiring but the best value for money for the taxpayer will be achieved in this case by permanent ownership.

  Lobbying Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when representatives of his Department last had a meeting with representatives from(a) PPAI International, (b) Lowe Bell Communications, (c) GJW Government Relations, (d) the Conservative Research Department, (e) Shandwick Consultants, (f) Ian Greer Associates Ltd., (g) the Market Access Group, (h) Westminster Strategy and (i) Barrington Jay and Company; and if he will give the subject of each meeting. [14339]

  Mr. Freeman
  There is no central record of any meetings between my officials and representatives of the companies listed.

  Newspaper Announcements
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will list, by type and number, the announcements placed by his Department in(a) The Times, (b) the Daily Telegraph, (c) The Independent and (d) other publications in the last 12 months for which information is available. [14341]
  75
  Mr. Soames
  Announcements concerning events, functions and the like may be sent to newspapers, both from my Department's headquarters and from establishments and commands. It is then a matter for individual newspapers whether they publish the information provided.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent listing official engagements in newspapers in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [14340]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not my Department's practice to pay for listing official engagements in newspapers. Press releases and announcements are sent to newspapers, which will decide for themselves what they choose to publish.

  Overseas Posts
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, columns 87–88, how much his Department spent on (a) pay, (b) allowances and (c) equipment and support costs for (i) services attachés, (ii) defence advisers and (iii) support staff in each overseas post for the last year in which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [14345]

  Mr. Soames
  The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, columns 87–88, if he will give the official annual entertainment allowance currently at the disposal of service attachés and defence advisers in each overseas post; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The current official entertainment allowance at the disposal of defence staff in each overseas post is given below.

  Annual Accountable Entertainment Allowance (AEA)

  Capital

  Country

  AEA for year 1994–95 (Sterling)

  Abu Dhabi

  UAE

  10,998

  Accra

  Ghana

  7,239

  Algiers

  Algeria

  4,198

  Amman

  Jordan

  12,976

  Ankara

  Turkey

  6,152

  Athens

  Greece

  18,016

  Bangkok

  Thailand

  4,902

  Beirut

  Lebanon

  3,560

  Belgrade

  Yugoslavia

  10,343

  Berne

  Switzerland

  8,190

  Bogata

  Colombia

  9,675

  Bonn

  Germany

  27,319

  Brasilia

  Brazil

  9,885

  Bratislava

  Slovakia

  5,000

  Bridgetown

  Barbados

  6,099

  Brussels

  Belgium

  13,348

  Bucharest

  Romania

  3,500

  Budapest

  Hungaria

  5,899

  Buenos Aires

  Argentina

  22,755

  Cairo

  Egypt

  16,188

  Canberra

  Australia

  15,115

  Caracas

  Venezuela

  8,604

  Copenhagen

  Denmark

  8,307

  Damascus

  Syria

  5,004

  Dhaka

  Bangladesh

  5,011

  Dublin

  Irish Republic

  6,296

  Guatemala City

  Guatemala

  4,660

  76

  Annual Accountable Entertainment Allowance (AEA)

  Capital

  Country

  AEA for year 1994–95 (Sterling)

  The Hague

  Netherlands

  24,677

  Harare

  Zimbabwe

  6,888

  Helsinki

  Finland

  11,790

  Islamabad

  Pakistan

  8,254

  Jakarta

  Indonesia

  5,824

  Kampala

  Uganda

  5,746

  Kathmandu

  Nepal

  3,160

  Kiev

  Ukraine

  4,811

  Kingston

  Jamaica

  4,474

  Kuala Lumpur

  Malaysia

  8,328

  Kuwait City

  Kuwait

  4,476

  Lagos

  Nigeria

  10,836

  Lisbon

  Portugal

  7,082

  Madrid

  Spain

  16,641

  Mexico City

  Mexico

  6,883

  Moscow

  Russia

  21,958

  Muscat

  Oman

  13,762

  Nairobi

  Kenya

  5,160

  New Dehli

  India

  9,725

  Nicosia

  Cyprus

  7,698

  Oslo

  Norway

  11,608

  Ottawa

  Canada

  15,594

  Paris

  France

  56,985

  Peking

  China

  7,778

  Prague

  Czech

  8,198

  Pretoria

  South Africa

  6,150

  Rabat

  Morocco

  7,914

  Riga

  Latvia

  2,000

  Riyadh

  Saudi Arabia

  21,281

  Rome

  Italy

  27,816

  Santiago

  Chile

  8,455

  Seoul

  South Korea

  14,338

  Singapore

  Singapore

  12,928

  Sofia

  Bulgaria

  4,566

  Stockholm

  Sweden

  26,408

  Tel Aviv

  Israel

  14,746

  Tokyo

  Japan

  33,064

  Vienna

  Austria

  8,377

  Warsaw

  Poland

  6,126

  Washington

  USA

  224,400

  Wellington

  New Zealand

  8,076

  Zagreb

  Croatia

  4,000

  Public Relations
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1994,Official Report, columns 666–67, if he will list the publications produced by his Department's public relations section in (a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93 and (c) 1993–94; and what was the cost of each, the number of copies produced, the number distributed, whether any charge was made and the level of each charge. [14338]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1994,Official Report, columns 666–67, if he will list by title the films made by his Department's public relations section in (a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93 and (c) 1993–94; and if he will give the cost of each. [14344]
  77
  Mr. Soames
  Films and videos produced by the Department's headquarters public relations staff are as follows:

  1991–92

  Britain in NATO

  Insurance for Peace

  RN in the Gulf

  Keeping the Coasts Clear

  Freedom of the Seas

  RN Presentation Team Film

  RAF Presentation Team Film

  1992–93

  Green Forces

  Low Flying

  Changing Horizons and Ship Class Videos

  Sound of Silence

  1993–94

  Protecting through Science

  Field Gunners

  The individual cost of each film or video is a commercially sensitive matter but overall the cost was just over £700,000.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many meetings have taken place in the last two years between representatives of his Department and Conservative hon. Members to discuss procurement decisions; and if he will give(a) the date, (b) the subject and (c) the names of the Ministers and hon. Members attending. [14343]

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

  Manadon
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete the sale of the Royal Navy's engineering school at Manadon, Plymouth. [14342]

  Mr. Soames
  The marketing campaign for Manadon is proceeding satisfactorily and prospective purchasers have been asked to submit details of their proposals and a financial offer by 26 April. It is too soon to say when assessment of the bids will be completed, but we aim to achieve a sale which will allow a smooth transition from naval to civilian use.

  Porton Down Experiments
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many(a) officers and (b) other ranks have volunteered since 1965 to participate in experiments at Porton Down. [14330]

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter front Graham Pearson to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 20 March 1995:

  Question 12, Order Paper 14 March 1995

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him how many (a) officers and (b) other ranks have volunteered since 1965 to participate in experiments at Porton
  78
  Down, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use Service volunteers to:

  (a) assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures.

  (b) develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel, and

  (c) evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.
  3. Our records indicate that the number of officers and other ranks who have volunteered since 1965 to take part in studies at Porton Down is as follows:

  Year

  Officers

  Other ranks

  Total

  1965

  17

  129

  146

  1966

  35

  114

  149

  1967

  44

  200

  244

  1968

  35

  228

  263

  1969

  47

  134

  181

  1970

  59

  268

  327

  1971

  57

  168

  225

  1972

  59

  299

  358

  1973

  63

  201

  264

  1974

  100

  204

  304

  1975

  41

  96

  137

  1976

  65

  189

  254

  1977

  37

  80

  117

  1978

  25

  79

  104

  1979

  37

  116

  153

  1980

  106

  234

  340

  1981

  61

  242

  303

  1982

  38

  123

  161

  1983

  36

  141

  177

  1984

  42

  89

  131

  1985

  52

  129

  181

  1986

  31

  65

  96

  1987

  29

  64

  93

  1988

  46

  90

  136

  1989

  31

  79

  110

  1990

  18

  65

  83

  1991

  9

  41

  50

  1992

  54

  58

  112

  1993

  23

  41

  64

  1994

  38

  66

  104

  Goddard Study
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, columns 87–88, who carried out the independent review of attachés known as the Goddard study; and what was the total cost of the review. [14333]

  Mr. Soames
  The Goddard study was conducted by an air commodore, a lieutenant colonel and a higher executive officer, Development, supported by a personal assistant. The cost of staff time and travel and subsistence involved in this review was £65,000.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of civil servants employed by(a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his Department's responsibility and (c) public and other bodies under his Department's responsibility, for each year since 1979, divided into (i) full-time equivalents, (ii) overtime, (iii) casuals and (iv) other; and whether he will also provide for each year his estimates of (A) civil service job reductions due to privatisations, (B) civil service job reductions due to contracting out, (C) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for his Department or its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditures, in 1994 prices. [14763]

  Mr. Freeman
  The civil service covers the permanent staff of central Government Departments and next steps agencies. The staff of other bodies are outside the civil service.

  The annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" gives details of the number of civil servants employed by my Department and its agencies, including full-time equivalent staff and casuals, from 1993 onwards, and of staff leaving the civil service.

  "Public Bodies", published annually since 1982, contains staffing information for those bodies not covered by "Civil Service Statistics".

  Details of operating costs and the civil service pay bill for my Department for the years 1989–90 to 1997–98 are contained in table 5 of my Department's annual report (Cm 2801), and table 4 gives details of overtime.

  "United Kingdom Defence Statistics" which is published annually contains more detailed information regarding recruitment and job reductions due to contractorisation and privatisation.

  Copies of all these publications are available in the Library of the House.

  The remaining information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Polling and Public Survey Organisations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the employment of polling or public survey organisations by his Department during the current and previous financial years, on the organisations employed by his Department, on the values of individual contracts for these services, on the total amounts of money spent and on the purposes of the research undertaken by these organisations. [14508]

  Mr. Freeman
  The following organisations have undertaken opinion surveys on behalf of the MOD since 1 April 1993:

  RSGB

  Reflexions

  MORI

  One World Research

  BMRB

  Research Services

  Diagnostics

  Andrew Irving Associates

  80
  The cost of the individual studies is commercially confidential information, but the total cost of all surveys was:

  1993–94: £129,000

  1994–95: £243,500

  The objectives of the research are to monitor the effectiveness of advertising in recruiting personnel to the armed forces and the attitudes of the public towards a career in the armed forces.

  Official Service Residences
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 20 February Official Report column 86–87 if he will give the annual entertainment allowance for each other official service residence for the latest year for which information is available.

  Mr Soames
  [holding answer 28 February 1995]: The current annual entertainment allowance at the disposal of the officers resident in my Department's official service residences is given in the table below:

  Residence

  Annual entertainment allowance 1994–95

  Comments

  1 (1)

  3,263

  2 (2)

  3,263

  3 (3)

  3,741

  4 (4)

  Vacant

  5 (5)

  7,470

  6 (6)

  1Not in receipt of EA

  7 (7)

  4,870

  8 (9)

  7,470

  9 (10)

  1,390

  10 (11)

  4,870

  11 (12)

  4,870

  12 (12)

  4,870

  13 (15)

  3,263

  14 (16)

  3,263

  Vacant from 1 May for disposal

  15 (17)

  4,870

  16 (18)

  4,870

  17 (19)

  7,470

  18 (20)

  4,870

  19 (22)

  2,080

  20 (23)

  4,870

  21 (24)

  7,470

  22 (25)

  2,255

  23 (26)

  4,870

  24 (27)

  4,870

  25 (28)

  7,470

  26

  4,870

  New residence

  27 (29)

  3,263

  28 (30)

  3,263

  29 (31)

  3,263

  30 (33)

  1Not in receipt of EA

  31 (34)

  7,470

  32 (35)

  1,390

  33 (36)

  4,870

  34 (37)

  3,263

  35 (38)

  4,526

  36 (39)

  6,314

  37 (40)

  8,212

  38 (41)

  3,263

  39 (42)

  2,080

  40 (43)

  3,263

  41 (44)

  1,390

  42 (45)

  2,080

  43 (46)

  4,870

  44 (47)

  4,870

  45 (48)

  3,263

  46 (49)

  3,263

  47 (50)

  2,080

  81

  Residence

  Annual entertainment allowance 1994–95

  Comments

  48 (51)

  3,263

  49 (52)

  7,470

  50 (53)

  3,263

  51 (54)

  7,470

  52 (55)

  3,263

  53 (56)

  11,147

  54 (57)

  11,888

  55 (58)

  7,470

  56 (59)

  3,263

  57 (60)

  4,870

  58 (61)

  3,263

  59 (62)

  7,470

  60 (63)

  1,390

  61 (64)

  2,080

  62 (65)

  3,263

  63 (66)

  2,139

  64 (67)

  3,263

  65 (68)

  4,870

  66 (69)

  3,263

  67 (70)

  3,263

  68 (71)

  3,263

  69 (72)

  4,870

  70 (73)

  3,263

  71 (74)

  3,263

  72 (75)

  9,056

  73 (76)

  6,241

  74 (77)

  3,263

  75

  7,470

  Omitted from previous list

  Note:

  1 The posts held by the occupants of residences 6 and 30 do not qualify for payment of Entertainment Allowance.

  Representational entertainment by these officers is funded through individual grants in aid.

  Properties no longer classed as OSRs

  (8) Vacant—declared for disposal

  Not in receipt of EA

  (14) OSR status removed

  (21) Vacant from September 1994—previous occupant EA = £4870

  (32) Vacant 31 January 1995

  Not in receipt of EA

  The numerical list given in my answer to the hon. Member on 21 July 1994, Official Report, column 560, has since been updated and the previous serial number is shown in parentheses.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, what was the total number of civil servants employed by(a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his Department's responsibility and (c) public and other bodies under his Department's responsibility, for each year since 1992, divided in (1) full-time equivalents, (2) overtime, (3) casuals and (4) other; and whether he will also provide for each year his estimates of (A) civil service job reductions due to privatisations, (B) civil service job reductions due to contracting out, (C) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for the Department or its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external
  82
  consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditures, in 1994 prices.

  Mr. Newton
  The annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" gives details of the number of civil servants employed by the Privy Council Office, including full-time equivalent staff and casuals, from 1993 onwards, and of staff leaving the civil service. I am not responsible for any agencies.

  Details of the running costs and the staff pay bill for my department can be found in the relevant annual report—Cm 2820, page 102.

  Copies of these publications are available in the Members' Library.

  The remaining information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Correspondence
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons the letter dated 26 February sent by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston has not been answered.

  Mrs. Browning
  The letter was replied to today.

  New Forest Buckhounds
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of the keeper's reports on the carcases of deer killed by the New Forest buckhounds on 6 March and 10 March. [14370]

  Mr. Jack
  Copies of the reports have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Livestock Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the type, value and number of livestock exported through(a) Dover, (b) Plymouth, (c) Brightlingsea, (d) Shoreham, (e) Coventry airport, (f) Swansea airport, (g) Humberside airport, (h) Grimsby, and (i) other (i) in the five months before October 1994 and (ii) since October 1994. [14155]

  Mrs. Browning
  Overseas trade data are not available in the form required.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total number of civil servants employed by(a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his Department's responsibility and (c) public and other bodies under his Department's responsibility, for each year since 1979, divided into (1) full-time equivalents; (2) overtime, (3) casuals and (4) other—and whether he will also provide for each year his estimates of (A) civil service job reductions due to privatisations, (B) civil service job reductions due to contracting out, (C) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for the Department or its

  83
  agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditures in 1994 prices. [15091]

  Mr. Jack
  The civil service covers the permanent staff of central Government Departments and next steps agencies. The staff of other bodies are outside the civil service.

  The annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" gives details of the number of civil servants employed by the Department and its agencies, including full-time equivalent staff and casuals, from 1993 onwards, and of staff leaving the civil service.

  "Public Bodies", published annually since 1982, contains staffing information for those bodies not covered by "Civil Service Statistics".

  Details of running costs and civil service pay bill for the Department can be found in annexe 5 of the Department's annual report, cm 2803. Annexe 6 gives details of overtime from 1989–90 onwards.

  Copies of all of these publications are available in the Members' Library. The remaining information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to change the nature of the trade for aid provision. [13023]

  Mr. Baldry
  The results of a full review of the aid and trade provision were announced to the House on 17 June 1993 in a reply from my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). These reforms are being carried through.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the level of aid to the east European countries from the know-how fund is expected to be in 1995–96. [13024]

  Mr. Baldry
  The 1995–96 planning figure for central and eastern Europe and former Soviet Union is £80 million.

  Rwanda
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current level of aid going to Rwanda. [13025]

  Mr. Baldry
  Since January 1995 we have pledged 11,000 tonnes of bilateral food aid worth more than £3 million and £6 million in other assistance to Rwanda. This brings our total assistance to the Rwandan crisis since April 1994 to nearly £80 million.

  Saharwi Refugees
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid has been made available to Saharwi people in refugee camps. [13026]

  Mr. Baldry
  The UNHCR earmarked £4 million for the Saharwi refugees in 1994 and a further £4 million this year.

  The United Kingdom provides no direct bilateral aid, but helps indirectly through its contributions to UNHCR. ODA has provided over £20 million in 1994–95 for UNHCR's general programmes budget.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid projects were discussed during his recent visit to Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. [13027]

  Mr. Baldry
  I visited Sri Lanka on 14 to 16 November 1994. I was able to discuss with Ministers there the content of the aid programme in Sri Lanka which aims to reduce poverty; tackle environmental problems; strengthen human resource development; and promote good government. I was also able to see some of the relief and rehabilitation projects for families affected by the disturbances in the north and east which are financed by aid.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances he received, before February, prior to scholarship awards being granted to officers of the Indonesian police force that none of those officers had previously served in East Timor.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 726, what assurances he obtained, before February, prior to scholarship awards being granted to officers of the Indonesian police force that none of those officers would subsequently serve in East Timor.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Indonesian national police force gave a commitment that officers who received scholarship awards under the police project would remain with the project for a minimum of five years.

  Mrs. Clywd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates, titles and reference number of evaluation studies relating to Indonesia published by his Department since April 1990, indicating in each case which of the documents relate to support given through the aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since April 1990 ODA's evaluation department has published two evaluation reports relating to Indonesia. The "Evaluation of the Ombilin Coal Mine, Indonesia (1982–84)"—EV491 January 1992—was financed under the aid and trade provision. This project is also referred to in the "ATP Synthesis Evaluation Study"—EV490 November 1991. Both reports are available in the Libraries of the House,

  Mrs.Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any Indonesian police officers who have received scholarship awards involving
  85
  training paid for by his Department had previously served in East Timor.

  Mr. Baldry
  Major Adjie Rustarn Ramdja served there in 1985 and Major Medhy Chumaedi served there before 1983.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 726, what sources other than the Indonesian national police force have provided information that Indonesian police officers who have received scholarship awards paid for by his Department, have not subsequently served in East Timor.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom managers of the Indonesia national police project have also provided this information.

  Third-world Countries
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account is taken of poverty levels in third-world countries when they are considered for overseas aid; and if he will make a statement. [13205]

  Mr. Baldry
  The objective of the whole aid programme is poverty reduction through sustainable development. In allocating resources, the Government target in particular poverty reduction in the poorest developing countries. Nine of the 10 largest aid recipients in 1993–94 were low-income countries in Africa and Asia and, in the same year, over two thirds of our bilateral aid allocable by income group went to the poorest developing countries.

  European Democracy Programmes
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications have been submitted by voluntary organisations located in the United Kingdom for funds under(a) the European Union's PHARE programme and (b) the European Union's TACIS democracy programme; if he will list those organisations which have been awarded such moneys; what is the range of these awards; and if he will make a statement. [14810]

  Mr. Baldry
  As of the end of 1994, the jointly administered PHARE and TACIS democracy programmes had considered a total of 88 applications from British based non-governmental organisations which met the eligibility criteria. Of these 22 were successful and the following awards have been made:

  Name of organization

  Amount (ecu)

  Penal Reform International

  69,650

  English Speaking Union

  69,864

  European Young Bar Association

  150,000

  Association mondiale des radiodiffuseurs communautaires—AMARC1

  116,210

  Article XIX, International Centre Against Censorship

  116,865

  PMA Foundation

  118,177

  AIRE Centre: Advice on Individual Rights in Europe

  85,887

  Historical Association

  150,000

  86

  Name of organization

  Amount (ecu)

  Penal Reform International

  52,605

  BBC World Service

  102,995

  Centre for Defence Studies

  81,700

  BEARR Trust—British Emergency Action in Russia and the Republics

  37,083

  AIRE Centre: Advice on Individual Rights in Europe

  80,608

  BBC Marshall Plan of the Mind Trust

  150,000

  British-Albanian Legal Association

  53,980

  Centre for Defence Studies

  50,000

  Bilston Community College

  94,398

  International Media Centre, University of Salford

  88,253

  Graphical, Print and Media Union

  134,219

  INTRAC—International NGO Training and Research Centre

  124,588

  Aga Khan Foundation

  193,970

  Verification Technology Information Centre—VERTIC

  190,000

  1 Application made from UK office.

  Yemen
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to resume the bilateral aid programme to the republic of Yemen. [15251]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have recently informed the Government of the republic of Yemen that United Kingdom bilateral aid activity will resume at the start of the 1995–96 UK financial year.

TRANSPORT

  Polling and Public Survey Organisations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the employment of polling or public survey organisations by his Department during the current and previous financial years, on the organisations employed by his Department, on the values of individual contracts for these services, on the total amounts of money spent and on the purposes of the research undertaken by these organisations. [14510]

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested is set out in the tables.

  Financial year 1993–94

  Name of polling or public survey organization

  Purpose of research

  Hampshire County Council

  After study of traffic calming measures

  Lincolnshire County Council

  After study of traffic calming measures

  Public Attitude Surveys Ltd.

  Customer satisfaction survey

  Research International

  Tracking research on road safety campaigns to test overall effectiveness and report on changes in attitude/behaviour

  87

  Financial year 1993–94

  Name of polling or public survey organisation

  Purpose of research

  Research International (Cont.)

  Survey to determine the public view on the acceptance of photacard driving licences

  Survey to determine the attitude of Vehicle Excise Duty evaders, and the effectiveness of advertising campaigns

  Ross Silcock Partnership

  Public Attitude Surveys to environmental and traffic schemes in Bypass Demonstration Project towns

  SDG Research

  Driver information survey

  Social and Community Planning Research

  Qualitative research into attitudes to cycle helmets

  Taylor Nelson Business Services

  Initial survey to determine the views and needs of the Surveyor Generals Organisation's customers prior to becoming the Marine Safety Agency

  Transport Studies Unit, Oxford

  Public perceptions of Red Routes

  Transport and Travel Research

  Bus Passenger Information Study

  Total expenditure

  £399,430

  Note

  The values of individual contracts are not listed as these are regarded as commercially confidential.

  Financial Year 1994–95

  Name of polling or public survey organisation

  Purpose of research

  Accent Marketing and Research

  Highways Agency image and awareness study

  Andrew Irving Associates

  Market research relating to the flotation of Railtrack

  Atkins, Wootton Jeffries

  Research study amongst goods and bus operators to determine views on the administration of the HGV and PSV operator licencing system

  Date

  Researcher

  Purpose

  Costs (excluding VAT)

  June 1994

  Advertising Principles Devonshire Hall

  To establish attitudes of dealers in new motor vehicles to the Agency's Select Registrations

  Contract price: £1,800

  Devonshire Avenue Street Lane Leeds, LS8 1AW

  Accredited Dealer scheme which allows new vehicle buyers the opportunity to buy from the Agency's Sale of Attractive Vehicle

  Actual spend: £1,800

  Registration Numbers via the motor dealer

  January 1995

  Enterprise Planning and Research Ltd.

  To establish why certain enquiries of the Agency's Sale of Attractive Vehicle

  Contract price: £12,750

  Victoria House 28–38 Desborough street

  Registration Numbers telesales hotline are not being converted into sales

  Contract spend: £12,750

  High Wycombe

  HP11 2NP

  88

  Financial Year 1994–95

  Name of polling or public survey organisation

  Purpose of research

  Babtie Traffic Ltd.

  Roadside interviews on A1/M1

  PAS Research Ltd.

  Parking surveys

  Surveys of acceptable noise levels Interview surveys

  Pinpoint

  High Risk Offenders Project (to obtain Socio Economic Group by postcode)

  Public Attitude Surveys Ltd.

  Customer satisfaction survey

  Research International

  Tracking research on road safety campaigns to test overall effectiveness and report on changes in attitude/behaviour

  Customer survey to determine the effectiveness of earlier procedural changes introduced to improve the service to DVLA customers

  Research to determine the level of accuracy of Driver and Vehicle records

  Ross Silcock Partnership

  Public Attitude Surveys to environmental and traffic schemes in Bypass Demonstration Project towns

  SDG Research

  Motorway and Trunk Road User Survey

  Social Surveyors (Gallup Poll) Ltd.

  Behavioural Psychology programme—Interviewing drivers about their behaviours and attitudes

  Smith and Williamson

  Establishment of a Customer Research plan within the Vehicle Testing Division of the Vehicle Inspectorate

  Taylor Nelson Business Services

  Customer Survey to re-examine the perception of MSA and its services following transition to Agency status

  Total expenditure

  £522,954

  Note:

  The values of individual contracts are not listed as these are regarded as commercially confidential.

  Road Maintenance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if delays to motorists arising from structural maintenance of the road network are included in the assessment of the track costs of heavy lorries.

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 28 February,Official Report, column 469.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the full text of the criteria and guidelines used to implement the unpublished hardship scheme for the channel tunnel rail link referred to in paragraph 38 of the report to Parliament by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on the "Channel Tunnel Rail Link and Blight".

  Mr. Watts
  This scheme was operated by Union Railways following the Government's announcement on 22 March 1993 of a defined route for the channel tunnel rail link for consultation purposes, and applied to that part of the route that was not covered by existing safeguarding directions until February 1994 when further safeguarding directions were issued. No specific new guidelines were produced because, as the commissioner's report indicates, the scheme was similar to the British Rail 1988 scheme described in paragraphs 31 and 32 of his report, except that properties generally had to be within 67 m of the centre line of the consultation route, which served only as a "coarse sift" as to possible eligibility.

  British Rail
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of restrictions on through ticket purchase on British Rail trains on individuals with a visual disability.

  Mr. Watts
  This is a matter for the rail regulator, who is currently considering responses received to his consultation exercise on ticket retailing. He has a statutory duty to exercise his functions in a manner that protects the interests of disabled passengers and I would expect him to take this into account in reaching his decision on the requirements to be imposed on operators.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the name, location and acreage of each site or other property owned by Railtrack which is currently for sale; and if he will estimate the total value of those sites and properties.

  Mr Watts
  I am advised by Railtrack that the list of sites currently for sale is as listed. This includes several compulsory purchase orders, including the M11 extension transaction at Leyton. The list also includes sales where contracts have been entered into, but not yet completed. Estimates of proceeds are a matter for Railtrack.

  Sites

  Description

  Area (Acres)

  Aberdeen

  Ferry Hill

  2.0

  Borough Green

  Land at Station Road

  0.3

  Bradford

  Land adjacent Station

  16.0

  Bromley South

  Land adjacent Station

  1.1

  Enfield

  Land adjacent Station

  1.1

  Cambridge

  Former Coal Yard

  2.4

  90

  Sites

  Description

  Area (Acres)

  Camden Chalk Farm

  Stanley Sidings

  2.0

  Charing Cross

  Carrara House

  0.3

  Charing Cross

  Ship and Shovel

  0.1

  Chichester

  Land adjacent Station1

  2.6

  Eastbourne

  Former Goods Yard

  0.5

  Hemel Hempstead

  Land adjacent Station

  0.1

  Kentish Town

  Land at Spring Place

  0.4

  Kentish Town West

  Land at Artic Street

  0.5

  Leatherhead

  Land adjacent Station1

  2.5

  Leyton

  Part of Former Engineers Depot

  4.6

  Marylebone

  Land at Harewood Avenue1

  1.7

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Goods Yard1

  4.7

  Oxford

  Former Goods yard1

  5.9

  Radyr

  Former Goods Yard

  1.0

  Reigate

  Land at Station1

  0.6

  Silvertown

  Goods Yard

  5.4

  St. Leonards

  West Marine

  0.5

  Stevenage

  Coal Yard

  5.9

  Urmston

  Former Goods Yard1

  2.0

  Weymouth

  Land adjacent Station

  3.8

  1 These transactions are tied in with new or improved station facilities.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people are currently employed(a) in York and (b) in other locations by Railtrack's east coast and north east zones; and how many people will be employed (i) in York and (ii) in other locations after the two zones have been merged.

  Mr. Watts
  I am advised by Railtrack that the combined establishment of the company's north-east and east coast main line zones is 2,129, of which 521 posts are in York. I am also advised that the small number of staff likely to be displaced as a consequence of the merger of the zones will be offered alternative employment within the company.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the name, location, acreage and date of sale of each site or other property sold by Railtrack since its creation; and what is the total amount of money received from those sales.

  Mr. Watts
  I am advised by Railtrack that to date Railtrack has received £8 million in sales receipts from 134 individual transactions. This figure includes compensation from compulsory purchase orders, notably the Jubilee line extension scheme. Details of the individual transactions are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date Railtrack's east coast zone and its north-east zone will merge; and where the headquarters of the new merged zone will be situated.

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack's north-east and east coast main-line zones are scheduled to merge on 26 June 1995. The headquarters of the combined zone will be situated in York.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that the safety directorate of Railtrack should not be privatised. [14429]

  Mr. Watts
  No. The legislative framework for railway safety developed by the Health and Safety Commission ahead of privatisation will remain robust following the privatisation of Railtrack as a single entity.

  Kingskerwell Bypass
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what date has been set to start work on the Kingskerswell bypass.

  Mr. Watts
  It is too early to say when this scheme may enter construction. Future progress will depend on the satisfactory completion of the statutory planning procedures and the availability of funds.

  Red Routes (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the present plans for implementing the red route proposals in the London borough of Wandsworth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Traffic Director for London is considering a revised timetable under which Wandsworth's red routes would begin to come into operation later this year.

  Kent Coast Lines
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many carriages used currently by BR Network SouthEast's South Eastern train operating unit are due to be withdrawn from service on its Kent coast lines over the next 18 months; and if he will indicate the class numbers of these carriages and the dates they are expected to be withdrawn from service.

  Mr. Watts
  South Eastern has confirmed to me that over the next 18 months it is planning to withdraw progressively 116 class 411 coaches from service on Kent coast lines. The precise dates of the withdrawals have yet to be determined.

  Railways (Road Bridges)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statutory duties with regard to the maintenance and strengthening of road bridges over railway lines have been transferred from British Rail to Railtrack; and what will be their responsibility with regard to this strengthening necessary to take 40 tonne road vehicles. [14579]

  Mr. Watts
  Any statutory duties relating to the maintenance and strengthening of former British Rail road bridges now owned by Railtrack have been transferred to Railtrack so far as permitted under the provisions of the Railways Act 1993. Railtrack maintains its bridges to the standards set by the Railway Bridges (Load-Bearing Standards) (England and Wales) Order 1972; any strengthening beyond this level will be the responsibility of the relevant highway authority.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the individuals other than Her Majesty the Queen, who used the royal train in 1993–94. [14728]

  Mr. Watts
  I understand from British Rail that, between 1 April 1993 and 31 March 1994, the royal train was used by the following members of the royal family, other than Her Majesty the Queen:

  The Duke of Edinburgh

  The Prince of Wales

  The Princess Royal

  92

  The Prince Edward

  The Duke of Kent

  The Duchess of Kent

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many and what occasions was the royal train used in 1993–94. [14729]

  Mr. Watts
  Between 1 April 1993 and 31 March 1994, the royal train was used on 47 separate occasions, involving use of the royal train coaches on 95 days, to enable members of the royal family to carry out official engagements.

  Compensation
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which court judgments delivered in the last two years have resulted in the Department needing to review its rules of compensation to take account of a reduction in property values resulting from its schemes. [14726]

  Mr. Watts
  I am aware of no judgments which have resulted in a need for change in the compensation payable under the provisions of the statutory compensation code. The Court of Appeal judgment in the case of the Secretary of State for Transport and Lt. Col. David Owen requires the Department to take into account loss in value of property when assessing whether its enjoyment is seriously affected and therefore whether it falls to be considered for discretionary purchase.

  Eurostar
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the likely traffic demand on the proposed channel tunnel rail link following the inauguration of the Eurostar service. [14978]

  Mr. Watts
  I have not made any such assessment; it is for the operators and the channel tunnel rail link bidders to do so.

WALES

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency in relation to his Department's agreement to the agency's three-year business plan with reference(a) to its projections of projected capital expenditure and (b) its conditionality on receipt of increased levels of grant from the European regional development fund.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: I met the chairman and board of the agency on 1 November 1994 to discuss its draft corporate plan. The agency quite properly plans its activities with reference to a number of factors, including the sale of capital assets and anticipated funding. In the event that the agency is more or less successful with its project bids for ERDF, the agency would need to adjust its levels of gross expenditure accordingly. Those ERDF projects are additional to the programme financed by grant-in-aid and asset receipts.

  Mr Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the future
  93
  headquarters location of the agency; and if he will make a statement. [15076]

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Company Liquidations
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to collect information pertaining to the number of Welsh businesses going into liquidation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. Information is collected by the Insolvency Service, an executive agency within the Department of Trade and Industry, on liquidations in England and Wales. I do not consider that attempting a separate count for Wales could be justified in terms of the cost to public funds.

  National Continence Day
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial support he is giving to National Continence Day.

  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh Office has funded the cost of producing bilingual leaflets and Welsh language stickers, amounting to £3,273, which will support local NHS initiatives.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what literature accompanying National Continence Day is to be published in the Welsh language; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  Welsh language stickers and bilingual bookmark style leaflets have been distributed widely.

  Mr Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had regarding the forthcoming National Continence Day; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh Office has not received any representations regarding the forthcoming National Continence Day, but a set of publicity material has been produced and widely distributed.

  Housing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 13 March,Official Report, column 446, if he will publish his estimate of the extent of unmet housing need in terms of housing condition, population growth and housing location. [14575]

  Mr. Redwood
  Local housing authorities are responsible for assessing housing need. The 1991 census showed that there were more household spaces than households in Wales. I expect to publish the 1992-based household projections for the counties of Wales on 5 April 1995. These will inform local estimates of housing need. Local housing authorities also have available the results of the 1993 Welsh house condition survey, which I published last September.

