Sitting of 27 March 1995

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

    National Opera Studio
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education regarding the funding of those students accepted for training at the National Opera Studio. [14177]
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I have had no such discussions.
    Mr. Gunnell: Is it not time that the Secretary of State got together with his right hon. Friend to discuss education funding for opera, dance and a number of other art forms? Does not he recognise that the high reputation that has been built up by the National Opera Studio is based upon the performance of those who have passed through it? It takes just 12 students a year, and many of those graduates are earning big reputations for Britain as well as considerable sums of money abroad. Surely those 12 selected students should be funded. Can the right hon. Gentleman provide the means to ensure that those 12 top students in that art form get the education and training that they deserve?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to pay tribute to the work of the National Opera Studio, which is an important, unique resource. That is why 40 per cent. of its bills are met by the Arts Council. As I have said, I have not met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to talk specifically about the funding of students from the National Opera Studio, but we are working closely to deal with the wider issue of funding for dance and drama students.

    Public Libraries
    Mr. Hoon: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the Library Association to discuss the funding of public libraries. [14178]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): My right hon. Friend met members of the Library Association on 3 October last year. Discussions were wide ranging, around an agenda of topics provided by the Library Association. I met members of the association on 10 October, at the launch of London Libraries Week.
    Mr. Hoon: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does the Minister happen to know when the Secretary of State last
    676
    borrowed a book from a public library and its title? Is he not ashamed that the Government's policy has resulted in a £350,000 cut in this year's grants to libraries in Nottinghamshire?
    Mr. Sproat: I do not know when my right hon. Friend last borrowed a book, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I borrowed a book last Friday entitled "Nelson", by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
    Local authorities have been subject to a tight settlement, but the hon. Gentleman should remember that in the past 10 years the amount of money spent on public libraries has gone up by 9.3 per cent. Today, we have more libraries, more books borrowed and more books in our libraries than we had five years ago.
    Mr. Fisher: The Minister is too complacent about this. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) has already drawn his attention to the problems in Nottinghamshire, but library authorities all over the country are cutting their budgets as a direct result of the Government's policies. Has he not been told that Somerset, for the second time in recent years, is not buying any adult fiction this year? Does he not understand the cultural damage that that is doing to literacy, reading and education and the economic damage that it is doing to the publishing industry, the book selling industry and companies that exist in every hon. Member's constituency that rely on information from the public library service?
    When will the Minister understand that his Secretary of State has a statutory responsibility under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to provide a comprehensive public library service? He is failing to meet that responsibility in Somerset and many other library authorities around the country.
    Mr. Sproat: I am acutely aware that it has been a tight settlement for local authorities. I am also aware that under the 1964 Act all library authorities have a duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient service.
    The hon. Gentleman referred particularly to Somerset. My chief library adviser plans to go down there later this week or next week to see why it is proposing to make a cut in its allocation to its library service.
    Mr. Waterson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in my area of East Sussex, the Lib-Lab pact that currently runs the county council has deemed it appropriate to spend money on buying so-called gay and lesbian literature to place in our public libraries?
    Mr. Sproat: I did not know that item of information, but I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will send me further details on the subject.

    Holiday Statistics
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of holidays by British people are taken (a) in Britain and (b) abroad; and what were the figures for 1970. [14179]
    Mr. Dorrell: In 1994, 54 per cent. of holidays of four nights or more by British people were taken in Britain and 46 per cent. abroad. In 1970, 86 per cent. of such holidays were taken in Britain and 14 per cent. abroad.
    Mr. Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Department's report on tourism, "Competing with the

    677
    Best", has been warmly welcomed throughout the industry and almost everywhere? Does he agree that that is evidence that the Department of National Heritage takes the tourism industry very seriously, and is now in a good position to ensure that English and British tourism are made attractive to British people so as to persuade them to take more of their long and short-term holidays in this country?
    Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of the tourist sector. It is only right that the DNH should accord substantial importance to the sector. It accounts for 5 per cent. of national income; it employs 1.5 million people in Britain. It is part of the answer to the question, "Where do the jobs of the future come from?" A 25 per cent. increase in employment in tourism in the past 10 years is reason enough for us to take real interest in the future success of that sector.
    Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the south-west provides the greatest stimulus to the increase in the encouraging figures that he gives? Will he therefore bear in mind the fact that some of us are fed up with the fact that Wales and Scotland receive very much larger amounts of money to spend on their tourist boards than we do in England? We would like him to rectify that.
    Mr. Dorrell: My right hon. Friend will know what I mean when I say that I am not responsible for the budgets of the Welsh and Scottish boards. I am responsible for the success of the industry in England and for the promotion overseas of the British industry as a whole. That is why we have increased the budget for promoting Britain as a tourist destination overseas, and it is why we attach real importance to improving the quality of the tourist product in England.
    I do not believe that public funding is the key to improving the English tourist product. It is a huge wealth-creating sector, and the key is to ensure that the structure within which it works allows it to continue to expand and, indeed, allows the rate of expansion to increase.

    School Sports Facilities
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about the progress which he has made with the Secretary of State for Education about the greater use of school sports facilities by the wider public. [14180]
    Mr. Sproat: The community use of school sports facilities will be a key element in the sports White Paper, which my right hon. Friend announced on 23 March 1995.
    Mr. Booth: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the cross-Government importance of sport and of the importance of using school sports facilities, not least in inner-city regeneration, in health and in law and order policy. Will he assure the House that cross-party or cross-Government talks are going on between those relevant Departments, including the Department for Education, which he has just mentioned, and will he come to the House with a policy that assures us that there will
    678
    be a presumption—indeed, that there will always be permission for schools to use their facilities for the benefit of the local community?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes. My hon. Friend makes an extremely important argument. We do want more school facilities to be used by the local community. I hope that, if plans are submitted seeking national lottery funding that include a large community as well as schools element, they will have a good chance of being accepted.
    As far as other Departments are concerned, I am currently having talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education on that very subject, to discover whether we cannot reach a happier solution than has sometimes obtained in recent years.
    Mr. Barnes: Ten per cent. of the people referred to in the original question are disabled and many disabled people wish to make considerable use of sports facilities. Is anything being done in connection with the Department for Education to ensure that they are able to do that? Is it not unfortunate that the Disability Discrimination Bill excludes most educational institutions from its provisions?
    Mr. Sproat: The provision of sports facilities for persons with disabilities is extremely important. When the Sports Council awards grants to governing bodies for sporting provision, it takes directly into account the question of provision for persons with disabilities.
    Dr. Spink: I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the great sporting tradition of Canvey island, and particularly that of Furtherwick Park school. Will he consider very carefully with his colleagues in Education any developments regarding the CTC sporting initiative?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I certainly will. My hon. Friend has, with his usual persistence, brought that important matter to my attention privately and I will certainly do everything that I can to help him.

    Public Libraries
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the provision of public libraries. [14182]
    Mr. Sproat: Responsibility for providing public library services rests with local library authorities. My Department's task is to monitor developments and to ensure the provision of a comprehensive and efficient service.
    Mr. Janner: In monitoring developments and particularly in imposing what the Minister referred to as a "tight settlement", does he appreciate that libraries all over the country have had to cut their facilities? In Leicestershire, for the sake of £50,000, the Information in Business partnership between De Montfort university and Leicestershire county council has been ended. Will the Minister re-examine the situation and see whether he can suggest some way of restoring that previously invaluable service to business and to employers in Leicestershire?
    Mr. Sproat: As the hon. Gentleman will know, such management details are matters for the local authority.

    679
    However, if he will send me the details of the incident to which he refers I will gladly pass them to the proper authorities.
    Mr. Garnier: Is my hon. Friend aware of the disquiet in the whole county of Leicestershire about the consequences for public library services of any reorganisation of local government? Will he ensure—I am sure that my right hon. Friend will—that no matter what happens to local government services in Leicestershire, there is always a good, across-the-county provision of public library services?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, is the short answer. My Department has established an expert working group to ensure that the results of the Local Government Commission's inquiry and the Government's decisions about the commission's report on unitary authorities are carried out in such a way as to ensure an improvement in library services.
    Mr. Corbyn: In monitoring the performance of library authorities around the country, what information can the Minister give to the House about libraries which have been saved from closure by local campaigns to defend them but which, as a consequence, are seldom open, usually understaffed and unable to purchase any new books? Does he not think it a disgrace that in Britain in 1995 library opening hours are declining constantly, the number of new books purchased is declining and the number of children able to use those libraries is also declining?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman is not accurate in some of the things that he has said. It is certainly true that, in certain areas, the number of hours that libraries are open has been cut. That is often due to demographic changes. It is up to the local authorities and to the libraries themselves to work out which libraries should be open at what hours.
    Notwithstanding the fact that some library opening hours have been cut, there are now more libraries than there were 10 years ago. More books are being borrowed from those libraries, with the average person borrowing about nine and a half books per year.

    Pools Promoters
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from pools promoters regarding equality of treatment with the national lottery. [14183]
    Mr. Dorrell: I have received a number of representations from pools promoters about the national lottery.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that the pools promoters are now in very serious difficulties—indeed, they face a crisis—because of the phenomenal success of the national lottery which is taking away their natural custom? As a result, hundreds of people have lost their jobs and, more importantly, many of the charities which benefited from the pools are being deprived of their incomes. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to equalise the situation
    680
    and create a level playing field over and above the steps that he has taken already in terms of advertising and opening further retail outlets?
    Mr. Dorrell: I certainly acknowledge that the introduction of the national lottery has had an effect on pools companies' operations. Before we introduce more changes to the regime applying to such companies, it is important to see the effect of those already agreed—particularly the change that allows pools companies access to television advertising, which was announced by the Government in the last six weeks. We want to see the effect of that work through before we decide what happens next.
    Mr. Orme: Many people want to know what effect the introduction of scratch cards is having, not only on football pools but on small lotteries—many of which will face extinction unless something is done. Will the Secretary of State present a review of that situation in the not-too-distant future?
    Mr. Dorrell: I have repeatedly given assurances that we will monitor the effect of the national lottery on a range of institutions that feel that their operations may be affected. However, the House must also keep an eye on the national lottery's achievements. It has already mobilised about £300 million for good causes since it started last November, which is a huge increase in the resources available. While the national lottery has had an effect on others operating close to it, we should not lose sight of its achievements in mobilising resources not previously available to good causes.

    Competitive Sports
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to produce proposals to encourage the development of competitive sports amongst young people. [14184]
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his support for the development of competitive sports by young people. [14186]
    Mr. Sproat: The development of competitive sports among young people will be a key element in the sports White Paper that my right hon. Friend announced on 23 March. The White Paper will be published in the early summer.
    Mr. Marshall: Did my hon. Friend read the editorial in today's Daily Telegraph? Does he agree that there is a risk of producing a generation of overweight kids due to over-indulgent diet and inadequate exercise? What does my hon. Friend mean by "in the early summer"? Will that coincide with the start of the cricket season or of the shooting season?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I did read the Daily Telegraph leader, which I thought was overwhelming correct. I hope that the White Paper will direct itself to positive solutions, to put right the problems that my hon. Friend mentioned. The White Paper will certainly be published before England beat the West Indies in a test match.
    Mr. Arnold: Is my hon. Friend aware of the Gravesham cup competition, which is organised by teachers of grant-maintained and county schools in my

    681
    constituency? It involves leagues of various age groups in football, rugby, cricket, hockey, basketball and tennis. Does my hon. Friend agree with the headmaster of Northfleet school in my constituency, who states:
    "Competition is good—it drives up standards and fosters links between schools"?
    Is it not the case that if there were more such competition, Army recruiters would not have expressed the opinion that our young people are unfit?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I was interested to hear about the schools in his constituency and would be glad to receive more details. I hope that the spur of competition within schools and between schools, and traditional competitive team games, will follow the White Paper.
    Ms Hoey: Can the Minister give an assurance that the White Paper will not take as long to appear as that on the Sports Council, which took two years? Schools cannot be persuaded to compete among themselves unless local authorities have the resources to fund travel by pupils. Will that aspect be covered by the White Paper?
    Mr. Sproat: On the hon. Lady's first point, I hope that the White Paper will be out in a matter of months, which will be rather quicker than the paper to which she referred. Her point about travel was a good one. School teams often want to travel to play other schools but cannot, because they cannot get the transport to do so. I hope that the White Paper will direct itself to that issue.
    Mr. Pendry: Does the Minister recognise that there is no popular support for concentrating solely on competitive games in our schools? About three quarters of those who responded to the recent consultation on the national curriculum were opposed to compelling our 14 to 16-year-olds to play competitive sport. Is that just one more example of the Government not listening to those at the sharp end?
    While we are on the subject of listening, what did the Minister make of last week's finding by the Secondary Heads Association that these same 14 to 16-year-olds are playing sport of all kinds for only about 60 minutes a week, when, only six months ago, the Prime Minister backed Labour's claim for a minimum two hours a week?
    Mr. Sproat: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I did not say—I certainly would not say—that schools should play only traditional team sports. But it is in those sports that the decline has been greatest. We must therefore ensure that they are played as well as individual sports. We want a proper mix.
    I too read the Secondary Heads Association's paper and found it extremely interesting. It made some forceful points—in particular, the central point that physical education in schools has declined by 35 per cent. in the past four years. All of us find that worrying. It is exactly that sort of problem that we want to help to remedy by means of the White Paper.
    Mr. Tracey: In his deliberations, will my hon. Friend recognise that young people, especially teenagers, want to play individual sports far more than they want to play team games? The Minister may personally regret that but
    682
    it is a fact. Is he aware of a pilot study going on in four London secondary schools, led by Mr. Mark Barker and others, which deals precisely with that point?
    Mr. Sproat: Of course pupils at schools must have the opportunity to play individual, as well as traditional team sports. But because there has been too much decline in traditional team sports in recent years, I must emphasise the great advantages that pupils can derive from them. We are talking not just about generating champions but about lessons of discipline, commitment, courage, winning modestly, and losing gracefully. All those are well learned from traditional team sports, which is why we want to revive them beside individual sports.

    Television
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has for encouraging the production of television programmes in the United Kingdom. [14185]
    Mr. Dorrell: There are provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1990, and there will be provisions in the new BBC agreement, which encourage programme making in the UK, both nationally and in the regions.
    Mr. Mitchell: The Minister will recognise that the production of high-quality programmes has always been one of the main strengths of British television, but that it was undermined by the Broadcasting Act 1990. Why does he not now seek to revive it by giving television production some of the tax concessions that the film industry needs; and use the opportunity of the relaxation of the rules on cross-media ownership to require those who want to take transmission facilities to produce programmes and invest in production too? That would ensure that the Gadarene, greedy rush—of whatever creatures want to get into television—makes a commitment and contribution to programme production as well.
    Mr. Dorrell: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's description of the effect of the Broadcasting Act 1990. It was that Act which introduced the 25 per cent. independent production quota, which has been the chief cause of the flowering of the independent production sector in Britain.
    The hon. Gentleman asked whether we have contemplated introducing tax concessions for programme makers. Given the quality of British television compared with that available through most foreign broadcasting sectors, there is precious little evidence that further tax concessions are necessary. British television, as the hon. Gentleman says, is good.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend positively discourage the increase in programming that seems to be of the factional variety, in which fiction and fact get confused—with special reference to current affairs broadcasting? Will he initiate an inquiry into that issue? The first witness that he might like to call to give evidence might be the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
    Mr. Dorrell: Responsibility for the terms of individual programmes rests with the broadcasters. The distinction between fact and fiction, in which my hon. Friend is interested, is one that any broadcaster must be concerned

    683
    about. Legislation places obligations and requirements on broadcasters clearly to demarcate the difference between opinion and fact.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Is not a crucial part of producing television programmes in the United Kingdom making sure that we have an independent-minded BBC? Does not the Minister agree that tough, vigorous and probing questioning of us politicians by BBC journalists is an essential part of the democratic process? Will he tell his right hon. Friends the Chief Secretary and the Secretary of State for the Environment that the BBC is doing its proper questioning job, must continue doing it and must not be allowed to cave in to spurious Tory pressure?
    Mr. Dorrell: That is a bit rich, coming from the Opposition. We have heard complaints over 15 years from the Labour party about broadcasters and the media being allegedly biased against it. As practising politicians, we have all had experience of questioners or journalists going beyond, we thought, the bounds of the task that they had been given. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is right to say that it is important that when people transgress they learn by their mistakes and seek better in future to deliver the obligation that is imposed upon them by legislation.

    Departmental Report
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the working of his Department. [14187]
    Mr. Dorrell: My Department published its annual report on 9 March; it includes an overview of its performance and plans, its expenditure details and information on the management of the Department. A copy is available in the Library.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the national lottery has been a great success, and because of that a number of good causes will benefit? Does he see some red faces on the Opposition Benches among those who opposed the lottery?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the achievements of the national lottery. It is certainly one of the great achievements of the early years of the Department of National Heritage, although the principal responsibility for having made it possible rests with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rather than the new Department. It would be nice to think that there were Opposition Members with red faces at their failure to endorse enthusiastically my right hon. Friend's initiative, which has provided £300 million for good causes since November. That is a new source of money for sport, the arts and the heritage, which no other means of mobilisation could possibly have provided. The hon. Gentleman supported it, but not all his hon. Friends gave their support.
    Mr. Maclennan: To correct the balance with reference to the Secretary of State's answer to the question about the BBC, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that he has a prime responsibility to ensure freedom of expression as guaranteed by the European convention on human rights? Although individual Ministers and
    684
    Members may become irritated from time to time, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that responsibility is one to which he must attach the highest importance?
    Mr. Dorrell: Is it really the hon. Gentleman's case that all human kind is fallible except BBC interviewers? Surely we should all aspire to high standards of independence and recognise that occasionally we do not meet them. The important thing is to learn by our mistakes.
    Mr. Jessel: Far from correcting any balances, does my right hon. Friend recognise that the arts in Britain have a high standard of excellence? Britain is one of the arts capitals of the world. We have tremendous talent in the theatre, music and all the other arts as well as in our splendid national heritage. My right hon. Friend's Department is doing an extremely fine job and we should continue to build on that.
    Mr. Dorrell: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. He is entirely right to draw attention to the strength and vigour of our artistic tradition in Britain. He is right also to stress the importance of ensuring that that continues as part of a healthy and vigorous society. It is fair to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) did, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's initiative in introducing the national lottery will, when the project is mature, provide over £300 million a year of new money to reinforce the strength of the arts sector to which my hon. Friend draws attention.
    Mr. Grocott: As we all know from reports in the weekend press, all Government Departments are thrashing around trying to find something popular to do in the next Session. In a bipartisan spirit, may I offer the Secretary of State my Television Sport (Public Access) Bill, which had overwhelming support in the Commons when it was presented as a ten-minute Bill a few weeks ago and which would ensure that major sporting events are available on the channels that most of us and all our constituents can see? I suggest that he should adopt it in time for the autumn, when yet another sporting event—the Ryder cup—will be lost to the major television channels. It must be bipartisan for me to want to suggest something helpful to the Government, but I suggest that the Minister should adopt that Bill. It is tremendously popular. Will he break the Government's habit of a lifetime and do something that is popular?
    Mr. Dorrell: Even in the days of the European Union, I am cautious of Greeks bearing gifts. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's approach, because I do not believe that it is in the interests of sport or heritage to reduce the value of the broadcasting contracts on offer. The difficult question that the hon. Gentleman fails to answer is how he would explain to the representatives of English cricket that his policy would leave them many millions of pounds poorer because they would be unable to enter a multipartite discussion for their contract rights. It is the open market which mobilises large extra sums of money into sport and, increasingly, into the heritage and the arts as well.
    Mr. Luff: What message will my right hon. Friend send to the group of business men whom I shall be entertaining at the Swan theatre in Worcester on Saturday

    685
    to encourage them to sponsor productions in that theatre and to tell them about the work that the Department does to encourage business sponsorship of the arts?
    Mr. Dorrell: I invite my hon. Friend to draw their attention to the fact that one of the growing budgets in my Department is for what we now call the pairing scheme, which offers public support to businesses which engage in sponsorship activity with arts organisations. I would also encourage him to point out to his business men that if they get involved in arts sponsorship they are following the precedent established by many other British businesses over the past 20 years, during which business sponsorship of the arts has grown from virtually nothing to about £70 million a year today. British businesses sponsor the arts because they recognise that associating their businesses with high quality arts products is in the interests of their business as well as of the arts organisation.

    Public Libraries
    Ms Church: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information he has on expenditure by public libraries on books. [14192]
    Mr. Sproat: For the past three years, with the help of the library and information statistics unit at Loughborough university, the Department has collected information from local authorities about their expenditure plans for each year. That specifically includes expenditure on books and other library materials. I also have access to the public library statistics produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.
    Ms Church: Perhaps the Minister will tell the House when he last went to a public library and borrowed a book. What advice can he give my constituents in Dagenham who are living on income support? Can he tell us what proportion of income support is designated for spending on books? My constituents do not have the money to purchase books, the stocks in school libraries are depleted, and the public libraries are becoming a disgrace.
    Mr. Sproat: The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question is 2 pm on Friday 24 March 1995. On the second part, as books from public libraries are free, one does not have to pay for them through income support or anything else.

    Television Licences
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the operation of the current rules governing eligibility for concessionary television licence schemes; and if he will make a statement. [14193]
    Mr. Dorrell: The Department receives many representations on the subject of the concessionary licence scheme. The Government's White Paper, "The Future of the BBC", published in July 1994, made it clear that we had no intention of undertaking a further review of the scheme. That remains the position.
    Mr. O'Brien: There could be no more disappointing response from the Minister than that. Is he aware that many of my constituents and old people throughout the country are in despair because the licence fee increases
    686
    each year and television is the only means of entertainment that many of them have. It is disappointing that the Government will not even contemplate reviewing the rules. The old people of this country have been let down tremendously by the Government. We have an opportunity for a Minister to do something to help the old people and he is refusing. That is shameful.
    Mr. Dorrell: The reason why I am refusing is that I do not think it a sensible use of public funds to regard television licences as a form of social security. I am in favour of resources to support old people being concentrated on those in real need. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to abolish television licences for pensioners, he must explain why he thinks that that would be a sensible use of £500 million of public money and whether he could not do more good by better concentrating that money on those in real need.

    Public Libraries
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the future of the public library service. [14194]
    Mr. Sproat: The Department is undertaking a comprehensive review of the whole of the public library service. I hope to make a further statement on the review shortly.
    Mr. Miller: Will the Minister state unequivocally that in no circumstances will he, as part of that review, countenance the privatisation of any public library or any service within public libraries?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman must wait for the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy will make in due course. However, I can tell him that the consultants that we used recommended against privatisation of the public library system. I should therefore be very surprised if that were to be recommended. Indeed, it would be contrary to the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.
    On the question of contracting out, which the Labour party sometimes regards as privatisation, KPMG Peat Marwick delivered its report on this important subject last Friday at 10 o'clock, and we shall look at it closely. Whatever is or is not contracted out, however, the 1964 Act—which requires all local authorities to maintain a comprehensive, effective and efficient service—will remain in force.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Cabinet Committees
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to allow people and organisations outside Government the opportunity to have access and input into the deliberative processes of those Cabinet Committees of which he is chairman. [14208]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. David Hunt): Input into the policy-making process is always welcome, but Cabinet Committees meet in private.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the terms of reference of the so-called banana skins

    687
    Cabinet Committee? Will people attending that Committee be subject to the constraints of the Privy Council oath? Will it be possible for the chairman of the Conservative party to deliver documents from Conservative central office to that Committee or report from that Committee to Conservative central office? Is there not some incompatibility in his membership of that Cabinet Committee, which is served by civil servants?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions which display his ignorance of these matters. It is a Committee of Ministers charged with co-ordinating and presenting the policy of the elected Government of the day and it is serviced by civil servants. Under any previous Administration, the hon. Gentleman and the House would not even have known of the existence of the Committee. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, its terms of reference are already in the public domain, as is its membership.
    The Cabinet Minister without Portfolio attends the Committee in his role as a Minister. Indeed, he is also a member of eight other Cabinet Committees. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the membership of the Committee is published and it operates under the normal rules affecting all Cabinet Committees.
    Mr. David Shaw: Despite the Government opening up a great deal of information about how Cabinet Committees meet and operate, is there not still a large amount of information available that the press does not always report? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he announced recently that Britain is spending a record amount on research and development—£13.8 billion last year—but that that information was not widely reported?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been responsible for a number of open Government initiatives under which more than 24,000 records have now been released. I confirm that, on 17 March, the Central Statistical Office released figures showing that the United Kingdom's gross domestic expenditure on research and development was £13.8 billion, which represented an increase in cash terms of 6 per cent. from the level in 1992. I hope that that will be as widely reported as the other matters to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Labour Members welcome the presence of the Conservative party chairman on that and, indeed, any other Cabinet Committee because it is in our interests that he should stay there. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster give us a clue about the responsibilities of the new Government presentation Committee? Is it responsible, for instance, for the threat that nurses could lose their pay review body unless they toe the Government line, or for the fact that ambulance staff have been awarded a pay increase of 28p per day at the same time as "Panorama" is disclosing that water bosses are sitting on £4 million of personal profit in addition to massive salary increases? The Committee may be responsible for the presentation of such acts, but there is no way in which it can make them palatable to the public.
    Mr. Hunt: At least the Government understand the importance of policy. First, we have the policy and then we concern ourselves with the presentation. The Labour party in opposition seem to believe that it can handle
    688
    things the other way round: it is over-concerned with presentation and leaves a policy vacuum at the heart of the party.