  Building Signs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 13 March,Official Report, column 445, on the recognition of Welsh Office funding, if he will define significant funding; to which current schemes the provisions would apply; and if the
  94
  provision covers European Community programmes where local authorities spend money in unison with Community money. [14616]

  Mr. Redwood
  These matters will be addressed in the proposals being drawn up by my officials.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of civil servants employed by(a) his Department, (b) the agencies under his Department's responsibility and (c) public and other bodies under his Department's responsibility, for each year since 1992, divided into (1) full-time equivalents, (2) overtime, (3) casuals and (4) other; and whether he will also provide for each year his estimates of (A) civil service job reductions due to privatisations, (B) civil service job reductions due to contracting out, (C) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for the Department or its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditures, in 1994 prices. [15091]

  Mr. Redwood
  "Public Bodies", published annually since 1982, contains staffing information for those bodies not covered by "Civil Service Statistics".

  Details of running costs and the Civil Service pay bill for my Department can be found in table 10.01 of my Department's annual report (Command 2815). The table also gives details of overtime from 1991–92 onwards.

  Copies of all of these publications are available in the Library of the House.

  The remaining information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the expected date for the publication of the firm proposals for the acquisition of land in south Gwent for bird habitat migration measures in relation to the Cardiff bay barrage; what consultation he has had with the two local authorities concerned; if the acquisition of the land required will be by voluntary or compulsory purchase; and if he will make a statement. [15080]

  Mr. Redwood
  I hope to make an announcement about the most appropriate site within the next two or three months.

  The consultation and land acquisition procedures are matters the development corporation are pursuing with the Land Authority for Wales.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 531, if he will give the dates of the answers in each category and state the underlying principle behind the increase in the numbers since 1 January of answers requesting a chairman or chief executive of a non-departmental public body to write in answer to a parliamentary question. [15078]
  95
  Mr. Redwood
  The dates are as follows:

  PQ number

  Date answered

  (a)

  168N

  30 January 1995

  114N

  7 February 1995

  41N

  10 February 1995

  38N

  10 February 1995

  146N

  15 February 1995

  153N

  15 February 1995

  104N

  23 February 1995

  (b)

  77N

  15 December 1994

  There is no underlying principle behind the increase in numbers of answers stating that a chairman or chief executive of a non-departmental body will write to the hon. Member.

  I or my Ministers answer on policy matters; the chairman or chief executive answer on day-to-day running and management of their organisation.

  Southern Damselfly
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to prevent further loss of breeding populations of coinagroin mercuriale—the southern damselfly. [14877]

  Mr. Redwood
  The southern damselfly has been fully taken into account in the selection of conservation sites in Wales including both sites of special scientific interest and proposed special areas of conservation under the EC habitats directive.

  Killarney Fern
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measure he is taking to maintain six sites in Wales that contain trichomanes speciosum, Killarney fern, and to restore the population of Killarney fern to the site in Meirionnydd where it has been depleted by collecting. [14878]

  Mr. Redwood
  The Killarney fern is fully taken into account in the conservation strategies of the Countryside Council for Wales. Sites containing the largest populations are designated as sites of special scientific interest and great caution is shown on releasing information relating to the location of the fern. Proposals to reintroduce the fern in Meirionnydd are under consideration.

  Secondary School Reorganisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his decision on the proposed reorganisation of secondary education in Ely will be based on the principle of commencement in September 1995. [15075]

  Mr. Redwood
  Yes

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in full the members of the single programming document monitoring committee for Wales of the European regional development fund and the offices and 96
  bodies they represent; if he will list the dates of each meeting that has been held and of the next meeting. [15079]

  Mr. Redwood
  The rural Wales committee and the industrial south Wales single programming document monitoring committee met on 16 and 21 February 1995 respectively. It is anticipated that the next meetings of the monitoring committees will take place late Summer 1995. The membership of those committees is set out in the following list.

  Rural Wales

  Mr. M. J. A. Cochlin (Chair), Welsh Office

  Miss E. N. M. Davies, Welsh Office

  Dr. M. C. Dunn, Welsh Office

  Mr. J. Burns, Department of Employment

  Mr. R. Liddell, DGVI European Commission

  Ms C. Wendt, DGXVI European Commission

  Mr. N. Scott, DGV European Commission

  1Mr. H. V. Thomas, Gwynedd County Council

  1Ms J. Jones, Powys County Council

  1Mr. D Bown, Dyfed County Council

  Mr. M. Royles, Dwyfor District Officer

  Mr. A. Carr, Aberconwy, Borough Council

  Mr. G. Davey, Montgomeryshire District Council

  Mr. H. James, South Pembrokeshire District Council

  Mr. D. L. Evans, Wales Council for Voluntary Action

  Mr. S. White, West Wales TEC

  Mr. W. R. Jones, Barclays Bank plc

  Mr. T. Jones, Farmer

  Prof. J. Hughes, Development Board for Rural Wales

  Mr. Pride, Wales Tourist Board

  Mrs. E. Allinson, Welsh Funding Councils

  1Two Monitoring Committee places are available to the County Councils and two of the three County Councils nominees attend meetings.

  Industrial South Wales

  Mr. M. J. A. Cochlin (Chair), Welsh Office

  Miss E. N. M. Davies, Welsh Office

  Dr. M. C. Dunn, Welsh Office

  Mr. J. Burns, Department of Employment

  Mr. R. Royce, DGV European Commission

  Ms C. Wendt, DGXVI European Commission

  Mr. A. G. Corless, West Glamorgan County Council

  Mr. M. J. Perry, Gwent County Council

  Mr. R. Leadbeter, Blaenau Gwent Borough Council

  Mr. M. Boaden, Merthyr Tidfil Borough Council

  Mr. I. K. Lewis, Port Talbot Borough Council

  Mr. G. Byrne, Cardiff City Council

  Ms. S. Stephens, Wales Council for Voluntary Action

  Mr. G. Vaughan, Mid Glarnorgan TEC

  Mr. R. Thomas, Eversheds Phillips and Buck

  Mr. A. Clegg, Railtrack

  Mr. G. Moore, Welsh Development Agency

  Mr. J. Pride, Wales Tourist Board

  Mrs. F. Pickard, Further and Higher Education Funding Councils

EDUCATION

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many local education authorities were affected by boundary changes in 1994–95; if she will list for each such local education authority(a) the number of

  97
  schools transferred to a new local education authority, (b) the name of the new local education authority, (c) the education component of the standard spending assessment and (d) the adjusted figure for the standard spending assessment after account has been taken of the boundary changes.

  Schools transferred

  Receiving LEA

  Education component £ million

  Adjusted SSA £ million

  City of London

  0

  0.783

  65.873

  Camden

  0

  78.775

  218.486

  Greenwich

  0

  114.265

  227.891

  Hackney

  0

  92.843

  247.328

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  57.213

  164.606

  Islington

  0

  80,442

  214.504

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  37.272

  140.302

  Lambeth

  0

  102.068

  284.848

  Lewisham

  0

  107.987

  245.200

  Southwark

  0

  109.934

  273.412

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  120.163

  259.597

  Wandsworth

  0

  88.718

  240.671

  Westminster

  0

  59.934

  241.849

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  65.688

  131.085

  Barnet

  0

  113.666

  227.343

  Bexley

  0

  84.537

  155.449

  Brent

  1

  Ealing

  106.318

  235.514

  Bromley

  0

  99.593

  194.122

  Croydon

  0

  114.342

  239.973

  Ealing

  0

  108.869

  241.671

  Enfield

  0

  112.192

  217.111

  Haringey

  0

  89.054

  213.600

  Harrow

  0

  70.409

  147.952

  Havering

  0

  84.067

  155.216

  Hillingdon

  0

  88.939

  177.762

  Hounslow

  0

  90.156

  178.744

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  45.852

  95.320

  Merton

  0

  56.276

  124.808

  Newham

  0

  123.810

  259.435

  Redbridge

  2

  Barking

  94.245

  176.706

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  44.331

  102.168

  Sutton

  0

  64.450

  124.886

  Waltham Forest

  0

  94.112

  200.246

  Birmingham

  0

  427.157

  880.278

  Coventry

  0

  115.727

  227.863

  Dudley

  0

  98.869

  198.376

  Sandwell

  0

  113.826

  232.447

  Solihull

  0

  69.171

  129.509

  Walsall

  0

  103.691

  206.172

  Wolverhampton

  0

  96.144

  196.072

  Knowsley

  0

  69.643

  139.138

  Liverpool

  2

  Knowsley

  202.743

  422.859

  St. Helens

  0

  63.280

  129.743

  Sefton

  0

  102.312

  205.107

  Bolton

  0

  95.727

  193.671

  Bury

  0

  57.847

  116.426

  Manchester

  0

  182.485

  420.956

  Rochdale

  0

  79.656

  159.566

  Salford

  0

  78.671

  180.186

  Stockport

  0

  86.091

  175.407

  Tameside

  0

  76.328

  155.265

  Wigan

  1

  Salford

  104.851

  206.143

  Barnsley

  0

  73.067

  149.575

  Doncaster

  0

  113.687

  216.492

  Rotherham

  0

  96.279

  184.544

  Sheffield

  0

  162.779

  377.290

  Bradford

  0

  201.941

  396.947

  Calderdale

  0

  72.840

  140.552

  Kirklees

  0

  136.679

  267.648

  Leeds

  0

  240.355

  512.221

  Gateshead

  0

  68.177

  153.191

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  97.287

  224.010

  North Tyneside

  0

  65.412

  140.100

  South Tyneside

  0

  56.343

  120.377

  Sunderland

  0

  110.851

  227.641

  98
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is set out in the following table. Most local education authorities affected by boundary changes are not affected by school transfers. All the adjustments for boundary changes are included within the "other services" component of local education authorities' standard spending assessments.
  99

  Schools transferred

  Receiving LEA

  Education component £ million

  Adjusted SSA £ million

  Berkshire

  0

  273.303

  453.592

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  Berkshire

  244.491

  393.493

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  226.137

  380.909

  Cheshire

  0

  332,027

  552.612

  Derbyshire

  0

  302.839

  522.391

  Durham

  0

  206.861

  357.911

  East Sussex

  0

  212.497

  413.417

  Essex

  0

  540.456

  923.590

  Hereford and Worcester

  5

  Birmingham

  219.794

  364.554

  Hertfordshire

  0

  371.417

  610.165

  Humberside

  0

  310.831

  533.528

  Kent

  0

  559.063

  953.111

  Lancashire

  0

  483.978

  845.369

  Northumberland

  0

  107.600

  190.055

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  346.671

  589.856

  Staffordshire

  0

  348.788

  581.770

  Suffolk

  0

  205.854

  357.958

  Surrey

  1

  Berkshire

  299.400

  542.654

  Warwickshire

  0

  156.224

  260.819

  Colleges and Universities (Safety)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to require improved security and personal safety at colleges and universities.

  Mr. Boswell
  None. Colleges and universities are independent, autonomous bodies, responsible for their own affairs. Any arrangements that they make for security and personal safety on campus are for the governing body of each institution to determine. Ministers have no powers to intervene.

  Grants
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of students in full-time education received grants.

  Mr. Boswell
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  In 1992–93, 1,192,000 full-time students below postgraduate level normally resident in England and Wales were studying at publicly funded further and higher education institutions, including universities. In the same year, 864,000 students below postgraduate level held mandatory or discretionary awards from local education authorities in England and Wales. Some of these awards will have been to part-time students, some will have been for study at private institutions, and some will have been for fees only, not maintenance grants. Because the figures for students and award holders are not directly comparable, it is not possible to calculate the percentage of full-time students who received a grant.

  University Salaries
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the average change in real terms of university salaries since 1979. [14463]

  Mr. Boswell
  Between April 1979 and April 1994, university academics' pay rose by 27 per cent. in real terms as measured by the new earnings survey. Definitional changes may have slightly reduced this figure.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the average change in real terms of teachers' salaries in further education since 1979. [14461]

  Mr. Boswell
  It is not possible to provide a figure solely for teachers in further education. Between April 1979 and April 1994, the pay of staff in former local authority further and higher education rose by 31 per cent. in real terms, as measured by the new earnings survey.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what has been the change in real terms of secondary school teachers' salaries since 1979; [14460]

  (2) what has been the average change in real terms of primary school teachers' salaries since 1979. [14458]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The average salary of a primary and secondary school teacher in Great Britain has increased by 60 per cent. in real terms between April 1979 and April 1994, as measured by the new earning survey. This compares with an increase of 37 per cent. in real terms in the average pay for all employees over the same period.

  Physical Education Curriculum
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what education and training is available in schools on coastal hazards and life-saving techniques. [14719]

  Mr. Forth
  The revised national curriculum for physical education requires that, by the age of 11, all pupils should be taught to swim unaided, competently and safely, for at least 25 m. They should also be taught the principles and skills of water safety and survival. Detailed advice on safe practice in teaching swimming and outdoor and adventurous activities is included in the handbook "Safe Practice in Physical Education" which was first published in 1985 by the British Association of Advisers and Lecturers in Physical Education. A revised edition of the handbook was published in 1990 with the approval and recommendation of the then Department of Education and Science. The handbook includes advice about
  101
  recommended teacher-tutor qualifications, supervision and pupil behaviour. The handbook is currently subject to further revision and will be republished later this year.

  Surplus Places
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many surplus places there are in Bolton's local authority(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools; and what is the cost of such empty places. [14238]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In January 1994, there were 2,187 surplus primary places and 2,000 surplus secondary places in Bolton LEA maintained schools, representing 9 per cent. and 10 per cent. of capacity respectively. We estimate that the cost of maintaining these places is in the region of £1 million. Not all these places are in practice removable. Increasing pupil numbers will fill many of them.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the pupil-teacher ratio in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in Nottinghamshire. [14675]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In January 1994, the latest date for which information is available, the pupil-teacher ratios within maintained primary and secondary schools in Nottinghamshire local education authority area were 22.9 and 15.8 respectively.

  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the pupil-teacher ratio in Cornwall and the national average for(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in each of the last 20 years. [15010]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Pupil: Teacher Ratios within maintained primary and secondary schools in Cornwall local education authority and England 1975–94—Position in January each year

  Primary

  Secondary1

  Year

  England

  Cornwall

  England

  Cornwall

  1975

  24.3

  26.0

  17.3

  17.6

  1976

  23.9

  25.4

  17.1

  17.5

  1977

  23.8

  25.1

  17.1

  17.5

  1978

  23.6

  24.6

  17.0

  17.3

  1979

  23.1

  24.2

  16.8

  16.9

  1980

  22.7

  24.0

  16.7

  16.8

  1981

  22.6

  23.9

  16.7

  17.0

  1982

  22.5

  23.8

  16.7

  17.1

  1983

  22.3

  23.6

  16.6

  17.2

  1984

  22.1

  23.7

  16.4

  17.2

  1985

  22.2

  23.5

  16.3

  17.2

  1986

  22.1

  23.5

  16.1

  16.9

  1987

  21.9

  23.2

  15.8

  16.8

  1988

  22.0

  23.4

  15.5

  16.6

  1989

  22.0

  23.1

  15.4

  16.4

  1990

  22.0

  23.2

  15.4

  16.1

  1991

  22.2

  23.3

  15.7

  16.4

  1992

  22.2

  23.3

  15.9

  16.4

  1993

  22.4

  23.4

  16.2

  16.9

  1994

  22.7

  23.3

  16.4

  17.3

  1Excludes Sixth Form Colleges which ceased to be classified as schools from 1 April 1993.

  Teachers
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the teacher numbers in(a) primary and (b) secondary education in 1979 and what are they now. [14679]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on qualified teachers employed within maintained primary and secondary schools in England in 1979 and 1994, the latest date for which information is available, is shown in the table.

  Full-time equivalent (FTE)1 qualified teachers in maintained primary and secondary schools in England

  Position in January each year

  Primary

  Secondary

  1979

  192,500

  2226,800

  1994

  180,600

  178,800

  Includes the FTE of part-time qualified teachers. 2 Excludes sixth form colleges which ceased to be classified as schools from 1 April 1994.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average cost of employing a teacher for a year in(a) infant schools, (b) junior schools and (c) secondary schools. [14702]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department's estimate of the average annual cost of employing a teacher in an infant school or in a junior school in Great Britain as at 1 April 1994 is around £23,600. The estimated average annual cost of employing a teacher in a secondary is around £25,700.

  Public and Polling Opinion Survey Organisations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the employment of polling or public opinion survey organisations by her Department during the current and previous financial years, on the organisations employed by her Department, on the values of the individual contracts for these services, on the total amounts of money spent and on the purposes of the research undertaken by these organisations. [14509]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department carries out regular market research to measure public awareness of key policy initiatives, to evaluate the effectiveness of its information campaigns and to inform the planning of future publicity activity.

  All departmental research is commissioned via the Central Office of Information, which contracts commercial research companies on behalf of the Department.

  The overall cost of completed market research carried out by the Department during the current and previous financial year is some £262,000. To give the cost of individual research surveys would compromise confidential tendering procedures.

  Sports Equipment
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recommendations her Department makes to schools and education authorities on improving safety in the use of sports equipment, with particular reference to portable goal posts, and on the purchase of all sports equipment. [14618]
  103
  Mr. Forth
  Detailed advice on safe practice in the use of sports equipment in physical education is included in the handbook "Safe Practice in Physical Education" which was first published in 1985 by the British Association of Advisers and Lecturers in Physical Education. A revised edition of the handbook was published in 1990 with the approval and recommendation of the then Department of Education and Science. The handbook includes advice about the safe use and maintenance of premises and equipment, recommended teacher or tutor qualifications, supervision and pupil behaviour. The handbook is currently subject to further revision and will be published later this year.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the budget, per head, in respect of children in school in each member of the European Union. [14673]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on budgets is not collected centrally. Information on expenditure per pupil or student is shown in table P6 of the OECD publication "Education at a Glance", published in December 1993, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Business Funding
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress has been made in acquiring business funding for schools. [14672]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There is already significant non-commercial private sector investment in schools. For example, business sponsors have committed over £37 million to city technology colleges and £7 million to technology colleges to date.

  In the context of the Government's private finance initiative, we are actively promoting and facilitating school and private sector partnerships to increase commercial investment in schools.

  School Places (Costs)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average cost of providing a place in a school per child for(a) infant schools, (b) junior schools and (c) secondary schools. [14703]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Net institutional expenditure per pupil in LEA-maintained nursery and primary schools in England is estimated at £1,638, and in secondary schools £2,250, in 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Equivalent information for grant-maintained schools is the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I will ask the chairman of the funding agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Information for independent schools is not available.

  School Reserves
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her policy in respect of the putting of school reserves into special project accounts not counted in total reserves; and if she will make a statement. [14619]
  104
  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is not a matter on which my right hon. Friend has had occasion to give specific guidance to local education authorities.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children are in(a) primary and (b) secondary education now and how many in 1979. [14678]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on pupils is maintained primary and secondary schools in England in 1979 and 1994, the latest date for which information is available, is shown in the table.

  Full-time equivalent (FTE)1 pupils in maintained primary and secondary schools in England

  Position in January each year

  1 Primary

  Secondary

  1979

  4,444,500

  23,820,300

  1994

  4,093,500

  2,933,600

  1Each part-time pupil is treated as 0.5 full-time equivalents.

  2Excludes sixth form colleges which ceased to be classified as schools from 1 april 1993.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Stephen Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the estimated cost of the Coopers and Lybrand investigation into financial irregularities at the Student Loans Company. [14988]

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to him on 20 January 1995,Official Report, column 720.

  Cornwall Local Education Authority
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent per pupil in Cornwall in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in each of the last 20 years at constant prices. [15009]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table below shows expenditure by Cornwall local education authority on(a) pre-primary and primary pupils combined, and on (b) secondary pupils from 1974–75 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available.

  Cornwall County Council

  Spending per pupil (1994–95 prices)

  Year

  Nursery/Primary

  Secondary

  1974–75

  1,006

  1,832

  1975–76

  1,009

  1,836

  1976–77

  1,034

  1,807

  1977–78

  1,004

  1,744

  1978–79

  1,035

  1,779

  1979–80

  1,026

  1,747

  1980–81

  1,038

  1,597

  1981–82

  1,079

  1,651

  1982–83

  1,101

  1,669

  1983–84

  1,126

  1,699

  1984–85

  1,124

  1,681

  1985–86

  1,130

  1,723

  1986–87

  1,222

  1,886

  1987–88

  1,317

  2,033

  1988–89

  1,379

  2,164

  1989–90

  1,373

  2,123

  1990–91

  1,381

  2,192

  105

  Cornwal County Council

  Spending per pupil (1994–95 prices)

  Year

  Nursery/Primary

  Secondary

  1991–92

  1,534

  2,139

  1992–93

  1,584

  2,241

  1993–941

  1,566

  2,203

  1 Provisional>

  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent in total on education in Cornwall at constant prices in each of the past 20 years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows total expenditure by Cornwall local education authority from 1974–75 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available. These figures have not been adjusted for any changes of function.

  Cornwall County Council gross expenditure (1994–95 prices)

  Year

  £ millions

  1974–75

  145.5

  1975–76

  150.0

  1976–77

  154.8

  1977–78

  155.0

  1978–79

  161.0

  1979–80

  158.0

  1980–81

  161.2

  1981–82

  164.2

  1982–83

  163.9

  1983–84

  162.6

  1984–85

  163.4

  1985–86

  166.2

  1986–87

  177.4

  1987–88

  186.8

  1988–89

  195.0

  1989–90

  196.0

  1990–91

  207.5

  1991–92

  209.3

  1992–93

  226.8

  1993–941

  197.0

  1 Provisional.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total number of civil servants employed by(a) her Department, (b) the agencies under her Department's responsibility and (c) public and other bodies under her Department's responsibility, for each year since 1979, divided into (1) full-time equivalents, (2) overtime, (3) casuals and (4) other; and whether she will also provide for each year her estimates of (A) civil service job reductions due to privatisation, (B) civil service job reductions due to contracting out, (C) civil service job reductions resulting from other transfer of
  106
  responsibilities, (D) the total of all other staff undertaking work for the Department or its agencies without being categorised as civil servants, including external consultants, researchers, agency secretarial staff and staff substitution and (E) total manpower expenditure, in 1994 prices. [15011]

  Mr. Boswell
  The civil service covers the permanent staff of central Government Departments and next steps agencies. The staff of other bodies are outside the civil service.

  The annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" gives details of the number of civil servants employed by the Department and its agency, including full-time equivalent staff and casuals, from 1993 onwards, and staff leaving the civil service.

  "Public Bodies", published annually since 1982, contains staffing information for those bodies not covered by "Civil Service Statistics".

  Details of running costs and the civil service pay bill for the Department can be found in table 22 of the Department's annual report Cm 2810.

  Copies of all of these publications are available in Library. The remaining information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many primary school children in Nottinghamshire are taught in classes of more than 30 children; [14677]

  (2) how many secondary school children in Nottinghamshire are taught in classes of more than 30 children. [14676]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In January 1994, the latest date for which information is available, 19,900 pupils were being taught in single teacher classes of size greater than 30 in maintained primary schools in Nottinghamshire local education authority area. The equivalent figure for maintained secondary schools was 2,100 pupils.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many secondary school children are taught in class sizes of over 30. [14680]

  Mr. Robin Square
  In January 1994, the latest date for which information is available, 208,700 pupils were being taught in single teacher classes of size greater than 30 in maintained secondary schools in England.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average class size in each member country of the European Union for(a) infant schools, (b) primary schools and (c) secondary schools. [14674]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not available centrally.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by
the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Ministerial Salaries
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria they employ to decide the appropriate levels of pay for Ministers and the differentials between the pay of the Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, pay levels and differentials reflect the Government's response to recommendations made from time to time by the Top Salaries Review Body (now the Senior Salaries Review Body) and the additional cumulative effective of pay increases, Under the present arrangements pay increases for Ministers reflect pay awards in the Civil Service.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Can he tell me how the Government explain the enormous differences in the pay differentials between Ministers since 1979? If the noble Lord consults the salary tables in the Civil Service Year Book, for example, he will find that there are some Ministers who have had increases of 500 per cent., others 400 per cent, or 300 per cent. and the Prime Minister about 150 per cent. Is the Minister aware that there are six Ministers of State who now have higher pay (a 350 per cent. increase) than their bosses in the Cabinet who are Secretaries of State? Furthermore, the Solicitor General for Scotland—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am asking the Minister to explain all this. In 1979 the Solicitor General for Scotland had 25 per cent. less than the Solicitor General in England, but he now has 25 per cent. more. Can the Minister say whether that is because the cost of living is higher in Scotland? Or is the rise given to the Prime Minister in reflection of the fact that it is easy to get Prime Ministers? Can the Minister say whether it is a question of changes in responsibilities? What are the reasons for these differences?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I indicated in my original Answer that the Top Salaries Review Body plays its part. I suspect that the examples quoted by the noble Lord are taken from situations where, at a certain stage, the holder of the office is a Member of the House of Commons where he is entitled to part of his parliamentary salary and, at another stage,
1008
a Member of this House where he is not entitled to a parliamentary salary. Therefore, the total pay of Ministers differs.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, on the whole, Ministers are grossly underpaid and, if he will allow me to say so, particularly the junior Ministers in this House?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to agree with my noble friend on that. As I seem to repeatedly come to the Dispatch Box I feel that personally a little more than most.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, when Ministers devolve part of their responsibility onto agencies, or privatise sections of their department, why does their pay remain the same? In particular, can the Minister explain why the Minister in charge of prisons did not have a reduction in his salary when all his responsibilities were transferred to Mr. Lewis?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I almost feel like saying to the noble Lord that I refer him to the reply I gave him on the last occasion he raised this question. The situation is quite simply that Ministers are responsible for the policy arrangements of the department and that remains with them. They are also responsible for the overall way in which the policy is carried out; and they are answerable to Parliament. That is the situation and it remains so. That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is well worth the money he is paid.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend believe it appropriate to thank the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for the immense amount of information which he has communicated to your Lordships? Perhaps my noble friend will also make it clear that he does not share the noble Lord's conclusions and that, in fact, Ministers are very meanly paid. Does he agree that there may be disastrous results in the long run?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, gave us some interesting information. He makes a very valid point in that both Houses of Parliament have to be careful as regards the inter-relation between what they pay Ministers and what fetters are put on Ministers' ability to make a living after they cease to be Ministers.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that some elements of productivity may be involved in this matter? Can the Minister say what it is that Ministers are required to produce which will safeguard the element of productivity'? In the event of negative productivity, would it not be possible to introduce some degree of negative increase into the arrangements so that the Minister whose production is nil perhaps receives a negative rise?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the last time this matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, we discussed this particular aspect. I say to the noble Lord—as I believe I said during that exchange—that it depends how the matter is judged.

1009
Some people judge a Minister as having succeeded if he passes less legislation, but others believe in more legislation. I suspect that in this case beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend have any idea whether Mr. Neil Kinnock is better off financially since he failed to become Prime Minister and became instead a Euro Commissioner, and if so, by how much? Does my noble friend believe that he is more usefully employed there than he would have been here?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I certainly believe that the country is probably better off that Mr. Kinnock is not Prime Minister. As regards the question, Mr. Kinnock's bank manager must be very thankful that he is not Prime Minister but a European Commissioner because my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is paid £82,000, including his parliamentary salary. Mr. Kinnock, as an EC Commissioner, and depending on the Belgian franc and sterling exchange rate, is paid about £140,000 according to the last calculation I made. Therefore, Mr. Kinnock is clearly much better off being an EC Commissioner than he would have been as Prime Minister.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, against the background of this informative exchange, does the Minister agree that the people who are the worst treated in all this are members of the Opposition Front Bench in this House?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suppose that my heart is now expected to bleed. However, having spent days on the Pensions Bill, I am not entirely certain whether I am an independent judge. Of course, members of the Opposition Front Bench work extremely hard—and long may they continue to work hard in their current positions.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the criteria that he gave to my noble friend Lord McCarthy do not apply to the particular anomaly whereby five Ministers of State who are not in the Cabinet receive higher salaries than their Secretaries of State who are in the Cabinet? Is not that a most peculiar state of affairs, and should not something be done about it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am having some trouble with this. I am looking down the list but I cannot instantly see any Ministers of State who are paid more than their Secretaries of State. As I said, however, one has to take the parliamentary salary component into account. It is undoubtedly the case that Law Officers are paid on a different basis from others. Although I may turn out to be wrong, at a quick glance I cannot see any junior Minister who receives more than the £67,819 that is received by Cabinet Ministers.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I shall send the Minister the figures. I am not seeking to say that Ministers are overpaid; I am seeking to ask why they are paid what they are paid. Given that the Government insist that
1010
everybody else in the public sector and the voluntary sector explains why they are paid what they are paid, is it not reasonable to expect the Government to do a bit better than the statements which the Minister has given us this afternoon?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I seem to have some difficulty getting through to the noble Lord. The Top Salaries Review Body, and now its successor, looks into these matters. I should have thought that that was a perfectly proper way for such things to be conducted. I have explained how those salaries and differentials have come about. If at any stage in the future the noble Lord thinks that the successor to the Top Salaries Review Body should examine those differentials and increase them or the salaries, I am sure that he would happily be prepared to send a paper to that body.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the Minister take it from me that the report does not mention Ministers' salaries.at all? It never mentions them.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Next Question! That has taken nine minutes.

Life Prisoners
2.46 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Home Secretary has the legal right to tell a prisoner that he or she will never come out of prison.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the detention for life of a person sentenced for murder is sanctioned by the court which imposed the sentence. Section 35(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 allows the Home Secretary to release a mandatory life sentence prisoner if recommended to do so by the Parole Board and having consulted the Lord Chief Justice and, if available, the trial judge. He is not obliged to exercise this power.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Baroness is far too intelligent not to be aware that that is a nonsensical Answer. She must be aware of that—
Noble Lords: No!
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is no good noble Lords bleating about it. It did not begin to answer the Question. I am asking the Minister whether the present Home Secretary, in defiance of all previous experience, has told some prisoners that they will never come out.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my original Answer was factually correct. I have said that the Home Secretary is not obliged in law to tell a prisoner that life means life. However, in view of the recent Doody judgment, of which the noble Earl will be well aware, the Home Secretary has taken it upon himself to put

1011
procedures in place so that those sentenced to life under the mandatory schemes are told what that will mean in practice.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, in view of the fact that the unexpected always happens, is it not more a question of predictability or otherwise rather than a question of legal right, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, nonsensically suggests?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I note what my noble and learned friend says. But there is a distinction between what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is obliged to do under the law and what he has undertaken to do, which is to make known to all prisoners that which was previously done behind closed doors. I refer to the setting of a tariff. The Home Secretary has willingly undertaken to inform all prisoners who are subject to a mandatory life sentence what that tariff is and what it was historically.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, surely the Home Secretary has no power to bind his successor, whatever he may say.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The Home Secretary has no power to bind his successor.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the Minister advise the House which other countries, apart from the former Soviet Union, insist when a life sentence is given thatit should mean for life?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have no idea. I cannot answer that question. What I can say is that when a life sentence is given by the courts, it means life unless in the intervening period a tariff is set which means that the sentence should be less than life. Even then, it is only subject to advice which is given to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State from the Parole Board and the judiciary that release arrangements can be made.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister's answers have been factually correct, of course. But does she recognise the thrust behind the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Longford, that in answer to a Written Question that I put down we have been informed that 15 prisoners have been told that their life tariff is whole life; in other words, they will never be released? That is the real issue. Is the Minister satisfied that our prison system requires people to be told that there is no hope whatsoever of their release from prison?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, those given mandatory life sentences are accused of murder with an intent to cause serious harm. People have died, and that is why those convicted are given mandatory life sentences. My right honourable friend has now undertaken to inform prisoners what that means in practice. Historically, my right honourable friend's predecessors, after considering all the facts, have said that life should mean life. My right honourable friend has undertaken to make all that historical information public to the prisoners. If the prisoners wish, they may make representations to my
1012
right honourable friend who will take them into account, together with advice from the judiciary. He may come to the same conclusion or he may modify his conclusion in the light of all the evidence presented to him.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if some of the people who have committed some of the worst and most appalling crimes in our history were released into the community there would be outrage in the community?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it comforts me to note that that remark came from the other side of the House. We become close to these matters in this House. The general public would be outraged if those who had committed the worst crimes in history were allowed to go free and if their release were not taken seriously by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the Minister is a woman of conscience. Can she reconcile with her conscience the telling to any human being that, however good his or her conduct in prison, he or she will never come out and will die in prison? Can she reconcile that with her Christian conscience?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have no difficulty in reconciling that with my conscience. I have to think of all those people who were given no opportunity to have their release considered because they were murdered in the most dreadful, loathsome way by many of the people who now seek to go free. The public would be outraged if that were done carelessly.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister believe that those who advocate the early release of murderers can reconcile with their own consciences any act carried out by the person so released against another person which involves the loss of that other person's life?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is absolutely right. Again, I believe that the whole House would understand the statement made by the noble Lord.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that occasionally it may be less than wise for such a decision to be taken by an elected Home Secretary rather than by someone who views the matter as a lawyer in a legal context? Does she agree also that there could be circumstances in which the judgment of someone who is elected, as is the holder of the office of Home Secretary, may be influenced by matters that are not strictly relevant to a proper, due legal consideration?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must take issue with the noble Baroness. The criteria by which such decisions are made are laid down, and the judiciary, whose advice will form part of that given to my right honourable friend, has to concern itself with deterrence and retribution. My right honourable friend, who is accountable to Parliament for these matters, has to consider the risk to the public and the public interest.

Culpable Homicide
2.54 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to abolish the year and a day rule in relation to homicide, subject to safeguards such as those proposed in Law Commission Paper 230 of 21st February 1995.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we welcome in principle the recommendation in the Law Commission report to abolish the year and a day rule. We are considering the safeguards it proposes. The Home Affairs Select Committee is also examining the rule at present, and we shall reach a final view when we see its conclusions.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her ready acceptance of the abolition of the rule of general application to culpable homicide which, when introduced in 1278 by the Statute of Gloucester, only set a time limit on private prosecutions for murder, and which now, with the advance of medical science, works manifest injustice. In view of the public concern referred to in the report, as expressed by the press, in the writings of the law dons, and in the opinions of the Lord Chief Justice and other members of the judiciary, when will the Government introduce a Homicide Bill, as proposed by the Law Commission, with safeguards against abuse of process?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again I can confirm that we are sympathetic to the abolition. We are considering carefully the safeguards suggested by the Law Commission. As I have already said, it would be discourteous of us to say anything in advance of the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee. I cannot say if and when a Bill will be introduced, because that must be a matter for the usual channels.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in considering when legislation might be introduced, would it help the Minister to learn that we on these Benches would very much welcome such a Bill and would give it our support?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for those comments. I understand that that is the case.
Earl Russell: My Lords, while I welcome the noble Baroness's first Answer and accept her second about the usual channels, can she say how many Law Commission Bills are awaiting implementation and whether it is an objective of government policy to reduce that number?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am seized of the importance of that question. A great effort is being made now to address that issue. We wish to get on with it, because many Bills are non-contentious and we want them to make progress.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the Opposition parties for their support. In view of what has
1014
been said, if the Government find it difficult to find time, will they consider with favour the introduction of a Private Member's Bill in your Lordships' House?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I note what my noble friend is saying, but I must say first things first. It is important to address the principle of abolition after the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, and also to decide and determine what safeguards would need to be put in place. Two have been suggested. We regard that point as important, so it must be thought through. We shall have to wait to see whether it should be a matter for a Private Member's Bill or for the Government.

Organophosphorus Sheep Dips
2.57 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to publish the results of the research conducted by the Institute of Occupational Health at the University of Birmingham, on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive, on organophosphorus sheep dips.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the results of the research belong to the Institute of Occupational Health, not to the Health and Safety Executive. That arrangement was made as an additional guarantee of the independence of the research in this very sensitive area.
The institute is currently having the results peer-reviewed to prevent incorrect or unclear information reaching the public domain, with a view to publishing the findings in an independent journal. Once it has done that, the HSE has its agreement to publish the full research report.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that I am also grateful to him for keeping me as up to date on the subject as he possibly could by writing to me? Does he recall that on 23rd December he wrote to me saying that the Institute of Occupational Health was fast-tracking publication in a scientific journal and hoped to have it published by the end of January? In view of the fact that this research is so important—I entirely agree with the noble Lord on that matter—would not it be a good idea if just for once scientific privilege were forgone and for the Institute of Occupational Health to agree that it should be published? I was told a fortnight ago that, once the HSE received publications such as this on its desk, it expedited publication in its own journal; in other words, within three weeks of receipt. In this case that does not seem to be happening. Will the noble Lord explain why?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Countess for her kind remarks, As I explained in my Answer, the intellectual property in this important work rests with the Institute of Occupational Health. However, I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that it is important that the report is treated with the seriousness it deserves. In particular, it is important that

1015
the report is considered seriously in the scientific community. In order to achieve that, it is essential that the work is peer-reviewed and published in a well respected scientific journal.
If such findings leak out before publication, it is often the case—and I am advised that it is the case in this instance—that the respectable scientific journal will not publish. If such work is not published in this type of journal, its standing in the eyes of the scientific community is considerably eroded. It follows that its contribution to the important debate will be that much diminished.
It may be of interest to your Lordships that the Institute of Occupational Health has stated that it has considered the matter and believes that:
"If the results of a study were such that delay in publication would put at risk the health of those currently exposed, or would impair the chances of recovery from any possible effects of exposure, the institute would make every effort to ensure that those responsible for the control of exposure or the treatment of those individuals were informed as soon as possible. However, under the present circumstances, there is no reason to believe that delay in publication for a matter of weeks has any implications for the health of those previously or currently exposed or under treatment".
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, irrespective of the issue of publication, will the Minister reassure the House that the Government are fully aware of the results of the research?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the matter is currently seized by the HSE, but it is not more widely available.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, how many foreign workers have been notified as suffering from the effects of contact with sheep dips? Will the Minister also say whether there have been any fatalities and what additional steps can be taken to institute further controls? I understand that there is a system of certification but that may be avoided in certain instances.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am not in a position to give the figures for which the noble Baroness asked. However, I shall write to her. There is in place a complicated system for controlling the acquisition and use of the products. The Health and Safety Executive will review matters when it has thoroughly digested the implications of the report concerned.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is the Minister worried about the delay which appears to have hit the report from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which was due to report last summer and which appears to have found a substantial increase in the number of farmers who believe that they have suffered from organophosphates, especially bearing in mind that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is the body which licenses these products in the first place?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the delay to which my noble friend refers has been caused solely by the demand in carrying out the assessment and other work involved in considering the cases and preparing the
1016
report. Obviously, we want to see these matters made public as soon as possible but at the same time it is important that they are soundly based.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I agree with what the Minister said about peer review and I welcome his reference to a few weeks. However, is he aware that in the academic community there is considerable anxiety about the new research contract introduced in 1988 whereby publication is restricted without the prior consent of the Secretary of State? Does the Minister agree that changing that rule may protect the Government from a suspicion that might perhaps be unjustified?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his comments. We shall certainly bear them in mind.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that every day I receive letters from OP sufferers who write that their doctors and their consultants do not understànd them? Is he further aware that I am anxious that the report should be published in order that credibility is given to such people? I know of a man in prison as a result of the mental effects of OPs and no one understands what the man is suffering. It is most important that the report is published.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Countess is right in saying that it is important that the report is published. It will be published and we wish to publish it in a manner that will give it the greatest scientific credibility and that, in turn, will help doctors throughout the country to the greatest extent.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Environment Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Clause 2 [Transfer of functions to the Agency]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, leave out lines 7 to 15.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 deals with waste regulation and the transfer of functions to the new agencies. It is not, however, the wrecking amendment that it may appear. I have given the Minister notice of the issue that I wish to raise and the amendment gives me the opportunity to raise it.
On Report, when discussing the transfer of responsibilities, and in particular pollution and the relationship between the agencies and the local communities concerned about potential pollution, the Minister said:
"It has been suggested that under the agency there would be no scope for consideration of the concerns of local people regarding the potential impact on local amenity and possible pollution from a proposed waste management facility".
The Minister said that the conviction was puzzling and continued:
"The local planning authorities will continue to determine whether and where waste facilities are sited".—[Official Report, 2/3/95; col. 1618.]
He referred to the ability of local planning authorities to include appropriate conditions relating to local amenity.
In July last year, the Department of the Environment, in Planning Policy Guidance Note 23 on planning and pollution control, stated:
"The role of the planning system focuses on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land rather than the control of the processes or the substances. They should not seek to substitute their own judgment on pollution control issues for that of the bodies with relevant expertise and statutory responsibility for that control".
I therefore seek clarification from the Government. Will the scope for planning authorities be altered from that contained in PPG23, from which I have quoted, to include possible pollution, as the Minister appeared to imply? If that is not the case, how do the Government see local anxieties about pollution being addressed? I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 would prevent the transfer of the waste regulation functions of local authorities to the environment agency. This is an issue which the House has already considered in Committee and on Report, and your Lordships will therefore be aware of the importance which the Government attach to the inclusion of waste regulation within the functions of both agencies.
If the environment agency is to live up to its name, it needs to be responsible for all the major pollution control regimes. That is the only way that it can establish a multi-media approach to pollution control. The agency will provide better integration of functions. For instance, it will no longer be necessary to consult the NRA on every waste management licence application. The impact of waste facilities on water pollution will be able to be considered within a single integrated organisation. It will also enable waste regulation expertise to be pooled, and allow for specialist advice on, for instance, the hydrology and geology of sites, which some smaller waste regulation authorities may have difficulty in providing. It will ensure that standards are enforced consistently across the country—something which the waste industry is very anxious about.
1018
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to a comment which I made on Report about the role of planning authorities in determining the location of waste facilities. I said then that:
"It has been suggested that under the agency there would be no scope for consideration of the concerns of local people regarding the potential impact on local amenity and possible pollution from a proposed waste management facility. That conviction is puzzling".—[Official Report, 213/95; col. 1618.]
By contrast, that is entirely in line with Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 23 on planning and pollution control. Although planning authorities should not substitute their judgment about how to control pollution for that of the relevant pollution control authority, it is perfectly proper for them to consider the potential for pollution to affect the use of land in deciding whether to grant planning permission.
Planning authorities should work on the assumption that the pollution control regimes will be properly applied and enforced, but that does not mean that they are unable to consider the land use implications of such pollution. Paragraph 1.33 of the PPG says, for example, that material considerations are likely to include:
"the risk and impact of potential pollution from the development insofar as this might have an effect on the use of other land".
We have no plans to change the basic policies and principles set out in that guidance as a result of transferring waste regulation to the agency, because there is no need to. The boundary which the guidance draws between planning and pollution controls fits in very well with the transfer of the main pollution control functions to the agency. It will ensure that local authorities have control over whether and where waste facilities are located and will be able to consider the impact of those developments on land use and amenity, including the risk and impact of potential pollution on land use. The agency will be responsible for controlling any pollution from the facility and will be accountable for that in the same way as it will be accountable for the other pollution control regimes for which it will be responsible.
I hope that I have explained why we consider it so important that waste regulation is included in the functions to be transferred to the agency and that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, or at least I think I am. As it is somewhat technical, it will bear reading carefully in Hansard. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that the point underlying this is public accountability and reassurance for local people who will feel that they are very directly affected by any development. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [General aims and objectives of the Agency]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, line 41, leave out ("give") and insert ("lay before Parliament an order containing").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3 and Government Amendment No. 4. This amendment takes us to Clause 4 which, after three clauses leading us in, sets out the principal aim of the agency.
I tabled my amendment before the Government tabled their amendment as to how the guidance provided in Clause 4(2) is to be dealt with procedurally. I decided not to withdraw my amendment because I felt that it would bear consideration as to whether the negative resolution procedure proposed by the Government was adequate or whether the affirmative resolution procedure proposed by my amendment was a more appropriate way to have the proposed guidance scrutinised.
Having said that, I must place on record my thanks to the Government. Although they have not moved as far as I would like them to, they have moved some way in dealing with the guidance, which will be extremely significant to those who are to implement the various matters which are the subject of the Bill and to those who will be affected by them.
As I said, Clause 4(1) refers to the "principal aim" of the agency, whereas Clause 4(2) refers to the objectives which Ministers consider to be appropriate for the agency to pursue. I have some difficulty in distinguishing between the aim of Clause 4(1) and the objectives in Clause 4(2), not least because the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines an aim as being a "object or purpose" and an objective as being the "point aimed at". I am sure that your Lordships will understand my confusion since those words appear to be synonymous.
I do not believe that I need repeat how important the guidance will be. So much of what the new agencies are to do will be contained in that guidance. Therefore, I feel that it is of the utmost importance that Parliament should scrutinise the guidance extremely carefully and should have the fullest opportunity to debate it, as it will not be contained in primary legislation, and, in particular, that those affected will have the fullest opportunity to comment on the proposed guidance and that Parliament can be their mouthpiece. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness did well to table Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 but, of course, Amendment No. 4 has made those amendments quite unnecessary. The importance of Clause 4 is added to greatly by Amendment No. 4.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on the rather strange and elaborate legislative situation which we shall have reached when we pass that amendment. We have various methods of legislating: primary legislation, Acts of Parliament; statutory instruments, either Orders in Council or other statutory instruments, some of which require the affirmative resolution and some of which require the negative resolution; and we have already, under several statutes, codes of practice, most of which require parliamentary approval before they come into force.
1020
Now we have a new departure—guidance by Ministers to a public body. I find it very difficult to distinguish in importance or purpose codes of practice from guidance. They are all issued by Ministers and have to be observed by the users of the statutes. All the guidance—and that gives it an advantage over some codes of practice—will require parliamentary approval within 40 days. In other words, it is analogous with the negative resolution procedure for a statutory instrument.
By all means, let us welcome that, but let us see where we are getting to as legislators because it means that we have entered a very elaborate new phase. Having said that, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ullswater on removing doubts and on doing something very helpful that will be welcomed by all concerned.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I should speak, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to all three amendments. Therefore, I shall speak to the government amendment before the Minister has had an opportunity to explain what are the Government's intentions, but I think that I can more or less guess what they are.
I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in that I do not believe that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness is unnecessary. In fact, I think that it is desirable. I disagree also with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as regards his contention that there is very little difference between codes of practice and guidance issued by Ministers. There is a great deal of difference between those two concepts. However, where I agree with him is that we are embarking on a legislative procedure which is as yet untested.
I should like to ask the Minister when he comes to explain his amendment what would happen if your Lordships or another place passed an amendment to a Motion to approve the guidance, in whatever form it was produced, which required the House only to approve the guidance if this, that and thus were entered into the guidance. Would that mean that the Government would withdraw it on the grounds that either subsection (5B) or (5C) would operate; or would they amend the guidance and resubmit it? How does the Minister see this whole procedure working? It would be interesting for your Lordships to know how precisely it would operate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I should be most grateful if he would indicate whether the technique of a Minister issuing guidance arises under other statutes or whether this is an innovation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Clause 4 guidance has been the subject of a good deal of debate during the proceedings on the Bill. We amended it substantially at Report to take into account many of the concerns which have been expressed. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, now seek to make such guidance subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I do not believe that that is appropriate. Guidance of the kind we are discussing here is often not subject to any kind of parliamentary scrutiny—my noble friend Lord Renton is

1021
right on that. None of the guidance issued under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The affirmative resolution would, in my view, he going too far and would be an inefficient use of parliamentary time.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked me what would happen if an amendment were passed by either House. So far as I understand the position, the Government would have to consider whether they should withdraw the guidance and bring it back in terms of the amendment or whether they would ask the House to pass the guidance as it was.
I have considered very carefully the points made by noble Lords in earlier debates and have accepted that the guidance should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, indicated at a previous stage that she would like to see it subject to some form of parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore I have tabled my own amendment, Amendment No. 4, which would ensure that the guidance was laid before each House and was subject to the negative resolution procedure.
I am not able to answer the question of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am not sure whether the procedure is innovative. However, I believe that I am reflecting very much the wish of your Lordships both in Committee and at Report stage that this is important guidance and should be subject to some form of parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment, and then in due course I shall move my Amendment No. 4.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I recognise that this is Third Reading and I do not want to hold up proceedings but could he just explain subsection (5B) in his amendment. I am unclear about it. It says that if,
"either House resolves that the guidance, the draft of which was laid before it, should not be given, the Minister shall not give that guidance".
The House may resolve that the guidance can be given but in a form slightly different from the Minister's suggestion. What will happen at that point?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if the guidance was not according to the draft which was laid before the House—if it were amended in some way—the Minister should not give that guidance.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can answer the question I put to him. Is the provision of guidance which has to he approved by the House an innovative procedure or are there precedents for it? I am not saying that if it is new we should necessarily object to it, but before we introduce a new procedure—if that is what we are doing—we really ought to know what we are doing.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I know that we are not in Committee but perhaps I may join this rather substantial interruption just to say to my noble friend that, although the procedure may have implications for the parliamentary timetable, if it is an innovation, it is an extremely welcome one. I remember fighting endless
1022
battles over guidance which had not yet been formulated in police and criminal evidence legislation in the 1980s. Matters would have been made very much easier had I been able to assure noble Lords that they would have been able to reject the guidance in the form in which it was presented and ask for it to be brought back—changed by how little or how much would depend on the debate. Therein lies the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall try again to answer the question posed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am not able to answer it with any degree of certainty. However, I am unaware of another example of guidance being subject to this kind of process, although the process itself is, of course, a well-known one. Having said that, I. was responding—I am glad that my noble friend Lord Elton has given me some comfort in that—to a considerable desire on both sides of the House that the guidance should be subject to some form of parliamentary process. I believe that the negative resolution is the correct process for this guidance.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the comments made on this group of amendments show the continuing concern of your Lordships that the matter should be dealt with in the best possible way. In saying that, I would regard the use of parliamentary time for the guidance to be issued under the Bill when it becomes an Act as being very important. One wants to make the most efficient use of parliamentary time. However, to consider closely guidance which goes to the very heart of the activity of these agencies could scarcely be more important.
Perhaps I may add to that another concern which we encounter in different contexts. I refer to the relationship between the Government and their quangos and how far Parliament has a role in agreeing the scope, the functions and, as it says in Clause 4(2), the objectives of the quangos which are set up and become at any rate semi-detached from the parliamentary process.
I appreciate that the negative resolution procedure is the one the Government favour, I hope that that will provide an adequate course for us to follow. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 6, at end insert:
("(5A) A draft of any guidance proposed to be given under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament and the guidance shall not be given 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.
(5B) If, within the period mentioned in subsection (5A) above, either House resolves that the guidance, the draft of which was laid before it, should not be given, the Ministers shall not give that guidance.
(5C) In reckoning any period of 40 days for the purposes of subsection (5A) or (5B) 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.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [General environmental and recreational duties]:
3.30 p.m.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 30, leave out ("other than its pollution control functions").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I return to the thorny issue of the agency's environmental duties relating to pollution control. We had a long and a rather tortuous debate at Report stage when it was evident that a number of different interpretations about Clause 7 existed both inside and outside the House. I welcomed the support of my noble friends Lord Cranbrook and Lord Crickhowell during the debate. I have been in touch with my noble friend Lord Moran and my noble friend the Minister to try to clarify these issues. My new amendment seeks to address some of the points raised during that debate.
I must first say that I recognise that a duty to "further" conservation will not always be appropriate. I can visualise more instances where it will be appropriate in the field of water pollution than in relation to pollution of air or indeed land. That is perhaps why, when Dr. Slater, the chief executive of HMIP, gave evidence to the House of Commons Environment Select Committee, he did not believe a duty to further conservation would be necessary. This may well be true in relation to many of the pollution functions which HMIP now holds.
However, I think there are instances where such a duty will be necessary, and I do not think it is mere chance that there has been such strong support for the retention of the duty to further conservation, not least in relation to the NRA's water pollution functions. I have used the example of Bassenthwaite in the Lake District before, and I think it illustrates the point so well. The NRA, under its duty to further conservation in relation to pollution control functions, has achieved so marked an improvement in the lake's conservation status that it has been upgraded from an SSSI to a national nature reserve. Surely this is an example of what furthering conservation is all about. I agree that my earlier amendment, which simply provided a duty to further conservation, conditioned, as it must be, by a phrase "so far as this is consistent" with other functions, did not specifically address those circumstances where such a duty is not compatible. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for pointing that out so clearly.
It seems to me therefore that the issue turns on the legal distinction between a conditioned duty to further conservation, and an unconditioned duty to have regard to it. I suggest that this distinction depends not only on the legal niceties of interpretation but also on the effect on the spirit and confidence with which the agency undertakes its work. Surely the ideal solution is to find a way of applying a duty to further conservation in relation to pollution control functions where this is appropriate, but ensure that there is a fallback requirement to have regard to this where it is not. My
1024
amendment attempts to do exactly that. It provides a belt and braces approach and this, I suggest, tackles the Government's concerns directly. The duty to further conservation would apply only where it was consistent with the criteria set out in Clause 7(1) (a); otherwise, the "have regard to" duty applies. I therefore hope my noble friend the Minister will respond positively to this attempt to meet the important point he made at Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I believe that this is an important amendment. Indeed your Lordships will he aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, pointed out, that we have had many debates around this particular issue, which is an issue central to the Bill. We fully understand—this was referred to by the noble Lord in introducing his amendment—that HMIP feels that what is in the Bill is adequate for it. We do not believe, just because HMIP on one side thinks it is adequate for it, that it is adequate for the agency in general, because we believe that the Bill, as drafted, represents something of a weakening of the existing mandate of the National Rivers Authority.
During Report stage the noble Viscount said that the,
"environmental NGOs have underestimated and misunderstood the effect and significance of the duty to have regard to the interests of conservation in what is now Clause 7(1) (b)". —[Official Report, 2/3/95; col. 1660.]
I am not sure that the environmental NGOs have underestimated and misunderstood the effect. Therefore I would like to see the Government accepting what is after all, as the noble Lord said, only a belt and braces amendment, to make sure that the pollution control functions of the National Rivers Authority are translated quite directly and specifically into the new Bill.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I wish to make a brief comment. While welcoming the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, of this amendment, I must apologise in that I was not in my place when he started to speak on it. However, I said at an earlier stage on a similar amendment of his that there is a basic mismatch as regards the necessity to foster nature conservation in the context of the pollution control duty because, unless the pollution control has been dealt with, it seems to me there can be little chance of installing and servicing the benefits that flow from the fostering of that duty towards nature conservation. I would counsel a little bit of caution in connection with this amendment for that reason.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty with my noble friend's amendment because I am not absolutely certain I am clear in my own mind as to its effects. I am sure about its intended effect, but these two amendments together set out, first, to remove the exemption of pollution control functions at present contained in Clause 7 (1) (a) and, secondly, to put in a second leg, as it were, in subsection (I) (b). My noble friend spoke of the second leg, which is the insertion of the words,
"which are not consistent with paragraphs (a) (i) to (iv) above",

1025
as though the effect of this would simply be to produce a graded list of duties on the Minister and the agency, being, in the first instance, a duty to further conservation etc. and, secondly, to have regard to the desirability of conserving etc.
The criterion for applying the restriction in the second leg is that anything done is done under subparagraphs (i) to (iv) of subsection (1) (a); that is, the areas and purposes within which the Minister or, as the case may be, the agency, acts. That means—does it not?—that anything which does not fall within that restriction is now exempted from the effects of subsection (1) (b). I am not sure whether that is the intention but it is removing a protection in the second grade altogether. That is why I am in a difficulty. However, if my noble friend is resolved to go into the Lobby, I would be persuaded in any case to go with my noble friend because the substantive argument is whether or not it is possible to reconcile the primacy of duty to enhance and protect when one is in an area where one may be controlling substances which are possibly lethally toxic and certainly noxious, and where one may find oneself in the position of having to ensure the spread of the primrose and the wild orchid, when what one ought to be doing is protecting the health of the local population. I believe that is to be avoided and I hope that my noble friend the Minister persists in his course.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, from these Benches I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. As he said, the distinction appears to be between furthering conservation and enhancement of the matters set out in Clause 7(1) (a) and merely, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said, the second grade duty of having regard to the desirability of doing so in respect of pollution control functions.
At the previous stage the Minister, talking about the duty to issue environmental licences, said that,
"To further conservation in every case would be inconsistent with the agency's role in issuing environmental licences". —[Official Report, 2/3/95; col. 1660.]
I was troubled when I read those words again because I do not regard the two matters as being inconsistent. It appears that far greater emphasis is placed on the agency's commercial activities than on its conservation duties.
I might agree more with the Minister if we were talking only about enhancement, but both "conservation and enhancement" are referred to and must therefore mean different things. If it was simply a matter of status quo, which is implied by "conservation", I would have more sympathy with the argument that what matters is to maintain the status quo and not to jeopardise it. But when it is a question of licences being granted, enhancement of the environment may not have as important a role as conservation. I would not necessarily go along with such an argument; but I can see a distinction. However, Clause 7(1) (b) refers to enhancement and conservation, and to reduce
1026
conservation as well as enhancement in the league table of issues to which the agency must have regard cannot be right.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, during the discussion, I took the liberty of looking at Clause 52, which refers to environmental licences, which are defined as authorisations, licences and consents. Authorisations, licences and consents, by definition, contain an element of allowed pollution and I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just said.
However little pollution is allowed by the licences, authorisations and consents, that cannot possibly equate with enhancing the environment on all occasions. There comes a point in scientific knowledge where the least environmental damage is accepted for the time being but beyond that point it is impossible to enhance the environment.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 5, taken together with Amendment No. 6, would have the effect of subjecting Ministers and the agency to a double test when formulating or considering any proposals relating to the agency's pollution control functions. First, they would be under a duty to further conservation so far as that was consistent with the purposes of any enactment relating to its functions; for Ministers, the objective of achieving sustainable development; for the agency, guidance given under Clause 4; and, for the Secretary of State, with his duties under Section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991.
Secondly, where any proposals relating to the agency's pollution control functions were not consistent with its duty to further conservation, it would have to apply the duty to have regard to conservation now contained in Clause 7(1) (b).
The result of the amendments, if accepted, would be highly complex and confusing and probably unworkable in practical terms. It would be very unclear what test had to be applied, in what circumstances, and when one test would end and another begin. I cannot believe that the resulting confusion would advance the cause of conservation.
For example, where the agency considers applications for authorisations under integrated pollution control, it has to consider BATNEEC (best available techniques not entailing excessive costs). Would it be consistent with the purposes of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to require it at the same time to further conservation? My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale put his finger on that point. At what point would those within the agency responsible for individual decisions have to switch from "furtherance" to "having regard", and what would they need to do to be able to show that they had properly done so? It would surely not advance the work of the agency to leave that confusion unresolved.
Before the Bill was even introduced the Government responded to the anxieties expressed by a number of environmental and conservation groups by amending Clause 7 to draw the distinction now contained between the pollution control functions of

1027
the agency addressed in Clause 7(1) (b) and its other functions, addressed in Clause 7(1) (a). The amendments do not satisfactorily address the fundamental difficulties of applying a duty to further conservation to the new and wider pollution control functions of the agency, where in a number of instances such a duty may well be inconsistent. I do not believe that in bringing forward these amendments my noble friend Lord Norrie fully recognises the important extension to the agency's ability to take proper account of conservation in discharging its pollution control functions which is represented by Clause 7(1) (b) as it stands. However, I do believe that the duties attached to the functions of the agency in this area need so far as possible to avoid the difficulties, ambiguities and inconsistencies which amendments such as these would introduce.
I hope that I have said enough in the course of the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House to reassure your Lordships about the importance which the Government attach to nature conservation and its place in the agency's functions. I recognise that there is a distinct concern among Members of your Lordships' House. We have discussed the matter on numerous occasions and I have sought to reassure your Lordships that the provisions in the Bill will be at least as effective as the current duty on the NRA, that the agency will have all the powers that it needs to contribute effectively to conservation, that the present important conservation gains being achieved through the NRA's pollution control functions are not dependent on the present form of words in Section 16 of the Water Resources Act 1991 (and your Lordships will have noted what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said about that during the Report stage), and that the new formulation in Clause 7(1) (b) will allow the agency to act on the basis of conservation considerations in a number of cases where the present wording would not. In my speech on Report I referred to the list of enactments at Clause 5(5) of the Bill to which the duty to have regard to conservation will now apply.
As I have said, Clause 7 in its present form represents an important extension to the new agency's ability to take proper account of conservation in discharging its functions, which avoids the difficulties which I have suggested would arise from the amendments. For those reasons, I hope that my noble friend Lord Norrie will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am very disappointed by the Minister's reply. He seems to be telling me that the status in law of "further" and "have regard to" are identical and that the progress we have witnessed under the NRA in recent years is not due to its duty to further conservation. I wish that I could be as optimistic. Those who have monitored the progress of the NRA closely will testify to the enormous value of the duty to further conservation whereas the term "have regard to" has been used for nearly 30 years without having anything like the same effect.
1028
My amendment may be unduly cumbersome, but I do not claim to be an expert in drafting. Moreover, I do not share the Minister's concern about the agency's ability to draw up criteria to guide its use of the terms "furtherance" and "have regard to" respectively.
All along the Minister has told us how effective the new agency will be. I cannot believe that a task of the kind proposed could not be achieved. I have taken note of the heartening level of support I received for an appropriate amendment at Committee and Report stages. Bearing in mind the enormous anxiety both inside and outside this House which the issue continues to generate, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
3.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 150.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Judd, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Listowel, E.

Barnett, L.

Longford, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lovell-Devis, L.

Birk, B.

Malllieu, B.

Blackstone, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bridges, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

David, B.

Nathan, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

Norrie, L. [Teller.] [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Northfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Dubs, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Eatwell, L.

Richard, L.

EnnaIs, L.

Rochester, L.

Ezra, L.

Russell, E.

Falkender, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Fitt, L.

Seear, B.

Foot, L.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shannon, E.

Glenamara, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Halsbury, E.

Steadman, B.

Hamwee, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harrowby, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Haskel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hayter, L.

Wallace of Coaslany, L.

Healey, L.

Walpole, L.

Henniker, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

White, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wigoder, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jeger, B.

1029

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Headfort, M.

Ailsa, M.

Henley, L.

Aldington, L.

Hives, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hogg, B.

Ampthill, L.

Hood, V.

Annaly, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Astor of Hever, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Killearn, L.

Blaker, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Blatch, B.

Kintore, E.

Blyth, L.

Knollys, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lindsay, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Liverpool, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Bruntisfield, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Burton, L.

Lucas, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lytton, E.

Cadman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnock, L.

Manchester, D.

Cayzer, L.

Mar, C.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Marlesford, L.

Chelmer, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Merrivale, L.

Chesham, L.

Mersey, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Coleridge, L.

Milverton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Courtown, E.

Morris, L.

Cox, B.

Mountevans, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Moyne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Munster, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V.

Nelson, E.

De Freyne, L.

Norfolk, D.

De L'Isle, V.

Northesk, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Denham, L.

Onslow, E.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Derwent, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Digby, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Downshire, M.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dundonald, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Effingham, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elles, B.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Renwick, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Ferrers, E.

Romney, E.

Finsberg, L.

Sandford, L.

Fisher, L.

Seccombe, B.

Flather, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gainford, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Geddes, L.

Slim, V.

Gilmour of Craigraillar, L.

St. Davids V.

Gisborough, L.

Stafford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Terrington, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Teviot, L.

1030

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Tollemache, L.

Vivian, L.

Trumpington, B.

Ullswater, V.