    National Science Week
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to visit schools during National Science Week. [14209]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. John Horam): My right hon. Friend visited nine events at which school children were present during National Science Week. I managed to outscore him by visiting 12. In all, more than 20 events involving school children were visited by my right hon. Friend and myself during science week.
    Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that, by their activities last week, he and my right hon. Friend have shown their wholehearted commitment to supporting science and education in schools, which are contributing so much to our economic success? Will my hon. Friend join me in promoting the top flight bursary scheme, which gives £500 extra per year to every top student who chooses to do engineering at university?
    Mr. Horam: I hope that we have shown our support for National Science Week. It was a fairly exhausting week, so I would be disappointed if we had not achieved something. My hon. Friend's point about the top flight scheme is well made. It is an excellent scheme, which means that school children can go to university and obtain a bursary funded partly by the Government and the Engineering Council. To promote the scheme, we sent out a leaflet last summer to all secondary schools, further education colleges and higher education courses. Perhaps we should consider what my hon. Friend has said and send out a further leaflet this summer to ensure that the message is really banged home.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister agree that the one thing that will encourage school children to welcome and embrace science is a degree of openness? Has not one of the problems been that they scientists have not been as open about their work as they could have been? Will the Minister comment on the report in The Observer yesterday that British scientists who have examined the nuclear power plant at Chernobyl have been prevented by the European Commission from making their findings known at a proposed London press conference? If there is a major problem there, British scientists who are part of the international team looking at the plant need to be as open as possible about the difficulties, so that this country, with its expertise, can offer all possible help to prevent a second catastrophic explosion.
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. As he knows, the European Union is financing work on the feasibility study for a shelter over Chernobyl. It would be a serious matter if there were problems in relation to that. I take what the hon. Gentleman says seriously. Obviously, all information on the matter should be made available.
    Mr. Batiste: Will my hon. Friend build on the success of National Science Week by campaigning to correct public misconceptions about science, and in particular about the importance and excellence of our national

    689
    science base and its significance for this country's future? That is evidenced by the large increase in funding for science and technology in 1992–93, showing the commitment of both Government and industry to achieving the fruits of science for the benefit of our people.
    Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend makes an important point, because the United Kingdom's great strength has been in the biological and life sciences. The general opinion, which I am sure is right, is that those are the important sciences for the 21st century. The fact that we are putting so much effort into those sciences, and that my right hon. Friend has slightly shifted the balance towards life sciences during the current review of research council spending, shows our intention to support them strongly.

    Contract Researchers
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he is taking to improve conditions for contract researchers funded from the science vote. [14210]
    Mr. David Hunt: The policies in the White Paper, "Realising Our Potential".
    Mr. O'Brien: Does the Chancellor agree that contract researchers have been undervalued for all too long? Will he give his full support to proposals by the research councils to give research contractors terms and conditions of employment equivalent to those of permanent staff?
    Mr. Hunt: A number of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman are matters for the research councils and the universities. I welcome the fact that the number of researchers has grown. The number of PhDs has also grown. We need to ensure that that continues if we are to invest wisely in our future.

    Research Councils
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will pay a visit to the research councils in Swindon to discuss funding. [14211]
    Mr. Horam: I hope to visit the research councils shortly to discuss both funding and other issues. It is a high priority.
    Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent increase in the science budget was warmly welcomed by the research councils? Does he agree with me that the success of National Science Week is likely to lead in due course to a large increase in demands for the science budget to be enlarged—supported, as it was, not only by my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, but by the BBC and by staff at the research councils in Swindon?
    Mr. Horam: I was glad that the research councils played a significant part in the whole of National Science Week. They established a video link whereby young people could question the director-general of science, research and development in the Brussels Commission on his priorities. I found that very interesting. They also ran
    690
    a science quiz, which I gather operated successfully around all the pubs in Swindon, although I think that that was a rather more light-hearted approach.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the Government's response to the proposal by the Royal Microscopical Society, backed by research councils, that it is highly desirable that there should be a microscope in every school, if only to increase the sense of wonder that is so important in education?
    Mr. Horam: Decisions on such matters are rightly for the research councils, but I will consider what the hon. Gentleman says. It is an interesting suggestion.

    National Science Week
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimates he has made of the total number of children involved in National Science Week; what proportion were girls; and if he will make a statement. [14212]
    Mr. David Hunt: At least 1.5 million, of whom I understand that approximately 50 per cent. were girls.
    Mr. Miller: I am grateful for that response. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that we pin down those figures accurately and that we analyse why, even though a large proportion of girls participated in National Science Week, as they did last year, we still have not broken through and persuaded more girls to participate in science at A-level and beyond? Will the Chancellor ensure, with his colleagues at the Department for Education, that urgent research is undertaken to correct that huge anomaly?
    Mr. Hunt: First, I pay tribute to the many organisations which put on events during National Science Week to increase public understanding of science, engineering and technology. Many of those were directed at boys and girls. I understand that at least 1.5 million people watched children's television such as "Blue Peter" and "Newsround", which carried many items. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about girls, we want to see equality of opportunity. Indeed, the Royal Society's new Dorothy Hodgkin fellowships, for which I recently announced support, should help retain young women in post-doctoral research. The hon. Gentleman is right that we have to start at the earliest possible age by attracting more boys and girls into science as a career.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the success of "Realising our Potential" in 1993—the first White Paper on science for more than 20 years—we have seen a continuing concentration on science education and that the success of National Science Week last week was proof positive of that? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the success of Conservative policies in the past 15 years derived from one of the best lady scientists ever?
    Mr. Hunt: I completely agree with my hon. Friend's comments about Baroness Thatcher. As for the future, much of the strength in our science and engineering base is due to our free enterprise system, and we have a reputation throughout the world as a centre of free enterprise. We published today the reports of the Technology Foresight exercise, which contain examples

    691
    of what must happen in the future, including a more positive partnership between industry, Government and our best brains.

    Research
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the development gap between basic and industrially relevant research. [14213]
    Mr. David Hunt: I find difficulty in knowing to what gap the hon. Lady is referring. If she has in mind the translation of good research ideas into marketable products, the Government help through programmes such as Link and Technology Foresight. Only this morning, I published five Technology Foresight panel reports.
    Mrs. Campbell: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster himself referred to the development gap in his interview with the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, so I am surprised that he does not know what I am talking about.
    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present situation has a great deal in common with near-market research, which was slashed by Baroness Thatcher during the latter years of her reign as Prime Minister? Does he further agree that science and technology should not pick up the tab for research and development projects which are being cut by Departments?
    Mr. Hunt: First, if the hon. Lady looks at her question, she will realise the point that I was making. Secondly, it is important in Technology Foresight for there to be a positive partnership. I take pride in the fact that we have had a world-leading Technology Foresight exercise involving 15 different panels in which our best brains from science, the universities and industry have come together with the Government to look 10 to 20 years ahead. I hope that all the reports that we have published will be carefully considered by all the industries involved.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that universities and industry must collaborate on research if universities are not to become ivory towers and so that industry can benefit from the brains within the universities?
    Mr. Hunt: While stressing the importance of basic research, which is an important ingredient in the competitiveness of the United Kingdom, I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that he will have found that a new partnership is developing following on from the initiative started by my predecessor, the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in bringing together industry and academia in a positive way. That will have benefits for everyone concerned with improving our standard of living and quality of life.

    Executive Agencies
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to improve relations between members of the public and executive agency offices not located geographically close to their
    692
    clients; and if he will make a statement. [14214]
    Mr. Horam: Many—the "Next Steps Review 1994" is full of examples.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is difficult for my constituents to feel a personal relationship with the people in Glasgow, Blackpool and beyond who are dealing with their problems, particularly when they often seem to speak a different language? Can something be done to make the relationships more personal, to the advantage of my constituents as they deserve that?
    Mr. Horam: I hope that my hon. Friend was not talking about differences in accent, but about terminology and jargon. There is a problem in the link between distant centres and the local Benefits Agency offices, but we are trying to improve that through local customer surveys, visits by Benefits Agency staff to local libraries, health centres and community centres, a one-stop shop and improved opening hours. All those improvements are being put into the melting pot to try to improve the relationship. The National Audit Office said recently—I am not sure whether this relates to my hon. Friend's local office—that there had been an improvement in the relationship between the London district offices and the Glasgow and Blackpool centres as a result of those efforts.
    Mr. Enright: Is the Minister aware that a constituent of mine rang up one of those agencies—situated in Belfast—to explain her problem, only to be told, "If you were living here, you would know what problems really were"?
    Mr. Horam: Perhaps in the first instance the hon. Gentleman's constituent should have gone to her local office. The staff there could then have rung Northern Ireland.

    Scientific Inventions
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new proposals he has to improve the application of scientific inventions to industry. [14215]
    Mr. David Hunt: Extensive.
    Mr. Flynn: Are not the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's laboratories at Harlow among our finest institutions for scientific invention, especially in non-nuclear, renewable energy resources? Should not such work be applied to arrest the development of nuclear installations at Ignalina in Lithuania, Privdannekransk in Odessa and especially at Chernobyl, which, as we heard earlier, are in imminent danger of causing a problem? Should they not be applied to prevent the European investment bank from using money to create a potential new Chernobyl reactor at Mochove in Slovakia?
    Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, although I would have preferred a little more notice of the detailed nature of his question. I will consider carefully all the matters that he raised, but I have two comments. First, I was already aware of the tremendous work performed by the energy technology support unit, which I first experienced when I was Energy Minister about 10 years ago.

    693
    Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said a moment ago, the European Commission is funding a feasibility study into the stabilisation of the shelter over the damaged remains of reactor 4 at Chernobyl. The Alliance consortium of western engineering companies carried out phase 1 of the study, which was completed recently, and its findings were presented to a panel of Ukrainian and western experts in
    694
    Kiev from 14 to 16 March. The report is understood to confirm doubts about the long-term stability of the shelter and the need for early action to construct a replacement. Nuclear safety at Chernobyl is a matter for the Ukrainian authorities, but further EU-funded work is planned on design requirements for a new shelter in the second phase of the project, and I am keeping in close touch with the situation.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any request from a Foreign Office Minister to make a statement on the increasingly ugly situation that is developing in Washington in relation to wild talk of military action against Iraq? Is it not highly desirable that the Commons should at least hear about that and have an opportunity to discuss it before any military strike?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that the Government are seeking to make a statement on that matter, but there will be questions to the Foreign Office later this week, and the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members might be able to raise that matter then.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder what redress is available to hon. Members who find themselves coming under undue pressure from outside organisations on subjects that are of interest to the House. I have in mind the reports about the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union in respect of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), and consideration of the future of clause IV.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. Our standing orders and our procedures have not been breached, but if the hon. Gentleman will let me have a copy of the report that he is referring to, I will take a look at it. I have not seen it, and I need to be fully informed before I can comment.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, on a matter that affects the responsibilities and duties of the House. At the weekend and on Friday, there were extensive leaks to the media of what the Government are hoping to include in a Queen's Speech that cannot be delivered until November at the earliest—assuming that a general election does not intervene.
Clearly nothing is more important to the responsibilities of the House than knowing the Government's plans for the following parliamentary year. I have no strong views on whether it is good to leak those plans six months in advance,
696
but surely anything as important to the House should at least be announced to the House by the Leader of the House, and should not be dealt with in leaks to the media.
Madam Speaker: I make no comments on leaked documents or leaked information. I have enough to do in dealing with authoritative information, let alone leaked material.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. I know that you uphold the principle that any hon. Member who receives payment on a matter that might affect his judgment should make a declaration to that effect. Should not the same rule apply to political journalists who deal with this place?
Would it be appropriate to refer to the Nolan committee, through you or by some other means in this House, the fact that it is now being reported that a political journalist, John Humphrys of the BBC, failed to disclose during his interviews on the "Today" programme that he would receive payment for his involvement in the overtly anti-Government education rally last week?
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman believes that it is a matter that he can refer to the Nolan committee, knowing the terms of reference of that committee, as an individual Member he is perfectly free to do so.
Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today's Order Paper shows that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) intends to raise on the Adjournment, under Standing Order No. 9, the proposed sale of the RAF Bentwaters base in Suffolk. You have ruled in the past that, when hon. Members refer in questions or Adjournment debates to a matter that concerns another hon. Member's constituency, they should at least consult the hon. Member concerned.
I understand that the hon. Member for Ipswich has not advised my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that he intends to raise that matter on the Adjournment. Should not that strict convention, to which you normally like us to adhere, be observed for the sake of future good practice?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. When an hon. Member wishes to raise, especially in an Adjournment debate, the question of some development or project that concerns another Member's constituency, not only is it a matter of courtesy to let the other hon. Member know but it is a matter of good custom and practice. I deprecate the fact that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has not been informed that that Adjournment debate is to take place this evening.

Orders of the Day

  Disability Discrimination Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order refers to the selection of amendments to the Bill before us. Could new clause 17 in my name be debated in association with new clause 1 on the Disability Rights Commission, which has been selected for discussion? My new clause is very much in line with new clause 1, and I believe that it would cause no difficulty if we discussed the two together.
  Madam Speaker: I had that entirely in mind, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman and I think alike on those matters.
  Ordered,
  That the Disability Discrimination Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses relating to Part II of the Bill, new Clauses relating to education, new Clauses relating to Part IV of the Bill, other new Clauses, Amendments relating to Clause No. 1, Amendments relating to Schedule No. 1, remaining Amendments to the Bill, new Schedules and remaining Amendments to the Schedules to the Bill.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

New clause 6

  SMALL FIRMS
  '(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs of employers who have fewer than 20 employees and to take such practical steps as he deems appropriate to enable them to meet their obligations under this Act.
  (2) The Secretary of State may make regulations specifying the circumstances under which adjustments may be considered reasonable for employers who have fewer than 20 employees'.—[Sir John Hannam]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.37 am
  Sir John Hannam: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 16—Small firms (No. 2)—
  `(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs of employers who have fewer than 20 employees and to make such financial provision by way of grants or loans as he deems appropriate to enable them to meet their obligations under this Act.
  (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify the circumstances under which adjustments will be considered reasonable for employers who have fewer than 20 employees, and such regulations may specify appropriate periods within which such adjustments shall be made.
  (3) Regulations under this section may make different provisions for different circumstances and different sizes of employer and specify different periods within which different adjustments shall be made; and regulations made under this section may be varied by subsequent regulations.'.
  Amendment No. 7, in clause 7, page 5, leave out lines 10 to 14.
  Government amendment No. 122.
  Sir John Hannam: As we embark on this important Report stage of the Disability Discrimination Bill and on
  698
  this debate on the small firms exemption, it is right for me to offer my congratulations to the Government on bringing forward this anti-discrimination legislation. After many years of campaigning for acceptance by the Government of the need for such a measure, I feel that, since the consultation paper last July, we have seen real progress in strengthening and widening the proposals that were then put forward.
  I pay tribute to the personal endeavours of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. I hope that further progress will be made on Report and in the other place, so that disabled people will feel that a comprehensive piece of anti-discrimination legislation has been put in place. I am confident that that will happen.
  Clause 7 exempts firms that employ fewer than 20 people from its provisions. That means that, unless the Bill is amended, small firms will be able to discriminate legally against disabled people. In fact, the Bill provides the power not only to reduce the number of employees but to increase that number by regulation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give me a clear assurance today that there will be no intention ever to use that power to increase the number to more than 20 employees—and that, in fact, the reverse will be the case.
  I understand the reactions of small firms' organisations, which genuinely fear the impact of extra regulations and, of course, the costs that could be involved. In my view, however, there is ample protection in clause 6, which allows for the reasonableness of an employer's adjustments to be determined with reference to cost.
  The small firms sector is the fastest growing sector in the economy. It employs some 34 per cent. of the work force in some 60 per cent. of firms. It is also the area of employment which is most suited to disabled people, and where quite small adjustments may result in a work opportunity being created.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Member, whose work in this policy area is well known in all parts of the House of Commons. The hon. Member knows—indeed, no one knows better than him—that the organisations of and for disabled people, almost without exception, want the Bill to apply to employers of fewer than 25 people, just as much as it would apply to those who employ more than 25. Will the hon. Member give the House his indication of support for that proposition? The amendment goes some way, but, I think that he will agree, it is identical treatment that the organisations want.
  Sir John Hannam: The right hon. Member was saying 25—I think that he meant 20 employees.
  Mr. Morris: Merely a slip of the tongue.
  Sir John Hannam: My keen objective is to see that figure brought down. I am still concerned and rather puzzled that we did not adopt the figure of 15, which was adopted in the American legislation. I want to develop that point.
  On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Minister, who took the trouble to visit the United States to see for himself how the Americans with Disabilities Act, was working, said:
  "'reasonable accommodation' … cost nothing in 43 per cent. of cases because it involved just moving the furniture around or doing something sensible and practical like introducing different working hours."

  699
  He went on to say:
  "A large proportion of other adjustments costs very little."— [Official Report, 24 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 149.]
  We know from evidence in the United States that the cost implications for firms over there to achieve the removal of discrimination were in most cases very small.
  It is interesting to note that, in its response to the Government's consultation document last year, the Confederation of British Industry, an employer organisation—although it represents mainly larger firms—voiced concern over the exclusion of small employers from employment rights. It argued for a phasing in of compliance requirements, and with it more support for small firms through schemes such as the access to work scheme, which the Government introduced and which is very welcome.
  I should also like to point out that, in rural areas, small firms are the only possibility of employment for disabled people, especially in view of transport problems that they experience, which are as yet not included in the Bill. I hope to make progress on that front tomorrow when we address new clause 11.
  Another quirk of the Bill is that franchises are counted as separate firms, which means that individual outlets of firms such as McDonalds, which employs fewer than 20 people in each of its individual outlets, would not be covered by the Bill's provisions, despite the enormous resources of such companies. McDonalds, incidentally, does a great deal for disablement causes.
  An example of the sort of discrimination which may exist in a firm was given to me by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. The name of the girl involved was not given. She was told that she could not use her Braille equipment in work because it was considered too noisy. The Bill would make such an instruction unlawful if it was given by a company with more than 20 employees, but smaller firms will be given a free rein to discriminate in any way they wish. Many examples of such discrimination can be produced.
  Surely we should create a fully accessible labour market, as possible. That would result in economic benefits as disabled people came off social security benefits and began to pay taxes. We know from talking to them that they always dream about doing that.
  I hope that the Minister will recognise that this probing new clause has been tabled because his current proposals need to be adjusted to remove the possibility of the employee exemption figure being increased. I hope that he will say that he intends to bring us in line with, at least, the American figure of 15 employees at the earliest possible opportunity. On Second Reading my hon. Friend promised to review that employment level; I believe that that should be conducted at the earliest possible stage. Today, I hope that he will accept the principle behind the new clause, which would point us in that direction.
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on tabling the new clause, although it does not go anywhere near far enough; nor is it likely to get there quickly enough. I understand, however, exactly why he has tabled it. If the Minister was minded to accept it, it would certainly get us marching in the right direction.
  700
  It was hard on Second Reading and in Committee, and it remains hard today, to understand why the Government are telling 96 in every 100 firms that it is perfectly legal to discriminate against people with disabilities who seek jobs or who are employed. The reason for the Government's stance was given in paragraph 3.10 of the White Paper, to which the Minister referred several times in our earlier considerations on the Bill. It states:
  "It may be more difficult and burdensome for small firms without specialist personnel to get to grips with the new right and obtain the advice they need in particular cases"
  I hope to demonstrate that that is no more than a shabby excuse.
  Of course small firms have different problems from larger ones, and of course they have smaller resources, but the Government do not use that argument to exempt them from legislation dealing with discrimination on grounds of race or gender. They do not use that argument when it comes to the intricacies of income tax, VAT, national insurance, sick pay, health and safety and all the rest of it. Every employer is treated equally in such matters. It is only in the case of people with disabilities that the Government say, "Carry on discriminating."
  The Government opposed the establishment of a disability rights commission, because they said that those needing help to enforce the limited rights conferred by the Bill should turn to citizens advice bureaux or other such agencies for assistance. Why cannot small firms do the same? If it is good enough for a would-be employee, seeking to enforce the rights conferred in the Bill, to be sent in the direction of the CAB, why is that not good enough for the would-be employer? A ready source of advice is available. The Minister is negotiating on its funding, and I believe that a meeting about that will be held on 29 March.
  Things get even more curious in the Government's silly argument when we consider paragraph 3.5 of the White Paper, which states:
  "The majority of disabled people who want to work, need no, or only very modest, help."
  In Committee, the Minister reminded us that the "reasonable accommodation" employers are expected to make as a result of the Bill cost nothing in 43 out of every 100 cases in the United States—as the hon. Member for Exeter has already said—because it involved nothing more than moving furniture around or adjusting working hours. The Minister helpfully added that a large proportion of other adjustments cost very little.
  There is another curiosity. We know that the Government will set financial limits on the cost of adjustments that an employer can reasonably be expected to make, perhaps based on rateable value to take rough account of company size.
  What, then, is the problem? Having argued against a duty on every employer not to discriminate, the Government get pious. Paragraph 3.10 of the White Paper optimistically adds:
  "organisations representing smaller employers will be among those consulted on the proposed code of practice, and small firms will be encouraged to follow it voluntarily."
  That is novel. After telling smaller employers that it is perfectly legal to discriminate against people with disabilities, the Government raise the fond hope that they will do voluntarily what they are not required to do by

  701
  law. They truly are a Government who have been too long in the unreal world to know what goes on beyond those windows.
  It is not as though the Government can claim that they have public opinion on their side. Of the 254 responses about whether small firms should be covered by that part of the Bill, 81 per cent. said they should, and only 17 per cent. said they should not. I immediately acknowledge that that was far from a scientific sample, because the number of responses about that issue was disappointingly small.
  However, the missing opinion comes to us copper-bottomed. The Confederation of British Industry, even the illustrious Institute of Directors and the Employers' Forum on Disability, linking more than 100 top companies, say that it is wrong to have two categories of people in the world of work on the basis of drawing an arbitrary line.
  That is not the end of it. One in every six people at work works in a small firm. In large parts of England, and more so in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, small firms are the only employers. Indeed, in the inner-city areas of Birmingham, for example, small firms vastly outnumber larger ones.
  It will not wash for the Government to say that the four in every 100 firms that do employ more than 20 people are the only ones that matter. It is the 96 in every 100, now excluded, that provide the main opportunities for jobs for people with different abilities.
  If the Minister does not know that, I shall tell him: larger firms are becoming smaller, employing fewer people, and there are fewer of them. The growth in jobs, even though many are part-time, is taking place among small firms. Also, as the hon. Member for Exeter said, some apparently large firms, such as McDonald's Restaurants and many others, are to be treated as small ones because they are franchise operations.
  I believe that the amendments must be regarded in a wider context. Under the Bill, disabled people are to lose what protection the present quota scheme provides—and that is precious little. Under the scheme, only 10 employers have ever been taken to court, and not a single prosecution has succeeded in the past 20 years.
  The Government are also to do away with statutory registration of people with disabilities so that, under the Bill, some people who are now at work will have even those protections taken away from them, whatever the size of the firm they work with. Where is that supposed to leave the 8,654 people with disabilities working in the 95 Remploy factories? Their work force is almost wholly drawn from people who are registered, and identified as such, through jobcentres.
  While we are at it, does the Minister know that the replacement for the priority suppliers scheme, which was of such assistance to Remploy and sheltered workshops run by local councils and others, is causing immense problems? The special contracts arrangements limit possible rebids for work to a contract ceiling of £147,000.
  Does he know, for example, that the Ministry of Defence usually places orders for uniforms and protective clothing in parcels of about £2 million? Does he know that some of the 12 Remploy factories specialising in textiles are running out of work, and that one at Alfreton is due to close,
  702
  while the Ministry of Defence has £10 million of unplaced contracts for uniforms hanging about as a result of the chaos in the change between the two schemes?
  No one expects any firm, of whatever size, to meet unreasonable costs in employing people with disabilities. However, as the Employment Minister and his hon. Friend know full well, there is assistance available already through the access to work scheme and via PACTs—placement, assessment and counselling teams. As the Disability Alliance suggests, the national insurance holiday in the Jobseekers Bill could also be offered to employers in order to help to meet the cost of offering jobs to people with disabilities.
  Perhaps the strongest argument against the discrimination that the Government want to retain for small firms is put by the Royal National Institute for the Blind, when it argues, quite properly, that new technology, especially in the widening field of information, will open up vast new job opportunities, many of which will be with small specialist firms. It is simply intolerable that people with different abilities, including the visually impaired, should be locked out of those opportunities.
  I believe that the Government are making big fools of themselves over the exemption for small firms, which is no more than a bone-headed deregulation dogma by the Secretary of State for Employment. It is indefensible, and he and his Ministers know it. I hope that, tonight, enough hon. Members in the House will put equal treatment at work for all disabled people ahead of party labels.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I do not know how many people are employed in small businesses in this country. Various statistics have been cited, but the actual figure does not really matter. The point is that many people are employed in small firms, particularly in towns and villages in rural areas such as in south Warwickshire, which I represent. In the major economy, the trend towards downsizing, subcontracting and franchising makes it plain that we must regard small businesses as central to our economy. Small business constitutes the fastest growing sector in our economy.
  The distinction that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) seeks to make between businesses employing fewer than 20 people and those employing 20 or more is an arbitrary one, which, in the end, does not stand up to scrutiny. I am not aware of any serious organisation representative of business which wants that distinction to be made. The Employers Forum on Disability, the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors certainly reject that proposal.
  My hon. Friend and his colleagues in Government are correct to be concerned not to lay gratuitous or unnecessary burdens on business. However, it is a question of whose burdens matter. It is not only the burdens on business men that matter, but also those on disabled people. Disabled people carry enormous burdens, and it is our responsibility to do everything we can to lighten their burdens.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said, the Government's new clause 6 concerning reasonableness would provide ample security to small businesses and prevent them from suffering undue and genuinely burdensome responsibilities. Ironically, the Government's own proposals would involve somewhat burdensome responsibilities.