Wharton. B.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.57 p.m.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Power of SEPA to purchase land compulsorily]:
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 7
Page 24, line 23, at end insert:
("(3) where the Secretary of State or SEPA has prepared a proposal which involves the compulsory acquisition of land, a compulsory purchase order shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure in any case where an objection has been duly made by the owner of the land and has not been withdrawn.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret that the amendment appears on the Marshalled List in the name of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. I trust that that has not conferred an authority upon it which it would not otherwise deserve. I should say in support of that that the amendment is supported by both the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland.
As we said at Report stage, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there will be some mechanism for protecting the rights of an individual whose land is affected by a compulsory purchase order. Those of us who support the amendment take the position that the Secretary of State cannot effectively act as the guardian of the individual's interest because he is effectively in control of everything that SEPA does, both in matters of policy and in matters of detail. I refer your Lordships to Clauses 29 and 38(1) to confirm that.
In our view the Secretary of State therefore has a conflict of interest. I understand—and I should be grateful if my noble friend would confirm it—that SEPA's compulsory purchase powers could be exercised only in relation to its statutory functions. Those are to be found entirely in Clause 21 of the Bill. Their use therefore requires to be authorised by the Secretary of State; if there were any objections, he would be obliged to set up a public local inquiry, as specified in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947.
The point remains one of principle. If there are to be compulsory purchase powers, they should be adequately framed and there should be adequate protection for the individual whose land is affected. It may be that SEPA, as at present envisaged, will not have any great need to use such compulsory acquisition powers. I would be grateful if, in responding, my noble friend could confirm in some detail the statutory functions for which compulsory purchase powers may be used. For example, can he confirm whether or not those powers could be used in connection with establishing a system of integrated river catchment management? I look forward to his answer. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I well understand the sentiment behind Amendment No. 7 in the name of

1031
my noble friend Lord Pearson and the reassurances that he seeks. As I explained at Report on 2nd March at col. 1696 of the Official Report, we do not believe that an additional safeguard of this nature is required for SEPA. The power to purchase land compulsorily has the potential to be a powerful tool in the hands of a nature conservation body such as Scottish Natural Heritage — SNH. The purchase of land is not a normal means of preventing or controlling pollution—as can be demonstrated by the fact that river purification boards have never exercised the compulsory purchase powers which they have had for over 40 years.
I can therefore assure my noble friend that SEPA's general and environmental duties relate only to its functions. Similarly, guidance under Clause 29 will he issued with respect to the aims and objectives which SEPA should pursue in the performance of its functions. The functions of SEPA are set out in Clause 21 and are augmented by further provisions in the Bill, such as its function in relation to drainage works in Clause 24.
I should stress that the compulsory purchase powers are for the purpose of SEPA's statutory functions alone. My noble friend asked whether they might be used in pursuit of integrated catchment management. I believe that my noble friend missed the Committee stage when we discussed integrated catchment management. The point is that it is unlikely that in Scotland integrated catchment management will be a primary purpose for the agency because of the very different situation in regard to water in Scotland. I stress to my noble friend that there is no question whatever of SEPA being able to purchase land under Clause 25 on behalf of a third party.
I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend that there is no need for the additional safeguard which is proposed by his amendment. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will authorise SEPA to exercise its compulsory purchase powers only as a last resort. On that basis, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I do not think that it would he appropriate to waste the time of the House by dividing on the issue, especially as I am somewhat reassured by what my noble friend said. I shall, of course, read it carefully in Hansard, together with the assurances which have been given by my noble friends on the Front Bench at earlier stages. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 [Guidance on sustainable development and other aims and objectives]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 25, line 45, at end insert:
("(4) The power to give guidance to SEPA under this section shall be exercisable only after consultation with SEPA and such other bodies or persons as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult in relation to the guidance in question.
(5) A draft of any guidance proposed to be given under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament and the guidance shall not he given 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 (5) above, either House resolves that the guidance, the draft of which was laid before it, should not be given, the Secretary of State shall not give that guidance.
(7) In reckoning any period of 40 days for the purposes of subsection (5) or (6) 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 given under this section to be published in such manner as he considers appropriate.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment follows from the assurance I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, during the first day of the Report stage on 2nd March at col. 1689 of the Official Report.
The amendment requires my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to consult SEPA and other appropriate bodies and persons on the terms of the guidance, and to publish that guidance. Both provisions parallel changes to Clause 4 in relation to the environment agency for England and Wales made at Report 'stage. Those issues were of concern to the House and the Government have acknowledged them by bringing forward this amendment.
The amendment also makes the guidance subject to negative resolution. The lack of proper parliamentary scrutiny was another important matter which your Lordships thought should be addressed. The Minister has already spoken to Amendment No. 4 which makes provision for the negative resolution procedure for guidance under Clause 4. We believe that this would also be appropriate for SEPA. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in welcoming the amendment I ask my noble friend to confirm, in order to save time, when an order may eventually be laid before Parliament, that,
"such other bodies … as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult",
will, when appropriate, include occupiers and owners of land and the bodies which speak for them.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I can confirm that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [General environmental and recreational duties]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 26, line 8, leave out ("and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would place a further balancing duty on SEPA. They are the result of our consideration of the amendment to Clause 7 by my noble friend Lord Wade at Report stage in relation to the environment agency for England and Wales. In formulating it, we have also taken into account the amendments tabled at Report stage by the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
The amendment would require SEPA and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to have regard to the economic and social needs of any areas of Scotland and to have particular regard to such needs of rural areas. It is right that that emphasis be placed on rural areas, given their special needs.
The amendment reflects such an approach. It is not identical to the duty on the English and Welsh agency, but we believe that it is a vital balance and it is our duty to introduce it. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, once again I welcome the amendment. It is an improvement on the English amendment. Will my noble friend again confirm that SEPA will take into account the interests of owners and occupiers of the rural land to which the amendment specifically refers, when appropriate?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, once again I can confirm the answer that my noble friend seeks. I also confirm that the way in which the amendment is worded means that,
"any area or description of area",
describes areas such as rural areas, suburban areas and so on; "any area" refers to specific areas which could, for example, include Rannoch Moor.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 26, line 11, at end insert ("; and
(d) to have regard to the social and economic needs of any area or description of area of Scotland and, in particular, to such needs of rural areas.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [General duties with respect to water]:
The Earl of Dundonald The Earl of Dundonald moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 27, line 23, leave out ("in accordance with any directions under section 38 below").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendment No. 11, which is in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and myself. The amendment would remove the present emphasis placed on ministerial directions in connection with SEPA's duties with respect to the cleanliness of waters and the conservation of water resources. During the passage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, expressed anxiety that, as drafted, Clause 32(1) would involve my right honourable friend the Secretary of State meddling in the day-to-day operations of the agency. I know that that is not the Government's intention, but the clause as drafted at the very least sends out contrary signals. I believe that it requires the removal of the reference to directions under Clause 38. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, Amendment No. 11, moved by my noble friend Lord Dundonald and spoken to at length at an earlier stage of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, would remove the specific reference to ministerial directions in Clause 32 of the Bill.
I explained in Committee on Thursday 26th January (at col. 1211 of the Official Report) that we intended the reference to directions under Clause 38 to be a safety net in the event that the specific duties in Clause 32(1) with respect to water led to an unreasonable emphasis on the work of SEPA in relation to water at the expense of its other regulatory responsibilities for air and land.
1034
I do, however, understand the fears that have been expressed about undue interference by the Secretary of State—even if no real evidence has been advanced to support them. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State does not intend to meddle in the day-to-day operations of the agency. There is no reason why his relationship with SEPA should be any more interventionist than his relationship with other non-departmental public bodies that are accountable to him.
I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that Scottish Natural Heritage has been able to map out an independent path. There is no reason why SEPA would not be able to do the same. In recognition of our intention to leave day-to-day operational matters to SEPA, the Government are happy to accept the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, assiduously explained to the House. If necessary, we will seek to use the corporate planning mechanism to ensure that the work of the agency strikes a proper balance between the environmental media requiring protection.
The Earl of Dundonald: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will welcome another example of a more listening Government.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Incidental general functions]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 29, line 41, after ("criminal") insert ("and civil").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment returns to concerns that were demonstrated by an amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Mills and moved by my noble friend Lord Mills in Committee. I see that my noble friends are not in their seats today.
I spoke to an amendment at Report which reflected the concern of the Law Society also that the drafting of Clause 35 should make it clear that the right of the agencies in paragraph (a) of Clause 35(1) to do anything which they consider to be,
"calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the carrying out of its functions",
extended to the bringing of civil proceedings as well as to the bringing of criminal proceedings.
My noble friend Lord Ullswater told my noble friend Lord Mills in Committee that these words are wide enough to enable the agencies to bring civil proceedings and that therefore no reference to civil proceedings was needed in paragraph (b) to match the specific reference to criminal proceedings. I tabled this amendment today to give my noble friend the opportunity to explain the drafting of this clause in a little more detail and why in effect civil proceedings are, but apparently criminal proceedings are not, to be understood to facilitate the carrying out by the agencies of their functions—for that is what his reply to my amendment at Report implies. I wrote to my noble friend after Report stage and I received a helpful letter from him today.
The reference to the power of the English agency to institute criminal proceedings in England and Wales was, in an amendment moved by my noble friend on Report,

1035
removed from paragraph (b) and added at the end of subsection (1). The reference to criminal proceedings now stands very boldly at the end of the subsection. The objections to the drafting that were expressed apply as strongly to the phrase in its present position, for it is a normal rule of construction that, where you have an instance of concepts such as "criminal proceedings" and "civil proceedings", if you take specific steps to refer to one, as is done in this case, the effect is to exclude the other. I know that this is not the intention of the Government, nor would it be the wish of the Law Society that civil proceedings should be excluded. It is very important that it should be quite clear on the face of the Bill that civil proceedings are included for the reason that I just mentioned. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 12, introduced by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, purports to give the agency power to institute civil proceedings in England and Wales. He indicated that I suggested that this amendment is, however, unnecessary. Whereas it is necessary to give the agency express power to take criminal proceedings since it is to be a prosecuting authority under the legislation in respect of which it has functions, so far as civil proceedings are concerned the agency will be able to take any civil proceedings which in its opinion are calculated to facilitate or are conducive or incidental to the carrying out of its functions by virtue of Clause 35(1) (a), as mentioned by my noble friend.
A good example of why the specific reference to criminal proceedings is needed are the agency's functions under the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989, transferred to the agency by Clause 2(2) (c) of the Bill. The agency's functions under these regulations are limited, for example, to inspecting the sludge producer's register and being provided with information, but it is wished that the agency be the prosecuting authority for any breach in the regulations. It could not be said in this case that prosecuting would facilitate or be conducive or incidental to the specific functions given to the agency by the regulations and thus fall within Clause 35(1) (a); therefore an express provision is required on the face of the Bill.
With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, the drafting of this clause needs further thought. I know that those who advise me will read what my noble friend said. I hope that, if they are satisfied with what was said, it will leave the Bill in such a state that those who visit it in later years will understand why there is a reference to "criminal" but not to "civil" proceedings. In my opinion, this is not necessarily the end of the matter. There should be some other way of dealing with this. But my noble friend's remarks will need to he carefully considered. I beg leave now to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 [Contaminated land]:
The Earl of Kintore The Earl of Kintore moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 45, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert:
("() "Contaminated land" is any land or interest in land, whether comprising of the surface or of any substratum, mine, mineral or underground space, which appears to the local authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in or on that interest in land, that—").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to consequential Amendments Nos. 14 and 19. Amendment No. 13 would alter the definition of contaminated land and, with consequential Amendments Nos. 14 and 19 to the definition of "owner", would ensure that where contamination is in an underground mineral seam or mine which does not belong to the surface owner, the surface owner or occupier will not be held liable. If owners and occupiers are to be responsible for what they own and occupy, the use of the word "under" is unnecessary. Ownership has no vertical limits unless there are exceptions specified in the titles or by legislation. Coal, oil and gas, for example, are statutory exceptions belonging to the state and are under the land. The Bill could make surface owners and occupiers liable for cleaning up contamination in the underground seams if they become polluted because they are under the land. Most obviously, the definition in the Bill makes a surface owner liable for polluted water in abandoned coal-mines which were formerly worked by the National Coal Board and which belong to the Coal Authority.
The purpose of Clauses 55 and 57 of the Bill is to introduce responsibility for the discharge of polluted water from mines that are closed from the beginning of the next century. But the definition of "contaminated land" in Clause 54 will result in land, including the surface, where there is already contaminated water in old mine shafts underneath being classed as contaminated land and for an immediate responsibility to be placed on owners and occupiers.
There is therefore an inconsistency between Clauses 55 and 57 and the definition in Clause 54. The Minister stated that it was the Government's intention that the owner of the mineral or mine should generally be the person responsible for it. He referred to the Interpretation Act 1978 for the description of land. It may be that the owner of the mineral or mine could be responsible. However, the legal advice that I have received is that in the case of a disused mine there is considerable doubt whether the mine owner would be responsible: what he owns is an underground space rather than soil or rock, and an underground space may not be land. To a lawyer, the obvious interpretation is that unless the Bill is amended the surface owner would be held responsible.
The purpose of consequential Amendment No. 14 is to alter the definition of "owner" for the purpose of Scots law, to make clear that where underground strata are in different ownership from the surface and there is contamination in any of the strata, whether the surface or any underground mine or mineral seam, the person on whom the legal responsibility will be placed will be the owner or occupier of the appropriate stratum or layer of ground.
Amendment No. 19 seeks to achieve the same purpose in English law. It would be wholly inequitable to make an owner or occupier liable for property which he does not own, does not occupy, has not polluted and from which he can receive no benefit. I hope that the Minister will state that he accepts the principle and that the Bill will be amended, either in the terms of my amendment or otherwise, to make it clear that such a possibility could not occur. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I rise to support very briefly the noble Earl's amendment. I look forward to my noble friend's reply. I should have thought that, if my noble friend did not accept the spirit of the amendment, he would be going against the recent judgment in the Cambridge Water case. I am sure that that is something which the Government would not want to do.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, at Report stage, five noble Lords from all sides of the House grumbled at the lack of guidelines. Therefore, I gather that the guidelines are not unimportant.
I am not a politician. However, I have some experience of boardrooms, as an executive and non-executive, in the chair and out of it, in big companies and small and at home and abroad. If I, as a non-executive, had told my chairman that I proposed to take to the board a proposition such as this one—the whole of Clause 54—which is so incomplete, ill thought out, prone to hostile reception and without any vestige of advance consultation, I would have expected him to say, "Take it away and don't bring it back until you've done your homework or you will come to grief." I am sorry to have to say that to my noble friend the Minister, who is one of the nicest of men. I am well aware too of the pressures on ministerial life. My remarks are aimed rather at the habits and the generality of government business.
In my brief time as a Member of your Lordships' House, I have seen such inefficiency exemplified on a number of occasions. There was, for instance, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. Surely a quiet dinner party given by the Home Secretary to one of the many occupants of this House who have held that post before him would have been of considerable advantage and saved a great deal of time. Another instance that comes to mind was the Coal Bill, where five (or perhaps four) organisations made representations. Time with them would have saved a great deal of trouble. Instead, there was the humiliation which results when a number of amendments are forced on the Government. Parliamentary time would have been saved. We are told that it is always very short. Consultation with your Lordships at Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading would have made it much more focused.
To be succinct and relevant, I feel that the presentation of half-baked clauses—as this one is—deserves a protest. I leave it to your Lordships to agree
1038
with me, if they feel so inclined, that the lack of guidelines in this instance should not have been forced upon us.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harrowby spoke ill of the clauses that have now surfaced in the Environment Bill—Clauses 54 to 57. These contaminated land provisions have resulted from an extensive consultation over a period of some two years—consultation with industry, the property side of business, the banks and others. I do not believe that we can accept his criticism that the clauses are half-baked. That may be his opinion. However, I should like to record that we have gone through a very long period of consultation. We believe that we have come up with some very important proposals.
The amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, seek to address the question of potential liabilities falling on owners as a result of land being identified as contaminated by virtue of substances in substrata or mines.
Before responding to the detail of the amendments, I should state that the Government intend to bring forward their own amendments on the question of water pollution from abandoned mines and how that might be considered under these contaminated land provisions. Certainly we do not intend that those provisions should bypass the defences and exemptions available in respect of such waters under the Water Resources Act. The noble Earl moved similar amendments at Report stage. I repeat what I said in response on that occasion: the definition of "land" in the Interpretation Act 1978, already includes any estate interest, easement, servitude or right in or over land.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way for a moment. Did I hear him say that he was going to bring forward amendments over polluted water from abandoned mines?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I did. We do not intend that these provisions should bypass the defences and exemptions available in respect of such waters under the Water Resources Act. Those were the words that I used. It is the overlap between the provisions on contaminated lands and those on abandoned mines that we seek to put straight.
The primary responsibility for remediation of any mines identified as contaminated land would obviously fall on anyone who caused or knowingly permitted the contaminating substances to be there. But any residual responsibility passing to the "owner" of the land would, as a result of the definition of land in the Interpretation Act, fall to the owner of the mine or the mineral rights, and not the owner of the surface land where he is a different person.
My noble friend Lord Pearson brought to the attention of the House the Cambridge water case. That case was brought at common law and therefore has no direct bearing on these statutory provisions. I suggest therefore that the amendments are not needed to achieve the noble Earl's objectives. I go beyond that and say that their inclusion could potentially create other problems. Moving away from the definition of land in the Interpretation Act in this respect could create unintended

1039
inferences that other differences in meaning should be implied as well. For that reason I ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps I can ask him a question because I have been quite slow on this matter. Am I right in saying that if some surface land bubbles through some contaminated mine land—the owner of that land has not caused the contamination; it is accidental—the owner will then be legally and clearly not liable for that contamination? Have I got that right? If not, perhaps my noble friend will kindly explain.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as my noble friend explained it, he has got the interpretation correct.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I was a little disturbed by my noble friend's reaction to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Harrowby. It is not the first time that we have seen this from the Government Front Bench. The claim that great consultation has taken place with lots of people is supposed to be an answer that is unassailable to anybody who criticises the results as they appear in a clause in a Bill. But who dissected the results of the consultation? Who made the decisions arising out of the consultations?
My protest and my disturbance arises from the fact that consultation does not end until the Bill has passed through this House. That is all part of the consultation. The whole idea of Parliament is that its Members bring their experience and knowledge to bear in order to arrive at the right answer. The record that my noble friend Lord Harrowby gave to the House in relation to his qualifications for stating a view on the matter is quite unassailable. Merely to pass it off because consultation has taken place with lots of other people is not a good way of arriving at what eventually decides whether the Bill is good or bad.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, with the leave of the House—if I have the leave of the House to respond to my noble friend—I entirely accept that any legislation going through this House or another place is part of the whole process. I would not in any way indicate that what is put down on the written page in any Bill should not be examined in detail by the two Houses. I was trying to indicate that we arrived at the words in the Bill after extensive consultation. I tried to indicate that there was some reason on my side for saying that those words were not half-baked.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I fear that Clause 54 is still seriously flawed and look forward to seeing the government amendments. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 13.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 48, line 18, at end insert:
(""creditor" has the same meaning as in the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I gave an undertaking at Report stage to bring forward an amendment to Clause 54 of the Bill to clarify the position of heritable creditors not in possession of the security subjects. Amendment No. 20 has that effect and Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are consequential. It has always been our intention that the definitions of "owner" in England and Wales and in Scotland should be similar in effect. The amendments seek to bring that about. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 48, line 24, at end insert:
(""heritable security" has the same meaning as in the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 17, I should point out to the House that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 18.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 48, line 40, leave out ("(other than a mortgage not in possession)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the third discussion on the definition of ownership in this clause, particularly in regard to where it refers to the mortgagees in possession in relation to contaminated land. I raise the matter again because it is clearly a serious issue among those lending mortgages on property.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding reminded us in Committee of the Government's stated policy under the framework of contaminated land, which was that:
"the act of lending, whether secured or not, does not of itself open the lender to liability for meeting the costs of remedying any damage caused by the actions or omissions of the borrower".—[Official Report, 31/1/95; col. 1445.]
My noble friend Lord Ullswater gave a conciliatory and encouraging reply. He repeated the argument that it was not the Government's intention to apply a "deep pocket" policy with regard to the lending of money. He said:
"The Government are committed to the view that banks and others should not be treated as 'deep pockets' to pay for the restoration of environmental damage for which they bear no real responsibility. The Government accept that any attempt to treat financial institutions in that way would serve only to threaten the supply of normal financial services to many sectors of the economy".
My noble friend went on to say that:
"The Government are willing to consider this question further, and to examine whether changes to the definition of 'owner' are justified to deal with the possibility of mortgagees finding themselves involuntarily in possession of property".—[Cols. 1448–1449.]
That was an encouraging reply but unfortunately my noble friend was not able to come up with any formula. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, with admirable consistency, moved a further amendment on Report. My noble friend Lord Ullswater stated that he saw no justification for change and offered no protection other than existing remedies open to lenders. He cited other

1041
liabilities—statutory provisions —concerning mortgagees in possession on highways, public health and building regulations.
My noble friend may not be surprised to know that the Council of Mortgage Lenders still considers this matter to be extremely serious. It feels that there are strong arguments why the justification given so far by my noble friend is unsatisfactory. It cites that the cost of restoration of contamination is often unquantifiable and uninsurable. It causes serious blight in the whole area and could leave properties abandoned. It made a strong general point that it seems wholly unreasonable to inflict such a liability on a modest loan on the security of a property. I must agree because, as the Bill stands, the responsibilities of lenders—banks, building societies and so forth—will, unless they take careful steps, meet the responsibility of mortgagees in possession.
If one looks at the practical side, in 1994 building societies were less lucky in their possessions. Out of those possessions, 35 per cent. were voluntary, where the mortgagee simply handed in the keys or abandoned the property with agreement. If no further changes take place, what should lenders really do in practical terms? Should they just abandon their loans, which is what the Government are suggesting, and leave a host of abandoned properties? They could appoint a receiver who under the Law of Property Act 1925 would have the authority, but I am told that there would be considerable difficulty in persuading the receiver to accept responsibility when there is likely to be no income from which to pay the receiver's fees.
Neither of those choices is satisfactory, particularly in the case of residential loans. I find it very disquieting that no formula has yet been found to meet the Government's original commitment to avoid the very large potential liability for mortgage lenders. If nothing is found to meet such a formula, the consequence will he an obvious worry in that it will interfere with the flow of mortgages to finance property.
The general conclusion is that, if we have to rely on abandoned properties for lenders to avoid the risks of this huge potential liability, it is a disorderly way to proceed. One is somewhat surprised that the Government believe that such a future course of action is in the general good. I have asked my advisers about the definition of taking a property in possession. Perhaps I may quote briefly from a letter which I received just an hour ago. It states:
"There is no hard and fast rule of what a court would constitute as 'possession' as each case has to be decided on its own merits. Typically, the very act of visiting or inspecting the property, or securing it, would constitute possession. The fact that the lender actually has the keys to the property in his possession could also, in eases, constitute possession. Additionally, in the case of contaminated land, the lender may not know that the land was contaminated and required clean-up and he would, therefore, have no reason to try to refuse to take possession!".
There is very serious concern on that point.
I asked my noble friend to say what would happen if a lender took possession, then decided that he should not have done so and applied to the Land Registry to remove his charge on the property. Would he still be deemed to have taken possession for, say, that month?
1042
This is a minefield of concern and a very serious issue. I hope that my noble friend will understand that the Government's replies so far have not satisfied the lenders on property and will have some encouraging words for us. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, there is a misprint in the Marshalled List. The word "mortgagee" has been mistyped as "mortgage". Therefore, the amendment proposed is:
"Page 48, line 40, leave out ("(other than a mortgagee not in possession)")".
4.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kinnoull very kindly referred to the earlier debates we had on this point. Perhaps I may in turn refer with gratitude to my noble friend the Minister, who has written me a long and comprehensive letter as to why the Government feel that nothing more can be done on this matter. The speech from my noble friend which we have just heard must leave the Government with a feeling that all is not yet well with this issue.
How far should a bank or building society be held liable to the whole of the proceedings under the new Clause 54 merely because they have stepped in, as a mortgagee, to secure the land and perhaps reduce the impact of the contamination which is happening? And that by that act alone they will become liable to all the proceedings and procedures which this clause sets out.
I believe that my noble friend is totally sincere in saying that the Government do not expect or want this clause to interfere with the normal process of lending and borrowing. But, as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has said, if there is to be no protection for these circumstances—and there are many others—which he has in mind and which I have described, that is precisely what will happen; namely, it will become difficult to find lenders for premises and small businesses and so on where there may be a risk of contamination. I have mentioned some of them in the past such as petrol stations, dry cleaners and people of that kind who handle chemicals and other substances which may give rise to contamination.
I cannot believe that it is the Government's intention that that situation should be so. I beg my noble friend to look at this matter again and to go back yet again and discuss it with the lawyers, the mortgage lenders, building societies and banks and the other people who do the great mass of lending in order to find out whether there is some way in which they can build in protection.
In his letter to me my noble friend said:
"In practice, an alternative course of action to taking possession of secured assets may be open to lenders. They may be in a position to send in insolvency practitioners, or other receivers, who would benefit from the protection against personal liability which is provided under the new section 78P(3)".
There must be many cases where a lender is very reluctant to take that step. He may want to find a way forward for saving the business and so perhaps gaining in the longer term the benefit of his security, and therefore get repayment of the loan.

1043
We have just had the decision of the House of Lords about redundancy payments which is already causing much consternation to insolvency practitioners, as they are described in my noble friend's letter, because of the decision that, if they keep a business going for more than a certain number of weeks, they may become liable for full contractual redundancy. Here we have another example where, if they try to keep a business going for a while, the insolvency practitioners could find themselves subject to all the rigours of Clause 54. The only consequence is that, faced with this situation, the banks are going to rush in and appoint receivers and everyone will be dismissed. The business will be scattered and while it may have been possible to save something from the financial wreck, it will turn into an asset-stripping exercise.
My noble friend must recognise that the Government have not yet found a solution which meets the very justifiable concerns of lenders. I hope that if the Government cannot accept the amendment which my noble friend has moved this afternoon, between now and the Bill coming before another place a further effort will be made with the relevant associations to find a solution.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we have considered this matter very carefully indeed. These amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull intend to exclude mortgagees or, in Scotland, creditors in standard security, from the definition of the "owner" who might be liable to receive a remediation notice where the polluter cannot be found. This exclusion would apply whether or not they had taken up their security and were in possession of the land.
During our discussion on a related amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding at Report stage, as he has indicated to the House, I explained the Government's thinking in this area. Lenders should not be liable, as deep pockets, merely on the basis that they have lent money. However, they should not expect to be treated any differently from any other owners of land if they take up possession of the land. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull, having taken legal advice, has indicated that there are no hard and fast rules about taking possession. However, I believe that mortgagees have a peculiar experience and should not be treated as if they have no experience at all. There appears to be no good reason for departing from the current position at law where a mortgagee in possession is potentially liable to pay the outgoings of the property and any other liabilities under various statutory provisions. That was the content of my letter to my noble friend Lord Jenkin.
Mortgagees in possession are currently potentially liable for other liabilities arising from their ownership. The occupier's potential liability to abate a statutory nuisance would he an example. It would not he right to allow mortgagees in possession an exemption from liability for what could be a long period before they sell the land when other owners could be liable. Any other conclusion would have the effect of underwriting, at public expense, the investments of lenders.
Lenders have already developed procedures to ensure that, wherever possible, they do not find themselves in this position. I must also stress that lenders will retain
1044
the right not to go into possession of land over which they hold security if they believe that the land could have a negative net value.
I do not know that I can go any further beyond what I have said both today and on Report. For the reasons that I have set out, the Government do not want to accept the amendment and I therefore ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing it.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply although, as I am sure that he will understand, I do not accept that this is the end of the picture. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for his powerful support throughout the passage of the Bill in your Lordships' House. He has advocated the case with a great deal of logic and practical sense.
The amendments were purely for probing purposes. I regret that there has been no change or advance in my noble friend's thinking. Nevertheless, I hope that there will be room for further discussion between now and further 'debate in another place, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 20, I should advise the House that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 21.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 48, line 46, leave out ("the person") and insert ("a person (other than a creditor in a heritable security not in possession of the security subjects)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 20 with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 51, line 36, at end insert:
("(3A) If, in a case falling within subsection (1) or (7) of section 59 above, the land in question is contaminated land, or becomes such land by reason of the deposit of the controlled waste in question, a remediation notice shall not be served in respect of that land by reason of that waste or any consequences of its deposit, if and to the extent that it appears to the enforcing authority that the powers of a waste regulation authority or waste collection authority under that section may be exercised in relation to that waste or the consequences of its deposit.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 23, and to speak also to Amendment No. 24. During the debate on Report, in response to an amendment that was moved by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister also speaking to Amendment No. 24 or Amendment No. 44?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am moving Amendment No. 23 and speaking also to Amendment No. 44. If I said that I was speaking also to Amendment No. 24, I beg your Lordships' pardon; I meant Amendment No. 44.

1045
During the debate at Report stage, in response to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, I undertook to reconsider the position of landowners whose land may have become contaminated as a result of fly-tipping. These amendments will have the effect of restoring the existing exemption from liability for the costs of any clean-up currently provided for the innocent victims of fly-tipping under the terms of Section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Amendment No. 23 disapplies the contaminated land provisions where, and to the extent that, the land has been contaminated as a result of illegal waste deposits prohibited under Section 33(1) of the 1990 Act. Amendment No. 44 removes a provision which would have disapplied the powers of waste regulation and collection authorities under Section 59 of the 1990 Act to take action to remove illegally deposited waste.
The amendments effectively restore the status quo. Full responsibility for dealing with illegal deposits of waste is returned to the waste regulation and collection authorities, which will be best placed both to discover fly-tipping promptly and to identify who might be responsible for it, as a result of their other responsibilities in waste regulation. The Government will consider the question of whether any specific guidance to the agency is needed on the priority that it should accord to action under the powers in Section 59 to remove illegal waste deposits.
I hope that your Lordships will accept these amendments, which I believe answer the considerable concerns expressed on this question at Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for moving this amendment which answers the point that I was making. I have, however, one very small query for my noble friend which I should perhaps have picked up earlier. If the rubbish has contaminated the land and the waste authority does not collect it, as is its entitlement, could the occupier then be liable, under the contaminated land provisions, if he does not collect It? Apart from that query, I am most grateful to my noble friend.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that that is what the amendment seeks to obviate. As my noble friend explained, the landowner would not be responsible.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 52, line 8, at end insert:
("() When an enforcing authority has served a remediation notice in accordance with this section it shall be the duty of the authority to take appropriate steps to satisfy itself that the work specified in that notice have been complied with and, when they have been, to record that fact on the Register.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 24. Before I speak to it, perhaps I should say that I believe that it contains a slight grammatical error in that the word "work" in line 3 should read "works".
The amendment relates to the Remediation Register. Under the Bill as it stands, the local authority must place on the register any details of contaminated land which it identifies, together with details of the remediation that it requires to be carried out and the person who is liable—the "appropriate person". The Bill makes no provision for the entry ever to be struck off the register or for any record to be kept of whether or not the remediation has been carried out to the local authority's satisfaction.
The blight which will be placed on land by its designation as "contaminated" on the register will therefore hang over it for ever. That effect seems to me to be the precise opposite of the Government's objective which was stated in A Framework for Contaminated Land, as,
"to encourage an efficient market in land 'which may have been contaminated"
and to,
"encourage the development of such land".
At Report stage, I introduced an amendment which would have required local authorities to issue, after the works had been completed, a certificate which would have given prospective purchasers and developers some confidence that the local authority was not simply waiting in the wings to pounce again on a new owner. That amendment was rejected.
I come back now with a much more modest proposal: that the local authority should at least be required to record on the register that the actual things which it, directed should be done have been done, and to a standard that it finds acceptable. That will not impose extra work on the local authority because, having ordered something to be done, surely it must see that it has been done to a standard which it accepts.
In my view, the amendment does not go far enough to promote a lively market in "brown land" but it should at least help —that is, if the Minister accepts it and if your Lordships favour it. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support the amendment, which is necessary just in case in some later court proceedings there is a doubt or argument about this matter. By putting this on the record, it would remove any doubt and argument and could save a great deal of trouble. I hope that my noble friend will accept the amendment or at any rate the principle of it.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for moving his amendment as it gives me an opportunity to flesh out in some more detail what are the Government's intentions in this area before the Bill goes for further debate in another place.
It is clear that the registers created under these provisions should contain, as well as the formal documents issued by the enforcing authorities, information about what assessment, remedial works and further monitoring have been done on any site. The availability of such information will play a major role in securing the Government's overall objective of

1047
encouraging an efficient market in land which may have been contaminated—the intention identified by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I have already indicated in previous debates on these issues that the Government intend to bring forward their own amendment to correct what is clearly a gap in the existing provisions relating to the registers.
What we intend to do is to provide those served with remediation notices, or the owners of the land, with an opportunity to add their own information to the register recording what they have done to manage the contamination on the land. We do not believe that it should he the enforcing authorities which should provide that information. Although enforcing authorities will, of course, need to satisfy themselves that the terms of any remediation notice have been complied with, the onus for satisfying and meeting the concerns of any potential future purchasers of the land should lie with the owner of the land. One reason for that is that we intend that remediation notices should generally he phrased in terms of objectives to be achieved rather than specific works which have to be undertaken.
In some instances the requirements of a remediation notice may entail long-term measures; in others the circumstances of the site may change over time. As a result, a judgment made by an enforcing authority that the terms of a notice had been complied with could only be made on a contingent basis. If circumstances required it, the same site could be subject to further remediation requirements in the future.
Obviously in very many cases there will not be any need for further regulatory requirements under these provisions to manage any contamination. But the Government's concern is that if the information concerning remedial actions on the register came from the enforcing authority, future purchasers could be led to assume that the site had been given an unconditional clean bill of health.
That is the point that I wish to bring to the attention of my noble friend Lord Renton. If we did as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, suggested, the agency would take over from the owner of the contaminated land if there were an acknowledgement that the remediation had taken place. There may be contamination in the long term which would need to be dealt with. It should not be the regulatory authority which should have the responsibility for indicating that the land had a clean bill of health. That would have adverse effects on the efficiency of the property market, which might be working on false information. It could also have implications for the legal position of the enforcing authorities, as purchasers who relied on that information could seek to establish that they had been in dereliction of their duties if further problems arose.
For those reasons, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and await the Government's amendment on this matter.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I shall withdraw the amendment, but I should like to take the opportunity to draw two matters to the Minister's attention. The first is that many developers and purchasers will look no further than the register. If they find that the property is
1048
on the register, they will not go on to spend hours and days looking to see what has happened. Unless they have strong reasons for wanting to buy that property, they will go elsewhere.
The second point I wish to make is that the authority could use this provision as a way of waiting for a "fatter" owner to carry out more work; in other words, if the owner of the land at the time was not very well off, the authority could let the owner do a little work and wait for the property to be sold to someone who was better off. The authority might then pounce and ask for a great deal more work to be done. That is a threat which could put off purchasers. With those two points, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 52, line 18, at end insert ("or the assignee, the executors, the administrators or the heir of such person.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendment No. 26. The amendments relate to transfer of liability for pollution. It will be clearer if I speak first to the second of the amendments, Amendment No. 26, and then to Amendment No. 25.
Amendment No. 26 is concerned with the transfer of the polluter's liability specifically to the occupier or owner of the land, as referred to in Section 78E(3) (b). Such transfer can arise as the result of a transfer of an interest in the land for consideration, as a result of inheritance, gift, termination of a lease by the effluction of time or by implied or explicit transfer of the liability either for value or not; in other words, there are a number of different ways in which it can happen.
For future transfers, I accept fully that it will be up to the parties to get it right and to provide documentation which proves their intention; but for past transfers the section is so vague as to leave wide areas of uncertainty and the potential for unfairness. The National Conditions of Sale and the General Conditions of Sale of the Law Society refer to the transfer of liabilities. The CLA has, at my suggestion, taken senior legal opinion as to whether those standard clauses would effectively transfer liability for remediation from the polluting vendor of the land to a purchaser.
The opinion advises that there is considerable doubt. In particular, it seems probable that latent, as opposed to patent, liabilities which were not disclosed by the vendor at the time of sale could well not have been transferred. The position under the other forms of transfer which may or may not have taken place seems even more obscure.
The amendment would clarify the position. Its wording reflects the criteria of a prudent buyer which inform the terms of the National Conditions of Sale, which is where they have been taken from. I commend the amendment to the Government if for no better reason than because without it there may be some doubt as to whether all the latent liabilities of, say, the Gas Board have been transferred effectively to its privatising successors.
I turn now to Amendment No. 25 which refers to the transfer of a liability for pollution to any other person than the owner or occupier of the land. It is a probing

1049
amendment. I should like to ask the Minister two sets of questions. The first relates to the situation where the polluter is an individual. This is an important point. Do the Government intend that liability for pollution should die with the polluter and that the liability should not pass to his heirs, who, it is only fair to say, may have benefited from the money he made out of the polluting activities? If so, the liability will, as the Bill is drafted, fall automatically upon the owner or occupier of the land when the polluter dies. That will give the owner or occupier of the land an insurable interest in the life of the polluter.
The second question about the polluter as an individual is: can the polluter transfer his liability to another person inter vivos? In so far as the Bill contemplates him transferring his liability to the landowner, presumably he can. If so, could a polluter transfer his liability to a terminally ill person for consideration and thereby avoid liability and transfer the liability to the landowner or the occupier? If so, there will grow up a flourishing trade in deathbed transactions.
Finally, where the polluter is a limited liability company, do the Government envisage such a company being able to transfer its net assets to another company without transferring the latent liability for remediation of hidden contamination? If so, the polluting company could go into liquidation and thereby once again liability would be washed clean from the polluter and would be transferred to the owner or occupier. If that or some similar device is possible—and, as was pointed out on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, it will be difficult to prevent that—surely, it will become standard practice to do whatever it is that enables the polluter to get off the hook.
I suggest that the Bill leaves wide open many loopholes for the polluter to avoid liability. Therefore, far from creating a framework to ensure that the polluter pays, the Bill appears to be designed to ensure that the occupier or the owner of the land pays. Unless the Bill is modified, it could go down in history as a polluters' charter. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it has only just occurred to me—it should have occurred to me weeks or months ago—that much of the trouble involved in cases relating to land contaminated by abandoned or working mines would have been solved if there had been a land registration system everywhere. Of course, that advantage exists in Scotland but in England and Wales it is a rare condition.
The lack of registration on the land register makes the proposed amendments very important. Otherwise, not only will private sellers and purchasers of land suffer but the public interest may be affected. On many occasions, public authorities or charities need to buy land. It would be most unfortunate if people were deterred from making a desirable and necessary purchase owing to the uncertainty of the obligations—indeed, sometimes of the advantages—that have been obtained where the land has been properly cleared.
1050
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has raised an important practical point and I hope that he will receive a sympathetic reception from my noble friend.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Northbourne. He touched on what lies at the heart of some of my misgivings about the operation of the Bill. They relate to the blight of uncertainty which results from the lack of a properly attached form of liability. I shall listen with great interest to the Minister's reply.
If we allow onto the statute book legislation which creates uncertainty it follows that that will create risk, which feeds through into every form of social and economic malaise. I cannot underscore that point too heavily. Certain areas are under threat, and in a previous debate on the Bill we heard the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, speak eloquently about the blight that affects old coalmining areas. I too foresee the setting up of an industry to deal with risk management; the shuffling of liabilities to and fro.
In order to avoid the example set in the United States under the super-farm principles, there must be clear lines of demarcation. As I said previously in respect of the Bill, it is inevitable that some of those must fall into the public domain. It is not good enough for the Government, the Treasury or anyone else to say, "No, not us". The way in which the matter will be resolved, and the country's dirty history rectified, will be by people standing up and taking account of past actions, being pro-active and making investment. That means committing time, energy, money, and so forth, which are driven away by unassessable risk.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I must say to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that the Government accept a considerable amount of liability—if that is the correct word—because they spend a large amount of public money on cleaning up contaminated land, as does industry. In earlier debates, I mentioned that some £250 million per year was contributed by taxpayers to resolve this difficult question.
The amendments are more specific because they relate to the circumstances in which liabilities might fall to the owners or occupiers of land where they have not themselves caused or knowingly permitted that land to be contaminated. Amendment No. 25 seeks to make it less likely that the circumstances will arise where the polluter cannot be found, by providing for their responsibilities to be passed on if they should cease to exist. In the case of individuals, this would mean that were the polluter to die responsibility would pass to his heirs. In the case of companies which had been liquidated or dissolved, responsibility would pass to those to whom assets had been assigned.
Where any potential liabilities under these provisions have been crystallised through the service of a remediation notice before the polluter "ceases to exist", it would seem reasonable that the costs of compliance with that notice should constitute a call on the estate. We believe that that would be the position at law.

1051
However, the amendment would have serious effects on the law of probate and on company and insolvency law. I suggest that any changes to the law in those areas should be dealt with in those contexts. Otherwise, there is a serious risk that we would end up creating anomalous situations and considerable legal uncertainties. We could also inadvertently breach established and accepted legal doctrines which apply in those areas. As currently drafted, the amendments would also have the particular effect of making executors and administrators personally liable for the costs of remediation. For those reasons, I would not wish to accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 26 concerns the provision relating to the transfer of responsibility from the original polluter to a new owner of any land. As I have said on previous occasions, the Government recognise that the new Section 78E(3), as it currently stands in the Bill, is not entirely correct and we shall wish to bring forward our own amendments to it.
Our intention is to permit the statutory system to respect contractual arrangements, particularly through conveyances, which may have been made concerning responsibility for the condition of land. This amendment seeks to protect the rights and position of purchasers of land in any sale but it would potentially cut across the actual contractual arrangements governing that sale.
We believe that the statutory arrangements for the transfer of responsibilities should respect all of the provisions of any contract, including any relating to the treatment of latent defects and liabilities. It is certainly not the Government's intention to deny the purchasers of land any of the protections and rights that they would otherwise have enjoyed under their contracts.
The noble Lord mentioned the potential liabilities of British Gas. I am advised that the legal entity remains the same and therefore the liabilities remain. I hope that in the light of that clarification, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I believe that the Minister has conjured up many reasons for doing nothing but has not addressed the fundamental problems that I raised in introducing the amendment. Will he agree to look at the matter again and to reconsider it? There was a lot of meat in what I said. I shall not divide the House on this matter and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 55, line 50, at end insert:
"Defence.
(In any proceedings under sections 78G and 78H it shall be a defence to show either—
(a) that the contamination arises from the activities of others which the owner or occupier was powerless to prevent, or
(b) that the contamination was caused by the movement of contaminating liquids, gases or airborne particles onto the land by natural causes and there were no practical means by which the owner or occupier could prevent such contamination.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to take up so much of the time of the House. However, these are important issues and this is the last of my amendments. The amendment is about defences to having a remediation notice served upon you. The amendment would give householders, occupiers and owners some minimal defences against the unjust imposition of liability for remediation by an authority. It offers no more protection than is in practice available under current statute and common law.
At Report stage the Minister referred to Section 80 of Part III of the Environmental Protection Act. That section provides the person on whom a notice under that Act is served with a defence which is significantly broader than those proposed in the amendment.
The opinion taken by the CLA from Steven Tromans stated the following:
"Arguments that the provisions of Part II of the Bill are doing no more than existing law can already do may be true to an extent, but are disingenuous in the extreme. If the existing powers are adequate to cover the mischief, then why are the new measures being enacted at all?".
He went on to refer to his instructions which give rather more detail and which again I shall take the liberty of quoting to your Lordships:
"Whilst it is true to say that the common and statutory law does make a current occupier liable in certain instances for a nuisance caused by another, however this is in general only where the occupier can be said to have continued or adopted the nuisance. This applies to a limited number of cases where the occupier is regarded as being under a positive duty to act and implies the following:-
(a) knowledge, actual or imputed of the nuisance; and
(b) a determination by the courts that it was unreasonable for him to have failed to act.
Where a nuisance arises from natural causes or the act of a third party, the liability of an innocent occupier of land is limited by what is reasonable having regard to his means and all the other circumstances of the case.
None of these limitations and defences apply to the Bill which imposes an across the board, fall back liability in respect of all contaminated land. Under the Bill no defences apply save for fly tipping".
I turn briefly to the detail of my amendment. Paragraph (a) draws attention to the fact that there may be a few other cases similar to and as much justifying attention as fly-tipping. These include cases where the contamination arises from the activities of others which the owner or occupier was powerless to prevent. An example might be a privately owned road tanker which runs off the road down an embankment onto land or houses. The owner or driver being dead—the Minister has just told us that if he is dead he no longer is the polluter—the polluter cannot be found and so, as the Bill is currently drafted, the householder would he liable for any chemical leaking onto the backyards. Another example may or may not be pollution caused by licensees who have operated in the past and left contamination in mining shafts. I shall have to read what the Minister has said on that subject before I can be sure whether that falls into this category.
Under paragraph (b) of my amendment a second ground for defence would be that contamination has moved onto the land from other land in the form of migrating liquids, gases or dust particles. I have to say

1053
immediately that at Report stage the Minister said (at col. 209 of the Official Report) quite a lot of helpful things about the lateral movement of water and suggested that the Government were looking at introducing amendments in that respect. My amendment draws attention to the importance of giving equal status to the migration of contamination in the form of gases or dust particles as well as liquids. The case reported in The Times today, in which the Prudential and its tenants are suing PowerGen for damage caused to crops and soil by fumes from the Richborough Power Station, near which I live, sufficiently emphasises the importance of that kind of pollution. I have to admit that I think it unlikely that PowerGen as a potential polluter will disappear but, as I have already said this afternoon, it is very possible that smaller polluters may disappear and leave the landowner with the liability.
As the Bill is drafted it gives no power to the authority to serve a notice on the owner of an adjacent site from which contamination has migrated—only on the owner of the receiving site. That must be wrong. I believe that the two paragraphs of the amendment give a little wholly justifiable protection to the householder, occupier or owner of land and do not extend the defences which exist under existing law. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in many circumstances in our statutes we make special provision for defences being raised. When that happens the onus of proof changes generally. Here we have rather complicated circumstances. I think that Parliament should make the position clear in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has suggested. If his way of doing it does not appeal to the Government, I hope that my noble friend will say that they acknowledge that there should be defences of this kind and that he will have suitable amendments inserted in another place.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I wish to raise another concern. I regret that it comes so late in the proceedings but it was only on Friday night that I discovered that the insurance industry is becoming extremely exercised on the change in responsibilities for pollution. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, at least gives some opportunity to point out that it would protect against some possibly quite difficult insurance consequences. We have had the great word "superfund" mentioned already and I think everyone knows that on the American scene retroactive decisions by the courts over the years have allowed a whole lot of cases which insurers thought were closed to be reopened, raising considerable problems for the Lloyd's market, which accounts in a particular way at the moment, and, if a lot of very well formed opinion is true, considerable difficulties for American insurance companies over the years to come unless they are bailed out by further legislation.
I am not sure whether what is being proposed would work retroactively in this case. It certainly might. Alternatively, we face the possibility—I have not had time to be briefed by the insurance industry—that innocent landowners will find that they can no longer get general liability insurance which includes pollution
1054
for fear of the fact that unknown to them there is something underneath the ground for which they can be held liable because no one else can be found. I hope that the Government will pick this one up and think about it. There are potentially some difficult and important problems floating around on the insurance side.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 27 seeks to provide specific defences in any legal proceedings relating to remediation notices. The intention is to protect the position of landowners or occupiers who have not themselves caused or knowingly permitted contamination to occur, although the drafting of the amendment does not state that specifically. Effectively, the amendment seeks to exempt landowners from any responsibility for contamination on their land which they were powerless to prevent or which resulted from the movement of contaminants by natural causes.
As I have stated on previous occasions, the Government did not intend to create new categories of liabilities for owners of land by bringing forward these provisions. In general, we believe that we have not done so. We have reflected the existing position under the statutory nuisance provision in Section 80(2) (c) in Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, indicated, makes the owner or occupier of premises liable to receive an abatement notice where the person responsible for the nuisance cannot be found.
Those contaminated land provisions reflect also the pattern of powers and duties of local authorities which exist in the statutory nuisance provisions. In both, there is a duty to cause their areas to be inspected. In both, there is a duty to serve a notice, where appropriate, with offences of non-compliance with that notice. They also both contain a power for local authorities to act on the default of the recipient of a notice.
The major difference in approach lies, of course, in the differences of definition between statutory nuisances and contaminated land. However, it is clear that the definitions of statutory nuisances set out in Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act would, inter alia, include much the same range of problems as what is described under the current provisions as "significant harm". Those parts of the definition of contaminated land which relate to the pollution of controlled waters reflect equivalent provisions in the Water Resources Act 1991, particularly Section 161.
It has been suggested that under the statutory nuisance provisions local authorities have more discretion in determining what is a "nuisance" than they would have in identifying land as "contaminated". Obviously local authorities do not have complete discretion to determine what a "nuisance" is. There is a substantial body of case law on the elements of a nuisance, and if a local authority is satisfied that a nuisance exists on the basis of that case law, it is under a duty to serve an abatement notice.
However, it might be suggested that there is more "discretion", in that there is an element of judgment involved in applying the general principles of case law

1055
on statutory nuisance to the particular problems of contaminated land. There is also no statutory provision for guidance on the application of the statutory nuisance provisions to nuisances arising from contamination, constraining the extent of steps which might be required to abate that nuisance. But any discretion present in the statutory nuisance provisions cuts both ways and could work to the disadvantage of landowners, or indeed anyone else held to be responsible for abating a nuisance or prohibiting its recurrence.
A local authority could potentially seek to impose conditions which were considerably more onerous than could be justified under the contaminated land proposals if it believed these were necessary to abate a nuisance. There is no requirement under statutory nuisance for local authorities to consider guidance from the Secretary of State or the agency—or indeed from anyone—in determining whether or not something is "prejudicial to health".
In practice, the lack of guidance on the application of the provisions to contaminated land leaves considerable potential for uncertainty and inconsistency in the operation of the statutory nuisance provisions. It was one of the Government's major intentions in bringing forward the contaminated land provisions to improve both certainty and consistency.
There have also been suggestions that the apparent absence of a "best practicable means" defence in the contaminated land provisions represents a deterioration in the position of landowners in comparison with the statutory nuisance provisions. A broadly equivalent effect is, however, achieved in the contaminated land provisions by the fact that a remediation notice may only specify steps which are "reasonable" having regard to the costs likely to be involved and to the seriousness of the harm or pollution of controlled waters in question. The regulations governing appeals against remediation notices will provide for the consideration of whether the requirements in any notice are indeed reasonable.
That will potentially have a broader effect than the "best practicable means" test in statutory nuisance. That defence is available only with respect to industrial, trade or business premises, and even then it does not apply with respect to all of the categories of statutory nuisance which might overlap with the definition of contaminated land, The test under the contaminated land provisions that the remediation requirements must be reasonable would apply in all circumstances and would also involve a direct consideration of the costs which would be involved.
Comparisons have also been made between our proposed statutory provisions relating to contaminated land and the position under various common law torts. What is often missed in those comparisons, however, is any acknowledgement that the two fields of law are seeking to achieve different purposes. Our proposed statute seeks to remove current environmental problems. Actions at common law, by contrast, seek to provide compensation to private individuals and companies for specific damage which they have suffered. We believe that those different objectives and purposes justify different legal tests.
1056
One way in which, on reflection, we feel that we may have stepped beyond our overall intention of reflecting existing liabilities is in the special case of victims of fly-tipping. We have just put that right through my Amendment No. 23 and Amendment No. 44, which is yet to be moved.
The noble Lord's amendment alludes to a further issue which the Government intend to address when this Bill is discussed in another place, and that concerns water pollution resulting from the migration of contaminants. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, alluded to the remarks which I made on Report. That can be both difficult to detect or prevent, and very expensive to remedy, particularly if groundwaters or aquifers have become polluted.
Looking again at the existing provisions, the Government acknowledge that in this particular area the potential liabilities of landowners, where they have not themselves caused or knowingly permitted the water pollution, would be extended by these provisions in comparison with the existing provisions in Section 161 or the Water Resources Act 1991. The Government therefore intend to bring forward their own amendment in this area to restore the status quo.
But this amendment asks for much more. What it is seeking to do is to remove potential liabilities which would fall to landowners under existing provisions. The Government do not believe that that would be justified.
It is important to remember that the definition of contaminated land, and the procedures for dealing with it, relate only to current environmental problems. The system is not punitive in its effects, nor will it necessarily impose some of the very high costs which have been suggested. Any action required to deal with contamination will have to be "reasonable" in terms of the costs and the seriousness of the harm or water pollution involved. The objectives of any remediation required may be to assess and manage any risks and not necessarily to remove all of the contamination on the site if its effects can be controlled in other ways.
The Government believe that it is reasonable for owners of land to bear the responsibility for what they own and the effect it has on others and on the wider environment in cases where no specific polluter can be found. Owners are always ready to reap unforeseen benefits from their land, whether that results from mineral discoveries, planning permissions or increases in value resulting from new transport infrastructure paid for by the public purse. We believe that they should accept their responsibilities as well.
My noble friend Lord Chelmsford asked me about retrospection. The provisions are not retrospective because they would result only in potential liability for significant harm where that is occurring after the provisions have come into force. They will not result in any liability for harm which had occurred previously, before the provisions came into force, and are not currently occurring. I hope that my noble friend is reassured by the words that I have used.
I thought it right to explain in some detail to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, the Government's position in relation to the amendment. I hope that I have been able

1057
to persuade him that the existing pattern of liabilities should not be changed and that, therefore, he will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, no, I am afraid that the noble Viscount has not entirely convinced me. The position is very different as regards Part III and Clause 80 of the Environmental Protection Act. The best practical means which are referred to in subsection (7) of that Act refer to the landowner using the best possible means to prevent pollution and therefore not falling within the scope of an action under the Act. That is quite different from the whole question of what will be the requirements under the remediation notice.
I take comfort from what the Minister said about the lateral translocation of liquids. I hope that he will see the logic of accepting that the lateral translocation of gases or solid particles is in exactly the same category, or may be in exactly the same category, if it is suitably defined and specified. I cannot see why there should be any difference between the one and the other. If the one principle is accepted, then the other principle should surely be accepted. I take some comfort from the statement that it was not the Government's intention to create new categories of potential liabilities. All I am saying is that I think quite a number of us believe that they have in fact done so. I do not think this is something which can be debated on the Floor of this House because it is a complex legal matter. However, I wonder whether the Minister will agree to meet me and some legal experts on this subject with his legal experts and allow them to try to convince him that a great many of us, including the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union, do not agree with his interpretation of the facts.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should say that of course I will always be open to a meeting as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I have today identified existing liabilities and sometimes people find that uncomfortable.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 61, line 3, after ("and") insert ("the guidance").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which clarifies that the definitive guidance should he issued at the end of the negative resolution procedure rather than draft guidance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 [Amendments to sections 89 and 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 65, line 32, after ("apply") insert ("to the owner or operator of any mine").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships discussed the problems caused by abandoned mines in a series of amendments initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, in columns 230 to 240 of
1058
Hansard on 7th March. However, I fear that my noble friend Lord Ullswater totally failed to convince me why an innocent occupier, who has polluted minewater crossing his land which then enters a controlled water, could be liable for that. My noble friend's actual words were,
"I dare say that he would be liable".—[Official Report, 7/3/95; col. 240.]
I just do not understand or accept why an innocent occupier could be required to take possibly very expensive steps to prevent the pollution, as suggested by my noble friend—again at col. 240—when he said,
"to be liable the landowner would have to know about the discharge and it would have to be within his or her power to do something to prevent it".
I do not see why the occupier should take any steps to prevent the pollution when he has had absolutely nothing to do with it. The purpose of the amendments is to protect the innocent occupier from being liable for polluted minewater which has come on to his property, perhaps, from a mine many miles away, and which he allows—or, in the words of the Bill, knowingly permits—to enter a controlled water.
These amendments are linked with my Amendments Nos. 30 and 32 because I agree that it should be an offence to pollute watercourses. Those amendments make it an offence to do so from 31st December 1995 instead of allowing that pollution to continue until 31st December 1999. That is a matter on which my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and the noble Lord, Lord Mason, have expressed strong views. The statement by my noble friend Lord Ullswater at col. 240 of Hansard,
"I dare say that he would be liable"
—"he" being the occupier—fills me with dread, as I am sure it does any Member of your Lordships' House who is a member of Lloyd's, or indeed has been studying the sad problems of Barings, for that phrase puts an unquantifiable pollution risk on an innocent bystander which is in contrast to the assurance given by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in the Coal Industry Bill when he said on 13th June 1994,
"If a liability has been created by someone else, then it is on the other person that the liability falls"—[Official Report, 13/6/94; col. 1480.]
Those two statements do not match up.
I listened as carefully as I could to my noble friend when he addressed Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 19 moved by the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, when he intimated that the occupier would not be liable. If he did say that—I do not think that he did, actually—I should have thought the easy way to prove it is to put it on the face of the Bill, which these amendments do.
I feel very strongly about protecting the innocent individual, be he a property owner, just a tenant, a householder, or just an ordinary law-abiding and trusting individual, as I am sure does my noble friend the Minister. Therefore I hope that your Lordships and my noble friend will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I hope I can try to be helpful to my noble friend on the Front Bench. If I understood him right in the first place, he said that if something comes up in the ground from a contaminated

1059
mine and the surface landowner could have no cause to permit that stuff to then go on and pollute another watercourse, that landowner will not be liable for that because he has not caused or permitted that pollution to take place. If that is the case, I do not think we have anything to worry about because the landowner is not causing or knowingly permitting that pollution. If that is the case, I do not think that my noble friend Lord Stanley has anything to worry about. If, however, that is not the case, my noble friend Lord Stanley is right to be very worried.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I was not quite clear whether my noble friend also wished to speak to Amendments Nos. 30 and 32 at the same time, but I shall reply to them. The amendments would maintain the existing statutory protections for discharges from abandoned mines for everyone except the owner or operator of the mine. The amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, which is grouped with this one, aims to achieve a similar effect, as regards defence against prosecution, in Scotland.
We have already debated the topic of water pollution from abandoned mines at considerable length and noble Lords will know that this is a complex issue, not least because every set of underground workings is different in layout, in extent and in the potential for causing water quality problems. There has been considerable pressure on the Government to address the problem of pollution from abandoned mines, and we have examined the issue carefully. We believe that it is essential that discharges from mines abandoned in the future are regulated in the same way as discharges from other sources.
The Government's proposals are an appropriate response to an issue which has aroused no small measure of public concern. Indeed, as noble Lords know, some noble Lords have been pressing us to go further in the creation of new liabilities than we think advisable. I do, of course, recognise the concern that a landowner could be prosecuted for the pollution of a watercourse, when that pollution originated from an abandoned mine on someone else's land. However, for a number of reasons, I think that the potential problem is far less significant than my noble friend Lord Stanley might fear.
What is at issue here—prosecution for water pollution knowingly permitted to flow from an abandoned mine and liability for cost recovery—could only arise, under the Government's proposals, in respect of mines abandoned after the end of 1999. In the case of coal mines the Coal Authority, as the owner, has made careful separate arrangements aimed at ensuring that mine operators honour their responsibilities before abandoning a mine.
We are introducing changes in a measured way which will help prevent pollution occurring from mines abandoned in the future, rather than simply enabling the regulators to prosecute when it has occurred. My noble friend's amendments would cut across that approach and destroy the careful balance that we have sought to achieve.
1060
Once the agencies are established the statutory requirements for pre-notification of abandonment proposed in the current Bill will come into force immediately, followed at the end of 1999 by the removal of the statutory protections. Anyone responsible for a mine abandoned after that date would not only have to provide the agencies with information on the mine to be abandoned hut, if discharges occur, they would also have to seek a discharge consent for them and ensure that discharges comply with the requirements set down by the agencies.
Although the water pollution offence is defined as "causing or knowingly permitting" pollution, it is a striking fact that there have been remarkably few prosecutions solely for "knowingly permitting" pollution. That is partly because "knowingly permitting" presents a difficult test to prove at law. For a person to be liable it has to be demonstrable that that person not only knows about the discharge but also has it within his power to do something to prevent it, The regulators have almost always, therefore, preferred to act against those causing pollution wherever possible. In the particular circumstance where mines are abandoned in the future it will be clear who the owner or operator is, and the agencies will be well equipped to tackle the problems before abandonment with the aim of establishing what preventive action, if any, is necessary.
I should emphasise that the regulatory powers in such cases will be the same as those which already exist for other types of water pollution. We understand the concern which is natural when there is an extension of liability. However, the Government felt it was right that discharges from mines abandoned in the future should no longer be covered by protection which was out of line with our wider policies on water quality regulation. Inevitably we have had to take account of the costs of any environmental improvement and the benefits to be obtained, but we believe that the measures we have proposed strike the right balance.
Amendments Nos. 30 and 32 would remove the existing statutory protections in respect of discharges from mines abandoned after the end of 1995 instead of 1999 as proposed in Clause 57. The amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, would maintain the existing defence against prosecution in Scotland.
In proposing the removal of those protections the Government have accepted that there is a need for a period of adjustment for those who could be affected. We do not think it right or sensible that a change such as this, which could affect land values and the way in which mines are managed, should be introduced without giving those concerned the opportunity to adapt to the new circumstances. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley would have an almost immediate effect on the owners of land containing mines, as well as on mine operators, whose future liabilities could be increased, without warning and without a proper period of notice. I am sure that many noble Lords will accept the need for time to adjust and will agree that that would not he the proper way to proceed with the changes we are proposing.

1061
By contrast, the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, would maintain the existing protections indefinitely. I believe that most noble Lords have been persuaded of the need for change, although at an appropriate pace.
We see the provisions in Clause 57 and Schedule 13 as part of a package, which also includes the measures which will ensure that the agencies are much better informed about impending mine closures and their anticipated consequences. It is therefore disturbing that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley would remove the protections before the introduction of the provisions for pre-notification of abandonment, rather than their introduction, as we would prefer.
I hope that with those comments I have been able to persuade my noble friend that the amendments are not required.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: No, my Lords. First, my noble friend answered the question put by my noble friend Lord Onslow by saying that the present provision did not have the effect that my noble friend Lord Onslow suggested.
Perhaps I may say a word about the second set of amendments. My noble friend is in effect saying that he wants to delay the introduction of the provision because it will involve considerable change, hardship and problems when it is implemented. He indicted himself by saying that that will happen at some stage. Let us get it over with and stop the pollution straight away.
We have been over this issue so many times in the past. I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with my noble friend. He keeps on saying that it will not happen or that it almost certainly will not happen. Ask any insurer or member of Lloyds for their view. It was said 10 years ago: "It will not happen". It jolly well has happened. I commend the amendment to the House.
5.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 29) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 108; Not-Contents, 100.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Derwent, L.

Aldenham, L.

Diamond, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Digby, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Barnett, L.

Dubs, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dundonald, E.

Blackstone, B.

Falkender, B.

Blake, L.

Falkland, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Foot, L.

Burton, L.

Freyberg, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Gallacher, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Geraint, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Greenway, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Grey, E.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

Halsbury, E.

1062

Hamwee, B.

Nicol, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Norrie, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Northbourne, L.

Harrowby, E.

Ogmore, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Healey, L.

Peston, L.

Henniker, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hertford, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rennell, L.

Hooson, L.

Richard, L.

Hughes, L.

Rochester, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Seear, B.

Jeger, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Serota, B.

Judd, L.

Sharples, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Kintore, E.

Stedman, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lawrence, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Leigh, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Swinfen, L.

Listowel, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tollemache, L.

Lytton, E.

Tordoff, L.

Marlesford, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Vinson, L.

McCarthy, L.

Walpole, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Warnock, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Monkswell, L.

White, B.

Monson, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Morris, L.

Nathan, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Goschen, V.

Ailsa, M.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Aldington, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Ampthill, L.

Henley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hesketh, L.

Astor, V.

Hives, L.

Blaker, L.

Hogg, B.

Blatch, B.

Holderness, L.

Boardman, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hothfield, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Howe, E.

Cadman, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Caithness, E.

Ingrow, L.

Carnock, L.

Kimball, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Chesham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Courtown, E.

Layton, L.

Cox, B.

Lindsay, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Liverpool, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Long, V.

Davidson, V.

Lucas, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Denham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Downshire, M.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Merrivale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mersey, V.

Elton, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Finsberg, L.

Mottistone, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Mountevans, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Moyne, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

1063

Newall, L.

Seccombe, B.

Norfolk, D.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Northesk, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

O'Cathain, B.

St. Davids, L.

Onslow, E.

Stewartby, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Strange, B.

Orkney, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Sudeley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rawlings, B.

Trumpington, B.

Rees, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Vivian, L.

Romney, E.

Wolfson, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 65, line 33, leave out ("1999") and insert ("1995").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
6.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 105.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hughes, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Jeger, B.

Barnett, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Burton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kintore, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cox, B.

Leigh, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Listowel, E.

Derwent, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Diamond, L.

Lytton, E.

Dormand of Easington. L.

Marlesford, L.

Dubs, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dundonald, E.

McCarthy, L.

Falkender, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Falkland, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Freyberg, L.

Monson, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Moran, L.

Glenamara, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Grey, E.

Nathan, L.

Halsbury, E.

Nicol, B.

Hamwee, B.

Ogmore, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Harrowby, E.

Peston, L.

Haskel, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Henniker, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hertford, M.

Redesdale, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richards, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rochester, L.

Hooson, L.

Seear, B.

1064

Sefton of Garston, L.

Tordoff, L,

Serota, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sharples, B.

Walpole, L.

Shepherd, L.

Warnock, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Wharton, B.

Stedman, B.

White, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Swinfen, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Kimball, L.

Addison, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Ailsa, M.

Layton, L.

Aldenham, L.

Lindsay,E.

Aldington, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ampthill, L.

Liverpool, E.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Barber, L.

Lucas, L.

Blaker, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Boardman, L.

Borthwick, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Burnham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cadman, L.

Mersey, V,

Caithness, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnarvon, E.

Milverton, L.

Carnock, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mountevans, L.

Chesham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Moyne, L.

Courtown, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Newall, L.

Norfolk, D.

Curaberlege, B.

Norrie, L.

Davidson, V.

Northbourne, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northesk, E.

Denham, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Onslow, E,

Digby, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Orkney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elton, L

Rawlings, B.

Ferrers, E.

Rees, L.

Finsberg, L.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saint Albans, D.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hesketh, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hives, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Hogg, B.

Sudeley, L.

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hothfield, L.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Wolfson, L.

Ingrow, L.

Young, B.

Killearn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly
6.12 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 66, line 4, after ("apply") insert ("to the owner or operator of any mine").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Clause 59 [Duty of certain bodies and persons to have regard to the purposes for which National Parks are designated]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 67, line 17, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 19 and insert ("seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities within the National Park, but without incurring significant expenditure in doing so, and shall for that purpose co-operate with local authorities and public bodies whose functions include the promotion of economic or social development within the area of the National Park.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at Report I undertook to introduce an amendment in response to concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Vinson and other noble Lords, that proper attention should be given to the interests of local people by the national park authorities. I was grateful for the opportunity to look again at wording for an amended Clause 59 to achieve our common purpose. We have very carefully considered the issue, and Amendment No. 33 is our response. Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 47 are minor amendments, consequential on Amendment No. 33. I address them all.
It was the feeling of my noble friend Lord Vinson and other noble Lords that the interests of local communities and the contribution they make to the continued success of the parks are not always given sufficient weight in the deliberations of the park authorities. They felt that the duty on the national park authorities to
"have regard to the economic and social well-being of local communities"
would not ensure that the new authorities would be seen to be sufficiently positive towards the interests of local people. What noble Lords sought was, I believe, a means of encouraging the national park authorities to recognise their responsibilities towards those who live and work in the parks.
I believe that, in amending the duty introduced in Clause 59 to one which requires the national park authorities to,
"seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities within the National Park",
we have paved the way for a more positive attitude on the part of the new authorities which will ensure that they both take these responsibilities seriously and are seen to do so.
We have discussed several alternative words in our debates on the issue of a strengthened duty. We considered these very carefully in drafting this amendment. We concluded that the strongest consensus could be secured for the concept of "fostering". In
1066
Committee, when we discussed the amendment of my noble friend Lord Derwent there was an impressive array of support for the term "to foster", including my other noble friends Lord Annaly, Lord Gisborough, Lord Lyell, Lord Onslow, Lord Renton, Lord Shuttleworth and Lord Willoughby de Broke; and other noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Elis-Thomas, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I have also been made aware that this phrase has a number of powerful supporters outside your Lordships' House, including the Association of National Parks.
"Foster" is surely a word which most closely expresses that sense of responsibility which I have already suggested must lie at the heart of the relationship between the national park authorities and their local communities. We chose this word in preference to alternatives such as "sustaining" or "promoting". Both of these might be felt to carry too strong an implication of active, financial support for local communities which we continue to believe it would be inappropriate for the national park authorities to take on.
At Report, a number of Peers acknowledged that the national park authorities should not assume the role of promoting economic and social development in the areas of the parks, nor compete with those agencies which already have economic and social development powers, and the associated funding. However, there was, I believe, a universal emphasis that the national park authorities must work in the closest co-operation with those bodies.
The second element of Amendment No. 33 clarifies both issues. The national park authorities should seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities,
"but without incurring significant expenditure in doing so, and shall for that purpose co-operate with local authorities and public bodies whose functions include the promotion of economic or social development within the area of the National Park".
The revised wording of this duty thereby encompasses both the concept that the national park authorities should take a positive view of the well-being of their local communities, and that in doing so they should co-operate with local authorities and other agencies whose task it is to promote the social or economic development of rural areas.
Nor does the revised duty in any way undermine these primary purposes for which the parks exist. On the contrary, I believe it enhances and reinforces those purposes, the achievement of which will be impossible without active and wholehearted co-operation between the national park authorities and those who live and work in the parks. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I should remind the House that if Amendment No. 33 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 34.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. Bearing in mind the time that the Minister gave to me and other noble Lords who went to see him, it would be churlish not to thank him for bringing the amendment forward. It does not wholly fulfil my expectations, but no doubt the Minister would say that

1067
my expectations were not capable of being fulfilled in the terms I would have wished, It is a fair try so far as it goes. I am pleased to see that national park authorities should foster economic and social well-being, although I am concerned about the way in which that duty is hedged around with caveats.
On a general point, I cannot help wondering why there is a degree of paranoia among conservation groups, and perhaps to some extent in the department, which receives their views, as well as those of people like myself, in connection with social and economic activities in national park areas. If all that social and economic activity were to stop overnight, I have to ask whether the resultant abandonment would he an improvement to national parks, from the point of view of their appearance or of their durability in the longer term. I suspect that it would not and that it would, over time, he a source of public outcry. If that supposition is correct, why is there apparently nothing on offer except ever more regulation and prescriptive control? I believe that we are beginning to see the diminishing returns of so much regulation. If we are not careful—and this is one of the reasons why I was so keen to see social and economic purposes included on the face of the Bill—land managers will be asking why on earth they should bother any more. If the interests of those who live and work in national parks are not to be held in equal balance with those other interests that are national park purposes, then I question to what extent we are talking about the durability of the handiwork that they and their predecessors in title have put in to make those areas what they are.
Perhaps therefore the Minister will be kind enough to clarify one matter for me; namely, whether he shares my expectation for the future that national park authorities will take a proactive approach? Perhaps they may not have the direct duty to foster social and economic activities, but they must nonetheless take a proactive approach and build that proactivity into their local plan approach. Secondly, can he say that they will no longer be able to write into their local plan documents that social and economic interests are not primarily their responsibility? I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am bound to say that I disagree with the noble Earl, particularly on his last point. National park authorities are not economic development agencies and should not be seen as such. To say the least, I find the government amendment rather strange. It goes well beyond the duties laid upon the two agencies that we have discussed at some length throughout the course of the Bill. The two agencies are required to have regard to the economic and social well-being of the local communities. Now, according to the Government, we are imposing on national park authorities, which are, after all, meant to be there, as the purposes of Clause 58 state, for a very particular reason, duties which are greater than those that are imposed on the environment agency and SEPA. That seems to me to be odd.
Secondly, there seems to he a contradiction between the government amendment and the purposes of national parks, as defined in Clause 58. National park authorities
1068
are to he planning authorities. They are to assess planning applications according to the criteria and purposes that they have and make decisions thereon. If they are required not only to have regard to their own purposes but also to have regard to stipulations in the government amendment—and that includes co-operation with other planning authorities, such as local authorities which have planning jurisdiction outside the national parks, and public bodies whose functions include the promotion of economic or social development within the area of a national park—who wins? Is it the purpose of the national park, or is it the duty to co-operate with those people who promote economic or social development within their area? There seems to be a very serious contradiction here. I am rather surprised that the Government have brought this amendment forward.
I understand that the Government wish to have something to placate those who moved amèndments at earlier stages in the Bill. But I simply do not think that this amendment, as it stands, logically works. It cuts straight across Clause 58 of the Bill.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, we all agree that the economic and social well-being of local communities is vitally important in our national parks. This was recognised in the Edwards Report, which saw national park authorities as playing an important role in supporting the work of others whose prime role was in the socio-economic sphere. Importantly, the Edwards Report also made it explicit that such involvement by park authorities should be in ways that are compatible with park purposes. I remain persuaded that the original drafting provided an acceptable framework for achieving that. However, I appreciate the Government's wish to meet the concerns expressed on Report about the perceived limitations of a duty to have regard to the economic and social well-being of local communities.
The government amendment is complex. It raises new legal questions about the role of national park authorities and their relationships with other bodies. It also appears to make more explicit some, but not all, parts of the Edwards Report's recommendations concerning socio-economic matters. My intention in putting down my amendment is to seek clarification that the government amendment is intended within the spirit of the Edwards Report recommendations.
First, I am concerned that there may be instances where fostering the economic and social well-being of communities involves projects that conflict with national park purposes. I should feel happier if the proposed duty on park authorities specified that it should be applied only in ways that are compatible with, or further, park purposes.
Secondly, the government amendment raises questions regarding national park authorities' relationships with the many bodies that carry out social and economic functions in national park authority areas. For example, if a park authority has a duty to co-operate with a development agency, how does that affect the way in which a park authority considers a planning