  703
  One can imagine that firms will move in and out of this legislative jurisdiction. On occasion, a business may employ 19 people and at other times it may employ 20 people. Is it helpful to require a firm to commute between two legislative regimes? I do not think it is. In any case, let us think less about imposing burdens on business and more about the contributions that people with impairments can, and desire to, make and of which we are depriving ourselves by allowing discrimination to be perpetuated.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State expressed concern that small firms would not have the specialist personnel functions or the expertise to cope with the requirement that they should not discriminate against disabled people. It does not require any expertise or administrative sophistication to do the decent thing and behave properly. That is all that we require of small businesses. If they need support and advice, the PACT teams will assist them.
  The Government should continue and further develop the access to work scheme, which provides some financial subvention in reasonable circumstances to assist disabled people into employment. That policy benefits all firms, including small businesses. My hon. Friend's amendment moves at least some way in the right direction.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister at least to remove the power in the Bill to raise the threshold above 20 employees. It is unimaginable that there could be any circumstances in which the Government would want to backtrack on the Bill's provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) suggested reducing the number to 15, to match the practice in the United States of America. If the Minister will do that, will he make a further commitment to phase out the small business exemption altogether over time?
  4 pm
  Those are all compromises and halfway houses, but the right thing would be to abolish the distinction altogether. After all, the Bill is an affirmation of the values of our society. It would be extraordinary and deeply offensive to propose that it should be within the law for a business employing fewer than 20 people to discriminate on the grounds of race or gender. We should equally accept, in a clear-cut fashion, that it is entirely unacceptable for an employing organisation or any other to discriminate unjustifiably against people who are disabled. One's basic rights as a human being and citizen should not depend on who happens to be one's employer.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Far fewer people are covered by the Government's Bill, including those in employment, than would be covered by the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. In the Government's measure, a whole list of exemptions and exclusions exclude four categories of persons. That would be true even if the argument for ending the distinction introduced by the 20-employee barrier was won.
  The costs argument does not take account of the fact that some companies that employ fewer than 20 people are highly profitable, especially in a high-technology age in which the capital employed rather than the number of people may be the most important consideration. Often, companies that employ a large number of people are strapped for cash.
  If there is to be a distinction—and I do not agree that there should be—it should not be in terms of the number of people employed. It may be argued that there is some rough
  704
  and ready justice in terms of profitability and the ability to absorb the costs involved, although it is argued also that the costs could be minor. If a distinction is to be made, there could be an argument for making it elsewhere.
  The worst thing about the existing distinction is the message that it sends to disabled people that 96 firms out of 100, and many areas of the country where only small firms operate, will be no-go areas, and that disabled people will have to rely entirely on the good will of small firms to employ them. That creates the wrong atmosphere in which to pass legislation that the Minister claims represents a significant step forward for disabled people.
  In north-east Derbyshire, Remploy, based in Alfreton, is closing. It has offered one of the rare opportunities for employment in an area of pit closures. Small firms, with fewer than 20 employees, have been important providers of jobs in the area. What alternative jobs are there, now that the mines have closed, and with them, the firms that serviced them? Such firms often employed more than 20 people, so this legislation would have applied to them.
  Disabled people working for Remploy now have to travel further afield, to the Mansfield area. Meanwhile, their other commercial opportunities are beginning to disappear. That is why serious consideration must be given to access to employment for disabled people.
  It is when we come to franchises that the Government's cut-off-20 staff or fewer—is shown up for what it is. McDonald's, which employs masses of people around the world, manages to avoid these provisions by operating under franchises. That is another good reason for rejecting the Government's contentions.
  The new clause offers an opening—not complete change. The only way to bring about complete change would be to introduce the principles of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and to get rid of the distinction, based on size, between firms. In other Government legislation, the factors to be taken into consideration—reasonableness, cost, organisational and other difficulties—are considered before the law case by case.
  That is why this legislation is wrong. The new clause, like our other amendments, tries to make the best of a bad job. It is fairly limited; we do not ask that the numbers come down to 15, or that other factors be taken into account. We are simply nudging the Government towards consideration of such points. That is worth while in itself.
  Hon. Members of all parties ought to support the amendments in this batch, which in effect open up the legislation. I hope that the Minister will at least admit that there is some possibility of change. He should remember, when it comes to definitions and the areas of employment to be covered, that there is massive support in this House for the principles in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which has been supported and sponsored at various times by 10 political parties in the House, including the two Conservative parties.
  It is time for the Government to face up to the situation, and not to hide themselves away, preventing proper discussion in Committee of the measures in the other Bill that should have been included in this one.
  Mr. Wigley: I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this new clause, although it is really amendment No. 7 that appeals most to me—it would cut out the offending words altogether.

  705
  It is wrong to enshrine in law the unjustifiable principle that discrimination against disabled people in their place of work is acceptable if they work for companies with fewer than 20 employees. Passing the Bill unamended would lead to that position in law. It also leads to the position where more than half of employers in Wales will not be subject to the provisions that we are discussing. That is because more than half of them employ 20 or fewer people. That cannot be right.
  The Government have tried to deal with the problem that small companies are sometimes unable to cope with all the responsibilities that are placed upon them and sometimes respond in an incorrect fashion. In some small companies, there may be lack of expertise in all directions.
  The results of the survey undertaken by the Employers Forum on Disability reveal that even large companies that do not employ disabled people have a negative attitude towards disabled people. They believe that there are considerable problems in employing them. When a company gets into the habit of employing disabled people, however, whether it is a large or small company, it finds that the problems are massively overstated, and that it is possible to deal with those that arise.
  The survey revealed that, at some stage, larger companies will find themselves employing disabled people. When that happens, they start to relate to how that process can be facilitated. They begin to understand how problems can be overcome. Their experience in dealing with one disabled employee will no doubt help them to develop suitable provisions for other disabled people.
  It may not be possible to implement the process of facilitation in a small company. The likelihood is, therefore, that a small company that has not employed a disabled person will continue from year to year under the misapprehension that employing such a person causes immense difficulties. Enshrining rights to opt out in law creates a road block to stop us breaking through and encouraging small companies to employ more disabled people, which will lead to a greater willingness to employ them in future.
  The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) talked about the representations that we have received from the Royal National Institute for the Blind. I was impressed by a case it quoted involving a man from Scotland, who was dismissed after only three days of being appointed an assistant supervisor, despite stating his need for a large print package for his computer. His manager ignored his, the employee's, advice that the PACT team could offer assistance, and that necessary adaptations could be undertaken through access-to-work arrangements. That was an example of ignorance. The likelihood is that smaller companies will have that ignorance.
  There may be some circumstances in which small companies will be unable to cope with massive changes that might be needed in extreme cases of disability. That situation is covered by other provisions in the Bill. Such changes would not be regarded under those provisions as reasonable. Required changes would have to fall within what is regarded as reasonable before they could be considered, whether a small or large company was involved.
  The same approach should be adopted to companies of all sizes. If necessary, we could apply the test of reasonableness in a slightly different way to companies
  706
  that are very small and do not have the resources to do what larger companies might be able to do. It would be better still if the Government could help by providing adequate financial resource where needed.
  The opportunity for disabled people to express themselves and develop can he much greater within a small company than a large one. They may get the support they need in a small company. They may find that, in such a company, they are members of a small family of workers, who will bring them on in a way that is not always possible in the less personalised arrangements that exist in large companies.
  A plethora of companies employ about 20 people. There are numerous companies of that sort in my constituency. Perhaps they will employ 20, 21 or 22 people this year, and perhaps 17 or 18 next year, or vice versa. In those terms, they will he going backwards and forwards. How can we justify a system in which a disabled person's rights under the law depend on the vagaries of the market and a company's response to them?
  I also point out to the Minister the danger of less scrupulous companies. It may not be all that likely in this instance, but if we start to discriminate between companies on the basis of size, in other circumstances it might be tempting for a company to federalise itself or whatever—franchise has been used as an example—to avoid the requirements of the law. It is a bad law that says that there may not be discrimination in companies above a certain size, but that it would be allowed to exist in smaller companies.
  I now deal with the attitude towards disabled people. I have a letter from the mother-in-law of someone in Cardiff who had suffered cancer while in the Royal Air Force but made a total recovery. He then tried to find work in civvy street. Despite the fact that he had recovered and had no problems whatever, he is unable to get work because,
  "in filling application forms, he's been completely truthful and honest and when he's told them all he doesn't even get an acknowledgment of his application. I'm sure you'll agree Mr. Wigley that this is prejudice and discrimination."
  That is the point. When someone with a disability applies to a small company for work, there will be the temptation not to give him or her an interview. Without that small company going through the process of meeting a disabled person and giving the interview, it will not be aware of the positive things that disabled workers can give to a company, and will be aware only of the prejudice and the negative aspect that goes with it.
  4.15 pm
  We are losing an opportunity to break down barriers. If we did away with the clause, we could indeed break down the barriers that that person in Cardiff was experiencing when applying to small companies for work. That is the challenge for the Government. I believe even that, even at this stage, the Government have it within their capability to say, "Yes, perhaps we have got it wrong. Even if we cannot change it on Report, we will look again in the other place to see whether the whole approach can be reconsidered." I hope that the Government will be willing to do that. I believe that the well-being of countless thousands of disabled workers depends on it.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who has made a

  707
  distinguished speech in this debate, won enormous respect for his constancy in support of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. That support made it crystal clear long before today that he is opposed to differentiating between firms that employ more or less than 20 employees. That is also the view of nearly all the organisations of and for disabled people.
  Did the Government consult before today's debate Sir Peter Large for his view? It was Sir Peter Large whom I appointed, as then Minister in 1979, to chair the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People. That Committee recommended as long ago as 1982 that we should have legislation on the statute book to make it unlawful to discriminate unfairly against disabled people. The Minister must surely agree that Sir Peter Large, who has served so long and with such distinction the Disablement Income Group and, for an even longer period, the Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People, is well worth listening to on the subject of this debate.
  Has the Minister consulted Rachel Hirst or Richard Wood, of the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People? They are in no doubt that it will make bad law to distinguish between firms that employ more and those that employ fewer than that number. Have the Government spoken to Professor Ian Bruce of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, or to Ann Robinson of Scope?
  Not only they, but all the representatives of the major disability organisations have said over and over again that it would make discrimination in employment worse to distinguish between employers with fewer than 20 employers and those with more than 20.
  We hear that view not only from distinguished representatives of disabled people—those to whom I have referred among many others—but from many employers who are strongly opposed to the drawing of any such distinction. The Employers Forum on Disability, much to its credit, has said that it is wrong. This is our opportunity to correct a part of the Bill that is resented and bitterly criticised throughout the disability world.
  There is deep resentment of unfair discrimination in all its forms. There is also resentment about condescension towards disabled people and about patronising attitudes towards them. Is it not patronising to act as though the views of Sir Peter Large, Rachael Hirst, Richard Wood, Ian Bruce, Ann Robinson and other leading representatives of disabled people count for very little? It must be bad government not to listen to people who are experts in any policy area—and who is more expert about the effects of discrimination than those who suffer from it? We could have tackled the problem in 1982 by making discrimination unlawful on the basis of Sir Peter Large's report.
  Yet, disturbingly, we are now introducing a very painful sort of new discrimination. The House of Commons accepts that there are groups in society that need protection if they are not to have their problems compounded by unmerited discrimination. If the Bill stays as it is, the House will be drawing a distinction between discrimination against women and ethnic minorities, as compared with discrimination against disabled people. If it is right for people who are black and from the ethnic minorities to have protection regardless of how many people their employer employs, it must be right to protect disabled people irrespective of the number of people a firm employs.
  708
  This is our first debate on the Report stage of the Bill. I appeal to Ministers to think carefully about the strong reservations that have been expressed from their side of the House, and to all the compelling points made by my hon. Friends, as well as by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)—I regard him as an hon. Friend, too. I am sure that people who are not committed to any particular point of view will accept that their arguments were worthy of support by the House.
  Let us start this Report stage in the right way by accepting the proposition that it is wrong and indefensible to distinguish between employers in the way proposed by the Government.
  Ms Liz Lynne: I should like to place on record my support for the new clause. Other people outside are beginning to call the Bill the "Disability Discrimination Justification Bill", and for good reasons. One of those reasons is the exemption for small firms. The Bill has more or less become an exemption charter. It is riddled with caveats, qualifications, exemptions and let-out clauses. The exemption for small firms is a stark example of that.
  The exemption is wrong for three main reasons. First, there can be no degrees of equality. Someone is either equal or not equal. People are not more equal than others. That is why the small firms exemption is wrong. It is absurd and legally inept to have different rights for people, based only on how many people they work with.
  Secondly, at a stroke, the exemption undermines the argument and necessity for the measure. Thirdly, the exemption is superfluous. The Bill's main exemption clause, which includes the words "reasonable accommodation", can cover all the things that the Government are worried about. If a small firm is suffering undue hardship and unreasonable costs, under "reasonable accommodation" it can claim that it is not liable That should meet everyone's concerns.
  What evidence is there of those concerns? It is not coming from businesses. For instance, the Employers Forum on Disability supports the removal of the exemption. I agree that it is made up of larger companies, but, as other hon. Members have said, it includes firms like McDonald's, which have franchises. I cannot understand how a firm with such a large amount of money and such large resources can be exempted when it has franchises that employ fewer than 20 people.
  Where is the evidence from other countries that the Government keep on putting forward? In the United States of America, thousands and thousands of small businesses and shops are benefiting from the disabled persons legislation that was passed there. One example is a small pizza delivery company employing between 15 and 20 employees in New York. It decided to install a minicom for its deaf customers. Its profits have risen enormously. Another example is an attorney's practice in Houston, again with 15 to 20 employees.
  I cannot understand why the Government have gone for 20 and not 15. I would prefer them to go for 15 now, and then to reduce it to none. That is the compromise that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) was talking about. I hope that the Government will accept that.
  That small attorney's practice installed ramps, lifts, surfaces with bold colours and tactile variations for the blind. The word got around that it was disability-friendly. It had a totally untapped client group who wanted its

  709
  services, and its profitability went up. All that happened because of compliance with—not avoidance of—the legislation.
  That is the difference between the USA and this country. Before the legislation was enacted there, people were talking about the benefits. They did not talk, about its negative aspects. This Government, however, are concentrating on the negative aspects of compliance with the legislation. The USA talked up how businesses could benefit from the legislation.
  The Government offer no incentives. Again, the USA offered incentives to small firms. The only thing that the Government are saying is that small firms can opt out if they have fewer than 20 employees. We want from the Government the positive approach that was taken in the United States, but we are not getting it.
  There have even been cases in the United States of small firms employing fewer than 15 people which wanted to opt in because they could see the benefits of doing so. They introduced facilities within their companies to cater for disabled people.
  The Bill sends out the wrong signals to people throughout Britain. More important, it sends out the wrong signals to disabled people. I repeat that the exemption is unnecessary. It is covered by the "reasonable accommodation" provision. I certainly hope that the Government will take that point into account. I support the new clause, and I hope that other hon. Members will do likewise.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Roger Berry: I suspect that this time last year no one would have thought that we would be here debating an exemption for small firms from a Disability Discrimination Bill introduced by the Government: certainly, 12 months ago no one said to me, "Hang on for 12 months and we shall have a Government Bill." No one suggested that the first debate on Report would be on whether small firms should be excluded. We did not expect that the campaign by organisations of and for disabled people such as the Rights Now campaign would be so successful in forcing the Government, first, to publish the consultation document and then to introduce a Bill of their own.
  I speak as someone who is bitterly disappointed with most of the content of the Government's Bill. I do not disguise that fact, but there is a measure of success in today's debate—the very fact that the Government now recognise that legislation is required. A mere 12 months ago, they did not believe that we should legislate on discrimination against disabled people in employment or anywhere else. Twelve months ago they were not talking about rights for disabled people at work. Indeed, to talk about the need for rights and to talk the language of legislation to secure equal opportunities was to invite comments that one was obsessed with being politically correct, that one was out to bankrupt the economy or similarly foolish comments.
  I have grave reservations about the Government's Bill, especially clause 7, but we must acknowledge the movement that has taken place. Although the principal tribute should be paid to organisations and individuals that
  710
  have campaigned for the full civil rights Bill, I acknowledge that many members of the Government and other Conservative Members have consistently supported such legislation.
  Yes, there has been movement; yes, the Government now finally talk the language of rights for disabled people; yes, the Government are finally saying that we should legislate to secure those rights; and, yes, there has been a shift. But we find some odd things in the Bill. We are debating the exemption for small firms. Why on earth should firms employing fewer than 20 employees be exempt from the employment provisions of the Bill? I am happy to give way if a Conservative Member would care to intervene and offer some reason for the exemption.
  I note that so far in the debate no one has offered a reason why there should be exemptions. We have had a flood of speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House who have said that to exempt small firms makes no sense whatever. I am awaiting a speech in which someone will say why there should be an exemption for small firms. I am more than happy to give way at this point if a Conservative Member would care to explain. Clearly, there is not enormous enthusiasm in the Chamber to do so.
  Mr. Barnes: Perhaps there is some movement among Conservative Members. Perhaps their silence means that they are going through a process that leads them to realise that there is a point in the arguments that have been advanced in the House. After all, the Government made two adjustments to the Bill in Committee by making it apply to Northern Ireland and to property provisions. They now have a chance to say that there is some sense in the proposals before the House.
  Mr. Berry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out again that the Government have moved their position in relation to discrimination against disabled people. In Committee, there was movement—not a lot, but there was some—and today there may be further movement.
  Mr. David Congdon: Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to consideration of his Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in Committee last year? Will he remind me whether that Bill included a restriction on small firms before it was amended?
  Mr. Berry: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The Bill, which I took over from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), included an exemption for small firms. [Interruption.] I have said that the hon. Gentleman was correct, but one of the first things that members of the Committee who supported the Bill did was to propose that there be no such exemption, and I moved that it be deleted. It seemed to the supporters of the Bill—and to most Members present—that there was no reason to exclude small firms.
  Small firms are not excluded from the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1986. If they are not excluded from that anti-discrimination legislation, why should they be excluded from legislation that aims to outlaw discrimination against disabled people? Why should disabled people be treated as second-class citizens? Sponsors of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill did not support the exemption for small firms precisely because they believe that disabled people should be treated equally.

  711
  The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Congdon) gives me the opportunity to refer to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. The Bill now being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) does not exclude small firms for the simple reason that if equal rights in employment are right and proper for women and for black people, they must also be right for disabled people. All organisations of and for disabled people are outraged at the suggestion that disabled people should be treated in a second-class manner in employment.
  Mr. Barnes: Is not the purpose of Committee to examine measures and to propose amendments to consider the means by which improvements can be made? Debates in Committee are important, and the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) was considerably improved by the time it was considered on Report. I picked up the amended measure to promote the current Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, and it would be valuable if we could debate its provisions on employment and other matters to see whether polishing and improvement are necessary.
  Mr. Berry: Reference has been made on two occasions now to the Committee's discussions of my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill last year. In relation to that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The fact that reference has been made to that Bill does not mean that we should go down that route. The hon. Gentleman should return to the amendment.
  4.45pm
  Mr. Berry: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  If the exclusion of small firms were so important, why did not the Government raise that point at any stage in our debates on the employment provisions of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill last year? We had an extensive discussion on the use of legislation to outlaw discrimination in employment against disabled people, but not once—this is a matter of record and can be checked—did the then Minister express concern that small firms should be exempted.
  I do not want to repeat important arguments made last year on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and it would be out of order for me to do so, but there is something strange about the Government now saying that we should exclude small firms from the employment provisions of this Bill when that proposal was not made in Standing Committee last year. I wonder why they are doing so. Could it be because of the outcome of the consultation exercise? One outcome of the Government killing off the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill last year was that they consulted on anti-discrimination legislation and focused on employment.
  It is extremely important for us to recall what the Government said about the employment provisions of their plans at the time and to note the responses of those who were consulted. The Government state in paragraph 2.37 of their consultation paper:
  "The Government proposes that a new right would apply to people who are or would be employees or apprentices and to people who contract personally to provide services. The right would apply to work at establishments in the United Kingdom. This would be consistent with the approach under race and sex discrimination."
  712
  The small firms exemption is not consistent with that approach.
  In paragraph 2.39, the Government continue:
  "Research and experience indicate large organisations are more likely to have positive policies for employing disabled people and therefore should experience little difficulty in complying with the new right. Smaller firms could find it disproportionately difficult to consider and implement some of the adjustments that may be required under the new right."
  The argument seems to be that we need not worry about large firms because they are doing okay and research shows that they are more likely to have positive policies already—that is what the Government are saying.
  The Government's consultation document makes an important point—that one should address legislation to small firms as well as larger firms. Finally, in paragraph 2.41, the Government offer not a firm recommendation but the comment:
  "Views are sought on the exclusion of firms with fewer than 20 employees in line with the quota scheme."
  Most hon. Members will probably agree that the scheme is not a good precedent, so one can leave that comment aside.
  The Government were offered views on the exclusion of firms with fewer than 20 employees. Right hon. and hon. Members who have studied the red book, "An Analysis of the Responses"—I always enjoy reading the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Red Book, but this book has become almost as interesting—will know that table 26 analyses what consultees said. Let us ask ourselves the question, "How many employers felt that it was really important that the Government's Bill excluded smaller firms?" Was it 5,000, 2,000, 500, 100, 50 or five?
  One employer in the United Kingdom, when responding to a Government consultation document that asked, "How do you feel about excluding firms with fewer than 20 employees?" said that it did not like it. Most employers did not have much of a view on the subject—one employer amounts to 3 per cent. of those who responded.
  If consultation exercises, spending taxpayers' money on such consultation documents and producing responses like that mean anything, how can the Government ignore the very obvious point that only one employer felt that it was necessary—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Paice): If the hon. Gentleman is going to quote from the Red Book and that table, will he tell the House how many employers' organisations supported or opposed the exemption for small firms?
  Mr. Berry: I am always happy to assist.
  Mr. David Hanson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Berry: I have just given way to the Minister and I will happily give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. I should have thought that the Minister might make such points in his speech, but he asked me a factual question and I have no problem in giving him the answer.
  In table 26, six employers' associations wanted the exclusion of small firms and three did not—
  Mr. Paice: Precisely.
  Mr. Berry: Will the Minister allow me to finish reading from table 26? In answer to the question, "Should