1069
application from such a body? That could be particularly significant if the proposed development did not accord with park purposes.
My amendment would make it clear on the face of the Bill that the new socio-economic duty is to be pursued as the Edwards panel suggested. It makes it explicit that national park authorities should foster social and economic well-being in so far as it is not incompatible with national park purposes. I suggest that it would provide reassurance to many both inside and outside this House if the Minister could make a statement that he intends the socio-economic duty to be pursued in ways that are compatible with park purposes, and also that this will be made clear in the guidance. I commend my Amendment No. 34.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 34 by my noble friend Lord Addison. The Government's amendment in this grouping is of considerable importance, because it places a complex duty on national park authorities. As noble Lords know, national park authorities have two main purposes: the conservation of natural beauty, wildlife and the cultural heritage and the promotion of quiet enjoyment.
The relationship between those two purposes and the proposed new duty which this amendment would place on national park authorities is just not straightforward. I am sure that no one would question the desirability of national park authorities having a socio-economic duty. However, the question that I pose is: will an unqualified duty to further economic and social well-being risk giving the impression that the national park authorities may be expected to play a role that brings them into conflict with their statutory purposes?
My noble friend's amendment seeks to ensure that the national park authorities will not be compromised when seeking to carry out their new socio-economic duties. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer assurances that he intends his amendment to be carried forward in the spirit of the Edwards Report recommendations. This would be a most welcome clarification, a point to which the noble Viscount alluded. Therefore I hope that the Minister will be able to respond constructively to Amendment No. 34. This amendment places beyond doubt the intention that the fostering of socio-economic well-being and national park purposes should go hand-in-hand.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, unlike the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I am grateful for what small caveats there are in the Government's amendment, although I am not terribly happy about that amendment. I am very uneasy about the number of complicated discussions that could arise as a result of it. For example, what is "significant expenditure"—significant in whose terms? What is significant in the park authority's terms might be quite insignificant in someone else's. I feel that it is a most unhappy phrase to use.
I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government intend national park authorities to execute their duty within the spirit of the Edwards
1070
Report. He has already been asked twice to confirm that and I reiterate it. I should prefer to see that spelt out on the face of the Bill. That is why I prefer the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. That amendment makes it clear beyond doubt where the priorities of the national parks should lie.
But if national parks are to become examples of good environmental practice—as everyone seems to agree that they should be—it is of the utmost importance to send a clear message that they are environmental designations and that environmental considerations should shape all decisions made by national park authorities. As we have heard so often, there are many other bodies which have economic development as their priority.
The Government's amendment is complex. It leaves the authorities in a position of having to make difficult decisions without sufficient guidance on how to balance the interests of conservation and development. The Government got it right the first time. I am very sorry that they feel that they have to move away from that very satisfactory approach. The Edwards Report made very constructive suggestions on how to get the balance right in the future. I should like to see its advice reflected more fully on the face of the Bill.
I hope that the Government's amendment will not be accepted and that the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, will be chosen in preference to it.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, I should like to welcome the Government's amendment. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the whole of the amendment is governed by the beginning of this clause, which says that the national park authority should only take this course when it is:
"pursuing … the purposes specified in subsection (1)";
that is to say, when it is pursuing its primary purposes. I believe that that is absolutely correct. That should be so. But I believe that it reduces the danger that it might find itself in conflict with those purposes. I have no objection whatever to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Addison. It merely says the same thing in a different way and underlines it. What is most important is the practical aspect.
The reason that the national park officers, the Association of National Parks and chairmen have welcomed the amendment is because they are conscious that a feeling has grown up in the parks that the park authority is against the inhabitants. Other bodies are working for them but they have no duties whatever toward the inhabitants. The park officers feel that that is not helpful to them in carrying out their primary purposes.
I do not mind at all that the Government's amendment has limitations about "significant expenditure". It was not my intention or that of any other noble Lord suddenly to spend a lot of money in being proactive. That was never the intention. The only intention was to enable the parks to show the inhabitants that they are very conscious of the need to look after them too. I welcome my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I put my name to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Addison

1071
because I was slightly uneasy with the wording of the Government's amendment. But I totally support the need for the communities in national parks to thrive socially and economically. That is why I am totally behind the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Vinson, in the original amendment that he proposed. I very much take on board the point made by my noble friend Lord Derwent that it is necessary that the people who live in the parks should feel that the parks are there to benefit them and not just outsiders. I totally accept that.
However, I feel that we are in some danger of this amendment becoming something of a dog's breakfast. The phrase "without incurring significant expenditure" is thoroughly unsuitable for a statute. Surely statutes are meant to be precise. I can understand how the Treasury, when this matter came in front of them, would say, "We must not give them permission to spend more money. Let us put a little caveat in." But that is not the kind of phrase that one puts in a statute. It does not seem to me at all suitable.
I do not for one moment imagine that this amendment will be pressed to a vote. I hope that the Government will recognise that we probably all agree on the sentiments and probably all agree that the primary purpose of a national park must not be overridden by the economic aspect; but that the economic aspect must have a full part to play within the primary purpose. However, I do not honestly believe that the present drafting of the clause is worthy of this very important Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I should be very grateful if my noble friend the Minister, when he comes to reply, would say a little more about the phrase "significant expenditure", which several noble Lords have criticised. What does it mean? Is it a figure that varies in accordance with the size and means of the organisation incurring it, or is it an absolute figure?
Indeed, I should be very grateful if my noble friend would remind me whether it is an expression that is used in any other statute and therefore whether it has been construed by the courts.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps he will allow me to say a few words. As a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he could perhaps say whether whatever expenditure is incurred by the national parks authority must be limited by the Vote on account which is received from Parliament.
Lord Wise: My Lords, of the two amendments under discussion, I support that of my noble friend Lord Addison. We all agree, and indeed it cannot be disputed, that the economic and social-well being of the local communities is of great importance if national parks are to continue to be successful. The national park authorities can and indeed should play an important role in helping to foster the social and economic well-being of the communities. However, I feel that there is a danger that, if they are given an unqualified duty to do so, there will be a grey area. Where does conservation duty end and the economic duty begin; and which takes precedence?
1072
In the same way as national park authorities must give priority to conservation over recreation, I feel that a qualification is needed to ensure that national park authorities will not seek to further their socio-economic duty over their conservation duty. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Addison makes that clear. It ensures that the duty on national park authorities will not take precedence over the conservation and recreation purposes of the national park designation.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I supported the amendment of my noble friend Lord Vinson on the previous occasion at Report stage and I welcomed the Government's amendment.
With regard to Amendment No. 34—the amendment of my noble friend Lord Addison—quite frankly, I do not believe that it adds anything to. the situation. It is largely a drafting matter. My noble friend Lord Derwent was quite right when he said that the first line of Amendment No. 34 is not necessary, bearing in mind what will be left in the Bill and the previous legislation of the' 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. I hope that my noble friends and other noble Lords who support Amendment No. 34 will be reassured by that and not find it necessary to press it.
With regard to the Government's amendment, I was against the words "have regard to" when they were originally in the Bill. I said that they could have a purely negative effect. But the word "foster" has a positive effect and that is why we should work on it.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said that it is wrong that environmental agencies should "have regard to" and national parks should be required to foster. With the greatest respect, I do not agree with him; there is a difference. The environment agencies have a general supervisory responsibility of a national character. On the other hand, the national park authorities, in spite of having the word "national" in the name, have more specific responsibilities of a local character in specific areas of the country. They are quite different and therefore the wording should be different. I believe that the Government have it right.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I waited to rise until just before my noble friend the Minister speaks to say how much I welcome this clause. It is an inelegant clause, as was pointed out, but it goes some way, though perhaps not far enough, to meet the anxieties raised earlier. They are anxieties shared by all of us in this House: that it is necessary to signal that the new park authority must have a duty to care about those who live and work within the national parks. The aim of the amendment is to help to create a sense of common purpose, and for that reason it is good to see it welcomed by park officers. They are clearly people who have their feet on the ground. They recognise that without such a clause the parks simply will not work out.
I hope that Amendment No. 34 will not be pressed. Amendment No. 33 needs the wholehearted support of the campaign for national parks. One sometimes feels that the people behind that campaign are such single-issue people that they sit on their little green cloud nine above it all. I do not doubt their sincerity; but it seems to me that they do not understand, as the

1073
park officers do, that down below is the real world of wardens and hill farmers—the unpaid custodians—who have to get on together in order to make the system work. Without their co-operation the parks cannot and will not work and relationships become fraught and difficult.
I welcome the clause because it goes some way, though perhaps not far enough, towards building those working relationships. Without it I fear that a sense of common purpose will not be engendered. We can all share the hope that this clause will help to make the position clearer and on it will be built the subsequent success of the parks that we want to see.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am glad that the government amendment was welcomed by my noble friend Lord Vinson and those who spoke to his amendment at Report stage. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, did not feel that it fulfilled his expectations, but at least we seem to have travelled in the right direction, for which comments I am grateful.
I want to make quite clear something which I believe to be worrying noble Lords. The duty under Amendment No. 33 is constrained by the requirement to fulfil it in pursuing national park purposes, and for that reason we consider Amendment No. 34 to be unnecessary. The establishment and functions of national park authorities will have effect for the purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas and promoting their enjoyment.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that it will not be possible for the national park authorities to set aside those purposes as they consider the well-being of their local communities. I believe that my noble friend Lord Derwent was quite right in what he said. Also, the guidance which we issued in draft in January will make that clear. I hope therefore that that offers reassurance to the supporters of Amendment No. 34 and I ask my noble friend not to press it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked what was meant by the phrase, "without incurring significant expenditure". The revised duty does not constrain any other of the national park authorities' powers to aid local interests which they may achieve, for example, through giving grants or entering into management agreements; but it makes clear that in respect of the duty to,
"seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities",
they must not offer direct financial support. That restriction is a proper one to ensure that the financial resources of the national park authorities remain focused on those purposes for which the parks were created.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked for the second time today whether the words used had been precedented in legislation. To my knowledge they have not been used before in statute. However, they identify particularly what the duties of the national park authorities will be in the future.
1074
I appreciate particularly the need to maintain the prosperity of those local communities on which the conservation of the parks so strongly depends. My noble friend Lord Marlesford, though not liking the amendment, stressed the importance of the people living and working in the parks, about which we heard on every occasion when this matter was debated. That is something we all want to make certain continues.
I understand and sympathise with the feeling that some park committees and boards fail to place sufficient weight on the views and interests of local people in formulating park plans or reaching decisions on park business or take sufficient care to explain why specific decisions are taken. I regret that that may be the case, and we are determined that the Bill should create the conditions to prevent it happening in the future.
I am glad to be able to stress to my noble friend Lord Renton that we note what he said in relation to the words "having regard" perhaps having a negative influence. By this amendment we are trying to turn it round and make it a positive duty, with the caveat I explained earlier.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned the role of the park authorities in planning and in formulating their policies, preparing their structure and local plans and in development control decisions. National park authorities will be required to have regard to social and economic considerations. We shall expect them to recognise the opportunities presented by small businesses and other activities for the continued well-being of their areas. In formulating those policies, the national park authorities will be expected to work closely with those promotional agencies, fully consult them and take their views into account.
It is for those reasons that we tabled Amendment No. 33. It will ensure that the anxieties expressed are properly reflected in the Bill and that from the outset the national park authorities are set on a path of a proper and positive view of the interests of their local communities. I commend the amendment to the House.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, can he reassure those of us who asked the question that the Government still intend to work within the spirit of the Edwards Report, both here and in another place?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the spirit of the Edwards Report is captured by the words in the new purposes contained in the Bill. The purpose of bringing forward the legislation is to capture the intention of the Edwards Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I am unable to call Amendment No. 34 as it has been pre-empted.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
Page 68, leave out lines 2 to 7.
Page 68, line 16, at end insert:
("(6) In this section, "local authority"—

(a) in relation to England, means a county council, district council or parish council;

(b) in relation to Wales, means a county council, county borough council, district council or community council.'").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvelmoved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:
("Consultation before making or modifying certain subordinate legislation fur Wales
.—(1) The Secretary of State for Wales shall consult the Countryside Council for Wales before—

(a) making any legislation to which this section applies (other than a modification of any such legislation);

(b) modifying any such legislation in a way which changes the purpose of the legislation in question; or

(c) modifying any such legislation in a way which modifies, in a respect which he considers material, any conditions subject to which grants or other payments are payable under that legislation.

(2) The legislation to which this section applies is—

(a) any order under section 18 of the Agriculture Act 1986 (orders establishing environmentally sensitive areas);

(b) any regulations under section 81 above;

(c) any statutory instrument which concerns the management of land and whose primary purpose is the promotion of—

(i) the conservation or enhancement of the natural beauty or amenity of the countryside (including its flora and fauna and geological and physiographical features) or of any features of archaeological interest there; or

(ii) the enjoyment of the countryside by the public.

(3) This section applies in relation to any legislation only so far as relating to land in Wales.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have had discussions at previous stages of the Bill about Clause 82, as amended on Report, which gives power to the Countryside Commission to be consulted by the appropriate Minister.
The duty that the Minister shall consult a number of bodies, including the Countryside Commission, is not reflected in an analogous duty on the Secretary of State for Wales in respect of Wales. In Committee and at Report stage the noble Earl, Lord Howe, argued that in some way Wales is different statutorily. I accept the noble Earl's argument in one respect that CADW, which we originally had in our amendment at Report stage, falls into that category. That is why the amendment that I am now putting before your Lordships does not include consultation with CADW, since, as the noble Earl quite properly pointed out, if the Secretary of State for Wales was required to consult CADW he would be consulting himself, and that is not something which we would like to see in legislation.
But the Countryside Council for Wales is a different matter. That body is almost exactly analogous to the Countryside Commission for England. Clause 82 imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult the statutory countryside agencies in England but not in Wales or Scotland. That is wholly inconsistent with the existing statutory obligations on the Secretary of State for Wales to consult CCW before designating Welsh environmentally sensitive areas.
The obligation to consult CCW on ESAs in Wales was imposed in 1990, deriving from 1986 legislation which required the Secretary of State to consult CCW's predecessors in Wales. The relevant institutional arrangements and statutory powers in Wales are exactly the same now as they were in 1990.
The stated purpose of what is now Clause 82 by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, at Report stage was to extend the approach which already operates successfully in setting up new ESAs. The noble Earl told us that that was the whole point of the clause. But it fails to do that in Wales. I agree that the Countryside Council for Wales has the right to offer advice if it wants, but that is far different from saying that the Secretary of State for Wales is obliged to consult that body as the Secretary of State in England is obliged to consult the Countryside Commission, which, as I say, is an analogous body.
I believe that the argument is irrefutable and rests there; namely, that Wales should have what England has. I cannot see why the Government cannot agree to that. I beg to move.
Baroness White: My Lords, it is many years since I was Minister of State at the Welsh Office, but in environmental matters I have maintained a very good group of informants. I can rely on them to tell me the effects of the attitude of the present Government. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel is absolutely right. If the situation is left as it is now, that means that the Countryside Council for Wales may offer advice. But it is a matter of timing.
It is frequently the case that the Welsh Office does not consult. When the Welsh Office has told the world what it intends to do, it is then too late for the Countryside Council for Wales to offer its advice. It is very largely a matter of timing. All the information which I have been able to find in the recent past makes it clear to me that the most important word in this proposed amendment comes in line 2; namely, "before". The Countryside Council for Wales should be consulted before and not after the Welsh Office has disclosed what it intends to do.
It is an absurd situation. One is told that one can offer one's advice, but what is the use of that when the Welsh Office, without consulting the Countryside Council for Wales at all, has gone public? I would very much like to know how the Minister will reply, supposing that he himself was possibly partly responsible for the activities of the Countryside Council for Wales. I am quite sure that he would not be happy.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, I shall be very short indeed. I would like to endorse everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Baroness, Lady White. It is absolutely essential for Wales to have this amendment if Clause 82 is to be in the Bill. It would be almost an affront—certainly to the Countryside Council for Wales—if the amendment was not accepted. Therefore, I ask my noble friend to consider very carefully that it is important for Wales that this amendment is accepted.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we on these Benches take the same view as all the previous speakers

1077
and believe that this amendment is part of the importance of taking seriously the Welsh environment and the right of the Welsh people to be consulted through their representative or semi-non-representative bodies. It is an absolutely worthwhile amendment and we hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I would like to support this amendment very strongly. I have mentioned this problem at earlier stages of the Bill. I still cannot understand how Wales can be discriminated against in the way that it is at present as regards the responsibilities of English Nature in England and the Countryside Council for Wales in Wales. I am sure that the amendment is right and I very much hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I so much agree with the word "irrefutable" used by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I totally support the amendment and, if necessary—and I am sure that it will not be—I shall support him in the Lobby.
I suppose that one must peer behind this paradox which is not there. In one way or another most of your Lordships have had experience of how governments operate—whether as Ministers or civil servants or merely as teenage scribblers writing about politics—and realise that in the jungle of Whitehall people fight for their own personal empires and beliefs. Very often that causes governments great difficulty in coming forward with sensible ideas.
We know that the present Secretary of State for Wales does not believe in this kind of thing. The sad fact is that he pursues his own personal beliefs and dogmas with a lack of humour or humility. It strikes me that it would be very sad if the Bill, which will last a great deal longer, were to be adapted to the personal prejudices of the Minister who at this very instant is occupying that post.
What I suppose I am really saying is that I believe this amendment fulfils a role which Parliament has a perfectly legitimate role in fulfilling—that is to say, to get the Government out of a hole caused by squabbling inside Whitehall. I hope we shall find that the amendment is warmly welcomed by the Government.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I should like to ask the Minister just one question. Can he assure us that the reason for leaving the Countryside Council for Wales out of the consultation has nothing to do with a possible change in its future status? Some of us are worried about that and would like to be reassured.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on this amendment, but I am so disappointed to hear my noble friend Lord Marlesford couch his support for the amendment in such overtly personal terms that I have to dissociate myself from it. One
1078
legislates to produce the best results from the machine regardless of office-holders. It is most unfortunate to drag in personalities.
7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, explained, the amendment seeks to impose upon my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales a requirement to consult the Countryside Council for Wales before making or significantly modifying certain subordinate legislation. It intends to mirror the consultation requirements on my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under Clause 82.
As the noble Lord said, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, spoke to similar amendments at previous stages of the Bill. I fear my answer today will be little different from those I gave on earlier occasions, although I shall try to amplify my remarks—helpfully, I hope. The Government continue to believe that this amendment is not necessary because the situations in England and in Wales are different. The grounds for including Clause 82 in the Bill were specific to England, relating to the planned transfer of responsibility for the Countryside Stewardship Scheme to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1996. The Countryside Stewardship Scheme is currently funded by the Department of the Environment and run by the Countryside Commission. It was in order to avoid any possible doubt that the department and the commission would continue to have a role to play in advising on the scheme which they have developed during its pilot stage that the statutory consultation provision was included on the face of the Bill in relation to England. Furthermore, as I have indicated on previous occasions, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is both agriculture and environment Minister. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, stressed, he has all the necessary powers to consult the Countryside Council for Wales on this as on other issues and—perhaps the noble Lord did not stress this enough—it equally has the powers to advise him even if he does not ask it. Those powers will continue to be available in the future. It is therefore considered unnecessary for the Bill to provide specifically for that consultation.
The noble Lord referred to the obligation on the Secretary of State for Wales to consult CCW on the designation of environmentally sensitive areas in Wales. The obligation on the Secretary of State for Wales to consult on the designation of ESAs remains unchanged. We are seeking to extend the arrangements in England, following the decision to transfer the Countryside Stewardship Scheme to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In the light of that further explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness White: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, he has not dealt at all with the point that I raised with him, which is that it is useless for the

1079
Secretary of State for Wales simply to say, "You can talk to me about it afterwards". It is a matter of timing and the Secretary of State for Wales has not been consulting in situations where it would have been desirable for him to do so.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am clearly not in a position to comment on individual circumstances, but I am informed that it is my right honourable friend's intention to consult the council on all appropriate occasions. There may be special reasons in the cases which the noble Baroness has in mind, such as insufficient time if the matter is of great urgency. If the noble Baroness will give me details of those instances, I shall ask my right honourable friend to look into the matter for her.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for spending time and trouble over his response. I think today is the first occasion on which we have heard about the Countryside Stewardship Scheme in this context. This is the first time that that excuse, if I may put it like that, has been wheeled out. We have heard other excuses before about why the Countryside Council for Wales has not been consulted, but this is the first occasion that we have heard that one. It is no more convincing than previous answers. I must advise the noble Earl that I find it merely an invention.
There is a difference between the right to consult, the right to give advice and the duty or obligation on the Secretary of State to consult. It is very clear. The Countryside Council for Wales has the right to offer advice. Under the terms of the Bill, the Secretary of State for Wales has no duty to consult CCW. That is what we are trying to put into the Bill. The noble Earl said that the Secretary of State for Wales has every intention of consulting CCW, particularly on, I imagine, modifying subordinate legislation where it applies to Wales. The issue goes much wider than the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. I imagine that the Secretary of State will live up to that, but if that is his intention, why on earth can it not be stated on the face of the Bill? That provision is specified for England, although I am sure that the Secretary of State and the noble Earl are full of good intentions about consulting the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and all the rest. That is provided for England on the face of the Bill, so why is it not on the face of the Bill for Wales also?
I see that the noble Earl will not budge on this. I must put my national foot down and say that I seek the opinion of the House. I ask sympathy from English noble Lords. I ask them to allow Wales the same as is provided for England. I commend the amendment to the House.
7.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 98.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Marlesford, L.

Ampthill, L.

McCarthy, L.

Annaly, L.

Monkswell, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Moran, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nathan, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Newall, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Norrie, L.

Freyberg, L.

Rea, L.

Geraint, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Seear, B.

Hamwee, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

St. Davis, V.

Harrowby, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Henniker, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Vinson, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Walpole, L.

Judd, L.

Warnock, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

White, B.

Lawrence, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Listowel, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Longford, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Elton, L.

Aldenham, L.

Ferrets, E.

Aldington, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Astor, V.

Gisborough, L.

Barber, L.

Goschen, V.

Blake, L.

Greenway, L.

Blaker, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Blatch, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Blyth, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Henley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hertford, M.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Holderness, L.

Brahmin of Tara, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Burnham, L.

Howe, E.

Cadman, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kimball, L.

Carnock, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Kintore, E.

Chesham, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Coleraine, L.

Leigh, L.

Courtown, E.

Lindsay, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Liverpool, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Long, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Denham, L.

Lucas, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Downshire, M.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Dundonald, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

1081

Mersey, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Milverton, L.

Rodney, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mountevans, L.

Sharpies, B.

Moyne, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Norfolk, D.

Skelmersdale, L.

Northesk, E.

Stewartby, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Strange, B.

Onslow, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Orkney, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Sudeley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Trumpington, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Vivian, L.

Rawlings, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Renton, L.

Wise, L.

Renwick, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that further proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned. Perhaps I may suggest that the House returns to this business no earlier than 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Workers' Representatives: Designation Machinery
7.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to devise satisfactory machinery for the designation of workers' representatives with whom employers are required to consult in the event of collective redundancies and transfers of undertakings.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question arises out of the Government's silence for the past nine months since the decision of the European Court of Justice in June 1994. The ECJ decided that the Government were in breach of two directives: the directive on collective redundancy and the directive on transfer of undertakings.
In fact, the ECJ decided that we were in breach of those two directives in a whole range of ways. The Government accepted that that was the case and took steps, such as they were, to conform with those two directives 12 months or so before the ECJ decided that they were in breach of them. Therefore for the most part we had those matters put into the 1993 Act. But there was one decision of the ECJ which the Government failed to accept. Nine months have gone by and we have not heard from the Government whether they accept the decision that employers cannot evade the effect of those directives merely by failing to recognise, or derecognising, trade unions.
That is what the ECJ said. It said that the effect of the present regulations was that employers could avoid having any worker representatives to carry out consultation and representation in cases of redundancy and transfer of undertakings merely by not recognising trade unions.
I asked the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on 9th February, after many months had gone by, whether the Government had any thoughts on this matter. The noble Lord said:
"The Government are presently considering what action needs to be taken".—[Official Report, 9/2/95; col. 301.]
Naturally enough he was asked subsequently to elaborate. He said:
"The important point about the decisions in the two judgments is that it is for the employees to determine who their representatives will be".
That was a most interesting response, because it suggested to me at the time that the Government had, in effect, accepted the judgment, because the judgment says that it is for the employees to determine who their representatives will be. The employer cannot decide.
Then, unfortunately, the noble Lord seemed a bit less sure, because in answer to further questions he went on to say:
"As the noble Lord will know, the judgments and the law in this area are far from straightforward. We are anxious to make sure that we consider the matter properly. Subsequently we shall discuss our ideas before bringing proposals forward."
At that point the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said:
"My Lords, does the Minister agree that the judgments have the force of law because in the European Communities Act 1972 Parliament, in the exercise of its sovereignty, so decided? Will he further agree that the only question can be about how and not whether we implement them?"
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was helpful. He said:
"My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is absolutely correct in his analysis of the constitutional position. I can confirm that he is correct that it is not a matter of whether but how these matters are dealt with."—lcol. 302.]
So we asked the noble Lord how he had taken nine months as it was a matter only of how and not whether. We are still asking him. Therefore, I ask this Question. Before this Question could appear upon the Order Paper, I was contacted by the noble Earl who asked me whether I would like to withdraw the Question tonight because the Government were just about to give birth, as I understood it—they were going to issue a statement about this matter on Red Nose Day.
I had to think carefully. My difficulty was that I knew that the Government rarely issued statements that had not been leaked to the Guardian. This statement had not been leaked to the Guardian and I thought that perhaps it would not be published. I thought that, at any rate, if the statement were published it would be interesting for us to debate it tonight because it might not be as we would have wished it. I kept the Question on the Order Paper, and on Red Nose Day the Minister wrote to me informing me that the Government were not yet in a position to issue their legislative proposal.
Therefore, I understand that the Government have a legislative proposal and I hope that the Minister will confirm that. I understand that, after nine months, they will not say, "Talk among yourselves and in another nine months we might tell you what we think", but that they are going to issue a legislative proposal.
Therefore, I wish to ask the Minister several questions. First, when can we have the legislative proposal? Secondly, will it contain a proposal and not state merely, "Talk among yourselves. Get on with it. We shall come hack in 1996."? The Minister will not tell me the contents of the proposal and I do not expect him to do that. However, surely he can tell me whether it is based on the need to produce a designation beyond voluntary recognition. The ECJ stated that we cannot get away with the situation in which we do not designate the way in which the representatives are to be elected, appointed or whatever unless they are there because they are from recognised trade unions, which is voluntary recognition. Are we to face the fact that we cannot hide behind the argument that the laws and practices of this country forbid that kind of designation?
I have tried hard to understand the arguments that the Government put to the ECJ. I believe that they have sought to argue three objections to accepting that logic. First, that once upon a time we all agreed to accept a single channel principle. In other analogous cases, such as health and safety legislation, that the Labour Government accepted the voluntary principle, or the single channel principle, or the principle that the only rights were trade union rights. My answer to that argument is that that was long ago and far away. Such cases arose at a time when a whole range of legislation encouraged the recognition of trade unions and when the regulations were not being used by employers as a mechanism for derecognition, which is now the case.
Secondly, that is not what the ECJ now states. My third point is the EU has a range of ways of compelling us to accept the decisions of the European Court. In the period post-Maastricht, of which the Government were in favour, there are many ways in which that can be made extremely expensive for the Government. I raise in passing the dreadful example, from the point of view of the Government, of the Frankovitch case. That should make the Government think not a second time but a third and a fourth time if they believe that they can evade the consequences of an ECJ decision.
I shall repeat the questions that I want the Government to answer. First, the Government must accept (must they not?) that in the near future it will be necessary to produce an acceptable policy which embodies the principles in the ECJ decision. I do not ask how they intend to do that; it is a matter for them. However, the policy must contain designation of the representatives beyond the area of recognised trade unions. Secondly, they must tell us when they are publishing the policy.
Finally, why have the Government been so remiss in accepting this particular decision? Will the Minister tell the House what is the Government's real objection to representative provision of this kind? They cannot say that they are against trade unions, although they are, because it does not have to be trade unions; it has to be representation.
What is it that the Government, or their employer friends, are afraid of in the directive? All that is involved is that the employees will be allowed freely and independently to choose their representatives. The employer must then inform them of his plans in respect
1084
of redundancy, transfers and takeovers. The representatives will discuss them, consider them and perhaps raise objections. The employer may have to find agreed ways of meeting their points of view. It is not compulsory arbitration nor the infringement of management rights and it will not cost money. We are not discussing minimum wage legislation; we are discussing consulting, talking, considering and trying to reach agreement.
For a long time, most good employers have found that they can learn through such a process and that their employees can tell them how to act. What are the Government and employers afraid of? Why cannot the Minister tell me tonight that the Government accept the principle?
7.25 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, my noble friend's timely Question prompts me to declare—although I am not sure that it is strictly necessary—that last year I was professionally instructed to advise on the judgments of the Court of Justice of 8th June 1994, from which this Question arises. Those instructions are now spent.
Those judgments require the United Kingdom Government to observe their obligations under the directives of 1975 and 1977, as interpreted by the court, to guarantee consultation with workers' representatives in the event of transfers of undertakings and collective dismissals. The Government must take account of the fact that they appear to have been in breach for a long time and therefore risk a considerable number of actions under the Frankovitch doctrine, as the court has developed it.
The court rejected the Government's argument, not surprisingly, that in Britain employers were not bound by the directives' obligations to consult where they refused to recognise a trade union for collective bargaining. In 1980 the same colour of government repealed the key procedure for obligatory recognition of appropriate trade unions which was introduced by the Labour Government of 1975. Of course, that factor means that there is no analogy for the position of governments before 1980 and afterwards.
It should be put on record that the two directives are not, as some believe, an extravagant code of worker protection. It is no esoteric privilege that, before one loses one's job and family income, an employer should talk with one's representative about how that has occurred and whether anything should be done about it. In view of tonight's time constraints I shall not elaborate, but I say firmly that some of us believe that the protections in the directives are much too weak, in particular in terms of the sanction. No right is stronger than its sanction.
Secondly, it is worth noting that the court made it clear that worker protection is only one part—some writers have it only a minor part—of the directives. The court stated that the directives are:
"intended both to ensure comparable protection for workers' rights in the different Member States and to harmonize the costs which those protective rules entail for Community undertakings".

1085
Harmonisation of employers' costs in the integrated market is a central purpose of these directives.
The task in Britain, as the court declared, is to take all appropriate measures to ensure that workers' representatives are designated for consultation and no longer allow an employer "to frustrate" the protection provided for workers. The Government's obligations in this matter have been manifest since 8th June 1994. I do not complain that they have not found the perfect scheme since that time, but to say nothing is really quite extraordinary.
In this state of legislative dysphasia, they still cannot rescue from the dark recesses of their labour law unconscious even the dreams of the four-page letter which the Minister told us that we might receive, and never did receive, in the past week. If the Government are not ready this evening to let the whole cat out of the bag, perhaps I may put four questions to the Minister, of which I have given him notice, in relation to specific guarantees, because it is right that we should look to the future rather than re-analyse all the nice points from the past, albeit that they are many.
The first matter is existing relationships. Surely it should be common ground that the new machinery for consultation must not damage existing good relationships between employers and their recognised trade unions or discourage further employers and unions to make such arrangements. Consultation with a union which is already a partner for relationships in that place of work should surely be a primary aim for strengthening and, in a way, achieving that part at least of the judgment which would cause management the fewest complexities.
The second aspect is independence. Workers' representatives must be properly independent both of state control and of control by the employer. That is not a matter where house unions or staff associations which are not independent will do. In order to represent freely the interests of their constituency, there must be guaranteed independence. Certainly, if one looks at the debate in other member states where there has been perhaps rather stronger discussion of those points, if we are to have, as the judgment put it, something which is comparable to other member states, that is a not unimportant heading.
Thirdly, whatever the selection procedures are to be, where workers are to select their representatives on ground where there had been none before perhaps, surely the procedures must be open to appropriate independent organisations of workers. If there are to be elections, for example, then an appropriate independent organisation of workers must have some right to participate—to nominate candidates perhaps, to communicate with the workforce—and not meet with a closed door from the employer. I appreciate that that may be difficult to draft and to get right, but this evening I am asking for agreement as to aspirations.
Fourthly, there is the question of the continuity and resources of the workers' representatives. I do not say this to make any particular ideological point, but it is a matter of fact that where a trade union is carrying out
1086
that process, continuity and resources are not so difficult to find. But it may be that there are representatives who have a less secure place at a particular workplace. I submit that we must ensure that the arrangements provide sufficient continuity and resources.
The directives envisage workers' representatives assimilating a great deal of information and making counter-proposals in the face of the employer's obligation:
"to consult with a view to agreement".
The directives do not lay down bargaining but they lay down the need for a high level of consultation—to consult with a view to agreement. That is rather a new concept for our law and it has been discussed already in the High Court. In that process, the worker representatives must be given the, opportunity, when there are redundancies, to comment on management's plans after it has sent its proposals to the competent public authority, as it is obliged to do.
It would be quite inadequate to allow merely for workers to choose representatives only after redundancies have loomed up over the horizon, still less when they are actually declared. It would be at the choice of management. I do not criticise the management, but redundancies come over the horizon at the initiative of management. The representatives must have more resources and better continuity.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it would be extremely valuable if the noble Lord would explain how he sees the distinction between "negotiation", as we have understood it over the generations, and "consult with a view to agreement". I find that change very difficult to understand.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that interruption. I too was not brought up on that concept and it is a foreign concept for at any rate our legal categories. The noble Baroness will know as well as I do the difference between consultation and bargaining. With consultation, normally management takes the decision willy-nilly. But surely "to consult with a view to agreement" requires a little more from management. It may perhaps not be as much as bargaining where the decision is a joint decision and the directives do not require a joint decision.
I appreciate that our drafting of these matters will have to be improved and we shall have to learn new tricks. This evening I am asking that the workers' representatives, as a principle, must not be put in a position in which they come on to the field too late in the game to be effective players in what the directive requires them to do.
The idea that workers might designate representatives ad hoc, to which Advocate General Van Gerven alluded in his opinion of March 1994, which must be taken into account when interpreting European law, cannot mean that the representatives are allowed by the employer to appear only at the point at which they cannot carry out that extremely difficult process, as the noble Baroness said, of consulting to achieve agreement, if that is possible.

1087
Indeed, under such a scheme, by choosing his moment the employer could—I do not say that he would do it intentionally—as a matter of fact render ineffective, in practice, the designation of representatives at a date that he chooses for the redundancies and for which the representatives are either not there or under the implementation scheme cannot do anything effective. That would offend the ratio of the court's judgment; namely, that it must not he open to the employer to:
"frustrate the protection provided for the workers".
Refusing to recognise trade unions is not the only way in which an employer might frustrate the venture.
Therefore, perhaps rather uncharacteristically, with one minute to spare, I conclude by asking the Minister whether he will give us those assurances and delay no longer in accepting those basic rights with regard to workers' representation at work.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has given us to discuss the whole question of the application in the United Kingdom of the acquired rights and collective redundancies directives.
My interest in those matters goes back, as does that of other noble Lords who have spoken, to the debates on the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill in 1993. At that time, like the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, I tabled amendments which questioned and sought to overturn the Government's contention that the relevant clauses of the Bill brought the detailed provisions of UK legislation fully into line with the requirements concerning consultation contained in the two directives.
In reality, the Government's so-called TUPE regulations of 1981 obliged employers to consult only the representatives of recognised trade unions about the prospective transfer of undertakings, whereas the acquired rights directive required consultation with the representatives of employees generally. The European Commission had long argued that restricting the right to consultation and information to recognised trade unions was insufficient; and I agree.
Similarly, the directive on collective redundancies required employers contemplating large-scale redundancies to inform and consult workers' representatives well in advance. The European Commission considered that conducting negotiations only with representatives of trade unions recognised by the employer, as now provided in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, made it possible for the consultation procedure to be completely inapplicable when no trade union was recognised by the employer. The Commission found that also to be unacceptable.
In the 1993 Bill the Government made no concessions on those points. My amendments to the Bill sought to persuade them to extend the right to information and consultation to employee representatives generally. The difficulty for me at that time was that it would have been incredibly complex and indeed wrong to do that
1088
by way of substantive drafting. That would have required prior consultation with representatives of employers and trade unions and was thus a task not for Opposition parties but for the Government. I therefore said that it was up to the Government to be proactive in the matter and positively to promote employee representation outside the trade union structure, not so as to do down trade unions but simply for the benefit of employees who did not choose to be represented by a union.
Accordingly, my amendments invited the Government to lay before Parliament orders which would amend both the TUPE regulations and the relevant sections of the 1992 Act and would have the effect of extending the application of the duty to inform and consult trade union representatives so that UK law applied to employee representatives generally. The amendments proposed that the 1993 Bill should not be enacted until that had been done. I suggested then that the thinking behind the amendments was very much in line with the Government's often-expressed support for the extension of employee involvement and I expressed the hope that they would make a positive response. I further said that, since the Government accepted the principle that recognised trade unions should be consulted about prospective transfers and collective redundancies, they could not very well fail to treat in the same way employees who did not choose to be represented by a union.
The Government's response was that the main problem with my proposal was that it provided no clue as to how an employer would be able to judge who should or should not be an employee representative and that would cause considerable confusion. The Government's clear view was said at that time to be that employee representatives should be trade unions which the employer had freely chosen to recognise for collective bargaining purposes. But now, following the judgments of the European Court of Justice last June which effectively upheld the view of the Commission to which I have referred, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has again challenged the Government themselves to devise machinery which would designate who should be workers' representatives for the purposes we are discussing.
In doing so he has followed closely the words used by the European Court in its judgment of June 1994 on collective redundancies when the Commission succeeded in its claim that the UK failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the directive in not providing a mechanism for the designation of workers' representatives in an undertaking when the employer refused to recognise such representatives. In the same judgment the Court ruled against the UK for laying down in 1993 statutory provisions which were narrower in scope than those in the directive, for not requiring employers to consult workers' representatives with a view to reaching agreement and for failing to provide for effective sanctions against employers who did not so consult.
I think it is a great pity, as do the two noble Lords who have spoken, that the legislative proposal concerning consultation on both collective redundancies

1089
and the transfer of undertakings, which it was said the Government were going to issue at the end of last week, has not become available in time for this discussion. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister when he replies as much as he can tell us about the form that this proposal will take. I trust that in his reply the noble Lord will give us as much information about what the Government have in mind as he can and particularly that he will confirm that there will be consultation on their proposals with representatives of employers, trade unions and other interested parties before legislation is brought forward.
What we do have is a consultation document that the Department of Employment issued last year in which it asked for comments on the Commission's proposal as to how the directive relating to employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings should be amended. In that document the Government recognised that the present requirements of UK law would need to be extended beyond trade unions; and that I very much welcome. There are other encouraging signs—for although in the document the Government reiterated their general view that regulation on these matters at Community level is unnecessary and inappropriate, they do at least acknowledge that the proposed revision of the acquired rights directive gives them the opportunity to fulfil their cherished hopes for greater flexibility in this area.
For example, they welcome particularly the Commission's recognition that a distinction needs to be drawn between the contracting out of an activity or a service and the transfer of an undertaking as an economic entity which retains its identity. On the question of the application of the directive to the transfer of insolvent companies, the Government again recognised that the Commission's proposal seeks to provide some of the flexibility that they wish the revised directive to have.
Finally in this document the Government express the view that, subject to further clarification by the Commission and certain drafting points, most other elements of the proposal do not appear to give rise to significant difficulties for the UK. I very much hope that this apparent relaxation in the Government's attitude to the directive is an indication that they are genuinely seeking a consensus, since both the existing directive and the proposed revision are based on Article 100 of the treaty requiring unanimity within the Council. I should be grateful if when he replies the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, would confirm that that really is the Government's aim.
As I understand the two judgments of the European Court, it will be, as has been said, for employees themselves to determine who for the purposes of consultation their representatives should be. But, as I said two years ago, and as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has again suggested in the way in which he has framed his Question this evening, it is for the Government to devise the machinery needed for this purpose. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has not specified any time limit within which this should be done; and that being so, it is to be hoped that the noble
1090
Lord, Lord Inglewood, speaking for the Government, will find no difficulty in accepting the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. More than that, I hope that the Minister will give us some indication as to the timescale within which the Government hope both to consult and to introduce legislation on these important matters.
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord McCarthy for introducing a debate on this important and relevant subject. The newspapers are full of stories about the so-called "feel-good factor" which, unaccountably it seems, is eluding the Government despite allegedly phenomenal economic success. It is alleged that we shall not be feeling good for some time. Personally, I do not expect to feel good until after the next general election, and then I am fairly certain that I shall be feeling very good indeed. However, it is fairly widely acknowledged that the lack of this factor arises from a feeling of insecurity among people generally because, despite falls in the figures of unemployment—some of us have doubts about those figures and the way in which they are calculated—people do not feel secure either in their own employment, if they have jobs, or in the future job prospects for their children.
The Government have promoted the whole idea of job flexibility, which for most people actually means less security. Employers have been encouraged to treat employees as disposable items—a commodity like any other commodity. Job security has been very significantly weakened as a result of conscious government policy and the forms of collective protection built up by employees over many decades have also been weakened through a series of anti-trade union Acts somewhat ludicrously described as trade union reforms.
The idea has been propagated that there is something not quite right, even not quite decent, in expecting a job for life. But without such expectations it is hardly surprising that people feel terribly insecure, more so perhaps than at any time since the war. This is entirely relevant to the Question introduced by my noble friend this evening, for one of the purposes of the acquired rights directive surely was to ensure that in takeovers and mergers employees would have the assurance of some security and some continuation of employment on terms and conditions no less good than they had before. It seems to me that this objective is highly worthy. Similarly, who can possibly object to the notion that there should be consultation in advance of collective redundancies? Employees are not, as I have said before, just another kind of commodity. They are human beings with families, responsibilities and commitments. Without their efforts, the companies concerned would not have existed, and in general they are not to blame when an enterprise is sold over their heads, perhaps to a market predator interested only in asset stripping. They are, moreover, the guarantee, if one is needed, that the new owner will have the expertise readily available to enable the business to continue.

1091
It is a sad fact that modernising and streamlining too often means getting rid of staff. That is why the protection—it is not all that adequate, as has already been indicated by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn—afforded by the acquired rights directive is important. The Government in the first instance—as we have heard this evening—sought to give effect to the directive through TUPE, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. As is so typical of this Government, they sought to do it in the most minimal way. The directive required that there should he consultation with employees. That was not provided for adequately the first time round, so we had amending legislation. However, that legislation only required consultation to take place with recognised trade unions. As we know, the Government do not like trade unions and have done their best to persuade employers not to recognise trade unions, or to derecognise them where such agreements exist. It was decided by the ECJ in June last year that that simply will not do. Employers cannot evade their responsibility to consult employees simply by derecognising unions.
The court has ruled that the directives on collective redundancies and transfers of undertakings provide guaranteed universal rights to consultation and that it is not acceptable for UK law to restrict consultation to those workplaces where employers recognise unions. The Government, as we know, must amend UK law to comply with that judgment. In the meantime it seems to me that the Government have been doing their best behind the scenes to water down the acquired rights directive. This was the subject of a Question in this House on 2nd March at col. 1583 of Hansard. I must say that on that occasion I was not particularly impressed by the response of the Minister.
The Government's whole philosophy has been based on constant erosion of employees' rights. They seem to be under the impression that only by driving down standards through, for example, the abolition of wages councils, will it be possible to create jobs. Therefore I am not surprised that the Government have been dragging their feet over implementation of the latest decision of the ECJ. In case it is argued that trade unions might not be in favour of the wider consultation argued for by the directive and the ECJ, I must point out that the TUC has made it abundantly clear that it is in favour of the whole ECJ decision and the directives, and wants to see them implemented fully as soon as possible. It has suggested that there are two ways in which this might be done and I would welcome the Minister's response to that this evening. It says that legislation could require that for the purposes of consultation, under the law the employer is obliged to consult either representatives of an independent trade union recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining to any extent; or, where no such union is recognised, representatives elected by all the employees in elections held under the rules set out in a code or regulations under statute.
It seems to me that this is a simple solution to the issues posed by the ECJ. Certainly it is quite clear that although we may not he facing the merger mania of several years ago, substantial mergers and takeovers are a continuing feature of economic life. In recent days we
1092
have learnt of the Glaxo/Wellcome proposed merger (with an indication, incidentally, that this could well mean job losses eventually) and of course there has been the Barings collapse. This is not a time for any government to give the impression that they are intent upon watering down protection afforded by the acquired rights directive, or that they are dragging their feet as regards full implementation. We have heard this evening from my two noble friends a detailed exposition of what the directives mean, and ways in which they could be implemented. I await with interest the Minister's response.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, this evening we have had an interesting debate on the subject of informing and consulting employees' representatives about collective redundancies and business transfers. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for raising this important issue and the other participants for their helpful and notably expert contributions, and for asking some extremely pertinent questions which I shall endeavour to answer as far as I can before concluding.
As I have previously made clear to the House, the Government are giving full and proper consideration to this issue, following the decisions by the European Court of Justice last year. I also stated in this House on 9th February that it is not a question of whether this matter is dealt with by legislation, but how. The Government are now developing a proposal to give effect to the judgments. While I am not in a position to give details of the proposal to the House this evening—as noble Lords know, I had been hoping to be able to do that—the Government expect to make their ideas public shortly, and I anticipate that these proposals will contain clear ideas of what the Government propose for legislation. However, I suppose I should enter a caveat. I was not accurate as regards the timing of the consultation document. Therefore I suppose it is always possible that I may be wrong about what it may contain.
It may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the history of this issue. In 1975, the then Labour Government agreed the Collective Redundancies Directive and transposed it into UK law. The UK legislation required employers to consult only a recognised trade union. That legislation remained substantially unchanged until 1993 and it was some of those arrangements which a Labour Government put in place, which were criticised last year by the European Court of Justice and found to be unlawful.
It was in 1977, that the same Labour Administration also agreed the so called "Acquired Rights" or "Business Transfers" Directive, which also contained information and consultation provisions. Although that directive was transposed into UK law by a Conservative Government by the 1981 TUPE Regulations, the UK regulations' information and consultation provisions followed the pattern of the earlier redundancy legislation, again only requiring the employer to consult a recognised trade union.

1093
That view of the directives' requirements was not seriously questioned or challenged in the UK or on the Continent at the time, and indeed it was only in 1989—some 14 years after the redundancies directive had been implemented—that it was challenged by the European Commission. As the House knows, in June last year the European Court of Justice ruled inter alia that these arrangements for consultation did not meet the requirements of the directives.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred to the possible changes to the Acquired Rights Directive. I do not have any more to add to what I told the House on 2nd March.
I have mentioned the history of this issue simply to highlight that arrangements which were thought, by common accord at the time, to meet the terms of the European legislation, have many years later been found not to do so. It is against that background that the Government are developing their proposals for changes in this area.
Although, as I stated earlier, I am not in a position to discuss a detailed proposal this evening, it may be helpful to your Lordships to summarise some of the core issues at the heart of our employment policy, and which will provide the raison d'etre for our approach to this matter. First, we believe that a flexible labour market is in the long-term best interests of employers, employees, and the country at large, because growth and job creation occur best in these conditions, and that is in the best interests of both those in and out of work.
Secondly, we are equally concerned to ensure that unjustified burdens are not placed on businesses for precisely the same reasons. Our aim is to create an environment in which employers have every incentive to offer employment to others. Hemming in our businesses, and in particular our small businesses, with over-detailed and nit-picking regulations one after another will not, in our view, do that. These are not circumstances which are conducive to employers being able to pay good wages and provide good conditions of employment. They are not the conditions for creating jobs. They become the recipe for increasing national uncompetitiveness in the face of competition from all round the globe in the post-GATT world. They will push our country in the direction of economic decline and it is not this Government's policy that we should or shall move in that direction.
Thirdly, the Government are sometimes quite wrongly said to be opposed to workplace consultation and to employee involvement. That has been said today. That is simply not the case. The Government believe strongly that, irrespective of any statutory requirements, it is good practice for employers to inform and, where appropriate, consult their employees about matters which affect them. That is in the best interests of employers and employees, which is why it makes good business sense. But the Government also believe that companies should be free to develop arrangements appropriate to their own circumstances and the needs of their employees. That, rather than inflexible statutory
1094
requirements, is the best basis for establishing working relationships which suit best both employer and employee.
That freedom includes the decision whether or not to recognise a trade union, which has always been a feature of British labour law. The Government recognise that trade unions can be a valuable and legitimate source of help for employees in their relations with their employers. Contrary to what is sometimes said in this House and elsewhere, the Government are not opposed to trade unions. Rather, the aim of our step-by-step reform of industrial relations and trade union law has been to ensure a proper balance in the relationship between employers, employees, trade unions and society at large.
I am sure that I do not need to remind your Lordships that, at just over a quarter of a million, the number of working days lost through stoppages in 1994 represented the lowest level of industrial action in over 100 years. That compares very favourably with the average, for the 1970s of some 12 million and has benefited everyone in the country.
I mention that to remind the House of the industrial relations background to the changes we must make. It must be right, therefore, that the Government consider very carefully exactly what steps to take next to make the necessary statutory changes in this country and at the same time improve labour law.
These are important matters and, turning to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, we look forward in due course to considering responses to our consultation exercise when we shall have the views of those representative bodies whose members are affected by our proposal.
I was interested to read the recently published TUC report on representation at work, which I understand owes something to both the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, which considers in some detail the implications of the European Court of Justice judgments. It is open enough about its real objective, which is to reverse the steady decline in union influence and power from its zenith in the 1970s, which from the TUC's perspective is an understandable aspiration. I remind the House that union membership fell from over 13 million in 1979 to under 9 million in 1993. It is clear that in many cases employees have been far from persuaded that union membership will help them, while many employers are equally unpersuaded of the benefits of union recognition. While obviously promoting union participation whenever possible, the TUC report accepts that an exclusive role for unions is not consistent with current European law.
The TUC is arguing for a new, strong and well resourced public agency to police these matters, including determining claims for recognition, echoing perhaps the statutory recognition mechanism of the 1970s to which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, alluded, which was widely regarded as unworkable. Of course legal rights must be underpinned by legal redress if they are denied. But is another public agency really the kind of legislative environment people in this country really want? Will it really contribute to Britain's competitiveness, creating jobs and generating wealth for

1095
individuals and their families and to fund public services? Is it really the kind of proposal which noble Lords opposite actually wish to endorse?
While, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, accurately surmised, I am not in a position this evening to say what will be in the Government's proposal when it is published, I am sure that I shall not be giving away any secrets if I say what it will not contain. It will not contain a requirement on employers compulsorily to recognise a trade union for these or any other purposes. Nor will it contain any provision which would require an employer to establish a works council or similar body. The Government have considered the judgments carefully and they require none of those things.
To answer a point which was raised in one form or another by all speakers, there must be a mechanism for designating employees' representatives, who must clearly have appropriate guarantees of independence and resources for the job for which they have been selected. They must be consulted by employers proposing redundancies or a business transfer. Both parties must engage in a constructive dialogue. That is evident from the judgment. There are a number of ways in which that obligation might be met.
Our aim, consistent with the points I have made tonight, will be to bring forward proposals which, while fully implementing the requirements of the two directives, which have been clarified by the ECJ judgment, provide the maximum flexibility for employers to make arrangements consistent with their business circumstances and the particular needs of their employees. They must recognise the need to minimise the burden on business; they must not interfere with the delicate balance of industrial relations generally and must ensure proper consultation with employees' representatives.
In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part for their contributions to tonight's debate because important issues have been canvassed. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for raising the issue in such a spirited manner. I can assure the House that the views put forward by noble Lords this evening will be considered carefully by those responsible for legislation in this area.
As I mentioned earlier, I very much hope that the proposals I have described will come forward soon. They will contain constructive ideas so that legislation will flow as soon as possible thereafter.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Sitting was suspended from 8.5 to 8.15 p.m.]

Environment Bill [H.L.]
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Schedule 9 [Miscellaneous statutory functions of authorities]:
Lord Derwent Lord Derwent moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 159, line 6, at end insert:
("Public rights of way
.—(1) In a National Park for which a National Park authority is the local planning authority, the authority shall be the highway authority for any public right of way for which the Minister is not the highway authority; and references in the Highways Act 1980 to highway authorities shall be construed accordingly.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above, "public rights of way" means any highway which is a right of way to which Part III of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 applies (as defined in section 66 of that Act) or which is a way shown as a road used as a public path in a definitive map and statement prepared under that Part of that Act.
(3) Section 42 of the Highways Act 1980 (power of district councils to maintain certain highways) shall not apply to any highway .for which a National Park authority is, by virtue of sub-paragraph (I) above, the highway authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 38 standing in the names also of my noble friends Lord Wise and Lord Addison and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. The amendment is identical to that tabled at both Committee and Report stages. Its purpose is very simple. It is to transfer responsibility for managing the public rights of way network within national parks from the highway authorities to the national park authorities.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me make clear once again that the amendment has nothing whatever to do with changing the rights-of-way network. It does not affect trunk roads or metalled roads. It affects only those roads, paths and lanes to which laymen refer as the public rights-of-way network. The amendment addresses itself only to the question of who should manage them and who should keep them up.
I should underline, too, that in opposing the amendment at earlier stages of the Bill the Minister found himself entirely alone. At that time I was able to tell your Lordships that the amendment was supported by all the organisations which had knowledge of the subject and by all those organisations anxious to ensure that the park authorities should be given powers to carry out their second primary duty, namely, to "promote enjoyment of the Parks".
Since Report stage I have felt it right to consult again each and every one of those bodies and have asked them in the light of the points made by the Minister at Report whether they are still in favour of the amendment. Each of those bodies has responded that it found the Minister's arguments unconvincing and has urged me to press the matter.
It is important to remind your Lordships just which those organisations are. They are not just a special interest group. The amendment is supported by the Association of National Parks, which represents the chairmen and chief executives of the parks, the Council for National Parks, the Country Landowners' Association, the Ramblers' Association, the Countryside Commission, the Countryside Council for Wales and the

1097
Association of County Councils, which represents most of the highway authorities. In addition, since Report I have been contacted by the County Surveyors Society which wished me to know that county surveyors in those national parks where management of rights of way has already been delegated to national parks have,
"found that the system works extremely well. We accept the logic that responsibility for rights of way in all National Parks should pass to the new National Park Authorities".
Where then do the Government stand? The Minister has repeatedly stated that he, too, believes that the rights-of-way network should be managed by the national park authorities. Indeed, it would be surprising if he had said anything else since that has been declared government policy since 1976. In spite of that, let me tell your Lordships what happens in practice. I take the example of the Peak District, where highway authorities have failed, in spite of years of ministerial guidance, to enter into agency agreements with the park. The park's rangers recently surveyed the whole of the network in the park and found over 600 obstructions. If the Peak park had the rights of way responsibilities, would those obstructions be there today?
Your Lordships may wonder, therefore, why the Government have so far opposed the amendment. I say "so far" because we have a listening Minister and I hope that today he might modify his stance. In essence, he says that he wishes the highway authorities to delegate management to the national park authorities, that he intends to write to them in strong terms urging them to do so; but that he will not oblige them to do so in the Bill.
Ever since the so-called "Sandford amendment" in 1976, Ministers have given identical guidance. A significant number of highway authorities have obeyed; significant numbers have ignored it and continue to ignore it. I am advised that, now the national park authorities are to become totally independent of county councils, certain highway authorities will be even less likely to listen to the guidance. Indeed, they may reasonably argue that since the Government have not taken powers in the Bill to require them to do so, they cannot be serious in wishing the powers to be transferred. Unfortunately, at present the Secretary of State—as I elicited in answer to a question—has no reserve powers at present to direct recalcitrant authorities to obey the guidance. That is the nub of the question.
At Report, the Minister put forward four arguments against the amendment. Although he did not press them hard, I must in fairness deal with them. First, he expressed the Government's view (at col. 430 of Hansard for 9th March) that:
"the integrity of the highway network and its management should be maintained and that that should be through the mechanism of a common highway authority".
This is the weakest argument of all. Already responsibility for the network is divided between the Secretary of State for Transport, who is responsible for trunk roads, and the county councils and certain district councils which are responsible for other roads. Furthermore, in most national parks there is not and will
1098
not be a common highway authority. Brecon Beacons National Park, for example, will be covered by no fewer than seven different highway authorities after local government reorganisation. The Peak District National Park will also have seven different highway authorities, and so on. Your Lordships may well imagine the work involved for a park authority in trying to persuade seven different councils, some of them newly created, to delegate powers to it which the Government have not seen fit to give it in the Bill. So there will be a division of responsibility in any case. Surely the network of metalled vehicular roads is rightly the responsibility of the existing highway authorities, whereas paths, bridleways and BOATs (byways open to all traffic) of recreational importance should pass to the parks.
Secondly, the Minister pleaded a financial argument. He said that the park authorities needed to be confident that the constituent county councils would be standing behind them when unforeseen circumstances arose which required the rapid injection of large sums of money. This, I am afraid, attracted belly laughs all round. As one park officer said to me, "That will be the day!" The message I get from county councils is that inevitably footpath networks will always have a low priority for them. Rightly, they consider that their priority is to keep vehicular roads in good repair. With the cuts in their budgets, they do not even have enough money to do that properly all the time. When it comes to priorities, they will therefore always spend the money on vehicular roads.
Furthermore, it is not always true that the relevant county budgets are bigger than those of the national parks. In some cases, the councils will be relatively small or impoverished or will contain only a small area in a national park. For example, Dyfed County Council currently contributes £5,000 a year to the Brecon Beacons National Park for rights-of-way work. Would it or its even smaller successor, Carmarthenshire, suddenly increase that to £50,000 to mend a footway or bridleway bridge?
The third argument of the Minister was that there are a very small number of cases where there is a tarmacadamed or surfaced footpath in a small town. Neither the national parks nor the county councils see any problem. National parks authorities are already responsible for numerous tarmaced carparks and so on and they could certainly organise the repair of a surfaced footpath in a town. In any case, only a very small proportion of the 11,000 miles of rights of way—I emphasise 11,000 miles—in the national parks come into this category. Is it so large that it justifies risking the parks' ability to carry out one of their two statutory purposes?
The last argument put forward by the Minister was that in some cases we are some way from achieving precisely the definition of "byways open to all traffic", BOATs. The Minister felt that to require highway authorities or national park authorities to define those would deflect resources from more important work. But the Minister seems to have forgotten that Part III of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which took effect in February 1983, requires byways to be defined. If the task has not yet been completed, it is because resources

1099
have been deflected away from the task for the past 12 years and some re-deflection is long overdue. The Government are in any event committed —and they have repeated this—to ensuring that the definition of byways is complete by the year 2000. So resources will have to be deflected pretty soon.
The reason the work has not been completed is that it is a low priority for county councils, but it is of considerable importance for the national parks. If they are to manage the parks properly, it is essential that the status of the byways be clarified. The parks are therefore anxious to get on with the work, but, of course, they cannot do so without the necessary powers.
All those points are, however, minor and quite capable of resolution. I accept that the Minister did not himself place huge importance on them. Everyone, including the Government, believes that the new park authorities cannot properly perform their duty to promote enjoyment of the parks without these powers. The Minister intends to urge the highway authorities to delegate to national park authorities. Unfortunately, the experience of the past 20 years shows that guidance will not be effective if not backed up with powers.
Unless, therefore, your Lordships pass the amendment, the national park authorities will find themselves with the statutory duty to promote enjoyment of the parks which they have no power to perform. I hope very much, therefore, that when my noble friend replies he will be able to indicate that he has indeed been listening and that there is a change in the Government's position. I hope that he will either be able to accept the amendment or find some other way of enforcing the Government's own wishes—and the word is "enforcing"—that the parks should manage the network. If the Minister cannot give us undertakings in either of those directions, I shall urge your Lordships to support the amendment in the Lobby in the interests of the parks and of common sense.
Lord Wise: My Lords, once again I strongly support my noble friend Lord Derwent in this important amendment. I spoke at quite considerable length to this amendment at Report stage in the absence of my noble friend, and he has dealt very adequately with the arguments put forward on Report by my noble friend the Minister.
As he says, the principle of giving national park authorities responsibility for rights of way in their areas has received much support from all sides of the House both in Committee and on Report. I believe that that support has been received because the amendments would make control of rights of way far more simple and efficient and make national park authorities more accountable for what is probably their greatest resource. As my noble friend said, in most national parks there is no common highway authority. It is likely that over half of the parks have more than two highway authorities with which to deal; in fact, two of them even have seven. Surely this situation must provide an ideal opportunity for bureaucracy and confusion.
Rights of way are the premier recreational resource in national parks. They do not respect the boundaries of highway authorities and often traverse the length and
1100
breadth of the whole park. For the full benefit to be obtained from the use of this resource, it must be managed strategically by the national park authority.
A national park authority will find it difficult to influence visitor use of the particular areas if it has no control on how the rights-of-way network is managed in those areas. This amendment would give every national park authority the tools with which to manage the rights-of-way network for the whole of a national park. Surely this would be a major step forward in managing recreational activity. I therefore strongly support my noble friend's amendment. I hope once again that my noble friend the Minister will be able to look favourably upon it.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I support this important group of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Derwent. I spoke on this matter both in Committee and on Report, when the amendments received much support from all sides of the House.
Why would making all national park authorities responsible for rights of way in their areas be an improvement on the present arrangements? There is much evidence that where national park authorities have had certain rights-of-way powers delegated to them through agency agreements, it has worked well. However, in many parks it has not been possible for the parties to enter into such an agreement. The amendment would therefore ensure that all NPAs are able to share the undoubted benefits of responsibility.
Presently, six national park authorities have some responsibility for rights of way under agency agreements. It is much easier for those authorities to manage rights of way than it is for highway authorities, as they can draw on the services of their rangers and wardens for maintenance and surveying. Where national park authorities have had responsibility, they have demonstrated that they are ideally placed to carry out the task.
In Exmoor, delegation of rights-of-way responsibilities has allowed the national park authority to develop a three-year experimental management project in partnership with the National Trust dealing with eroded paths in the Dunkery Beacon area. Furthermore, a countryside recreation and access group (CRAG) is to be set up to promote close working with user groups and members of the public. This integrated approach is an example of how the rights of way in the parks can be managed when park authorities are given responsibility for the network. This amendment will ensure that all national park authorities will be able to carry out such work so that it may become the rule rather than the exception.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, made a very important point which was perhaps missed at earlier stages of the Bill when we discussed this matter; namely, that the national park authorities, as we hope they will be constituted, have to have regard to the purposes set cut in Clause 58 of the Bill—purposes with which we agree.

1101
It seems to me extremely difficult—this is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, made—for a national park authority to fulfil the purposes set out in Clause 58 without the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, proposes. After all, national park authorities will be the planning authority for that area. Paths, bridleways, or whatever they may be, may be converted and may be subject to various permissions with which the national park authorities will have to deal. I would have thought that Amendment No. 38 was complementary to Clause 58 for the purposes of national parks. I find it very difficult to see, if a national park authority is divorced as a planning authority from the administration of the public rights of way, how that national park authority can properly fulfil the purposes of conserving and enhancing natural beauty and promoting opportunities for the quiet enjoyment and understanding of the parks. For that reason I believe that the noble Lord's amendment is well put and well argued. We will support it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley has his name to this amendment and is sorry not to be able to be here himself to support it. I do so on his behalf and on behalf of these Benches. The point that was put was extremely well argued. What the noble Lord said is a matter of common sense quite apart from anything else. I am particularly struck by the need to marry the planning and the highways functions. I have always felt that highways and planning need to go very much hand in hand to be effective. For that reason, as well as for others, I support the amendment.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, very briefly, I support this amendment. I am sure that the impressive support for it stems from the fact that it will simplify the present system and enable greater efficiency in rights-of-way management. It will also allow national park authorities to plan strategically to maximise the benefit of their rights of way, as well as making the day-to-day management of this important resource more efficient.
The most popular activity in the national parks is walking. It simply does not make sense that those bodies that are set up to promote recreation in national parks (the park authorities) often find themselves without powers or responsibilities for rights of way. This amendment would resolve that problem.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I also support my noble friend Lord Derwent on this subject. It must be obvious that the national parks must have authority to implement their duty to provide enjoyment. You cannot have enjoyment of the paths if they are crowded with four-wheel vehicles which may be allowed by the byways open to all traffic. It is absolutely vital that the national parks should have total authority over the control and maintenance of their paths. They should be open to horses, people, ramblers, visitors, even cyclists. They must have ability to control the vehicles that use those paths. Those vehicles will destroy the paths unless they are controlled, and the cost to the parks of
1102
maintaining the paths after they have been destroyed will be prohibitive. It is vital that this amendment is passed.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I recognise the support for Amendment No. 38 moved today by my noble friend Lord Derwent and moved by my noble friend Lord Wise at Report stage. As my noble friend Lord Derwent indicated, these are indeed the same amendments which appear for the third time.
My noble friend has secured a great deal of support for his amendment, both inside the Chamber—as has again been demonstrated this evening with nobody speaking against him —and also outside the House. He enumerated eight important organisations which supported his amendment. I also appreciate the strength of feeling among noble Lords that if the Government cannot accept the amendments as drafted, they should accept the principle underlying them.
I made the Government's policy on this issue clear on previous occasions. We recognise the importance of the rights-of-way network to national parks as elements in securing the promotion of enjoyment of the parks. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, talked about this amendment as being complementary to the purposes as set out in Clause 58. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, indicated that she wanted to make certain that the highways and planning were married so that they could deliver those purposes. However, we do not believe that national park authorities should be made into highways authorities. We want to see them given responsibility for rights of way, tailored to the needs of the individual park, for which the most appropriate means are the agency agreements entered into with the relevant highway authorities. We intend to take steps positively to encourage such agreements across all the parks.
We shall give every encouragement to highway authorities to enter into agency agreements with individual national park authorities to facilitate the best management of rights of way. By adopting that approach, the national park authorities will be able to take on the day-to-day management of rights of way, confident in the knowledge that highway authorities, with their more substantial resources, will be standing behind them when the need arises. I believe that that approach is in the best interests of the promotion of a well managed and maintained rights-of-way network for the countryside as a whole, including that outside the national parks.
I recognise—I listened to my noble friend Lord Derwent demolish all my carefully thought-out arguments on previous occasions—that not all highway authorities have been willing to enter into such agreements with the existing national park boards and committee. Having listened to the arguments which have been put to me today, I should like to look again at this issue. We intend to look again at the procedure for making agency agreements between the highway authorities and the national park authorities and to consider whether it would be appropriate to introduce a reserve power which would be available to be brought into play where satisfactory alternative arrangements

1103
have not been made. I believe that that would be preferable to any move to create a new category of highway authority.
Therefore, I ask my noble friend Lord Derwent to withdraw his amendment on the understanding that we will bring forward proposals when the Bill reaches another place. Having said that, I should perhaps also indicate to my noble friend—because he indicated to me at an earlier stage that he would separate the amendments standing in his name; that is, to take Amendment No. 38 separately and Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 as a separate group—that I would respond in very much the same way as I have responded to this one, should he want to speak to the amendments. Otherwise, I say to him, on the understanding that I have given him, that perhaps he should not seek to move those amendments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I wonder whether he will clarify what he said. He said that he would look again at this. Does this mean that he gives an undertaking that the Government will bring forward some amendment, along the lines he suggested, in another place?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I said that I would bring forward proposals when the Bill reaches another place. I believe that is as far as I can go.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, he said two things which seemed to me to be contradictory. He said that he would consider whether it would be appropriate to bring forward proposals giving reserve powers to the Secretary of State and then he seemed to say, "I will bring forward some proposals". If the Minister is able to undertake that when this Bill reaches the other place the Government will introduce an amendment giving the Secretary of State reserve powers to direct highway authorities in cases where agreement has not been reached, I would be more than content —I feel that it would be only right—to withdraw this amendment.
However, if he is not saying more than that he will consider whether it is appropriate to introduce reserve powers, I am afraid that I must ask the opinion of the House. Before I take a final decision on this matter, I wonder whether the Minister will clarify exactly what he is undertaking to do.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I indicated to the House a moment ago with regard to the voluntary agreements which I was seeking between the highway authorities and the new national park authorities, there may be a stage where they would not agree to the agency basis which I was anticipating. Therefore, I indicated to the House that I should want to look again at the issue and intend to look at the procedure that we should need to go through for making the agency agreements between the highway authorities and the national park authorities and to consider whether the reserve power that my noble friend asks me for would be the best way of achieving the solution for which I believe both he and I are looking. Having said that, I
1104
have said to the House that my honourable friend will bring forward proposals when the Bill reaches another place.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, I listened with great interest to what the Minister had to say. I feel that all noble Lords would agree that much the best procedure would be that he should give guidance as he proposed, but that everyone should know that if people do not obey the guidance the Minister will have the power—if he judges it right in a particular case —to direct them. To me that would be a perfectly acceptable alternative to the amendments that I propose.
However, I am afraid that the Minister has not gone as far as that. The Minister said that he will look at how it might be done. He is not quite sure how it might be done. But he has gone short of saying that either the Government will bring in amendments like these or they will give reserve powers to the Secretary of State.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, with the permission of the House, before my noble friend decides whether or not to press his amendment, perhaps I may encourage him and the House to consider very carefully what I said. We are all agreed—certainly he and I appear to be very much agreed—on the way that we want to move forward, in that we want to create the agency agreements that we are both seeking. I believe that my noble friend and I are at one on that. I suggest that we ought to look at ways in which we can achieve that, especially by bringing forward proposals.
I have to say that, on the other hand, my noble friend's amendments create a new form of highway authority. I urge my noble friend to accede to what I have said this evening and to work towards the creation of the agency agreements, which may need to be strengthened by the Secretary of State if they do not work, rather than creating new highway authorities in the first instance.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, and with the leave of the House, perhaps I may refer to the very simple question put by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. Is the noble Viscount saying—I still do not have it clear—that he will bring forward proposals on how to achieve the common aim that he has expressed between himself and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in another place; or is he saying, "We will look at it and consider not how to do it but whether it is possible"? If it is a question of pure mechanics, that is one thing; if it is a question of whether the principle is right, that is another thing.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I can respond to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, by saying that we are looking again at this matter. We should like to look at the issue carefully. We want to make certain what it is that my noble friend and I are making common cause about, in that these agency agreements should succeed. Then I shall want to bring forward, or my honourable friend will bring forward, proposals to achieve that end in another place. However,

1105
I should not like to see the amendment, which creates a separate highways authority in the parks, being accepted at this stage.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, I hoped that my noble friend would say that, while he still had to look at the best way of doing it, he would give me an assurance that by the time the Bill left the other place there would be some means of compulsion for recalcitrant authorities, whether by means of an amendment or by the kind of reserved powers to which he referred. I should have been happy with that. Sadly, the Minister was unable to go that far. As I understand it he said that he would try; he will look; he will see whether there is some way of achieving what we all want in a better way. But he did not commit himself to the fact that by the time the Bill leaves the other place there will be reserve powers or something of that sort. Therefore, though I dislike dividing the House at this time of night, I regret that I must seek the opinion of the House.
8.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 38) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 56.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Lawrence, L.