  713
  small firms be excluded?", six employers associations said yes, three said no and 30, the overwhelming majority, had no comment—precisely, Minister.
  Mr. Corbett: I am sure that my hon. Friend heard me say that one should not set too much store by these figures, but perhaps he would like to remind the Minister of the fact that the organisations that speak for the majority of employers—the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the Employers' Forum on Disability—are all of one mind and believe that there should be no exemption for small firms.
  Mr. Berry: My hon. Friend is correct. The Confederation of British Industry is on record as stating firmly that there should be no exemption for small firms, as is the Institute of Directors. I have grave reservations about the views of the IOD on disability matters generally, but as my hon. Friend said, it opposes a small firms exemption, as do the Employers Forum on Disability and the Law Society, which represents many small firms, as well as many other employers' organisations.
  Since the Minister pressed me, it is a matter of fact that only six, or 15 per cent., of employers' associations supported the small firms exemption and I am grateful to him for enabling me to clarify that.
  Reference has been made to the United States and the fact that the Americans with Disabilities Act provides an exemption, which stands at firms employing 15 or fewer people. It has been asked why if 15 is good enough for the United States, should we not accept the same figure. Reference has also been made to the Minister's visit to the United States, and I am sure that many other right hon. and hon. Members have visited the United States. I was there a fortnight ago and had several meetings with the principal architect of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission and many others.
  The point that is not made is that, in framing the Americans With Disabilities Act, supporters were trying to ensure similar anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people as that provided under the Civil Rights Act 1964 dealing with discrimination on the grounds of gender and race. The figure 15 is included in title 1 of the Americans with Disabilities Act for the simple reason that the terms "employer" and "employee" used in title 7 of the Civil Rights Act have been transferred lock, stock and barrel to title 1 of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The exclusion from the Americans with Disabilities Act of small firms that employ fewer than 15 workers exists simply because it was in the Civil Rights Act. Disability groups and organisations campaigning for equal rights for disabled people argued for equal treatment.
  I see no logic in having a small firms exemption. Labour Members are not totally out of touch with what happens on the other side of the Atlantic. We know that the exemption exists in America because those who drafted the Americans with Disabilities Act were anxious to have the same provisions as existed in their civil rights legislation, which deals with discrimination on the grounds of gender and race, and they urged equal treatment on the American Congress. In opposing any
  714
  small firms exemption, I argue for treatment for disabled people that is equal to the treatment provided in our other anti-discrimination legislation—no more and no less.
  Unless the Bill is amended, we shall have the ludicrous position whereby small firms cannot legally discriminate on the grounds of race and gender—I am delighted about that—but can on the ground of disability. That lack of equal treatment is fundamentally unacceptable.
  Had any Tory Members taken up my invitation to intervene and offer a reason for this provision, they might have said that small firms would experience difficulties with the costs of what the Bill calls "reasonable adjustments"—modifying the workplace to enable disabled people to take up employment opportunities—or what the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill calls "reasonable accommodations". As the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) said at the beginning of the debate, clause 6 provides specific protection by deploying the concept of reasonableness.
  The Government make it perfectly clear, and I agree with them, that the adjustments required at the workplace to enable disabled people to secure rights at work should be reasonable. They will specify in regulations what is "reasonable", just as they would in the case of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East. The hon. Member for Exeter is absolutely correct to say that the concept of "reasonable" in clause 6 provides all the protection for small firms that is necessary.
  Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman recall experience in the United States that, where "reasonable expenditure"—that was the term used—was undertaken to accommodate the needs of disabled people in their workplace, average costs amounted to $200 and, in 68 per cent. of instances, the total cost was less than $500? That is not an excessive burden on any company.
  Mr. Berry: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have with me the latest publication of the Job Accommodation Network in the United States, published by the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, which, includes precisely the figure to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It says that 68 per cent.—more than two thirds—of all the adjustments and accommodations made under the Americans with Disabilities Act cost less than $500. Our exchange rate fluctuates, but let us assume that that is about £350.
  The hon. Member for Exeter quoted the Minister's comments on Second Reading to emphasise the fact that the Minister had stressed that reasonable accommodation costs, in many cases, nothing and, in some cases, very little. Interestingly, the latest analysis of the cost of adjustments made in the United States as a result of the Americans with Disabilities Act showed that, in 18 per cent. of cases, no costs were incurred; in 68 per cent. of cases, costs of up to $500 were incurred; in 78 per cent. of cases, costs of up to $1,000 were incurred; in 86 per cent. of cases, costs of up to $2,000 were incurred; and only 5 per cent. of adjustments cost more than $5,000, or £3,000 to £4,000.
  The story does not end there. Throughout this debate, not just today but in recent years, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) has consistently said

  715
  that there are not only costs but benefits. The Job Accommodation Network asked firms what were the benefits of making adjustments. The survey asked
  "which of the following benefits did your company realise?"
  These are the latest figures covering the past two years or so of operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 52 per cent. of companies responded "yes" to
  "Allowed you to hire or retain a qualified employee".
  If an employee becomes disabled or suffers an impairment at work, and if the employer provides reasonable adjustments to enable the person to continue to work, the employer saves money on retraining and redundancy costs and retains a skilled worker. In answer to that first question in the survey, the majority of employers said that there were significant benefits in retaining a disabled person.
  The benefits that employers typically mention, in addition to retaining qualified employees, are: saving on cost of training a new employee; saving on workers' compensation and other insurance costs and saving as a result of increasing the workers' productivity. Employers in the United States are now asked to put a dollar value on the benefits of providing reasonable accommodation or making reasonable adjustments.
  I have the document before me and can make it available to the Minister, but his civil servants have frequently visited Washington and I am sure that it is already available to him. He will know that the current estimates of the Job Accommodation Network are that for every dollar spent on providing reasonable accommodation for disabled employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers save $27; employers receive $27-worth of benefits. Before people go running away with the idea that providing reasonable accommodation only incurs costs and never confers benefits, they should take on board the evidence from the United States, which shows explicitly that costs are often very modest and benefits are often substantial.
  Mr. Barnes: The example of Macdonalds in Britain has already been given. The Bill, inadequate though it may be, will apply to Macdonalds, which because of its provision of goods and services, will incur some costs. The costs, however, will be outweighed by the returns that my hon. Friend has mentioned. The Bill applies to companies in other matters, so why should we not say to Macdonalds that its employees should be provided with access to work? That extra cost, if any, would be very marginal.
  5 pm
  Mr. Berry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have been partly surprised and partly angry about debates on the cost of legislation in recent months. The compliance cost assessment of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was simply fraudulent. More significantly, people have always looked at the costs and have ignored the benefits. To the best of my knowledge, the Government have not yet offered any estimate of the benefits of anti-discrimination legislation on, for example, employment. I would be happy to give way if any hon. Member would like to offer advice on the issue.
  Indeed, a compliance cost assessment of the Government's Bill has been made but, to the best of my knowledge, no estimate has been made of its benefits. Nobody would produce a budget without looking at the
  716
  benefits as well as the costs—not if they were producing it seriously. No employer would consider expenditure without looking at the benefit that that expenditure may confer. No economist would dream of looking at costs and excluding benefits.
  It is extraordinary that we still face the ridiculous situation in which Conservative Members—if one eventually contributes to the debate—tell us that small firms have to be excluded because of the costs that the legislation would impose. I suspect that, yet again, there will be no acknowledgement of the importance of benefits. Why, I ask myself, have no estimates of benefits been prepared by the Government? Why has the Department of Employment confined itself simply to looking at the costs of anti-discrimination legislation and not its potential benefits?
  It is absurd. We live in a society in which we happily throw away £30 billion keeping people out of work, instead of investing that money in jobs, which explains our culture. We never look at the benefits of creating employment; we only ever look at ways of trying to deny people jobs. It cannot be overstated that, if the Government were serious about this matter, they would be considering the benefits involved.
  The small firms exclusion is supported not only on the grounds of the costs of adjustments implied by the Bill but it is also sometimes said that small firms cannot respond to complaints. The idea is that, even if somebody's complaint about discrimination was unfounded, the firm would have to make some response and, in extremis, it might end up at an industrial tribunal. It is sometimes argued—I am doing my best to try to identify arguments that others should be putting—that the very fact that complaints may be made imposes a burden on the small firm because it would have to respond to those complaints.
  Under anti-discrimination legislation that seeks to deal with gender and race discrimination, we do not worry about the possibility of complaints. We do not say that small firms should not have to deal with complaints on the grounds of gender or racial discrimination, so why on earth should we use that excuse for disability? We do not exempt small firms from having to deal with a whole range of requirements, such as health and safety, building regulations and so on, so why should we select this area of discrimination for special concern?
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, a properly staffed and resourced commission with powers to investigate complaints—such as the commission in the United States—could deal with frivolous complaints quickly and protect small firms or, indeed, any large firm. It would be extraordinary to argue that small firms should be excluded from employment provisions because even though they are able to deal with complaints of discrimination on the grounds of gender and race, they cannot deal with complaints of discrimination on the grounds on disability.
  In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am faced with an interesting situation. I have been inviting Conservative Members to speak. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-East made an important point, with which I dealt and agreed. There was no dispute between us and, as a long-standing supporter of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, the hon. Gentleman knows that what I say is exactly correct. I have been trying to identify arguments that Conservative Members would deploy in support of

  717
  the small firms exemption should they be minded to do so, but I have noted that, so far, not a single Conservative Member has been minded so to do. I have not heard any other arguments in favour of the small firms exclusion. I honestly believe that, briefly, I have dealt with the usual arguments that are deployed. I think that, equally briefly, I have pointed out that the arguments that are occasionally deployed in favour of a small firms exclusion are totally without foundation.
  I have also pointed out—I hope that it is taken on board by the Minister—that those who have responded to the Government's invitation to comment on proposals have not been jumping up and down and saying, "Please can we exclude small firms?" Only employer one wanted a small firms exclusion and only 15 per cent. of employers' associations wanted it. The clear majority of firms do not want such an exclusion or, frankly, do not care one way or the other.
  I very much hope that the Government have listened to the consultees who responded to the White Paper in the summer, I hope that they have listened to the debate on Second Reading, in Committee and again here today and I hope that they will acknowledge that equity demands that employment provisions should be essentially the same as those in the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act. There is no small firms exclusion in those Acts and there should not be in this Bill.
  The Bill's employment provisions would be unacceptable if a small firms exclusion were to be retained. Will the Government please indicate as quickly as possible that they are convinced by those arguments, will show further movement on the issue and will recognise what disabled people have a right to demand—no small firms exclusion?
  Mr. David Congdon: I listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). He put his case well—I hope that that comment does not undermine his position in any way—and he was right to praise the Government for their response to the difficulties that he encountered last year when he introduced the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I did not think then that I would be speaking on Report on a Government Bill on disability discrimination, and I should like to thank the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People for all he has done to enable us to reach this stage.
  It is partly for that reason that I do not want to be difficult about part II of the Bill. That is also why I intervened earlier on the hon. Member for Kingswood, because I genuinely could not remember exactly how we started out, many months ago, when we first discussed exemptions. Having asked that question, I now remember which way round the debate went in Committee.
  To begin with, the Bill contained an exemption for small businesses. I was relatively happy about that because I think that certain aspects of small businesses are different from those of larger ones. I accept, of course, that we could debate the extent to which those differences are significant and the extent to which the Bill should take account of them.
  I now recall, having had my memory jogged, that an amendment was moved early on in Committee to remove that exemption. I had some difficulty with that, because I
  718
  was ambivalent about its removal. I am still somewhat ambivalent about that amendment to the Bill. I accept the logic of the argument that all firms should be included in the legislation, but it is important to consider carefully the needs of small businesses.
  I would therefore like my hon. Friend the Minister to spell out in detail exactly why the Government believe that small firms should be granted an exemption. In particular, I should like to know why that decision was reached when, as the hon. Member for Kingswood has pointed out, businesses were hardly unanimous in opposition to their inclusion in the Bill. That is an important point to consider.
  I noted Ministers' arguments that small firms should be excluded because they are not equipped to deal with complaints because they do not have personnel departments. I previously worked for a large company, and I am not sure about the truth of that argument. Large companies may have the apparatus and resources to deal with complaints, but that machinery is sometimes overly bureaucratic, and it can take a long time for a complaint to be dealt with.
  At the other end of the spectrum, I am conscious that firms employing one or three employees do not have the resources to deal with any complaints. One can therefore construct an argument—I would not wish to push it too far—that an employee limit should be set at which certain firms should be exempt from the Bill. I am not suggesting that firms employing 20 employees should be exempt, but I certainly accept that certain circumstances should be taken into account when considering firms that employ one man, two men or two women and a dog.
  The reasonableness test could counter that argument, because it is important to apply that test to any aspect of legislation. I accept that the Bill does that, but the new clause tabled by my hon. Friends and I, and other hon. Members, was designed to achieve even more than that provided by the routine reasonableness test in the Bill. It recognises that, notwithstanding that test, the Bill should be extended a bit further in relation to smaller firms. It would give the Secretary of State the power to specify what would be reasonable conduct by those firms. I should like the Minister to explain specifically why he feels unable to accept the new clause.
  The new clause is important, because it was designed to try to break through the log jam that had been created by the argument that because small firms are different, they should therefore be exempt from the Bill. People recognise, however, that any cut-off is arbitrary. Some people have argued for a lower employee limit, but, as a compromise, I believe that small firms, especially those with just one, two or three employees, should be treated a little differently in recognition of their special circumstances. I hope that the Minister will consider that option.
  I am pleased that Government amendment No. 122 removes any ambiguity about whether the exemption limit could be raised upwards. I know that assurances on that have been given before, but it is important to be unambiguous and to make it clear that the only change to the limit would be downwards.
  5.15 pm
  If the Minister feels unable to accept new clause 6, I urge him to give serious consideration to whether a commitment should be made as soon as possible—in the

  719
  House or elsewhere—to lower the employee limit from 20. The danger is that the existing limit will be considered as set in tablets of stone. If my hon. Friend is wrong and we find that, in the light of experience, the Bill, once enacted, does not cause any particular problems for firms employing between 20 and 25 people, but causes problems to disabled people who want to work for firms employing between 15 and 20 people or 10 and 20 people, the limit should be lowered. That change would be based on practice rather than theory.
  Surely the ultimate goal must be to ensure that all firms treat disabled people fairly when they seek employment. We may argue about the pace of change, but the goal must be to ensure that no employee, disabled or otherwise, is discriminated against when seeking employment.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I must first thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving instructions to pull the shades down against the glare of the sun.
  I have some sympathy for what the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) said about companies which employ two or three people—be they one man, two women and a dog, or whatever. I accept that such firms may encounter difficulties in some circumstances.
  New clause 16, which is grouped with new clause 6, is designed to end discrimination relating to all firms, large or small. We have a long history of Administrations who have sought to provide legislative exemptions for small firms. Today's debate reminds me of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which sought to introduce labour law directly into industrial relations. That Act also provided an exemption for small firms. I thought that that was a mistake, just as I think that clause 7 is a dreadful mistake on the present Government's part.
  The 1971 Act had some good parts to it, because it introduced disciplinary and grievance procedures, but those procedures should have been made available to those working in small firms as well. Similarly, it is utterly wrong to discriminate against employees of small firms.
  As for employment opportunities for disabled citizens in small firms, medium or large ones, I am confident that the experience I have gained in my constituency is no different from that gained by other right hon. and hon. Members. Some of my local firms, large and small, have an excellent record on employing people with disabilities. One that always comes to mind is Lithgow Electronics, which, given its total work force, employs a large number of disabled people. Those people with disabilities are treated in exactly the same way as those fortunate enough not to suffer from disabilities. That company in my constituency provides us with a remarkable and heart-warming record in that regard.
  There are also smaller companies in Inverclyde which are only too anxious to provide good terms of employment for their employees with disabilities. It is likely that such firms—whether in Inverclyde, elsewhere in Scotland, south of the border or in Northern Ireland—do not require the type of regulations that would be imposed of new clause 16 were introduced into the Bill.
  However, in Inverclyde and elsewhere in Scotland, there are small firms and large firms which have an extremely poor record regarding the employment of people with disabilities. New clause 16 would provide
  720
  many people with employment opportunities that are denied them now—with reasonable pay and good conditions of employment which do not treat people with disabilities as second-class employees, as has all too often been the case.
  I appreciate that there may be some difficulties with new clause 16 for small companies, but they need only consider other small companies in their region with excellent industrial relations records to dispel some of their anxieties about the external checks and restraints which would be brought into small companies to defend the needs and interests of employees with disabilities.
  Such employers need to he guided and, if possible, helped financially, to recruit, train and employ disabled people. It is important that those external checks and balances are introduced to defend the interests of employees of small companies because it can be exceedingly difficult for such employees in small firms to draw attention to their grievance if they believe that they are being unfairly treated by the employer. It is better that employees in those circumstances should be protected by what I have called elsewhere "external checks and balances" on the discrimination exercised by employers.
  Small companies employing fewer than 20 people have little or no experience of trade union involvement and trade union representation of employees, so it is important that we introduce other measures by which such employees' interests may be defended.
  If costs are an issue, as the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East seems to suggest, I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said earlier: that issue can be considered in terms of the costs and benefits to employers of taking on people with disabilities. If there are problems of costs in respect of people with learning disabilities, cannot the Government and the European Union provide financial assistance to implement training programmes and introduce modifications to a company's premises and equipment?
  Over the years, research has shown that people with learning disabilities can carry out many of the functions in a company which are performed by others with no disabilities. Given the right training, they can acquire a range of occupational skills. Such training may be more extensive than that needed to bring other employees to a defined benchmark, but, with the right training and with the right modifications to plant and equipment, it can be achieved. I wonder whether the Minister has taken advice about whether help can be obtained by such small firms by way of European structural funds.
  Mr. Barnes: Is not the atmosphere of a small firm rather than a larger one often more suitable for a person with learning difficulties? A small group of people who link and work together, as one hopes happens in the best small firms, creates that important atmosphere. The small firm would seem especially appropriate for people with learning difficulties rather than the larger, perhaps more impersonal firm, which might be more difficult to handle. The assistance to which my hon. Friend refers is therefore justified.
  Dr. Godman: That is an important argument. In small firms, others people can guide the person with disabilities, acting as protectors and mentors. The same may also happen in large firms in which relatively small teams of employees work together. Research has shown that it is not difficult to introduce a person who is physically

  721
  impaired into such a team. However, my hon. Friend makes the important point that, in a small firm, other employees will willingly, indeed happily, look after someone with disabilities.
  We all know that, when a person leaves the social security system for full-time employment, the person and their family benefit immediately and there is a self-evident benefit to the state. There are other benefits, too. When people with disabilities are employed in small or large firms, there is the psychological benefit of finding full-time employment; an immediate boost is given to a person's self-esteem. A person knows that he or she is part of the community in a much more comprehensive and more rounded way when in full-time employment.
  We should not lose sight of the fact that there are benefits to an employer in taking on someone who has found it immensely difficult to find work in the past. Often people who are handicapped in one way or another become loyal, hard-working employees. Some employers do not deserve that type of loyalty, but that is another matter. In terms of costs and benefits, therefore, a small firm can indeed benefit from taking on people with learning difficulties or people who are physically impaired.
  I visited a company in my constituency recently and spoke to a person who is physically handicapped, who has been confined for much of his life to a wheelchair. He said that, even though the terms and conditions of employment were not so good in that company—and by God, they are not, in comparison with those offered by many other local employers—the fact that he was in employment for the first time in about 15 years gave him enormous self-respect and lifted the burden from his family of having to care for someone who, I think, had been psychologically bruised by his constant rejections by local firms when seeking employment.
  Now here he is, earning what I regard as a poor wage, but nevertheless he is out every morning, going to his job, he is highly regarded by his workmates and he is delighted to be in work. I believe that that example could be multiplied many thousands of times.
  The small firms sector—which is very important in the west of Scotland and elsewhere—has a role to play. Some small firms in my constituency would not require the regulations that implementation of new clause 16 would impose, but I believe that others would need such regulations because they would seek to exploit disabled employees who were not members of a trade union.
  I believe that the Government should certainly accept, if not new clause 16, then new clause 6, in order to defend rightly and properly the interests of those who are often unable to defend themselves. Disabled employees often do not have trade union representation and therefore cannot avail themselves of a formal collective bargaining system. The Government must accept that firms which employ fewer than 20 people should not be able to dodge the external checks and balances which protect the interests of those who, in many instances, are unable to defend themselves.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Hanson: It has been a quite marvellous experience this afternoon. We have debated for some two hours the
  722
  new clauses standing in the names of my hon. Friends, and hardly any voices have been raised against them. The hon. Members for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) have joined the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and many of my hon. Friends in supporting amendments to the legislation that will ensure an end to discrimination in employment against disabled people.
  It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to learn that I support new clause 16, which would remove the 20-employee limit and would assist firms with the undoubted difficulties that they may face in some circumstances. I attended Committee sittings for several weeks. To be honest, at the beginning of the Committee process I did not think that the Government would accept any amendments from the Labour party during consideration of the Disability Discrimination Bill. As it happens, the Government did not accept any amendments from the Labour party during consideration of the Bill, so perhaps I was justified in feeling jaundiced.
  However, I came out of the Committee sittings feeling better than when I went in. I think that—I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), will prove it in his winding-up speech—the Under-Secretary and the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People impressed all members of the Committee with their sense of fairness. I genuinely believe that they wish to end discrimination against disabled people, and tonight they will have the opportunity to do just that.
  The Bill will not end discrimination against disabled people in employment. There is the potential for disabled people to be discriminated against if they work for firms that employ fewer than 20 individuals. That will create a two-tier source of discrimination, which flies in the face of the aims of all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and of everyone who has responded, and who intends to respond, to the legislation as it progresses through the House.
  The Bill's provisions are illogical. If I were the managing director of a firm that employed 21 people, I could not discriminate against disabled people on the ground of their disability. However, if I were the managing director of a company that employed 19 people, I could discriminate on that basis. Where is the logic in that?
  Conservative Back Benchers who wish to speak in the debate may allude to the cost associated with employing disabled people. If I am the managing director of a company that employs 21 individuals, I must bear the cost associated with their employment. However, if my company employs 19 individuals, I can discriminate and choose not to bear that cost. We could dispute—as we have done today—whether there is a cost to be borne, but, if there is, the situation is totally illogical.
  If there is a cost associated with employing disabled people—we would dispute that claim—why should a highly profitable company that employs 10 people discriminate against disabled people, when perhaps a company that does not make a profit but employs 25 people cannot? There is no logic in the Government's position to date.
  If Government Members were to say that they proposed to amend the race relations legislation to include an exemption for small firms, that might justify the

  723
  Government's position in this instance. If Government Members were to say that they intended to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1976 to include an exemption for small firms, there might be some justification for the Government's current position. However, the Government will not do that. Under the Government's legislation, it will be legal to discriminate against disabled people if a company employs fewer than 20 people, although it is not able to discriminate on the basis of race or sex.
  According to the current legislation, it will be legal for hon. Members to discriminate against those disabled people who might apply to work for them. We would not wish to sanction that sort of situation, but there could not be one law for those outside the House and another for hon. Members.
  The Government's position takes no account of that well-known expression "downsizing". Many companies in my constituency have downsized considerably—notably, the steelworks at Shotton, which has downsized from 20,000 to 1,000 employees under a Tory Government. Some companies will employ fewer than 20 people for part of the year and more than that number at another time. According to the Government's current proposal, some companies will be able to discriminate against disabled people in January, but not in February, or perhaps in March, but not in April. There is no logic to that position. It is a person's right not to be discriminated against, and that inalienable right should be protected in every circumstance.
  The small firms sector, which we have been examining in detail today, accounts for one in six workers in the United Kingdom. That figure is far higher in rural areas. Both Ministers represent, as I do in part, rural areas. The hon. Member for Caernarfon and I represent constituencies in Wales. Wales comprises large rural areas where most people are employed by firms with fewer than 20 employees. Therefore, many disabled people in Wales face potential discrimination in their place of employment.
  The Bill will ensure that disabled people will not be able to apply for jobs in large areas of my constituency without the fear of discrimination. In the agriculture sector, a small, rurally based business may be the sole employer. Large firms may not be appropriate in that area.
  My constituency covers a large part of the north Wales coast. The holiday resort of Prestatyn is in my constituency and it attracts many thousands of visitors each summer—I hope that many hon. Members will visit it this summer. Businesses in Prestatyn face the same difficulty as many others in rural and coastal areas of Wales: they have temporary and seasonal employment. Companies may employ fewer than 20 people for part of the year and at other times more than that number. As a consequence of the legislation, different laws will apply to the same companies depending on the time of year and on how many people choose to visit Prestatyn for their summer holidays. They cannot plan.
  The Bill will impose burdens that my hon. Friends' measures would remove. Eighty-four per cent. of firms in Northern Ireland have fewer than 10 employees, so it is reasonable to assume that 90 per cent. of them have fewer than 20 employees. How will a disabled person be free from fear of discrimination when the Bill will make it legal to discriminate in 90 per cent. of cases in Northern
  724
  Ireland? Small businesses are a fast-growing sector of the economy and we must encourage them. At the same time, we must ensure fairness and justice across the board.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) made great play of the various representations made. Only one company wrote in favour of the exemption and only six employer associations did so—hardly an avalanche. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, the consultation document may not be fulsome and detailed, but it shows strength of feeling. Individuals usually tell the Government when they are fearful of something, but they have not done so in this case. That has not been done either by the Confederation of British Industry, the Employers Forum on Disability or the Institute of Directors—God bless it. The institute stated:
  "if the Government believe that disabled people should have the right, it should apply equally to all employees."
  What a marvellous organisation—and I never thought that I would say that. One down and a few more to go.
  I never fail to be surprised by the strength of feeling evident among organisations in my constituency when they suspect that the House is acting against their interests. Licensed victuallers, newsagents and other small shopkeepers, chambers of commerce, chambers of trade and others are all employers or represent them and they often bang on my door about urgent issues—but they have not done so over the need for exemption. The Law Society and other organisations had the opportunity to make representations to hon. Members but did not do so.
  I look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary's justification for retaining the exemption and legalising discrimination against disabled people in companies with fewer than 20 employees. The new clauses and the amendment will not bring any onslaught against small businesses. In Committee, the Under-Secretary said:
  "The Government are trying to strike a balance between the desire to eliminate discrimination and the desire to ensure that over-burdensome regulations that might jeopardise small businesses' primary functions are not put on them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 14 February 1995; c. 252.]
  Are the Government really worried about imposing burdensome regulations on small businesses? If the Under-Secretary is concerned, perhaps he will tell the House what would be the cost to small businesses if the exemption were lifted. How many small firms would go out of business? How many people would be made unemployed? What burden would be imposed in this instance that does not exist in respect of race relations or sex equality legislation?
  I hope that the Government will be positive, end the exemption and give small businesses help from the Employment Service and other organisations in respect of good practice, to assist them to meet their obligations under the Bill as amended by the proposed measures. Scope, for which I worked for eight years prior to entering the House, suggested that a personnel pack should be produced, to inform firms how to comply. It could illustrate good and bad practices, provide information and give practical support.
  Would it not be more positive for the House to abolish the exemption, say that it believes in ending discrimination in employment and acknowledge the value of a programme of help for small firms—rather than to allow companies to evade their responsibilities and to make disabled people face discrimination in their daily

  725
  lives? I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond positively, and I look forward to his acceptance of the measures.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) mentioned the employment problems confronting disabled people living in rural areas. Several organisations pointed out that the 20-employee limit will dramatically affect such people. In Committee, the Under-Secretary responded to my questions about the difficulties confronting would-be disabled workers in agricultural areas, which may be more graphic than those facing disabled people in urban areas.
  I must not touch on other clauses, but I shall place that matter in context. The much lower density of population in rural areas leads to greater isolation, less access to disabled groups and support groups of all kinds, and more remoteness from usually concentrated local authority services. The decimation of public transport in recent years also makes it harder for disabled people in rural areas to seek work. Their choice of school or college is limited by travelling distances and the lower density of such institutions. The Bill does not address any of those problems.
  Changes in the nature of agricultural employment and practices have already massively reduced the number of people working in that industry. Most farms are little more than family employers. The encouragement of diversification in the countryside has introduced small firms, most of which have fewer than 20 employees.
  The Bill will exclude most disabled people living in rural areas from the right to challenge discrimination in employment. We have no reason to suppose that a smaller proportion of rural residents than urban dwellers are disabled. In fact, given the dangerous nature of agricultural work, with tractor and machinery accidents, chemical accidents with substances such as organophosphates and the danger of using pesticides in greenhouses, it may be that country areas have a higher proportion of disabled people. Certainly the figure will be no lower.
  The chief employment characteristic in horticulture is its seasonal nature, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn referred in respect of seaside resorts such as Prestatyn—or, in Lancashire, those of Blackpool, Morecambe and Southport, which purports to be in Lancashire. Incidentally, Blackpool has the worst unemployment rate in Lancashire.
  Such areas are also characterised by large numbers of part-time workers. In Committee, the Under-Secretary helpfully told us that the Bill made no distinction between part-time and full-time workers. That is to be welcomed. He also said that it would be the time when discrimination occurred that mattered, in terms of a challenge to a tribunal, not the time when an accumulation of incidents of discrimination provoked a disabled employee into making a challenge. That comment, too, was helpful and clarifying.
  I am still very worried, however, about the practical oddities that will be created by the figure of 20. They were mentioned by the hon. Members for
  726
  Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). The latter pointed out that a business may employ more than 20 employees one year, but fewer employees the next. That sort of thing could happen quite often. Even more important, some firms change the number of their employees month by month, or even week by week. In horticulture, probably the largest source of employment in most of my constituency, for much of the year an employer will have only a handful of workers—four, five or six—but for several months of the year he will have well over 20, and perhaps as many as 60.
  For the sake of argument, let us suppose that for half the year the employees will be covered by the Bill's discrimination provisions, but for the other half they will not; that, of course, includes any disabled person who happens to be one of the core of permanent employees. For half the year, a disabled person will have the right to challenge discrimination—not so for the other half.
  This is an immensely difficult situation for employer and employee alike, and it lends itself to possible abuse by bad employers. I do not want to exaggerate, but there will be employers who use these circumstances to get around the Act.
  Where would the criterion of reasonableness come into all this? Ironically, many occupations in horticulture lend themselves to workers with, say, mobility difficulties. Many groups from the horticultural industry, recently giving evidence to the Select Committee on Agriculture, strongly asked the Government to allow more foreign students into the United Kingdom to take up the extra work during the summer. That clearly shows the seasonal need for workers; at least some of the jobs could be taken up by disabled people living near the horticultural enterprises.
  Every means of persuasion to get rural employers to engage disabled people who can do the jobs, and to treat them equally once they are in work, should be adopted—but the Bill does not set the requisite framework for that. The application of the rights of disabled people in firms with more than 20 employees to smaller employers would serve as a backstop in the process.
  Obviously there are difficulties and imponderables that need sorting out. The CBI documents make some intelligent references to that fact, but a clear benchmark in law, coupled with help and guidance for small employers, could make an enormous difference to a significant number of disabled people in rural areas.
  The Under-Secretary must also explain how he hopes to deal with the franchising problem mentioned by the hon. Member for Exeter, and with contracting out. The splintering of large firms into smaller firms, using these methods, may already be a way of getting around the legislation, and it will prove even handier for the purpose in future.
  Areas such as mine face other problems, too. The town of Skelmersdale has been badly clobbered by two recessions in the past two decades. Agencies of all kinds—for instance, Lancashire Enterprises—have scurried to put up small industrial units, which usually can accommodate only between four and 10 workers. Hopes for the future of the town lie very much with these small firms, which occupy an ever greater part of its economy. It is quite possible that the exclusion of small firms under the 20 employees proposal will effectively exclude disabled people in Skelmersdale from the town's economic future, which the small firms are trying to build.

  727
  I cannot understand why the Under-Secretary might object to this group of amendments. I candidly admit that they are not measures that I would have chosen to table. New clause 6 states:
  "It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs of employers"—
  "have regard" is rather woolly—
  "and to take such practical steps as he deems appropriate".
  Again, it states:
  "The Secretary of State may make regulations specifying the circumstances under which adjustments may be considered reasonable for employers".
  The new clause is full of conditionals, qualifiers, maybes and perhapses. New clause 16(3) is in the same vein:
  "Regulations under this section may make different provisions for different circumstances and different sizes of employer and specify different periods within which different adjustments shall be made; and regulations made under this section may be varied by subsequent regulations."
  What could be more accommodating than that wonderful sentence for any Minister wanting to please everyone and get away with murder?
  Mr. Paice: I begin by dealing with an issue not directly related to the Bill but mentioned by at least two hon. Members—Remploy. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) will know that clause 7, to which the new clauses relate, does not directly concern Remploy; but the decision to end the priority supplier scheme was taken only because of clear legal advice, since endorsed by the European Commission, that it contravened European legislation. The amount of £147,500 which the hon. Gentleman quoted is not a UK-derived figure; it is a European figure, and the figure put into the new special contracts arrangements reflects that.
  Remploy is facing competitive pressures, especially in textiles. I do not think that it expects to win every contract for which it bids, but it is competing hard for MOD contracts, and we hope that it will win some. In the meantime, it is doing everything it can to diversify into the commercial retail clothing sector, where perhaps it will find greater scope.
  Several Members referred to the benefits of employing disabled people. I hope that those who served on the Committee with me will take my word for it that I entirely recognise that disabled people have a vast amount of skill and expertise to offer the businesses which employ them now and which will, we hope, employ them in the future. Over the past few months, I have been excited by the number of places where I have seen disabled people working and fulfilling a useful role for themselves and their employer. Let no one be in any doubt that we recognise the benefits that derive from their employment.
  6 pm
  There are positive advantages for businesses in employing disabled people. Ultimately, we want employers to be willing to employ disabled people without any thought of legislation, and without knowing that they might have to employ them because otherwise they will be taken to a tribunal. We want employers to employ the disabled because they want to employ them, because they believe that they have something considerable to offer to their business.
  728
  If that is our long-term objective, I suggest that legislation must be couched in a way that has the support of employers, not their resistance. If their first approach is cynicism—doubts and resistance to legislation—the battle to change their hearts and minds and consequent behaviour will be that much harder.
  Successive Governments have recognised that small businesses need special help to survive and prosper as well as protection from over-burdensome regulation. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have said during the debate that small-scale employers do not necessarily have specialist staff easily available to them, staff who have knowledge of the more detailed aspects of employment law.
  That was recognised by the Labour Government, who introduced the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The approach of race and gender legislation is different, of course, from that of the Bill. The 1975 Act introduced a small-firm threshold of five. In recognition of the unique difficulties of small firms—for example, the extra costs of providing separate washing facilities and cloakrooms—the threshold had to be abolished through an EC ruling. The Labour Government's objective was notable, however.
  The threshold was provided for in a relatively straightforward piece of anti-discrimination legislation to eliminate employment discrimination on the ground of sex. There are no ifs, buts or degrees. We all know that people are men or women. I understand that one or two have doubts about where they stand, but the majority know clearly where they are. Everyone understands that.
  The Bill is far more complex than previous legislation. We have heard the argument that reasonable adjustment would cover the difficulties faced by small firms. I do not agree. I am not convinced that that is so. The small-scale employer, who is usually the owner of the business, will have many issues on his mind. It is unrealistic to expect him or her to know what might or might not be reasonable, to take advice or to follow case law as it develops, especially in the early years of an Act's implementation.
  Recruitment of new staff in small businesses is often a rare event or infrequent. That means that employers of small businesses will be unable to learn quickly from experience. I suggest that the recruitment of new or extra staff would be even less frequent if small-scale employers had to spend ages before making each appointment genning themselves up on the latest employment legislation.
  The point is amplified by the fact that such businesses have not hitherto had to deal with disability legislation. As we all know, small firms have been exempt from the quota legislation for about 50 years. It is a fact that, for those 50-odd years, no Government have attempted to change the threshold. Accordingly, the figure of 20 has not been plucked from the air. It reflects precisely current legislation.
  Inevitably, new anti-discrimination legislation takes time to settle down. Practice needs to be established, and case law has to be developed from tribunal deliberations. It will be burden enough on large firms that have resources sufficient to enable them to cope. It will be

  729
  much more difficult for small businesses without specialist knowledge to keep up with what is happening in the early years of implementation.
  Mr. Wigley: The Minister is suggesting that, as time goes on and experience is garnered, it might become easier and more acceptable for small companies to live with either a lower threshold or to be brought in, as it were. Government amendment No. 122, which we are considering with the new clause, refers to
  "'a different number (not greater than 20) for the number for the time being specified there."'
  Will the Minister confirm that the number could be zero, and that that would be within the purview of the proposed legislation?
  Mr. Paice: I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me. I shall talk about the amendment to which he has referred in my later remarks.
  Several hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have referred to the apparent lack of support from employers' organisations and other bodies for the exemption for small businesses that we propose. It is a novel event to hear Opposition Members—I think they had difficulty in swallowing it—putting forward the views of the Institute of Directors. I am glad, however, that they have recognised that the institute is usually worthy of note.
  The hon. Member for Erdington referred to the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry as representing the top 100 companies.
  Mr. Corbett: I did not.
  Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman says that he did not.
  Mr. Corbett: I referred to the forum.
  Mr. Paice: All right, the Employers Forum on Disability.
  Even so, the CBI, the institute and the forum are not renowned for representing businesses with fewer than 20 employees. Probably very few of the businesses they represent have fewer than 200 employees. They are not speaking on behalf of small businesses.
  By contrast, the Federation of Small Businesses speaks specifically on behalf of small businesses. It has issued a statement, which reads:
  "The Federation is particularly concerned with any amendments aimed at bringing all employers, irrespective of size, within the remit of the legislation."
  It urges Members to
  "vote for the retention of the exemption rule for small employers with under 20 workers. Adding further burdens to this wealth-creating sector of the economy will seriously damage its potential for job creation."
  Those are the views of an organisation that clearly represents small businesses.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Minister address the point about the artificiality of selecting the number 20? He as a Member represents employers with fewer than 20 employers and employers with more than 20. He is a great expert on horse racing. As the House knows, there are in the Newmarket part of his constituency people in that industry who employ fewer than 20, and others who
  730
  employ more. Why create this fundamental difference, as it seems to many, between employers in the same industry?
  Mr. Paice: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, whose commitment to the cause of the disabled is renowned, I do not think that he was in the Chamber a few moments ago when I specifically said that we have opted for 20 because that reflects the quota legislation. That was why we chose 20.
  I shall continue with the thoughts of outside organisations. In the light of the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), I shall read the comments of two organisations. One writes:
  "The cost of adjustment could fall disproportionately upon smaller firms, especially in the early years of new legislation, before suitable premises and equipment become more generally available."
  The second quote reads:
  "Small businesses face particular difficulties in interpreting guidance and advice from central and local government. They seldom have the personnel expertise available to a larger company, and each decision as to whether to introduce modifications to work practices or the premises must be weighed carefully against the impact on company viability."
  There is ample evidence that some organisations that represent small businesses clearly recognise the problems that small businesses face.
  Mr. Berry rose—
  Mr. Paice: I shall give way once more, but then I must press on.
  Mr. Berry: Will the Minister acknowledge that small firms made similar comments about the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act? Will he please acknowledge that the lack of a personnel department in a small firm is as much a problem in abiding by those Acts as it would be in this case? Why on earth should disabled people yet again be treated as second-class citizens?
  Mr. Paice: No. I would contend, as I tried to earlier, that it is not the same to compare directly the gender and race legislation with the proposed legislation, because of the complexity. The other pieces of legislation do not contain the concept of reasonable adjustment. They are much more simple, straightforward pieces of legislation, and are much easier for a small business man to grasp than the implications of the proposed legislation.
  Mr. Wigley: What about the tax legislation?
  Mr. Paice: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), for whom I have immense respect from our long acquaintance with each other, says from a sedentary position, sotto voce, "What about the tax legislation?" to which the hon. Member for Erdington also referred. There are special arrangements for tax legislation—the VAT threshold, for example. [Interruption.] There is no exemption from tax. Perhaps many wish that they were exempt. The lower rate of income tax and VAT clearly recognises that small businesses deserve special judgment.
  Having said everything that I have, I want to stress to the House, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), who moved the new clause, that of course we do not want small firms to discriminate against disabled people—any more than we want large

  731
  firms to discriminate against them. Many small firms do employ disabled people. I can assure the House, as I have before, that we will encourage them to follow the new code of practice. To that end, they will be consulted in drawing up the code.
  We have always emphasised that there are benefits in employing disabled people. We have always said that it is in an employer's interest to have access to the widest possible pool of talent, but we do not believe that it is possible to produce an accurate estimate of those benefits. So when the hon. Member for Kingswood challenged me on why we do not put the benefits on the equation, it is simply because we have not been able to find a way of financially measuring the benefits. We recognise that they are there and, as I have already said, we see considerable benefits in employing disabled people.
  Several hon. Members referred to the Americans with Disabilities Act and its exemption for small firms. The figure was originally 25 when the Act was introduced, but it was subsequently reduced to 15. Unlike our Bill, that figure of 15 cannot be lowered further. Our Bill brings in the flexibility.
  I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), who referred to a pizza parlour—I assume that it was a small employer—and to the fact that it would need to install a minicom and so on for customers, saying what a wonderful company it was and how much new business it had gained. That is precisely what we propose in part III of the Bill—the goods, facilities and services aspect. She did not address a single comment on the pizza parlour as an employer, but spoke of the service that it was providing its customers. I can wholeheartedly go along with everything she said about the benefits to a businesses of being seen to welcome disabled people as customers.
  Small firms are also eligible for help from the Employment Service and from our specialist advisers, as well, we hope, as becoming users of the disability symbol "Positive About Disabled People". Already, some 10 per cent. of symbol users are firms employing 24 or fewer employees.
  6.15 pm
  Much has been said this afternoon about figures. The hon. Member for Kingswood, of course, paraded his use of figures from the Red Book, of which he showed himself a master—at least of how to read it, if not how to interpret the figures—when the Bill was being considered in Committee.
  Mr. Berry: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Paice: Of course, I will happily give way.
  Mr. Berry: Can the Minister give one example of where I have misinterpreted the figures in the Red Book? Just one example.
  Mr. Paice: I was just about to do that.
  The hon. Gentleman again paraded the fact that the majority of respondents, be they employers or employers' organisations, did not say that they were in favour of the exemption.
  Mr. Berry: Correct.
  Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He can clearly still read his book.
  732
  The fact is, as the hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, that the consultation document clearly set out the proposition that businesses employing fewer than 20 people would be exempt.
  Another hon. Member—I have forgotten which one—said that he found it surprising that organisations are not usually backward in coming forward when they feel strongly about something—
  Mr. Corbett: It was my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson).
  Mr. Paice: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not remembering him.
  The fact remains that, when one starts off with a positive proposition and people do not respond to say that they do not like it, it is reasonable to assume that they are agnostic. If they felt clearly that the proposition that we were making was wrong, they would have said so. I am the first to recognise that they did not take the opportunity to say that they like it, but they did not say that they did not like it. [Interruption.]
  It is no use hon. Members starting to suggest that perhaps the organisations did not bother to reply. They did reply to the overall consultation document, but chose not to express a view on this particular issue. Therefore, the least that one can conclude is that they did not have strong feelings one way or the another: otherwise, they would have so done. If that is the case, I come back to the point that twice as many employers' organisations supported the exclusion as opposed it. That was the point that the hon. Gentleman tried to ridicule when I intervened on him earlier.
  Mr. Berry: Will the Minister acknowledge that the employers associations that supported the small firms exclusion amounted to 15 per cent. of respondents to that question?
  Mr. Paice: We can all do the maths, but the fact is that the organisations that did not respond on that issue clearly did not feel strongly about it one way or the other.
  Another aspect of the figures that has been used this afternoon is the fact that small firms play an increasing role in the labour market. Nevertheless, as drafted, the Bill covers some 83 per cent. of employees, or job opportunities. I must be straightforward and tell the House that, if the Government's amendment proposed tomorrow are passed, that figure will drop to 80 per cent., but it is in that bracket.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend accept that the other 20 per cent. really do matter equally as much? Will he further accept that, in Australia and New Zealand, which do not accept that it should be lawful for any firm of any size to discriminate unjustifiably against disabled people, it is not probable that firms will be driven out of business wholesale? Will he accept that there are some 6.5 million disabled people as against the very small number of unreconstructed organisations whose objections he is citing, and that it is for the Government to lead in that field?
  Mr. Paice: I was going to come in a moment or two to some of my hon. Friend's specific comments. Of course I understand the points he made, and if he will allow me

  733
  just a moment or two, I will respond to them all during the course of my remarks, which I need to pursue at this moment.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Paice: This must be the last time.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister giving way, and apologise for the fact that I was not here earlier for the debate, for reasons that the House will understand.
  Does the Minister accept that, taking global figures, one may discover that 85 per cent. of the people are outside the small business area, but does he also accept that, in some areas, a higher number of people are looking for employment in the small business sector, and that they should be encouraged to do that?
  Mr. Paice: Of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's apologies for not being here earlier. I am sure that all of us would have wished to be at the same funeral, where I assume he was, paying tribute to our former hon. Friend, the Member for North Down. I was about to address precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman raised.
  I recognise, as the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said, that there are many parts of the country where small businesses tend to be the norm. Of course, "small" in the normal context does not just mean employers with fewer than 20 employees. Since this subject was debated in Committee, I have thought through my constituency—which I like to think I know well. It is a fairly large rural constituency, but even there I can think of many, many employers who are certainly small, but in no way near being below the 20 limit.
  Even with a threshold of 20, and even in rural areas, there will be considerable opportunities for disabled people in organisations that are covered by the Bill. However, even that presupposes that organisations with fewer than 20 employees will want to discriminate against disabled people. We do not want them to do so; we are not encouraging them to do so; we are simply saying that, at present, we do not believe that we should create legislation to require them not to do so, for all the reasons that I stated earlier.
  We hope that small businesses will continue to grow, to prosper and to become a larger part of the economy. That is one reason why the Bill includes provision for the Secretary of State to raise or lower the threshold. I said in Committee that we would need mightily compelling evidence to increase the threshold above 20. I resisted an amendment that would have removed the upward power in case the threshold was moved to a figure that experience then proved to be too low.
  Obviously, since the Committee stage, we have looked at the matter again, and I am pleased that we are able, through amendment No. 122, to deal with any concerns about a possible future move to a threshold higher than 20. The amendment inserts a maximum figure of 20 into the Bill. That was one of the points referred to specifically by my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Exeter. I hope that I have satisfied them.
  734
  I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter not only for moving new clause 6 so excellently, but for his sterling work for disabled people over many years—work matched by very few in this House. He rightly recognised the special position of small firms by proposing that, for those with fewer than 20 employees, the Government should make special provision to help them comply with the law. That presumably assumes that amendment No. 7 is passed, although that is not entirely essential.
  I have explained to my hon. Friend and the House that we believe that the threshold is necessary anyway, not least because the action that he proposes in subsection (2) of his new clause would be highly unlikely to deal with the position of all small firms, from farms to factories, shops to offices, or any other organisation. We believe that the code of practice will be drawn widely enough to cover all types of businesses. As I have said already, we will encourage small firms to adopt it, and they will be consulted upon it.
  New clause 16 was tabled by the Opposition, who have striven for flexibility, but I am afraid that they have achieved complexity. First, the new clause does not make it clear that the financial provision to which it refers would have to be provided through a scheme or similar arrangement that would need complicated rules in order to operate fairly and effectively. The new clause purports to make provision, but does not provide the means to do so.
  Secondly, I do not believe that it would be sensible to attempt to set down in regulations every circumstance in which the wide range of possible adjustments could be considered reasonable for any given employee in any type of small firm—or, for that matter, that it is practicable or sensible for regulations to set deadlines by which particular adjustments must be made. The new clause appears to be an inflexible and bureaucratic approach.
  It would be an administrative nightmare to introduce regulations as set out in subsection (3). The use of the word "different" five times in that subsection shows the complexity of the problem that hon. Members seem intent on creating. The permutations would be endless. The new clause would be most unwelcome to small firms, because they would not want to be confronted by such a degree of uncertainty. What we propose is much better and clearer—a clause that sets a clear threshold.
  On several occasions today, hon. Members have referred to franchises. A franchise is a business arrangement between one business and another, under which one agrees to sell the goods or services of the other. A firm that takes on a franchise may or may not be a small firm in itself, but if it is small it will face the same difficulties that any other small firm will face, and it will be in no better position to cope with them than any other organisation that is not a franchise.
  If it is a larger firm, even one operating at several locations—although we are talking not about locations, but about the firm itself—it will come within the framework of the Bill.
  Mr. Wigley: When I intervened earlier, I pressed the Minister for an interpretation of whether "number" includes zero. In other words, by passing amendment No.