Airedale, L.

Lytton, E.

Annaly, L.

Marlesford, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

McCarthy, L.

Blyth, L.

Monkswell, L.

Burton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Moyne, L.

Derwent, L. [Teller.]

Nathan, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dundonald, E.

Norrie, L.

Freyberg, L.

Northbourne, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hamwee, B.

Walpole, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Judd, L.

White, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wise, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Goschen, V.

Astor, V.

Harmer-Nicholls, L.

Barber, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Henley, L.

Boardman, L.

Howe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Burnham, L.

Kingsland, L.

Cadman, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kintore, E.

Carnock, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Leigh, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Lindsay, E.

Coleraine, L.

Long, V.

Cross, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Lucas, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Downshire, M.

Mountevans, L.

Elton, L.

Newall, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renwick, L.

1106

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Trumpington, B.

Seccombe, B.

Ullswater, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Vinson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Wakeham, L.

Sudeley, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.59 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.]
Schedule 13 [Pollution of rivers and coastal waters in Scotland: amendment of the Control of Pollution Act 1974]:
The Earl of Kintore The Earl of Kintore moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 182, line 11, after ("person") insert ("who is not the owner or occupier of the mine in question").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House has expressed an opinion on Amendment No. 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. Amendment No. 41 seeks to achieve the same result in Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Schedule 18 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 218, line 25, at end insert:
("(3) At the beginning of subsection (8) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (8A)"
(4) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted—
"(8A) Where the conditions of a licence would require the consent of another person in accordance with subsection (4) of this section the waste regulation authorities shall act in accordance with the guidance issued to them by the Secretary of State.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ullswater said in the Official Report on 9th March at col. 528, that he would like to consider this problem again. I wonder whether this amendment, which alters the words to "shall act in accordance with" the guidance, from the present wording, which is "to have regard to", might appeal to my noble friend. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 43 would require waste regulation authorities to act in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary of State where the conditions of a waste management licence would require the consent of another person in accordance with Section 35(4) of the Environmental Protection Act.
My noble friend tabled amendments at Committee and Report stages which would have amended Section 35(4) to ensure that the owners of land adjacent to a licensed waste management facility were consulted and received compensation if it was necessary to impose licence conditions which required works to be carried out on their land. My noble friend will recall that I said at Report that we wished to consider the matter further and in particular to consult all those who would have an interest. That is still our intention and we shall be writing shortly to various representative organisations seeking their views. We will then be in a position to

1107
consider what action, if any, needs to be taken, including, if necessary, amendments to this Bill in another place.
However, the amendment we are considering today takes a slightly different approach and does not attempt to make detailed changes to the way in which Section 35(4) operates. Instead it provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidance and for the waste regulation authority to act in accordance with that guidance. I presume that it is the intention that such guidance should set out requirements which would have the same effect as the earlier amendments.
I appreciate my noble friend's wish to ensure that at least something is on the statute book that would enable his proposals to be brought forward at a later date when we have been able to give further consideration to this issue. I do not think, however, that guidance could achieve all that my noble friend proposed in his earlier amendments, because it could only be directed at waste regulation authorities. It could only require operators to do that which the waste regulation authority was empowered to require.
Furthermore, even in so far as guidance could achieve my noble friend's objectives, the necessary powers already exist. Section 35(8) of the Environmental Protection Act places a duty on waste regulation authorities to have regard to any guidance issued to them by the Secretary of State with respect to the discharge of their functions in relation to licences. If my noble friend considers that "have regard to" is insufficient since he has proposed the term "act in accordance with", then I suggest that his intent would be achieved just as well by means of a direction to the agencies either under Section 35(7) of the 1990 Act or Clause 38 of the Bill.
I have explained that we are considering the issues which my noble friend has raised, but I hope I have shown that this amendment is unnecessary because the Secretary of State already has powers to require waste regulation authorities to have regard to guidance. My right honourable friend will have ample power to direct the agencies. In those circumstances I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, yes, of course I shall. Subject to my still being alive and well in October when this Bill comes back, I shall check whether my right honourable friend has in fact done something about this as my noble friend promises that he will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 222, leave out lines 24 to 33.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 23. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 234, line 32, at end insert:
(" 116A.—(1) In section 50 of that Act, in subsection (1) (power to make regulations, in relation to cases to which section 49 applies, for conferring succession rights to abstraction licences where a person becomes the occupier of part of the relevant land) for the
1108
words "cases to which section 49 above applies" there shall be substituted the words "cases in which the holder of a licence under this Chapter to abstract water ("the prior holder") is the occupier of the whole or part of the land specified in the licence as the land on which water abstracted in pursuance of the licence is to be used ("the relevant land")".
(2) That section shall have effect, and be taken always to have had effect, as if it had originally been enacted with the amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) above.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I shall address Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 together. At Committee stage my noble friends Lord Mills and Lord Crickhowell suggested that we should use this opportunity to deal with a certain point about the management of water resources where the need for legislation was admitted but no suitable vehicle had been found. I agreed to consider the suggestions.
Amendment No. 45 deals with the first of these on succession to water abstraction licences. I should draw the House's attention to the fact that it would be retrospective. That is because the wording of the Water Resources Act 1991, which was a consolidation Act, is accepted not to have reproduced the exact effect of the previous legislation. There was an inadvertent change. This amendment therefore ensures that the law will always have been what was intended.
Amendment No. 46 deals with the second suggestion that there should be a power to make drought orders to deal with problems for the aquatic environment and not just problems of water supply. The Government agree that those are desirable changes. The amendments provide the appropriate wording, which is close, but not identical, to that suggested by my noble friends.
We equally accept that there should be an amendment to deal with their third suggestion, which is to give the environment agency wider powers in the management of droughts rather than always requiring the involvement of the Secretary of State. I regret that there has not been the time to produce such provisions for your Lordships' consideration at this stage, but my honourable friends will ensure that an appropriately worded amendment is introduced in another place. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Mills regret that they are unable to be present this evening. I know that they would wish to thank my noble friend the Minister for his further consideration of the suggestions that they made at an earlier stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 234, line 38, at end insert:
(" .—(1) Section 73 of that Act (power to make ordinary and emergency drought orders) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1) (power to make ordinary drought orders) for the words from the beginning to "then" there shall be substituted the words—
"(1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that, by reason of an exceptional shortage of rain, there exists or is threatened—

(a) a serious deficiency of supplies of water in any area, or

1109

(b) such a deficiency in the flow or level of water in any inland waters as to pose a serious threat to any of the flora or fauna which are dependent on those waters, then,".

(3) In subsection (3) (power to make drought order not to be exercisable except where an application is made by the National Rivers Authority or a water undertaker)—

(a) for the words "except where" there shall be substituted the word "unless"; and

(b) at the beginning of paragraph (b) (water undertakers) there shall be inserted the words "except in the case of an ordinary drought order under subsection (1) (b) above,".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 20 [Repeals and revocations]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 265, line 13, column 3, leave out from ("section") to ("the") in line 16 and insert ("11A(6) (b),").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 33. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
9.10 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
On Second Reading, there was a broad general welcome for the Bill from many noble Lords. I was grateful for that because I believe that this is an important piece of legislation, and a most important subject. Throughout the progress of the Bill through your Lordships' House, there has also been general agreement with the principles brought forward in the Bill, although there have been a number of areas where the specific approaches that we have sought have differed.
I should very much like to thank all noble Lords on all sides of the House for the interest that has been shown in the important topics that have been covered by the Bill, for the time that noble Lords have taken in considering those issues, including the late nights that some of us have spent here in the Chamber; and for the contributions that have been made towards the development, and often the real improvement, of the Bill as a whole.
I believe that the progress of the Bill through your Lordships' House has been productive. We have debated many issues and I hope that the Government have been able to meet many of the concerns which noble Lords have raised. We have attempted to respond in various ways to the questions which your Lordships have brought forward.
The Government have responded to a number of issues that have been raised about the environment agency and Scottish environment protection agency. The establishment of the agencies is a vital part of the Bill and should provide the way ahead for a more integrated approach to environmental protection across all the environmental media. We have provided a strategic purpose for the environment agency under Clause 4 of the Bill. We have considered the points raised by your
1110
Lordships about statutory consultation on, and publication of, the guidance under Clauses 4 and 29. We have brought forward an amendment today in response to the strength of feeling that guidance under those clauses should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
We have accepted amendments to Clause 7 to include a socio-economic provision in respect of rural areas, and have amended Clause 30 along similar lines in respect of Scotland. I hope that I have been able to reassure your Lordships that the conservation duties that we are giving the agencies will prove to be strong and effective. We have responded to concerns raised from all sides of the House that the costs which the agencies must assess under Clause 37 include environmental costs by setting that on the face of the Bill. I believe that the provisions that we shall pass on to another place will establish strong and effective bodies which will be able to build on the strengths of their predecessors and provide for integrated and efficient protection and management of the environment.
In the light of comments made by a number of noble Lords, the Government brought forward major amendments at Report stage to the definition of contaminated land, to restrict its scope. It will now apply only in cases of significant harm, or of pollution of controlled waters. This brings the definition clearly into line with the Government's overall "suitable for use" approach.
There is a major role for guidance from the Secretary of State in the determination of whether harm is, in any instance, to be regarded as significant. The Bill now provides both for consultation on that guidance, and, more specifically, for parliamentary scrutiny through the negative resolution procedure before it is issued. We have today also resolved the question of liabilities falling upon the innocent victims of fly-tipping. There is still some work to be done, and I have undertaken to consider a number of other issues in respect of contaminated land, and, where appropriate, the Government will bring forward amendments in another place.
We have also taken account of issues raised by your Lordships on Part III of the Bill relating to national parks. We brought forward an amendment today in response to concerns that proper attention should be given to the interests of local people, which strengthens the duty on national park authorities under Clause 59 with respect to the economic and social well-being of park communities.
The Bill also now requires national park authorities to make arrangements for informing and consulting parish or community councils about the discharge of their functions, and local authorities will have a statutory duty to have regard to the desirability of appointing to the new authorities people who represent wards in the parks. We have also included English Nature as a statutory consultee on national park management plans, and made explicit that the conservation of natural beauty includes flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features.
I appreciate the considerable interest which your Lordships have in our national parks, which has been expressed clearly in our debates on this important

1111
subject. I am grateful to the significant number of noble Lords who have spoken in those debates in reflection of that interest.
The Government have also responded to concerns about the broad nature of the power to introduce a statutory scheme to protect important hedgerows. I have brought forward amendments which give statutory force to our intention to consult widely on the detailed arrangements for hedgerow protection and make the regulations themselves subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Together, those measures will ensure that all interests are consulted properly and that future regulations are debated fully before they are implemented.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that the Environment Bill, as amended in your Lordships' House, will make a strong contribution to the improvement of environmental protection. The environment is, as I have said, a most important subject and one which, by its very nature, affects all of us and all sectors of society. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
9.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, on Second Reading I said that, while I welcomed the Bill, I thought that it was something of a curate's egg: it was good in parts and not so good in parts. I said also that it was not in our view an overall Environment Bill that was right for the 21st century. It had certain limited aims and did not encompass what we hoped it would. On the other hand, I gave it a welcome in so far as it went, and I reiterate that welcome this evening.
Your Lordships, I am sure, will be aware that the Bill has been discussed fully, and, as the Minister has just pointed out, we have sat late into the night. Many noble Lords have participated in our debates. There have indeed, as the Minister pointed out, been some improvements. We are glad that the Government have conceded the idea of a strategic aim. We should have liked to have seen it in Clause 1, or before Clause 1, but it is in Clause 4, and sometimes one cannot have more than half a loaf, and we welcome that half a loaf.
We welcome the Government's concessions in Clause 7 on guidance and how that should be treated, because that was a worry at the beginning of the Bill. We are content—perhaps a little bit more than content—with the whittling down of the cost benefit analysis in Clause 37 by including environmental costs as a cost, although I am bound to say that I would find it extremely difficult, as someone who has engaged in many cost benefit analyses, to try to put figures on environmental benefits and environmental costs. I wonder what all that will mean in practice.
Specifically on national parks, we are glad to recognise that the Government have moved a certain way towards satisfying your Lordships on a number of matters. In particular, we are happy that the House has endorsed our view that the national parks should follow the recommendations of the Edwards Report by including "quiet enjoyment" in their purposes, and I
1112
hope very much that when the Bill goes to another place, despite any difficulties there may be about the interpretation of "quiet enjoyment", that will not be lost. In addition, we discussed the local authority role, which is important. We are pleased that the Government brought forward what we consider to be more or less the right balance in respect of hedgerows. However, we would have liked to have seen the inclusion of the conservation of areas other than hedgerows.
We must confess, however, that certain problems remain. As was said earlier today, Clause 54, which deals with contaminated land, is still a bit of a mess. I suspect that in another place there will be urgent and continuing debate on Clause 54. I also suspect that at the end of the day the only solution to contaminated land will be to compile a national register. That is a matter with which another place must deal.
As regards minewater pollution, we were sad that we lost today's Division on an important issue. On the other hand, the issues that we have debated are fully in the Government's consciousness. None of the problems is easy and sooner or later we must clear up the mess that previous generations have left not only in coal mines but in metal mines.
I am depressed that your Lordships have not allowed Wales to have its proper consultation on subordinate legislation from the Secretary of State to the Countryside Council for Wales, but no doubt that matter will be brought to the Government's attention in another place and perhaps with more acerbity than in your Lordships' House.
Other matters remain to be decided in another place. There is the issue of air quality on which we shall bring forward amendments. There is also the issue of rights of way in national parks, about which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has spoken tonight. Those and other matters must be resolved by the Government in another place. I can speak for my right honourable and honourable friends in another place in saying that they, as we have, will provide a constructive if sometimes fairly aggressive opposition. That is what the Government need in order to get the Bill into as good a shape as possible as it goes through both Houses, given the complications of its diverse nature.
I wish to place two major procedural problems on the record. The first relates to timetabling. As the noble Viscount pointed out, and as I have mentioned, we have sat late into the night on a number of occasions. In your Lordships' House it is normal that the timetabling of Bills—that is, how many days there should be in Committee and on Report—is agreed through the usual channels. In more Bills than I can remember—and I have taken a number of Bills through this House for the Opposition—it has been possible to say that four or five days might be right. I am bound to say that for the first time I have been unable through the usual channels to give any guarantee on the date of delivery either in Committee or on Report. The reason is that amendments have been tabled from all sides of the House.
The Bill has been diffuse and therefore we have had several debates on different issues. Different Members of your Lordships' House have attended on different occasions to put forward different points of view. The

1113
Opposition, including the opposition party on my right—and I shall not repeat this—have from time to time, because of the need to accommodate the timetable that they put forward to the usual channels, felt somewhat constrained in speaking to some of the amendments that we wished to move. As your Lordships will be aware, on some occasions we have not moved amendments which we should have liked to debate because time was taken up by noble Lords in other parts of the House.
As regards the sittings of the House, it was agreed by your Lordships that the House should rise at 10 o'clock and that we should conduct our affairs in a manner which allows that. But I am afraid that on this Bill, that has gone by the board and that is a lesson which the authorities in the House should consider.
The second procedural problem which I believe that we must consider is the question of groupings. On many occasions during the passage of the Bill, groupings appeared to have been agreed but had not been agreed. Again, that is partly because it is such a diffuse Bill and with many noble Lords coming in as they do at perhaps lunchtime, 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the afternoon, it has not been possible to agree something which is usually agreed through the usual channels. We cannot blame those noble Lords for that but the job of the Minister and the spokesmen for the Opposition has been made extremely difficult when the groupings are suddenly broken and we are not quite sure where we are. Again, on all sides of the House we must consider the question of groupings in relation to a complicated Bill such as this.
My last task is to thank the noble Viscount, which I do very sincerely, for the courtesy with which he has dealt with all the matters on the Bill. In particular, I thank him for the courtesy which he has extended to the Opposition and I thank him also for the expertise which he has brought to bear on the matters we have debated. I thank also the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. I understand that it was his first job on the government Front Bench. He has been assiduous, in particular in relation to Scottish affairs. Also, from time to time, we have had the benefit of the interventions of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, not, alas, this evening, to my pleasure, but he has done so always with his usual elegance and courtesy.
I wish to give my deepest thanks to my noble friend Lady Hilton who has helped me enormously and has provided the House with an excellent example of how the Opposition can field a number of good calibre spokesmen. I know that she will wish to intervene in the debate but I wish to express my personal thanks to her. I thank also my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. He has borne the heat and burden of the Scottish day, if I can put it like that.
To sum up, we wish the Bill well. We hope that it will be further improved in another place. We believe that your Lordships have improved it but it needs to be better. I am sure that it will be improved in another place and I look forward to further discussions on the Bill when the amendments come from the other place. In the
1114
meantime, as I say, I am happy to support the Motion that the Bill do now pass because, in general, we think it is a good Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in thanking the Minister for his courtesy and patience throughout our discussions on the Bill. In Committee I felt that the Government's ear was not quite as open as they professed it to be, and that turned out not to be so. The Government have brought forward many welcome amendments, although—and it is inevitable—they have not always gone as far as we would have liked or perhaps not in quite the right direction.
It has been a pleasure finding points of contact around the House from all corners, and sometimes a little unexpectedly. I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. I believe that the noble Earl and the Minister have maintained their good humour later into the night than any of us had any right to expect.
I share some of the disappointments that have been mentioned. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I welcomed the Bill initially, but having thought about it further during its course, I have become increasingly disappointed in relation to the limitation of its functions, even though that has been improved over the course of the past few weeks.
I shall not at this hour rehearse again all the topics for fear of taking us on to another late night, but I wish to mention in particular my welcome for the Government's acceptance of the need to include within the Bill the matter of air quality. I look forward when the Bill returns here from another place to seeing how that has been dealt with. I also wish to thank very particularly those from outside the House who have helped us to improve the Bill. I hope that we have managed to do justice to the expert and energetic briefings that we have received from so very many agencies and organisations.
Finally, I should like to share with your Lordships both my welcome for the Bill and my sense of irony that in welcoming it what we in this House are doing is creating yet another set of quangos.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I was surprised to hear the noble Baroness say that she regretted the limitations of the new environment agency because, quite frankly, I think that it will have more and wider powers than any other public body within my long recollection. We all welcome the Bill and it is splendid that we do. It is a most complicated, long, far reaching and at times controversial Bill. My noble friend Lord Ullswater has handled it with consummate skill and has shown not only the courtesy and patience to which the noble Baroness referred but has above all been open minded about it. On some very controversial points the Government have tabled acceptable amendments. My noble friend Lord Lindsay showed great skill on his first venture of this kind.
It occurred to me only today, strangely enough, the difference in phraseology. For England and Wales we are to have an environment agency but for Scotland we

1115
are to have an environment protection agency, as though the Scots are so rapacious that their environment needs more protection than that in England and Wales. However, that is a point for further consideration.
It is a greatly improved Bill but, of course, Members of another place will consider it in the light of their own constituency interests and problems. We can expect to have some further amendments resulting from their initiative. We shall want to see it improved in the various ways which some of your Lordships have suggested. I alight on two points in particular. Speaking as one who years ago had responsibility for health and safety at 300 coal-mines and went down many of them, I remember so well how surprised I was to find not the contamination—one expected that—but that in nearly every mine one went to water that had to be pumped away—sometimes at not very deep levels. That water was going eventually to find its way to the surface and contaminate brooks and rivers. So we need to pay much more attention to Part II of the Bill dealing with contaminated land and abandoned mines. We really have to get it right.
On national parks, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, properly referred to the phrase "quiet enjoyment", which was carried by a majority in the House, in my respectful opinion wrongly. It is a matter which the Government will have to have attended to, no doubt on the advice of Law Officers, in another place. I think this is a very important Bill but we still have a lot to get right and I wish the Government well in all the efforts to do so.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I cannot let this occasion slip without mentioning Part III of the Bill. This represents a major step forward for national parks. I am delighted it provides for the creation of new national park authorities along the lines of my Private Member's Bill last Session. The Bill also updates national park purposes as recommended by the Edwards Report, and I welcome the inclusion of wildlife and cultural heritage among the qualities that are to be conserved. I also welcome the fact that the Bill makes it explicit that the type of enjoyment national parks should promote should he quiet.
Progress has also been made in making all public bodies more involved in national park purposes. My noble friend Lord Ullswater and the Government should he congratulated on including those provisions in this Bill. Finally, the debate on this Bill has demonstrated yet again that the well-being of national parks is of concern to all political parties. I should like to place on record my personal thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and those many other Peers on all sides of this House who have worked unstintingly to get the Edwards Report recommendations on to the face of the Bill.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, when we had the Second Reading in December of last year, your Lordships gave a warm general welcome to the Bill which had been some long time in coming. Undoubtedly the creation of the agency will prove to be of
1116
tremendous importance. Its task is enormous, and how it will complete it by 1996 when the board will become officially constituted I do not know.
I have been very critical over many issues during the passage of the Bill. The criticism has not been levelled at my noble friend the Minister or indeed my noble friend Lord Lindsay and other colleagues. It was more a criticism of that which was put before them to deliver to your Lordships. That the Government have made a number of concessions—and indeed there are a number of outstanding issues upon which the Government have made promises to be effected in another place—to me illustrates how ill thought out many parts of the Bill were, particularly Part I. Here my complaint remains the same. The agency advisory committee, as it currently is, does not, I believe, show strength of knowledge across all those areas that have to be dealt with. I refer to no one particular person, but to me there seems to be a weakness here, although the Government have said that this is a strategic working unit and the expertise will be found in the advisory committees yet to be appointed.
Part II of the Bill deals with contaminated land. From all sides of the House, and in comments representing a number of different views, criticism has been levelled and is still being levelled on this matter. To me that shows that there has been a lack of either knowledge of how some parts of the industry work or a reluctance to accept the practicalities that are contained in the Bill. There remains yet more work to be done. As regards parts of Part IV, again a number of amendments have been put down from various quarters in your Lordships' House demonstrating the concern that still remains as regards the ancillary and supplementary regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, drew attention to some procedural matters. I concur with many of his remarks. It has been almost impossible to draw some of our debates to a meaningful conclusion, whatever that conclusion should have been. Therefore, inevitably, more work will rest with another place. Your Lordships have always prided yourselves on sending Bills to another place in a more complete form than they arrive in this House, from wherever they come. In this instance I do not believe that we have been able to do our job as well as usual. That is regrettable.
Against that somewhat critical background there has been, as other noble Lords have said, the unfailing courtesy and patience of the Government Front Bench. With that in the back of my mind my more severe criticisms can be kept in check. I have been somewhat mollified by their attitude and helpfulness. When the Bill returns to this House in later months we shall have to see how far the Government have been able to address the real concerns that have been raised.
This is an important Bill. The fact that it will undoubtedly become law in the fullness of time is to be welcomed. I hope that in another place some final adjustments will be made to make the Bill even better.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, it has been a pleasure working on the Bill for many of the reasons already mentioned by your Lordships, including the courtesy of the Minister, the good cheer and helpfulness of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, outside the Chamber

1117
and the support of my noble friend Lord Williams. It is my pleasant task to pay tribute to those people outside this Chamber who have been of such great assistance during the passage of this extremely complex piece of legislation.
I should like to mention first Kay Jenkinson and Barbara Edwards of the Coalfields Communities Campaign, who waged an excellent public campaign which has brought to the attention of the nation the problems of the coalfields communities and of mine water pollution. I regret only that we have not managed to do more for them. Perhaps as they continue their campaign in another place they will be able to achieve a change in bringing forward the date on which the responsibility for mine water pollution will be more clearly allocated.
I should also like to pay a tribute to Karen Bate of the World Wildlife Fund, who suffered a close bereavement during the passage of the Bill but nevertheless managed to continue to provide me with excellent briefings, particularly on ponds. I continue to regret that I have failed to sway your Lordships to my enthusiasm for ponds and that they do not rate equally with hedgerows. However, I shall continue in the years ahead to fight the battle on their behalf.
We are particularly grateful for the many briefings and amendments we have received from Mary Wimbury on behalf of the AMA and ACC. Many of those amendments have found a place in the Bill in a transmuted form in government amendments, although perhaps not going as far as we would wish. However, many of those on consultation and open government have now found a place in the Bill. Without those many excellent briefings on many of the amendments that we have put from this side of the House we would not have coped with this extremely complex piece of legislation.
Finally, I should like to pay a tribute to our researcher, Robert McGeachy, who has managed to remain supportive and cheerful despite the many pressures that have been placed upon him over the past few weeks.
I have greatly enjoyed working on the Bill, despite the late hours we have had to work, and I am grateful to your Lordships.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, from these Benches it is not possible to speak on behalf of my noble friends who sit in this part of the House. However, there is one issue on which I feel that I can speak for all on these Benches, and that is to thank the Minister for the courteous and efficient way in which he dealt with inquiries and with the amendments that were tabled, always managing to maintain the highest standards of candour and politeness throughout, even late into the night. I must pay him great tribute for that. Perhaps I may pay tribute also to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. We are broadly of similar age. If I may say so, he has brought a youthful appeal to the Front Bench, which is much appreciated. However, by the same token perhaps I may express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord
1118
Williams, and his team. We have often not agreed wholeheartedly on matters in the Bill, but we have respected the reasons why we differ in our views.
I have often found myself speaking a slightly different language from that of the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Norrie. I hope that the respect for each other's position which has been established during those dialogues will be an enduring feature.
The Bill is an important watershed in legislation. It represents an enormous opportunity. Some difficulties will still have to be sorted out in another place. However, that factor underlines the complexity of the different facets within the Bill rather than denoting that there are intractable problems. I do not know whether the problems are intractable. Ultimately the proof of the pudding will be the manner in which the commercial world considers matters of residual liability, the interaction between BATNEEC and fit for use, and cost benefit. Those are all important factors.
I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he responded regarding the way in which hedgerows are to be dealt with, and the many other matters which I have raised including socio-economic factors in national parks. Like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I am not quite so happy on the question of quiet enjoyment. It is not that I fail to understand the intention; I understand it well. It is simply the sheer difficulty of defining the term in a manner which satisfies all legitimate interest.
I wish the Bill well in another place. No doubt it will return to this House with amendments to be considered. However, I wish the Bill well, I hope that it has a safe passage.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, perhaps I may join in the thanks for the courtesy and patience with which we have been heard. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for the improvements that we have managed to make for Scotland.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, first, I should like to respond to the very kind words which have been uttered around the House on the handling of the Bill both by my noble friend and myself. I do not believe that I could have managed the Bill so adequately (if adequately is the word) without the support of my noble friend. He has been cheerful and supportive throughout.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, indicated that he had had problems with the timetabling of the Bill, with which I agree. He indicated one or two of the concerns, which I shared, regarding the unbundling at Committee and Report stages of groupings of amendments. I find that quite difficult to cope with. However, noble Lords had difficult problems with which to deal. They wished them spoken to and therefore we had to respond in that way. My noble friends behind me moved many amendments which they wished me to accept. If I have not been able to respond to them with amendments, I hope that I have been able to reassure them and noble Lords opposite on some of the matters.
However, I much appreciate the constructive approach of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hilton of Eggardon and Lady

1119
Hamwee, to the Bill. It has been an interesting experience for me and I have enjoyed dealing with it. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, indicated that there were areas of anxiety which we needed to address in another place. He mentioned that Clause 54 is still a bit of a mess. As noble Lords will know, there will be certain government amendments to try to sort out the difficulties which the noble Lord has in mind and I hope that we shall improve the Bill in another place before it returns here.
I should like to mention two areas before I conclude. One is air quality. As I indicated to the House in Committee on 9th February, our proposed amendments on air quality will provide for the Government to establish a national strategy for maintaining and improving air quality. That strategy will include clear standards and targets for the important pollutants. The amendments will also establish a new system for managing air quality at the local level under which local authorities will have a duty to assess regularly the air quality in their area. Where it is found to be poor, they will have a further duty to take the necessary remedial action to ensure that standards and targets are met. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were interested in that.
Finally, I should not let the occasion pass without indicating that at a previous stage we extensively debated the issue of old mineral permissions. The minerals industry is of considerable importance to the economy and is to be commended on the steps which it has taken to improve environmental standards. However, not everyone in the industry works to the
1120
same high standards. My noble friend Lord Addison raised the issue at Report stage. I then undertook that the Government would bring forward amendments in another place to resolve the problems created by old mineral permissions, which typically have few, if any, modern working and restoration conditions attached to them. Therefore, we shall work on the amendments in another place.
I concede that there is some work still to do and that it will have to be done in another place. The Government have undertaken to bring forward measures as necessary on air quality, as I mentioned, on contaminated land, mineral permissions and also on fisheries, both to implement government policy and to meet further concerns that have been impressed upon me in this House.
Overall, I believe that the measures now included in the Bill, subject to our commitments to bring forward further amendments, provide an excellent approach to environmental protection across the whole range of government policy—an approach which will provide strong measures for the protection and management of the environment. The Bill and the interest in it, as well as the valuable contributions which it has attracted in the House, reflect the importance of environmental protection and the longer term outlook which sustainable development demands. It should enable environmental protection in the UK to continue to improve as we approach the new millennium. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at seven minutes before ten o'clock.

  Yemen: Bilateral Aid
  Yemen: Bilateral Aid
  Overseas Missions: Cost Controls
  Overseas Missions: Cost Controls
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Right of Individual Petition
  Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Right of Individual Petition
  The European Movement: Grant
  The European Movement: Grant
  EU/Turkey Agreement: Mr. Karayalcin's Remarks
  EU/Turkey Agreement: Mr. Karayalcin's Remarks
  Gulf War: Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons
  Gulf War: Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  IVF Treatment: Reports on Children
  IVF Treatment: Reports on Children
  Habitual Residence Test
  Habitual Residence Test
  Charity Commissioners
  Charity Commissioners
  Wandsworth Prison: Report of Chief Inspector of Prisons
  Wandsworth Prison: Report of Chief Inspector of Prisons
  Videos: Classification Certificate Refusals
  Videos: Classification Certificate Refusals
  Extradition
  Extradition
  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: Expert Advisers
  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: Expert Advisers
  Dangerous Dogs: Police Powers
  Dangerous Dogs: Police Powers
  Commission for Racial Equality: Quinquennial Review
  Commission for Racial Equality: Quinquennial Review
  Ministerial Committee on Women's Issues
  Ministerial Committee on Women's Issues
  Air Pollution Control: Enforcement Costs
  Air Pollution Control: Enforcement Costs