  735
  122, would that give the Government the facility, by order, to include all companies? It is important for the House to know that.
  Mr. Paice: Yes.
  Several hon. Members have referred—and I listened carefully—to concerns about the potential for uncertainty when a firm employs seasonal workers or people on fixed-term contracts, so the size of the work force moves up and down through the exemption threshold. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned that, together with the hon. Members for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and for Lancashire, West and some of my hon. Friends. I recognise that concern, and I shall consider whether action needs to be taken to clarify the position. It may require a new regulating power. I recognise that the concern is real and needs to be dealt with.
  I think that I have dealt with most of the comments by hon. Members from both sides of the House. There are already a number of exceptions for small firms in legislation. The one point to which I have not referred was raised by the hon. Member for Erdington, who said that the cap that he envisaged the Government proposing on the financial costs of alterations would somehow help small businesses. I am afraid that he has misread our proposals. We are not proposing a cap on part II of the Bill; our cap refers to part III—the adaptation of premises for goods and services.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and other hon. Members who have spoken feel extremely strongly about the issue, and I respect that, as does my hon. Friend the Minister of State. However, I hope that they realise that our intent to get rid of discrimination is just as strong as theirs. Our desire to see all firms acting properly towards disabled people is just as strong as theirs.
  Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will not pursue his new clause. The Government want to eliminate discrimination against disabled people and to use legislation as a vehicle for ultimately changing attitudes. That is best achieved by a Bill that strikes the right balance between the needs of disabled people and the proper priorities of businesses to succeed. Too onerous a Bill would create resentment among the very people whose attitudes we are trying to change.
  I have no doubt that, when the Bill is enacted and implemented, we will all learn from experience. That is why I am willing to give an undertaking to the House that we will table an amendment in another place that will require the Government to review the operation of this measure within five years and to give the House the opportunity to debate the issue.
  In the light of my comments and the very genuine concern that I and my hon. Friend have to ensure that the Bill's objective is achieved, I hope that the House will reject the new clause.
  6.30 pm
  Sir John Hannam: The debate has been extremely useful, with a clear message coming from hon. Members who have participated. My hon. Friend the Minister has shown that he is trying to find a way through small firms' fears, and the desire of all hon. Members to avoid leaving a large number of small firms outside this important anti-discrimination legislation. I welcome Government amendment No. 122, which removes the power to
  736
  increase the level of 20 employees. I hope that, as the Bill progresses, a commitment to reduce that figure of exclusion will be made even more strongly.
  My new clause 6 is a probing amendment that does not go far enough to satisfy Opposition Members—who, I understand, want to vote for amendment No. 7, which removes the exclusion. Whatever happens tonight, the issue will return to the foreground of debate in the other place. I hope that the Government will consider all the arguments that have been advanced by hon. Members today, and that they will introduce further changes in the other place. However, I recognise the inadequacy of my new clause, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) misunderstood the views of Opposition Members. We were far from convinced by the Minister, and we ask that our new clause 16 be put to the House.

New clause 16

  SMALL FIRMS (No. 2)
  '(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs of employers who have fewer than 20 employees and to make such financial provision by way of grants or loans as he deems appropriate to enable them to meet their obligations under this Act.
  (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify the circumstances under which adjustments will be considered reasonable for employers who have fewer than 20 employees, and such regulations may specify appropriate periods within which such adjustments shall be made.
  (3) Regulations under this section may make different provisions for different circumstances and different sizes of employer and specify different periods within which different adjustments shall be made; and regulations made under this section may be varied by subsequent regulations.'.—[Mr. Tom Clarke.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 297.

  Division No. 115]

  [6.32 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ainger, Nick

  Burden, Richard

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Byers, Stephen

  Allen, Graham

  Callaghan, Jim

  Alton, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ashton, Joe

  Cann, Jamie

  Austin-Walker, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Chidgey, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Barron, Kevin

  Church, Judith

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clelland, David

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Coffey, Ann

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cohen, Harry

  Berry, Roger

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Betts, Clive

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Boateng, Paul

  Corbett, Robin

  Bradley, Keith

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Corston, Jean

  737

  Cox, Tom

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cummings, John

  Janner, Greville

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davidson, Ian

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

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

  Khabra, Piara S

  Denham, John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dixon, Don

  Lewis, Terry

  Dobson, Frank

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Litherland, Robert

  Dowd, Jim

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Eastham, Ken

  Loyden, Eddie

  Enright, Derek

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Etherington, Bill

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McCartney, Ian

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Fatchett, Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Faulds, Andrew

  McFall, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McKelvey, William

  Fisher, Mark

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Flynn, Paul

  McLeish, Henry

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  MacShane, Denis

  Fraser, John

  McWilliam, John

  Galloway, George

  Madden, Max

  Gapes, Mike

  Maddock, Diana

  Garrett, John

  Mahon, Alice

  George, Bruce

  Mallon, Seamus

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marek, Dr John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Meacher, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meale, Alan

  Gunnell, John

  Michael, Alun

  Hain, Peter

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hall, Mike

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hanson, David

  Milburn, Alan

  Hardy, Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Harvey, Nick

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Henderson, Doug

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Heppell, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hoey, Kate

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Mudie, George

  Home Robertson, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Hood, Jimmy

  Murphy, Paul

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hoyle, Doug

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hutton, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ingram, Adam

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pope, Greg

  738

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Spellar, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Stevenson, George

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Stott, Roger

  Radice, Giles

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Randall, Stuart

  Straw, Jack

  Raynsford, Nick

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Redmond, Martin

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Reid, Dr John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rendel, David

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Timms, Stephen

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Touhig, Don

  Rogers, Allan

  Trimble, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Turner, Dennis

  Rooney, Terry

  Vaz, Keith

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wallace, James

  Ruddock, Joan

  Walley, Joan

  Salmond, Alex

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sheerman, Barry

  Watson, Mike

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Welsh, Andrew

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Short, Clare

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Simpson, Alan

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wise, Audrey

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Worthington, Tony

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

  Wray, Jimmy

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Snape, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. John Owen Jones and

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Joe Benton.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Burns, Simon

  Alexander, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Butcher, John

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Butler, Peter

  Amess, David

  Butterfill, John

  Ancram, Michael

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cash, William

  Ashby, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkins, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Churchill, Mr

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clappison, James

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Clark, Dr Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Bates, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Congdon, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Conway, Derek

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Booth, Hartley

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Boswell, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Cran, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

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

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bowis, John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Day, Stephen

  Brazier, Julian

  Devlin, Tim

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Dover, Den

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan, Alan

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  739

  Dunn, Bob

  Key, Robert

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evennett, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Faber, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fabricant, Michael

  Legg, Barry

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Leigh, Edward

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Luff, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Maclean, David

  French, Douglas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fry, Sir Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Madel, Sir David

  Gallie, Phil

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Malone, Gerald

  Garnier, Edward

  Mans, Keith

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mates, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Merchant, Piers

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mills, Iain

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Harris, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Norris, Steve

  Hendry, Charles

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hicks, Robert

  Ottaway, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Page, Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Paice, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Horam, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jessel, Toby

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  740

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Thomason, Roy

  Sackville, Tom

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Thurnham, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Tracey, Richard

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Trotter, Neville

  Sims, Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Viggers, Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Soames, Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Waller, Gary

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spring, Richard

  Watts, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Wells, Bowen

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whitney, Ray

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whittingdale, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stephen, Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Stem, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Wilshire, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sumberg, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sykes, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

  DISCRIMINATION IN RELATION TO EDUCATION
  `.—(1) It shall be the duty of an education authority to take all reasonable steps to ensure that a disabled person (including any disabled person who is a minor) shall not, for a reason which relates to the disabled person's disability, be treated less favourably than a person without the disability in being given access to the education which it provides.
  (2) The duty under subsection (1) above extends to education and library boards in Northern Ireland.
  (3) It shall be the duty of any statutory or incorporated body which provides higher or further education to take all reasonable steps to ensure that a disabled person shall not, for a reason which relates to the disabled person's disability, be treated less favourably than a person without the disability in being given access to the education which it provides.
  (4) Schedule (Consequential Amendments Relating to Access to Education) shall have effect in relation to education authorities and bodies.
  (5) It shall be unlawful for any charitable body or incorporated body of a kind prescribed under section 12 which provides education or educational services to treat a disabled person less favourably, for a reason which relates to the disabled person's disability, than a person without the disability in giving access to the education or educational services which it provides.'.—[Mr. Tom Clarke.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 7—Code of Practice: Education—

  `.—(1) The Secretary of State may issue a code of practice containing such practical guidance as he considers appropriate with a view to eliminating discrimination against children with special educational needs in the field of education.

  (2) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise the whole or any part of a code of practice and re-issue it.

  (3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a code of practice may include practical guidance as to—

  (a) the circumstances in which it would be reasonable to place a child with special educational needs in a special school;

  (b) the overall planning of education for children with special educational needs; and

  (c) how access to education for children with special educational needs may be ensured.

  (4) It shall be the duty of a Local Education Authority in England and Wales, the Funding Agency for Schools, the Schools Funding Council for Wales, an Education Authority in Scotland and governing bodies of schools to have regard to the provisions of any code of practice issued pursuant to this section.

  (5) A code of practice issued pursuant to this section shall be admissible in evidence in any proceedings before a court.

  (6) The Secretary of State shall publish any code of practice for the time being in force.

  (7) In this section "special educational needs" shall have the same meaning as in section 156 of the Education Act 1993.'.

  New clause 8—Further and higher education—

  '.—(1) The Secretary of State may issue codes of practice containing such practical guidance as he considers appropriate with a view to—

  (a) eliminating discrimination against disabled persons in the field of further and higher education;

  (b) encouraging good practice in relation to the further and higher education of disabled persons.

  (2) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise the whole or any part of a code of practice issued under subsection (1) and re-issue it.

  (3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) a code of practice issued under the provisions of this section may include practical guidance as to circumstances in which it would be reasonable, having regard in particular to the costs involved, for a further or higher education establishment to be expected to make adjustments in favour of a disabled person.

  (4) Further and higher education establishment authorities shall have regard to any code of practice in the exercise of their powers.

  (5) A code of practice shall be admissible as evidence in any proceedings under this Act before a county sheriff court.

  (6) If any provision of a code of practice appears to a court to be relevant to any question arising in any proceedings under this Act it shall be taken into account in determining that question.

  (7) In this section "code of practice" means a code issued by the Secretary of State under this section, and includes a code of practice which has been revised and reissued.'.

  Amendment No. 47, in clause 12, page 9, leave out lines 17 to 41.
  Amendment No. 5, in page 9, line 17, leave out 'to the contrary'.
  Amendment No. 6, in page 9, line 18, leave out 'does not apply' and insert 'applies'.
  Amendment No. 10, in page 9, leave out lines 30 to 33.
  Amendment No. 11, in page 9, leave out lines 34 to 39.
  Amendment No. 4, a new schedule—

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO ACCESS TO EDUCATION—
Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (c. 44)
1. After section 60 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (function of education authority in relation to children and young persons with certain special educational needs); insert—
"Education of children and young persons with special needs in schools which are not special schools
60A. It shall be the duty of an education authority in respect of a child with special educational needs who belongs to their area (in accordance with section 23(3) of this Act), and who receives school education, to secure that the young person is educated in a school which is not a special school, unless that is incompatible with the wishes of the young person or, where the education authority are satisfied that the young person is not capable of expressing his views for the purposes of this section, his parent.".
Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (c. 13)
2. In Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, in paragraph (j), the words "which prepares them for entry to another course falling within paragraphs (d) to (h) above" shall be omitted.
Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 (c. 37)
3. In section 6 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 (further education to which section 1 applies), in subsection (1) after paragraph (f), insert—
"(g) is designed to teach independent living and communication skills to persons having learning difficulties".
Education Act 1993 (c. 35)
4. In section 160 of the Education Act 1993 (qualified duty to secure education of children with special educational needs in ordinary schools)—

(a) in subsection (1), the words "if the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below are satisfied" shall be omitted;

(b) subsection (2) shall be omitted.'.

Mr. Clarke: The purpose of new clause 3 is to bring education within the purview of the Bill. The Bill makes provision for tackling discrimination in employment, which we have discussed and which will be discussed again in another place, and in access to goods and services. We all agree that discrimination in such matters should be tackled. The rights of disabled people as workers and as consumers are of great importance to their lives, but the Government appear not to recognise the need to open the gateways of opportunity for disabled people to take a full part in employment and in our social and cultural life.
The Government have failed to open three gateways of opportunity, which all need to be included in the Bill. Those gateways are education, access to information and means of transport. All of them are dealt with in new clauses and amendments and we think that it is logical that the first of them to be debated should be education.
The crucial principle that we wish to establish is that no school or college should be permitted to exclude disabled pupils or students on the grounds of their disability or to offer them a second-rate service. That is why we seek to require local education authorities and other bodies which provide education to take reasonable steps to ensure that a disabled child or adult is not treated less favourably than a person without disability in being given access to the education that they provide. That is not a terribly radical proposition.

743
At first sight, it would seem reasonable to expect a Bill designed to deal with discrimination against disabled people to include education as one of the most influential services in the lives of all of us and to make specific proposals to ensure equality of access to education. Yet the Government have not done so. Perhaps, in the context of a mounting crisis of confidence and resources in the Government's schools policy, that is not so surprising. However, Ministers have argued that they have specifically excluded education not because there is a general crisis in education policy but because of the progress which they claim has already been made in improving the position of disabled pupils and students.
Ministers argued in Committee that education was excluded because enough was being done, particularly in terms of the Education Act 1993 and the new code of practice. That argument was explicit, but what was implicit in the White Paper published in January, which discussed the situation brought about by the Act, was that the Government had very little to say about what more needed to be done.
If things were as rosy as Ministers suggest, there would be no need to exclude education from the Bill. Educational establishments which complied with the existing legislation would have passed with flying colours the tests of accessibility and equal treatment as set out in the Bill. That is not the situation at all. Ministers have excluded education because they know that far too many schools and other establishments simply do not comply with the standards set for other services in the Bill.
The only improvement offered in the White Paper was to extend part M of the new building regulations on disabled access to schools in England and Wales. Those regulations apply to further and higher education colleges and to schools in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, so the innovation would merely bring English and Welsh schools into line with what is required in the vast majority of new buildings of all types.
The reality is that building new schools is not a key feature of the Government's education policy, and the issue of physical access to school buildings must be dealt with in relation to existing buildings. That seems to be a not unreasonable proposition, particularly if the Government accept their responsibility for funding our schools system, which is crucial.
Many pupils with motor impairments could gain access to the curriculum enjoyed by other pupils if they could only gain safe access to the school building itself. Relatively simple changes involving the provision of ramps and lifts and the suitable adaptation of toilets and internal fire doors could transform the situation. For pupils with impaired vision, suitable illumination and painting could make all the difference.
A good deal can be done within classrooms with even fewer cost implications. Low benches in school laboratories and technical rooms could be provided, as could additional lighting and angled writing surfaces for those with a visual impairment. Changes could be made to improve the acoustics of classrooms designed without the needs of pupils with hearing difficulties in mind. School pupils should be able to benefit from special tools and technology available for those who have difficulty with the standard issue tools. Those can range from simple innovations, such as rulers with raised markings, to sophisticated electronic control systems. The current situation is simply not good enough.
744
Scope—the organisation previously known as the Spastics Society—carried out a survey in 1993 which found that many schools were either physically inaccessible or had not made the kind of simple low-cost adaptations that are required. A majority of secondary schools and nearly two thirds of primary schools had no suitably adapted toilets. One secondary school in 14 and one primary school in seven was completely inaccessible to wheelchair users—children, parents and teachers alike. That continuing inadequacy of provision must be addressed, but it appears to have been ignored by the Government in the White Paper, in the consultation document and—above all—in the Bill.
The Opposition recognise that the Education Act 1993 was a step in the right direction, but we do not believe that including education in the Bill would cut across the Act in any way. On the contrary—according to Ministers themselves—the intention and spirit of the present measure is to reinforce, rather than undermine, the Act.
The Government have made provision both in the 1993 Act and in the existing Bill to ensure that costs are kept under control. If education is included in the Bill—as it should be, comprehensively—education providers would be protected from undue costs by the existing legislation, which requires them to have due regard to the effective use of resources, and by the test of reasonableness applied to other service providers under the Bill.
Including schools in the terms of the Bill would not add unreasonable costs, and certainly not unreasonable extra costs, to the present troubles of the Department for Education. It would ensure that cuts could not be made which would have adverse and compelling effects on the educational opportunities of disabled pupils and that, in my view, is no bad thing.
As well as physical access to schools, the education of children with special needs is affected by the exclusion of education from the Bill. Here again, Ministers have taken the view that the 1993 Act is sufficient, and that it is therefore legitimate to withhold the right to non-discrimination from children, but the evidence simply does not bear that out.
We believe that the parents and guardians of children with special educational needs should have the right to choose between mainstream and special schooling. The 1993 Act provides such a right, but with qualifications which in practice allow enormous variations between one education authority and another. The Department for Education figures for 1992 showed that the proportion of children at special schools was five times higher in Lambeth and East Sussex than in Cornwall and Barnsley. That discrepancy is too great to be explained in terms of different levels of disability, and it shows that the opportunities for mainstream schooling vary greatly from one part of the country to another.
The 1993 Act and the code of practice may have improved access to mainstream schools, but they do not place an obligation on education authorities or grant-maintained schools to improve access and support for children with special educational needs. There is therefore no incentive for those authorities that traditionally placed large numbers of children in special schools to increase their investment in mainstream schools, by providing support for children with special educational needs.

745
Our new clause and amendments will require local education authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools to plan for progressive improvements in access and support, without denying special schooling to children whose parents choose to follow that course. They will build on the positive aspects of the 1993 Act and give more disabled young people an opportunity to share the experience of school with other young children, to the benefit of both groups.
7 pm
The Government's White Paper was even weaker on further and higher education than on schools. They, too, are excluded from the Bill, which is extraordinary. The White Paper could only say:
"the Government now intends to set in hand a programme to review the effectiveness of the current legislation".
If Ministers genuinely want to test the effectiveness of present legislation, what could be better than to include further and higher education in the Bill that they have devised, and see whether it passes the examination?
The plain fact is that, since 1992, the Further Education Funding Council for England, the FEFC for Wales and the Scottish Education Department have been under an obligation to provide for disabled students, and rightly so, but colleges are under no such obligation. Disabled students often find themselves unable to attend their local further education college, and are forced to travel up to 60 miles a day to find a college that is willing to accommodate them, with no guarantee that the extra travel costs will be met.
There is no guarantee that the necessary support services will be in place as a consequence of the Bill. For example, less than one further education college in five has a policy to provide deaf children with education and only one in four employs a tutor with responsibility for deaf students. Many further education colleges provide no support whatsoever for deaf students.
In higher education, the situation is even less satisfactory. Neither the institutions nor the funding councils are duty bound to offer equal opportunities to disabled students—a disgraceful state of affairs with which the Bill does not deal. In the past two years, special funding initiatives have certainly improved the situation, but have affected less than half of all higher education institutions.
Far too many universities and colleges do not cater for physical access by disabled students, or fail to provide the necessary material or professional support, which is totally unacceptable in a modern age. Schools, colleges and universities provide a gateway to employment—to jobs—and can liberate disabled people from dependence and enable them to play a full part in adult life, as they are entitled to do. It is therefore essential that they should be open unreservedly to all and the Government should not be afraid to subject their education policies to the same test of adequacy and reasonableness that they apply to the other services covered by the Bill.
I have moved the new clause and the amendments in that spirit of promoting real and genuine equality of opportunity for disabled children and adults.
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): It may be for the
746
convenience of the House if I intervene in the debate now, as I have some announcements to make about Government policy on these matters.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) moved new clause 3 and the associated amendments and did so for worthy reasons with which we can readily agree. He wants to provide for disabled pupils and students the opportunities in education that are available to other people, but the new clause and the amendments are emotive and not objective, impractical and not realistic, and would lead to the waste of valuable resources. They would result in a policy for special education that would be muddled, imprecise and unworkable.
New clause 3 and the Opposition amendments would undermine new legislation, especially the Education Act 1993, which is widely recognised as a landmark for special education. That Act used a system that provides for an appropriate school placement and curriculum for every child, irrespective of his or her disability; allows for precise, detailed and rapid assessment, to produce statements for the children with the most severe needs; gives parents of such children fundamental rights of preference for any maintained school, backed by a new, independent tribunal and subject only to conditions that are analogous to those for non-disabled children; and, makes all schools and governors more accountable than ever before for making appropriate provision for all children with special educational needs.
The framework is comprehensive—indeed, it is excellent—and our measures, cemented together by the code of practice on the identification and assessment of pupils with special educational needs, have given an enormous boost to special education. The Audit Commission has given strong support and no little praise for what the Government have achieved in that sector in the past two years.
This series of amendments cuts across, and would ruin, that very successful new legislation, for the following reasons. First, integration into mainstream education is not a simple question of parental choice, as the hon. Member for Monklands, West would have us believe, but is more complex than that.
Special education ranges far more widely than sensory and physical disability. We are in danger of forgetting the many children with emotional and behavioural difficulties who frequently need special school provision. That is especially significant, because children without special educational needs in mainstream schools also have rights—for example, to have their education protected from the disruption that could be caused by children with severe emotional and behavioural difficulties. There is no convincing strategy for handling some children with such needs in mainstream education. Sometimes, withdrawal and a temporary placement in a special school is the only option and parental choice for a mainstream school, however desirable, cannot be allowed to prevent other children from learning efficiently.
We have a fine record of promoting effective integration into mainstream schools. At the moment, two out of three pupils with new statements are entering mainstream schools. Nearly 99 per cent. of all pupils are in mainstream schools and the Government strongly welcome that. None the less, we need a range of special schools. Some parents demand that and many hon. Members—including the right hon. Member for

747
Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who is reported to be receiving many local representations on the matter—know that, when a local education authority tries to close a special school, there is sometimes a furore from local parents and supporters. These are community schools just as much as local comprehensives.
In many cases, as we know from detailed inspection evidence, children are worse off in mainstream schools that are unable to provide the necessary support than they would be in special schools. As I argued in Committee, and the hon. Member for Monklands, West acknowledged, our available resources are finite. He said that, like me, he could make no commitment about whether full accessibility to education could be achieved during a full Parliament, even in a Government of which he was a member. He knows that the resources are finite. The capital cost of making all mainstream schools accessible for all the purposes that might be covered by the Bill is enormous.
Mr. Tom Clarke: I am especially grateful that the Minister has given way, as he did not intervene in my speech. Does he accept that the Committee that considered the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) last year made it clear that it was absurd for the Government to pretend that we were seeking all that we want to achieve in terms of civil rights in one Parliament, and that the views that I expressed in Committee reflected those views as well?
Mr. Hague: Yes, I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members made that point. However, he seeks to write something into legislation which he knows he has neither the means nor the capability to deliver in practice, and which no Government could deliver in practice. He raises the prospect of damaging the position of disabled students.
We do not want sensible and realistic local authorities that want to concentrate their resources where they will be most effective, both geographically and with an eye to pupils with the most pressing needs, to have their plans thwarted because of this legislation. Under the new clause, such an authority might be forced to spread its existing resources, with the effect that fewer pupils benefit.
Instead of several schools in an authority, each with excellent resources, being able to take many pupils with a wide range of special needs, we would end up with nearly all schools in that authority with a few ramps, no lifts and improved curriculum access for only a small minority of pupils. I do not believe that that is what the Opposition want. It is certainly not what the Government want, and I do not believe that the Opposition have thought the measure through.
Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Minister consider the case of a school in my constituency that teaches 11 to 16-year-olds, is especially geared for the needs of the physically handicapped and does a fine job by them, but when it comes to 16 to 18-year-olds, neither the sixth form college nor the district college can offer a satisfactory continuation? Should not the Minister bear in mind such cases, which are quite disgraceful?
Mr. Hague: Clearly, the authority concerned should concentrate the resources available to it on rectifying that problem. The solution is probably not to place a duty on
748
the local education authority or other education providers to make some changes to all schools or place of further education. I shall come to further education in a moment.
Mr. Enright: The Minister should note the anomaly that the 11-to-16 school receives local authority provision, but both the sixth form college and the district college have been launched into the stratosphere in terms of management. The fact that they are different bodies causes immense problems.
Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman will be interested in what I have to say about further and higher education.
Those are the reasons why I believe that new clause 3 is mistaken with regard to school education. Similarly, I see many good reasons to retain and build on the existing legislation covering the responsibilities of further and higher education funding councils, local education authorities, the voluntary sector and independent institutions of further and higher education.
Let us be clear that, in discharging the duties and powers imposed on it, the Further Education Funding Council must always take account of the needs of people with learning difficulties and disabilities. The funding council already has a duty to secure sufficient full-time education for all young people over the age of 16 and under 19, and the provision of adequate facilities in respect of part-time students on courses leading to vocational and academic qualifications. It must ensure that the education is provided at locations that meet the reasonable needs of all those to whom the duty extends and are equipped appropriately.
Local education authorities have a complementary duty to secure adequate education for adults which falls outside the scope of the funding council's duties, including provision for some independent living and communications skills, for which they have retained funding.
7.15 pm
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education's launch letter of guidance to the Higher Education Funding Council drew particular attention to the importance of provision for students with learning difficulties and disabilities and the need for access to higher education for those students to be facilitated. The Further Education Funding Council has demonstrated its commitment to securing effective and coherent provision for students with learning difficulties and disabilities through its committee chaired by John Tomlinson of Warwick university.
The Government are rightly proud of their record on widening access. The number of students in higher education has risen from under 750,000 to nearly 1.2 million in the past decade. Particular attention has been paid to increasing the participation of groups that have been under-represented in the past, including those with disabilities. The Higher Education Funding Council allocated £3 million in 1993–94 and a further £3 million in 1994–95 for special initiatives to widen access, which included projects related to physical access, accessible curricula and support services. Skill, the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities, has been contracted to organise dissemination as well as evaluation.
The new clause would undermine the strategic and planned approach of the funding councils, which already recognises the needs of disabled people. I have already

749
pointed out that available resources are finite. We cannot pretend that the new clause, if carried, would give all disabled people unrestricted access to all further and higher education institutions. Indeed, that is not the case for their peers. Instead, it risks dissipating scarce resources on piecemeal and ineffective measures. I suggest that hon. Members examine the existing statutory framework, which provides a sound basis to underpin continued development of provision for students with disabilities, before seeking to undermine and disrupt it. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the new clause.
The approach in new clauses 7 and 8 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and other hon. Members is a good deal more constructive than that in new clause 3. They provide that schools be included in the provisions of the Bill—
Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister says that those new clauses are more constructive than that proposed by the Opposition. Which organisations of or for disabled people support them?
Mr. Hague: I am concerned with the merits of each of the new clauses and amendments. It is not my job as Minister with responsibility for disabled people to add up the number of pressure groups on each side of an argument and say that that is the reason for my decision when it affects the policy of the nation. My task is to come to a sensible and balanced policy that advances the causes of students and pupils with learning difficulties or disabilities.
My hon. Friend's new clauses would include schools in clause 12 and establish a new code of practice on children with special educational needs covering questions such as when a placement in a special school would be reasonable; the overall planning of education for children with special educational needs; and how access to education may be insured for such children. They would also include further and higher education in the provisions of the Bill. A further code of practice would be drawn up for HE and FE institutions.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's motives in suggesting those provisions, but must point out several substantial practical difficulties. For example, a second code in parallel with the widely acclaimed special educational needs code of practice would be confusing. It would leave parents, schools and local education authorities uncertain about its relationship with the present code. The Government do not believe that it makes sense to set up completely new rights or mechanisms for appeal against non-admission of children with special educational needs but for whom the question of a statement does not arise. None the less, I have noted my hon. Friends' points in the amendments with care, and I intend in a moment to propose an alternative approach, which will achieve in practice what they are seeking.
In further education, the amendments would undermine the strategic and planned approach of the Further Education Funding Council by placing a separate duty on individual colleges. The council ensures that a coherent pattern of educational provision is available to students with disabilities. It looks beyond its own colleges to courses in maintained and non-maintained schools and independent colleges to avoid duplication and to secure the most effective use of resources. Placing duties on
750
individual colleges under the Bill would cut across the duties placed on the funding council by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Scarce resources would therefore be dissipated, and there would be a period of confusion at a time when the 1992 legislation is bedding down.
The Government wish, however, to build on existing education and on the considerable progress achieved to date. In conjunction with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Education, who are in their place on the Front Bench, I have a number of announcements to make. In the case of further and higher education, we wish to leave the way open to take account of the outcomes of the review programme, which was announced today in answer to a parliamentary question tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter.
That review programme will include consideration in higher education of how flexibility in capital spending can be used to improve facilities for students with disabilities, ways in which the arrangements for increasing the awareness of staff at further education colleges of the needs of students with disabilities can be improved and whether any further funding incentives could be given to colleges to encourage the enrolment of students with disabilities. It will also consider the administration of the disabled students allowance and the advice and information service provided by Skill, and whether charters for further and higher education can be improved in respect of availability of information to students with disabilities.
The Government have great reservations—
Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hague: I have a number of announcements to make, and I must give priority to making them.
The Government have great reservations over the amendments but we accept that it is desirable to find sensible and realistic ways in which to achieve greater access to mainstream schools, ways in which to strengthen the hand of parents who believe that a disabled child is being discriminated against in being refused admission to a school and ways of making both the higher and further education sectors more sensitive and responsive to the needs of disabled students. The Government have therefore decided to bring forward significant amendments to the Bill in another place to achieve those ends. The amendments build on, and add importantly to, existing education legislation.
One of the most important parts of the Education Act 1993 was the requirement for the first time that all schools should have a published policy for special education and should make it available to all parents. By reporting annually to parents, schools will ensure that they are accountable for the work that they do and will benefit from the comments that parents are able to make.
We want greatly to strengthen those measures by making it a requirement in primary legislation that the published annual report should specify the admission arrangements for pupils with special educational needs, the steps that the school takes to avoid discrimination against disabled pupils and a description of facilities which increase or assist access to the school by pupils who are disabled. We therefore hope to amend the Education Act 1993 within the Disability Discrimination Bill to achieve those requirements in law.

751
In further education, the Government intend to amend the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 to require colleges, as a condition of grant from the Further Education Funding Council, to give information on provision for students with disabilities. We envisage that this would give the Secretary of State the power to specify the timing and nature of such information. The reporting requirements would, in themselves, encourage all colleges to give further attention to the needs of students with disabilities. We also propose to amend the 1992 Act to give the Further Education Funding Council an express statutory duty to report to the Secretary of State on progress in facilitating access for students with learning difficulties and disabilities to further education and its plans for the future.
As to redress, disabled individuals would be able to complain in the first instance to colleges if they considered that the institutions had failed to fulfil the expectations raised by their policy statements. In the event that that proved ineffective, the individuals would be able to take their complaints to the Further Education Funding Council. I am considering with my hon. Friends whether an additional amendment might be required to enable the FEFC to take action where it judged a college's response to have been unsatisfactory.
The Government also envisage two amendments bearing on higher education. The first would be a statutory duty for the Higher Education Funding Council for England to have regard to the needs of disabled students in its allocation of funds. That would embody in legislation a requirement at present covered only in guidance from the Secretary of State. Secondly, we envisage that the Secretary of State might take an unambiguous power to enable her to require the funding council to seek policy statements from universities and colleges covering their arrangements for access for disabled students. We shall be consulting representative bodies about the details of the amendments, and, in the context of the review programme, we shall be exploring how it might be given practical expression.
I remind the House that the new proposals make substantial new legislative provision and I believe that they go to the heart of the concerns expressed about further and higher education in particular and education more widely. They are above and beyond our existing legislation, but they build on it in a sensible fashion. They supplement the non-legislative measures already announced—the further and higher education review and the access funding scheme for schools, about which I can now also give further details.
As hon. Members will recall, the schools access initiative was announced in the White Paper which accompanied the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will very shortly be publishing a consultation document on how that scheme might operate in the 1996–97 financial year. We envisage that around £10 million will be available in the first year to encourage imaginative and cost-effective projects aimed at increasing mainstream schools' accessibility to pupils with physical and sensory disability. It should facilitate voluntary involvement by local communities and it aims to build on existing good practice and to act as a spur to improved access, which includes physical access to building and curriculum access to equipment and teaching.
752
I therefore commend the Government's proposals to the House, and I look forward to their formal introduction in another place in due course. I believe that the proposals will substantially satisfy the concerns of my hon. Friends and of many people outside this House and demonstrate to the House and to the nation that we fully intend students and pupils with disabilities to share in the opening up of opportunities and access for disabled people, which we are dedicated to bringing about.
Dr. Godman: I had hoped to intervene on the Minister to ask him what the comparable figure for Scotland would be, as he mentioned a figure of £10 million for the English funding council. I also wanted to ask him, if I can capture his attention for just for one moment—I listened very intently to him—if, in his role as Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, he had held discussions with his Scottish Office colleagues concerning the performance of the 43 further education colleges in Scotland in relation to meeting the aspirations and interests of students suffering from disabilities.
In a letter that I received just today, Catherine Buchanan of the Scottish Association for Mental Health and her colleagues expressed their very serious concern about the Bill and what it fails to do for disabled students. The Scottish mental health and discrimination group, to which Catherine Buchanan's letter refers, states inter alia:
"The group believes that the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill is severely flawed and that, in particular, it discriminates unfairly against people with mental health problems."
The group says that what is needed, among other things, is a law to outlaw discrimination in education and training. It further argues:
"without fair access to education and training, the employment rights given by the Bill are inadequate."
That is one reason for my support of new clause 3, which has been tabled by the Opposition.
In fairness, I should point out that the association also notes:
"There are examples of good practice developing in higher education"
in Scotland,
"and a legal requirement not to discriminate would underpin and extend such good practice."
That is offered by the new clause. The association also argues:
"A law to outlaw discrimination in education would give a powerful incentive to colleges and universities"
throughout Scotland
"to continue to improve practices."
I accept that a range of performance tables already exist to record improvements in practice.
7.30 pm
In relation to new clause 3, I acknowledge that certain Scottish educational institutions already set a fine benchmark for others to try to match. In my constituency, James Watt college of further education provides many course for people with learning disabilities. Such a college would have no fear of any regulations imposed as a result of new clause 3. That is the kind of quality of education for disabled people that I should like to see extended throughout Scotland.
My constituents with learning disabilities are encouraged by James Watt college to undertake studies such as photography, printing, woodwork and keyboard

753
skills. That college, which leads the other 42 in its concern for disabled people, provides, through its faculty of learning support and adult resources, educational and training courses for upwards of 800 people throughout Argyll, from Campbeltown in the south to Oban in the north, as well as many areas in Renfrewshire. I should like such a uniform pattern of educational opportunity to be offered throughout Scotland.
I believe that the Scottish Association for Mental Health is right to express its concern at the failure of some universities and colleges of further education to provide the kind of education opportunity offered by James Watt college in Greenock and a few other colleges. Much more needs to be done.
I am sorry that the Minister devoted all his speech to amendments to be tabled in another place which will relate to English universities, colleges and schools. He used the singular "council" about everything he said. That is why I sought to intervene, because the Scottish Association for Mental Health is absolutely right and proper to express its concern about those youngsters who are denied access our colleges of further education and universities north of the border.
I remind the Minister that this is the Parliament of a multinational state—the so-called United Kingdom. He should have voiced some concern and sympathy, which I am sure he feels, for disabled students north of the border. Next time I seek to intervene on behalf of fellow Scots, I hope that he will give way.
Mr. Alan Howarth: I warmly welcome the common sense, practicality and thoroughly constructive spirit in which the Minister made his important announcements. It seemed strange that education had been left out of the Bill, as education should surely be central to it. Education is fundamental to the life chances of everyone—including, of course, disabled people—and I am pleased that education will now be prominent and important in the Bill.
The Bill will follow on a sequence of important reform measures introduced by the Government: the Education Act 1981, the Education Reform Act 1988, the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and the Education Act 1993. The latter Act was a particularly important milestone, on which I should like especially to congratulate the Minister of State at the Department for Education.
Even that Act was insufficient, however, because it still left it within the law for schools to discriminate against individual children. As I understand it, it is still lawful for schools to refuse to take a child because he or she is disabled and to treat that child less favourably. I do not know any teacher who would regard such behaviour as tolerable, but it is important that we legislate to ensure that discrimination against disabled people is illegal in education as it is elsewhere.
Legislation has an enormously important declaratory significance. It is, of itself, a great educative force. If we state the standards and decencies that our society expects of schools, colleges and universities, they are fed through into the ethos of those institutions and, in turn, those institutions influence the better development of our society. In that way, we reinforce the values of mutual care, responsibility and good citizenship.
754
I welcome the announcements that my hon. Friend the Minister has made and his determination, with colleagues at the Department for Education, to ensure that a series of important reforms are incorporated in the Bill. My hon. Friends at the Department for Education have clearly heeded the maxim of R. A. Butler, who said that the way to make progress on the Education Act 1944 was to grasp a good bunch of nettles all at once.
I do not think that the apprehensions that some professionals in education may express will be realised. They may argue that the proposals will be prejudicial to the efficient use of resources or will distort capital programmes. I do not think that those apprehensions will be justified. It is particularly important that the law governing further and higher education should be developed, as it has been significantly weaker than that governing education in schools. We must declare the principle. It is almost universally accepted within the further and higher education sectors. It is right to affirm the values set out in the Bill.
There should be no fear of a threat to academic freedom—I believe that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals acknowledges that—and the institutions should not take fright at the cost implications because the concept of reasonableness will apply.
I add my tribute to the constructive work of the Further Education Funding Council and the Higher Education Funding Council. In particular, I pay tribute to Sir William Stubbs and Professor Graeme Davies. Professor Davies sent me a copy of the HEFC's recent publication, "Access to Higher Education: Students with Special Needs", and emphasised to me that he regarded the programme of work set out in that document as being among the key objectives of the HEFC. The practical benefits include reporting on and disseminating good practice and encouraging and assisting institutions to review their practice and to do better.
My hon. Friend the Minister rattled through a series of important announcements, so there is much for hon. Members to digest. I am unclear whether he was suggesting that to attach conditions for funding would in itself be sufficient or whether he wished to go further by establishing a broad legislative duty. It is needful to strengthen the obligations in that regard.
I was pleased to hear that my hon. Friend intends to institute some sort of appeals system. The duty to report to the Secretary of State will be extremely useful. I hope that my hon. Friend's further consideration of the possibilities will lead him to invest in the FEFC the scope to take action where it considers that an institution may be defaulting on its proper responsibilities. I would encourage him to be bold about that.
As for the student support system, I believe that the distinction that we continue to make between support for part-time and full-time students is increasingly anachronistic. The majority of students embarking on courses in higher education are aged over 21. We all acknowledge the importance of lifelong learning opportunities in the changing economy and the developing society into which we are moving. Inevitably, those opportunities will have to be taken by large numbers of people part time. I recognise the cost of providing that broader range of support for part-time students, but it is an aspiration that we should firmly establish for ourselves.

755
Although the lack of mandatory awards for part-time students and the ineligibility of part-time students for disabled students' allowance are not direct discrimination because all part-time students are disqualified from certain awards, they none the less operate as indirect discrimination because, of necessity, a greater proportion of disabled people than of others have to study part time.
My hon. Friend the Minister suggested that the Government would consider the administration of the disabled students' allowance. I wonder whether that alone will be sufficient, or whether they will need to consider the legislative basis and possibly to reconsider the 1962 legislation. I hope and believe that the outcome of the Government's review of higher education, in which those issues will be considered, will be constructive, but I am worried that they may miss the legislative bus. I hope very much that the Government will, in a precautionary way, take powers in the Bill to enable them to enact any changes in student support that the review may suggest are appropriate.
I very much welcome the announcements, and I congratulate my hon. Friends on them.
Ms Lynne: I, too, welcome the announcements. They are rather like a last-minute conversion. We have not had time to study them in detail, but I am glad that the Minister has been forced to accept, to a certain extent, some of the things that have been proposed by organisations representing disabled people. I always thought that education was a glaring omission from the Bill, and that that was one of the Bill's most serious flaws.
However, the announcements do not go far enough. I recognise that, especially in the past few years, enormous strides have been made in assessing people with special educational needs and attempting to meet those needs. For all that, there is not full accessibility of mainstream education. I believe that all children should have equal rights of access to state education. They should have a choice between mainstream and special schools.
I agree with the Minister that some children will need special schools, but it is wrong for children to be forced into them simply because there is no mainstream school that is accessible. They should have a choice. Some children attend mainstream infant and primary schools but are then denied mainstream secondary education or further and higher education. That is disruptive to their schooling and the problem should be tackled.
One in five further education colleges, for instance, has no specific policies for the deaf. Many deaf students opt to attend a specialist college as a result. If they opt to attend one outside their area, it will not be paid for and they have to pay for it themselves. That is an impossible situation. Good will on the part of the schools, colleges and universities is not enough. It must be laid down by statute. However, I urge the Minister to go further than he has with the announcement.
A survey by Scope, formerly the Spastics Society, said that the majority of polling stations were not accessible. It is interesting that most polling stations are in schools, and it is a sad indictment that those people are thus denied in one fell swoop their electoral rights and their educational rights—the two key elements of a modern democracy.
Mr. Barnes: Following the Minister's statement, there may be provisions in the Bill to aid that access, which
756
would feed through into polling station provision. The problem is that the Minister has placed us in considerable difficulties by making a statement of such complexity at this stage without being able to say what the details are, so that we shall have to wait until the Bill goes to the Lords to know what those arrangements are. Those should have been before us now in a series of amendments.
Ms Lynne: I take the hon. Gentleman's argument. As I said, it is an announcement that the Minister has been forced into making. It would have been preferable if we had seen the proposals beforehand so that we could have examined them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: let us hope that our polling stations will become more accessible, as it will mean that schools are more accessible, because polling stations are mainly in school buildings. People should have a right to vote and a right to be educated, but those rights are denied to them because they are not included in the Bill. It is scandalous that that should be the case in 1995.
My final argument—I am rushing through, as I know that we are short of time—is that we cannot afford not to extend the provisions of the Bill. How can we justify not equipping people with the skills for life? How can we justify not allowing people to realise their full potential? How can we justify not recognising their achievements? The Bill should be inclusive, not exclusive, especially on education. As a former president of Yale said,
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."
I hope that the Minister will take note of that.
Sir John Hannam: I wish briefly to express my thanks to Education Ministers who met a delegation as recently as a couple of weeks ago in which we set out the objectives to bring education into the Bill. In the short time available, they have made those recommendations and proposals to be implemented in the House of Lords. I am extremely grateful, on behalf of the all-party disablement group, for the remarks that have been made about the provisions embodied in our new clauses. The Bill has begun to take the shape that we want it to have, incorporating those aspects previously omitted. I very much welcome their inclusion and the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Minister.
7.45 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I shall be extremely brief in my remarks. Although I welcome the comments and concessions made by the Government today, I ask strongly for some guidance as to what consultation took place with the Scottish Office and what funding will be available for similar requirements in Scotland. Our statutory and voluntary organisations have followed the debate closely, and it is only right that they should know what will be available to them in relation to the requirements placed on them.
Mr. Hague: The announcements that I made and the figures that I gave relate to England because they relate to the Department for Education. There will be further announcements in due course about provision elsewhere in the country. As the White Paper said, the Scottish Office Education Department will be considering further

757
the scope for authorities and schools to improve accessibility for disabled pupils, so further announcements will be made in due course.
Mrs. Ewing: Obviously, I welcome that comment, but I hope that "in due course" does not mean that it will be a substantial time before those announcements are made. The authorities have a right to know what is happening.
We have been worried about the attitude of the Scottish Office to some aspects of the Bill. I draw specific attention to clause 14(3)(a)(ii), as I wish to know whether that will apply to the aspects of education to which the Minister has referred, especially further and higher education, where a person with learning difficulties may not be in position to give formal consent. A letter sent by the Scottish Office to Enable of Scotland on 16 March 1995 appeared to be in stark contrast to the advice being given by the Disability Council to similar organisations in England and Wales.
We certainly do not want that clause to apply in education. Indeed, I do not believe that it should apply to any aspect of the Bill. It would be interesting to know whether the Government intend to delete parts of the Bill and make them inapplicable to the reforms in education that the Minister mentioned today. I am willing to send the Minister the correspondence so that he may study it in detail and perhaps make a measured response at some stage.
Mr. Hague indicated assent.
Mr. Torn Clarke: With the leave of the House, I wish to say briefly—I sense that the House is of a mood to take an early decision—that we are disappointed with what the Minister has said. He was unimaginative and far too slow about integration. We already had in the White Paper the contents of his announcements about further and higher education; there was nothing new in what he said. He was slow to present those aspects in the Bill and he did so today purely as a result of my hon. Friends' success in embarrassing him into so doing. The Minister's reference to local colleges hardly fills us with enthusiasm as the Government appointed the business men and others who run those local colleges.
In common with my hon. Friends, I found the Minister unconvincing. I welcome the fact that, because the other place is more radical and progressive than the Minister on these matters, our new clause 3—instead of being muddled, imprecise and unworkable—is clear, precise and workable. For that reason, I recommend it for the support of the House.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 297.

Division No. 116]

[7.49 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Ashton, Joe

Adams, Mrs Irene

Austin-Walker, John

Ainger, Nick

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Barnes, Harry

Allen, Graham

Barron, Kevin

Alton, David

Bayley, Hugh

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Armstrong, Hilary

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Bell, Stuart

758

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Gerrard, Neil

Bennett, Andrew F

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Benton, Joe

Godman, Dr Norman A

Bermingham, Gerald

Godsiff, Roger

Berry, Roger

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Betts, Clive

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Boateng, Paul

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Bradley, Keith

Grocott, Bruce

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Gunnell, John

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Hain, Peter

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

Hall, Mike

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hanson, David

Burden, Richard

Hardy, Peter

Byers, Stephen

Harman, Ms Harriet

Callaghan, Jim

Harvey, Nick

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Henderson, Doug

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Heppell, John

Campbell-Savours, D N

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Canavan, Dennis

Hinchliffe, David

Cann, Jamie

Hodge, Margaret

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Hoey, Kate

Chidgey, David

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Home Robertson, John

Church, Judith

Hood, Jimmy

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Clelland, David

Hoyle, Doug

Coffey, Ann

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cohen, Harry

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Corbett, Robin

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hume, John

Corston, Jean

Hutton, John

Cox, Tom

Illsley, Eric

Cummings, John

Ingram, Adam

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Janner, Greville

Dafis, Cynog

Johnston, Sir Russell

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Darling, Alistair

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Jowell, Tessa

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

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Denham, John

Keen, Alan

Dewar, Donald

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Dixon, Don

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Dobson, Frank

Khabra, Piara S

Donohoe, Brian H

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dowd, Jim

Kirkwood, Archy

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Lewis, Terry

Eagle, Ms Angela

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Eastham, Ken

Litherland, Robert

Enright, Derek

Livingstone, Ken

Etherington, Bill

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Loyden, Eddie

Fatchett, Derek

Lynne, Ms Liz

Faulds, Andrew

McAvoy, Thomas

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

McCartney, Ian

Fisher, Mark

McCrea, The Reverend William

Flynn, Paul

Macdonald, Calum

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

McFall, John

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McGrady, Eddie

Foster, Don (Bath)

McKelvey, William

Foulkes, George

Mackinlay, Andrew

Fraser, John

McLeish, Henry

Fyfe, Maria

Maclennan, Robert

Galbraith, Sam

McMaster, Gordon

Galloway, George

McNamara, Kevin

Gapes, Mike

MacShane, Denis

Garrett, John

McWilliam, John

George, Bruce

Madden, Max

759

Maddock, Diana

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Mahon, Alice

Rowlands, Ted

Mallon, Seamus

Ruddock, Joan

Mandelson, Peter

Salmond, Alex

Marek, Dr John

Sedgemore, Brian

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Sheerman, Barry

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Martlew, Eric

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Maxton, John

Short, Clare

Meacher, Michael

Simpson, Alan

Meale, Alan

Skinner, Dennis

Michael, Alun

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Milburn, Alan

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Miller, Andrew

Snape, Peter

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Soley, Clive

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Spearing, Nigel

Morgan, Rhodri

Spellar, John

Morley Elliot

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Stevenson, George

Mowlam, Marjorie

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Mudie, George

Straw, Jack

Mullin, Chris

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Murphy, Paul

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

O'Hara, Edward

Timms, Stephen

Olner, Bill

Tipping, Paddy

O'Neill, Martin

Touhig, Don

Trimble, David

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Turner, Dennis

Parry, Robert

Tyler, Paul

Pearson, Ian

Vaz, Keith

Pickthall, Colin

Walker A Cecil (Belfast N)

Pike, Peter L

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Pope, Greg

Wallace, James

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Walley, Joan

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Primarolo, Dawn

Wareing, Robert N

Quin, Ms Joyce

Watson, Mike

Radice, Giles

Welsh, Andrew

Randall, Stuart

Wicks, Malcolm

Raynsford, Nick

Wigley, Dafydd

Redmond, Martin

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Reid, Dr John

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Rendel, David

Wise, Audrey

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Worthington, Tony

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Wray, Jimmy

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Rogers, Allan

Rooker, Jeff

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rooney, Terry

Ms Estelle Morris and

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Mr. John Owen Jones.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Bates, Michael

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Batiste, Spencer

Alexander, Richard

Bellingham, Henry

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Bendall, Vivian

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Amess, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Ancram, Michael

Booth, Hartley

Arbuthnot, James

Boswell, Tim

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Ashby, David

Bowis, John

Atkins, Robert

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Brandreth, Gyles

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Brazier, Julian

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Bright, Sir Graham

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Baldry, Tony

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Browning, Mrs Angela

760

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Budgen, Nicholas

Hague, William

Burns, Simon

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Burt, Alistair

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Butcher, John

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Butler, Peter

Hannam, Sir John

Butterfill, John

Harris, David

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Haselhurst, Alan

Carrington, Matthew

Hawkins, Nick

Carttiss, Michael

Hawksley, Warren

Cash, William

Hayes, Jerry

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Heald, Oliver

Chapman, Sydney

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Churchill, Mr

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Clappison, James

Hendry, Charles

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hicks, Robert

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

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Conway, Derek

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Couchman, James

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Cran, James

Hunter, Andrew

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

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Jack, Michael

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jenkin, Bernard

Day, Stephen

Jessel, Toby

Devlin, Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Dover, Den

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Duncan, Alan

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Key, Robert

Dunn, Bob

King, Rt Hon Tom

Durant, Sir Anthony

Kirkhope, Timothy

Dykes, Hugh

Knapman, Roger

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Elletson, Harold

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Knox, Sir David

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Evennett, David

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Faber, David

Legg, Barry

Fabricant, Michael

Leigh, Edward

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fishburn, Dudley

Lidington, David

Forman, Nigel

Lightbown, David

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Forth, Eric

Luff, Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

MacKay, Andrew

French, Douglas

Maclean, David

Fry, Sir Peter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gale, Roger

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gallie, Phil

Madel, Sir David

Gardiner, Sir George

Maitland, Lady Olga

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Major, Rt Hon John

Garnier, Edward

Malone, Gerald

Gillan, Cheryl

Mans, Keith

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Marland, Paul

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Gorst, Sir John

Mates, Michael

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Mawhinney, Rt. Hon Dr Brian

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

761

Merchant, Piers

Spink, Dr Robert

Mills, Iain

Spring, Richard

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Sproat, Iain

Moate, Sir Roger

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Monro, Sir Hector

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Steen, Anthony

Moss, Malcolm

Stephen, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Stern, Michael

Neubert, Sir Michael

Stewart, Allan

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Streeter, Gary

Nicholls, Patrick

Sumberg, David

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Sweeney, Walter

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Sykes, John

Norris, Steve

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Oppenheim, Phillip

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Ottaway, Richard

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Page, Richard

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Paice, James

Temple-Morris, Peter

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Thomason, Roy

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Thurnham, Peter

Pickles, Eric

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Tracey, Richard

Powell, William (Corby)

Tredinnick, David

Rathbone, Tim

Trend, Mchael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Trotter, Neville

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Twinn, Dr Ian

Richards, Rod

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Viggers, Peter

Robathan, Andrew

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Walden, Geroge

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Waller, Gary

Ward, John

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Waterson, Nigel

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Watts, John

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Wells, Bowen

Sackville, Tom

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Whitney, Ray

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Whittingdale, John

Shaw, David (Dover)

Widdecombe, Ann

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Willetts, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wilshire, David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Sims, Roger

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wolfson, Mark

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Wood, Timothy

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Yeo, Tim

Soames, Nicholas

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Speed, Sir Keith

Spencer, Sir Derek

Tellers for the Noes:

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Dr. Liam Fox and

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 1

  DISABILITY RIGHTS COMMISSION
  `—(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall appoint a body which shall be named the Disability Rights Commission ("the Commission").
  (2) It shall be the duty of the Commission—

  (a) to work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled persons;

  (b) to carry out general investigations with a view to determining whether the provisions of this Act are being complied with;

  (c) to investigate such complaints as may be made to them of failure to comply with any provision of the Act in an individual case, and where it seems appropriate, conciliate in relation to such complaints;

  762

  (d) to provide, where they deem it appropriate, assistance, including legal and financial assistance, to disabled persons in enforcing their rights under this Act; and

  (e) to keep under review this working of this Act and, when they are so required by the Secretary of State or otherwise think it desirable, draw up and submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amending this Act.

  (3) The Commission shall issue a draft Code of Practice or draft Codes of Practice setting out the requirements of this Act and the manner in which they may be met, whether generally or in the circumstances of each particular case.
  (4) Before issuing any draft Code of Practice under subsection (3) above, the Commission shall consult—

  (a) such organisation or organisations of disabled persons; and

  (b) such organisations or associations of organisations representative of employers or of workers; and

  (c) such other organisations, or bodies

  as appear to the Commission to be appropriate or which the Secretary of State has directed the Commission to consult, and shall consider any representations made to it about such drafts.
  (5) The Commission shall, within eighteen months of the passing of this Act, publish a Code of Practice or Codes of Practice resulting from its consultations under subsections (3) and (4) above, and shall transmit these to the Secretary of State.
  (6) The Secretary of State shall lay copies of any such Code of Practice transmitted to him under subsection (5) above before Parliament, and if either House of Parliament resolves that the Code of Practice be withdrawn, the Commission shall withdraw that Code of Practice, and prepare another Code of Practice in substitution for the one which is withdrawn.
  (7) No motion to withdraw a Code of Practice shall be made in either House of Parliament under subsection (6) above after the expiration of a period of forty days beginning with the day on which a copy of the Code of Practice was laid before that House, but for the purposes of calculating this period 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) Unless a Code of Practice is withdrawn under the provisions of subsection (6) above, it shall come into effect on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint, not being later than six months from the date on which it is published by the Commission.
  (9) The Commission shall keep under review each Code of Practice published under this section and shall, at such times as it considers appropriate or when the Secretary of State so directs, revise the whole or any part of any Code of Practice, and the provisions of subsection (4) to (8) above shall apply (with appropriate modifications) to such revisions.
  (10) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a Code of Practice published in accordance with this section shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings; but in determining, in respect of Parts II and III of this Act, what actions are permitted or prohibited under those Parts, whether generally or in the circumstances of a particular case, an employer or (as the case may be) a person or body to whom Part II of this Act applies shall have regard to any Code of Practice published in accordance with the provisions of subsection (5) above.
  (11) In proceedings under sections 8 and 20 of this Act, any provision of a Code of Practice which appears to an industrial tribunal or, as the case may be, a court, to be relevant to an allegation in those proceedings of the commission of an act of discrimination which is unlawful by virtue of Part II or III of this Act shall be admissible in evidence and—

  (a) observance or failure to observe any such provision on the part of any person may be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to negative or to establish any liability which is in question in those proceedings; and

  (b) a document which purports to be a Code of Practice shall be taken to be such unless the contrary is proved.

  (12) Schedule (The Disability Rights Commission) to this Act shall have effect in relation to the Commission.'.—[Mr. Tom Clarke.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 14—Investigations by the Council: procedure—
  'In respect of general investigations, or investigations of complaints, undertaken by the Council, the Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe—

  (a) the procedure whereby the Council may require a person to furnish such information as will assist in any investigation and the time, manner and form in which such information is to be furnished;

  (b) the procedures to be followed in the case of a person failing to supply such information;

  (c) the penalties to be imposed in the case of a person failing to supply such information, save that such penalties shall not exceed level 3 on the standard scale on summary conviction in respect of such a failure and level 4 in respect of each day on which the failure continues after conviction in respect thereof;

  (d) the circumstances in which the Council can make recommendations and reports in the light of its findings in an investigation; and

  (e) the manner and form in which such recommendations and reports may be issued.'.

  New clause 15—Investigations by the Council: anti-discrimination notices, etc.—

  '.—(1) In respect of general investigations, or investigations of complaints, undertaken by the Council, the Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe—

  (a) the circumstances in which, following such an investigation, the Council may issue to a person a notice of prohibition of discrimination, which shall be known as a non-discrimination notice;

  (b) the manner and form in which such a notice shall be issued;

  (c) the procedures to be adopted in investigating whether such a notice is being complied with; and

  (d) the procedures to be followed in the case of a non-discrimination notice not being complied with.

  (2) Regulations made in accordance with subsection (1) above shall prescribe, in the case of an alleged discrimination by one person against another, the arrangements whereby the Council may—

  (a) in the case of discrimination in contravention of Part II of this Act, refer the matter to an industrial tribunal, and

  (b) in the case of discrimination in contravention of Part III of this Act,apply to a county court for an injunction, or a sheriff court for an order, restraining the respondent from such discrimination,

  but nothing in those regulations shall prevent an individual from making a claim of discrimination the subject of civil proceedings.'.

  Amendment No. 20, in clause 23, page 16, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 in clause 25 on page 19.
  Amendment No. 52, in page 16, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 17, and insert—

  '(2) It shall be the duty of the Council—

  (a) to work towards the elimination of discrimination on the basis of disability; and

  (b) to keep under review the working of this Act and, when directed to do so by the Secretary of State or when it otherwise thinks it desirable, to draw up and submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amending this Act.

  (3) In discharging its duties under subsection (2), the Council shall have the power—

  764

  (a) to investigate such complaints as are made to it of failure to comply with any provision of this Act in an individual case, and where it considers it appropriate, to conciliate in relation to such complaints;

  (b) to provide assistance, including legal and financial assistance, to disabled persons in enforcing their rights under this Act;

  (c) to carry out investigations with a view to determining whether the provisions of this Act are being complied with; and

  (d) to undertake, or assist (whether financially or otherwise) the undertaking by other persons, of any research and any educational activities, which appear to the Council necessary or expedient for the purposes of subsection (2) above.'.

  Amendment No. 45, in page 16, line 35, at end insert—
  '(d) on matters related to the provisions or operation of other enactments or government policies relating to disabled persons insofar as they affect the opportunities of disabled persons other than in the field of employment.'.
  Amendment No. 53, in page 17, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 48,
  Amendment No. 1, a new schedule:—'The Disability Rights Commission—

  DISABILITY RIGHTS COMMISSION

    Constitution of the Commission
    1. The Commission shall consist of at least eight but not more than fifteen persons ("Commissioners") appointed by the Secretary of State, after consultation with organisations of disabled people, on a full-time or part-time basis, four of whom, including the chairman, shall be full-time members.
    2. At least three-quarters of the total number of the Commissioners shall themselves be persons who, at the time of their appointment, are disabled persons or the authorised representatives of disabled persons appointed pursuant to section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 or section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.
    3. So far as is reasonably practicable, the Secretary of State shall ensure that the Commission includes at least one member who resides in each of England, Scotland and Wales.
    4.—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint one of the Commissioners to be chairman of the Commission and one of the Commissioners to be deputy chairman of the Commission.
    (2) Both the chairman and the deputy chairman shall be persons who, at the time of their appointment, are disabled persons or authorised representatives of disabled persons appointed pursuant to section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) 1986 or section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.
    5. On the appointment by the Secretary of State of the first Commissioners, the Commission shall come into existence as a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal.
    6.—(1) The Commission is not an emanation of the Crown, and shall not act or be treated as the servant or agent of the Crown.
    (2) Accordingly—

    (a) neither the Commission nor a Commissioner not a member of its staff as such is entitled to any status, immunity, privilege or exemption enjoyed by the Crown;

    (b) the Commissioners and members of the staff of the Commission as such are not civil servants; and

    (c) the Commission's property is not property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.

    Tenure of Office of Commissioners
    7.—(1) A Commissioner shall hold and vacate his office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
    (2) A person shall not be appointed a Commissioner for more than—

    (a) where he was appointed on 31st March in any year, five years; and

    (b) in any other case, the period which expires with the first 31st March after the fifth anniversary of his appointment.

    (3) With the consent of the Commissioner concerned, the Secretary of State may alter the terms of an appointment so as to make a full-time Commissioner into a part-time Commissioner or vice versa, or for any other purpose.
    (4) A Commissioner may resign by notice to the Secretary of State.
    (5) The Secretary of State may terminate the appointment of a Commissioner if satisfied that—

    (a) without the consent of the Commission, he failed to attend the meetings of the Commission during a continuous period of six months beginning not earlier than nine months before the termination; or

    (b) he is an undischarged bankrupt, or has made an arrangement with his creditors, or is insolvent within the meaning of paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 3 to the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland Act) 1970 or who is otherwise unable to pay his debts; or

    (c) he is incapable of carrying out his duties.

    (6) Past service as a Commissioner is no bar to re-appointment.

    Tenure of office of chairman and deputy chairman
    8.—(1) The chairman and deputy chairman shall hold and vacate those offices in accordance with the terms of his appointment, and may resign by notice to the Secretary of State.
    (2) The office of the chairman or deputy chairman is vacated if he ceases to be a Commissioner.
    (3) Past service as chairman or deputy chairman is no bar to re-appointment.

    Remuneration of Commissioners
    9. The Secretary of State may pay, or make such payments towards the provision of, such remuneration, pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of the Commissioners or any of them as, with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, he may determine.
    10. Where a person ceases to be a Commissioner otherwise than on the expiry of his term of office, and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for that person to receive compensation, the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service direct the Commission to make to that person a payment of such amount as, with the consent of that Minister, the Secretary of State may determine.

    Staff
    11. The Commission may, after consultation with the Secretary of State, appoint such officers and servants as they think fit, subject to the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service as to numbers and as to remuneration and other terms and conditions of service.
    12.—(1) Employment with the Commission shall be included among the kinds of employment to which a superannuation scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply, and accordingly in Schedule 1 to that Act (in which those kinds of employment are listed) the words "Disability Rights Commission" shall be inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order.
    (2) Where a person who is employed by the Commission and is by reference to that employment a participant in a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 becomes a Commissioner, the Minister for the Civil Service may determine that his service as a Commissioner shall be treated for the purposes of the scheme as service as an employee of the Commission; and his rights under the schemes shall not be affected by paragraph 9.
    13. The Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 shall not require insurance to be effected by the Commission.

    Proceedings and Business
    14.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commission may make arrangements for the regulation of their proceedings and business, and may vary or revoke those arrangements.
    (2) The arrangements may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, provide for the discharge under the general direction of the Commission of any of the Commission's functions by a committee of the Commission, or by two or more Commissioners.
    (3) Anything done by or in relation to a committee, or Commissioners, in the discharge of the Commission's functions shall have the same effect as if done by or in relation to the Commission.
    15. The validity of any proceedings of the Commission shall not be affected by any vacancy among the members of the Commission or by any defect in the appointment of any Commissioner.
    16. The quorum for meetings of the Commission shall in the first instance be determined by a meeting of the Commission attended by not fewer than five Commissioners.

    Finance
    17. The Secretary of State shall pay to the Commission expenses incurred or to be incurred by it under paragraphs 11 and 12 with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service and Treasury, and shall pay to the Commission such sums as the Secretary of State thinks fit for enabling the Commission to meet other expenses.
    18.—(1) The Commission shall keep proper accounts of their income and expenditure, and shall prepare and send to the Secretary of State statements of account in relation to each financial year of the Commission.
    (2) The financial year of the Commission shall be the twelve months ending on 31st March.

    Disqualification Acts
    19. In Part II of Schedule I to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified under those Acts) there shall (at the appropriate place in alphabetical order) be inserted the following entry:
    "The Disability Rights Commission".

    Investigations
    20. In respect of general investigations or investigations of complaints undertaken by the Commission the Secretary of State shall prescribe by regulations—

    (a) the procedure whereby the Commission may require a person to furnish such information as they think will assist in any investigation, and the time, manner and form in which such information is to be furnished;

    (b) the procedures to be followed in the case of that person failing to supply that information; and

    (c) the penalties to be imposed in the case of that person failing to supply that information; save that such penalties shall not exceed level 3 of the standard scale on summary conviction in respect of such a failure and level 4 in respect of each day on which the failure in continued after conviction in respect thereof.

    21.—(1) In respect of general investigations of complaints undertaken by the Commission the Secretary of State shall prescribe by regulations—

    (a) the circumstances in which, following such an investigation, the Commission may issue to a person a notice of prohibition of discrimination, which shall be known as a non-discrimination notice;

    (b) the manner and form in which such a notice shall be issued;

    (c) the procedures to be adopted in investigation whether such a not is being complied with; and

    (d) the procedures to be followed in the case of a non-discrimination notice not being complied with.

    (2) Regulations made in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above shall prescribe, in the case of an alleged discrimination by one person against another, the arrangements whereby the Commission may—

    (a) in the case of discrimination in contravention of Part II of this Act, refer the matter to an industrial tribunal, and

    767

    (b) in the case of discrimination in contravention of Part III of this Act, apply to a county court for an injunction, or a sheriff court for an order, restraining the respondent from such discrimination,

    but nothing in those regulations shall prevent an individual from making a claim of discrimination the subject of civil proceedings.

    Annual Report
    22.—(1) As soon as possible after 31st March in each year, the Commission shall make to the Secretary of State a report on their activities during the year, hereinafter referred to as an "annual report".
    (2) Each annual report shall include a general survey of developments during the period to which it relates in respect of matters falling within the scope of the Commission's duties.
    (3) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the annual report before each House of Parliament and shall cause the report to be published.'.
    Amendment No. 23, in schedule 3, page 32, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 on page 34.
    Amendment No. 56, in page 33, line 3, after 'chairman', insert
    'provided that both the chairman and the deputy chairman shall be persons who at the time of their appointment are disabled persons or authorised representatives of disabled persons appointed pursuant to section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 or section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.'.
    Amendment No. 57, in page 33, line 13, leave out 'try to'.
    Amendment No. 58, in page 33, line 15, leave out
    'parents or guardians of disabled persons'
    and insert
    'authorised representatives of disabled persons appointed pursuant to section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 or section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.'.
    Amendment No. 59, in page 33, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 43 and insert—
    '6. The Council may, after consultation with the Secretary of State, appoint such officers and servants as it thinks fit, subject to the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service as to numbers and as to remuneration and other terms and conditions of service.
    7.—(1) The Secretary of State shall pay to the Council—

    (a) expenses incurred, or to be incurred, by it under paragraph 6, with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service and the Treasury, and

    (b) such other sums as, with the approval of the Treasury, he determines to be required for enabling the Council to meet other expenses which it has incurred, or will incur.

    (2) The Council shall keep proper accounts of its income and expenditure and shall prepare and transmit to the Secretary of State statements of accounts in relation to each financial year of the Council which shall be included in the annual report made under paragraph 9 below.
    Amendment No. 25, in schedule 6, page 37, line 7, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 9 and insert
    'for "Disability Rights Commission" substitute "Disability Rights Commission for Northern Ireland".'.
    Amendment No. 26, in page 37, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 on page 39 and insert—
    '(2) In section (Disability Rights Commission)—

    (a) in subsection (1), for "Disability Rights Commission" substitute "Disability Rights Commission for Northern Ireland";

    (b) for "Secretary of State" in each place where it occurs substitute "Department of Health and Social Services";

    768

    (c) in subsection (6) for "Parliament" in the first place where it occurs substitute "the Assembly" and for "either House of Parliament" substitute "the Assembly";

    (d) in subsection 7, for "either House of Parliament", "that House", and "Parliament" respectively, substitute "the Assembly" and for the words from "prorogued" to the end of the subsection substitute "or during which the Assembly has not sat for any continuous period of more than four days.".'.

    Amendment No. 60, in page 37, line 10, leave out from 'State"' to end of line 33 and insert
    'substitute "Department of Health and Social Services".'.
    Amendment No. 62, in page 39, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 40 and insert—
    '16. In section (Investigations by the Council: procedure), for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of Health and Social Services".
    16A. In section (Investigations by the Council: anti-discriminatory notices, etc.)—

    (a) in subsection (1), for "Secretary of State" substitute "a Northern Ireland department", and

    (b) in subsection (2)(b), leave out ", or a sheriff court for an order,".'.

    Amendment No. 63, in page 44, line 24, leave out '6'.
    Amendment No. 64, in page 44, line 26, leave out '7(d) for "Treasury"' and insert
    '6 and 7 for "Treasury" in each place where it occurs'.
    Amendment No. 27, in page 45, line 43, at end add—
    '29. In Schedule (The Disability Rights Commission)—

    (a) in the heading, after "Commission", insert "for Northern Ireland.",

    (b) for "Secretary of State" in each place where it occurs, substitute "Department of Health and Social Services";

    (c) in paragraph 3 for the words from "the Commission" to the end of the paragraph substitute "the Commissioners are resident in Northern Ireland.";

    (d) in paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 and 17 for "Minister for the Civil Service" or "Minister for the Civil Service and Treasury", substitute "Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland";

    (e) for paragraph 19 substitute—

    "19. In Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) there shall be inserted at the appropriate place the following entry:
    'Disability Rights Commission for Northern Ireland'.".

    (f) in paragraph 21(2)(b), leave out ", or a sheriff court for an order,";

    (g) in paragraph 22(3), for "each House of Parliament" substitute "the Assembly".'.

    Mr. Clarke: I am delighted with the growing support for our measures.
    New clause 1 and the associated new clauses and amendments deal with the disability rights commission and go to the heart of the Bill. The first test of good law is whether it is enforceable: the Bill fails that test. Ministers have resisted a disability rights commission, despite the overwhelming force of the arguments in its favour-not least those expressed in Committee.
    Why do not the Government listen even to Conservative Members? The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who has made distinguished contributions on the subject, made clear his view on Second Reading—and no doubt he will do so today if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He

    769
    described the Government's proposals for an advisory council as opposed to an effective commission as insufficient, and he was right.
    The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) suggested that something stronger than an advisory organisation might be required, and he called on the Minister to reconsider his opposition to a commission. We will learn tonight whether the Minister has paid any heed to that call, and whether, in the absence of any response, Conservative Members will join us in the Lobby voting for a positive response.
    In The Guardian last Wednesday, Jonathan Kaye, who is a member of the Conservative party and has responsibility for disability policy in the Bow group, joined the chorus of support for a fruitful, powerful commission. He predicted that, if the Government do not create a commission now, they will be forced to do so in two years' time because the Bill will not work without one—a view with which I entirely agree.
    Mr. Kaye noted that, under Government proposals, Britain will be the only country to pass such legislation without creating a suitable enforcement body to ensure compliance. He asked why a party claiming to be dedicated to law and order—as the Conservative party increasingly does—seems reluctant to provide the means to enforce a law. He asked why the Government have placed themselves in that unbelievable position. The Minister should try to give a convincing answer.
    New clauses and amendments on the amendment paper include those in the names of the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden), and propose to add to the powers of the national disability council powers similar to those that we propose for the disability rights commission. Conservative and Opposition Members are on common ground on that issue, and I hope that we go through the Lobby together at the end of this debate. That which matters more than anything else is not the name but the substance, and in substance we are agreed. The Bill needs more than any other improvement the establishment of a body with powers to investigate and to eliminate discrimination against disabled people.
    The Government's proposals will not only make British law uniquely unenforceable by international standards but put disability discrimination in a new legal category at home. Models for anti-discrimination law exist, and legislation on discrimination on grounds of race or gender include provision for enforcement—and so they should.
    That is the right road to follow, yet the Government have deliberately chosen not to follow it in respect of disabled people. They propose to give disability discrimination a lower status than race or sex discrimination. If the commission model works in other areas, it should work for disability, yet the Government ignore the existence of other models of anti-discrimination law at home and abroad. Parliament has provided the best protection that it can devise against race or sex discrimination, as it should, but it is asked to provide second-class protection for disabled people.
    Mr. Tim Devlin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be far better to have just one commission named the commission for fair
    770
    employment to deal with race, sex, disablement and other forms of discrimination—instead of establishing another miniature empire?
    Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman takes that view, it would have been more helpful if he had tabled an amendment or a new clause. His idea may sound progressive, but for that reason the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People would have resisted it. Even the logic that he promotes is not something that the Department would find appealing.
    Disabled people should have more than just the law on their side—they need law enforcement. Our proposals would create a commission with a range of powers. The disability rights commission would be able to provide assistance, including financial and legal assistance, to disabled people seeking redress for acts of discrimination. That alone is profoundly important for what we regard as a free society. The commission would be able to carry out general investigations, to determine whether discrimination—including indirect discrimination, of which there is much evidence—was taking place and to encourage employers and service providers to comply with the law.
    The commission would, where necessary, be able to bring proceedings to compel employers or service providers to obey the law. There is no reason why it should not. The idea squares with the Government's approach to many other matters, including race and gender.
    We believe that the onus should not always be on disabled people to prove that they have suffered discrimination, or to take action to obtain a remedy. Alleged discriminators should be obliged to show that their practices comply with the law. Investigative powers for the commission will ensure that practices that discriminate are found out and remedied sooner rather than later. The very existence of such powers will encourage compliance with the law.
    Most cases brought to the Commission for Racial Equality under the Race Relations Act 1976 are settled without the need to go to court. That is important to the overwhelming case for a commission. The Government appear to anticipate that the same will happen here—and we hope that they are right. But the point that they seem to miss is that most race discrimination cases are settled out of court precisely because the alleged discriminators know that the CRE has the powers to enforce the law, so they sensibly choose to comply at an early stage.
    The disability rights commission would have a general duty to work towards the elimination of discrimination—as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission do. This duty would involve promoting awareness of the profoundly important issue of disability discrimination. That would save many people and organisations from finding themselves in breach of the law in the first place. The commission would be free to initiate its own research and education in pursuit of its wider objectives. That too would allow it to achieve prevention rather than cure—an idea that should appeal to the Minister and the Government.
    The powers that we propose are complementary. The commission that we envisage would quickly build up the necessary expertise to allow it to draft effective codes of practice and to recommend to Ministers practical improvements to the law. That is far more effective and

    771
    efficient than the Government's approach. It is a way of promoting equality, instead of relying on complainants pursuing their cases, given that so many impediments are placed in their way.
    The Commission for Racial Equality has found that
    "promotional work is greatly strengthened by the awareness of employers that, if it fails, formal investigations are possible … Guidance and codes are heavily based on the information that has come … through formal investigations and individual complaints."
    Investigative powers and promotional duties go together, therefore, and form a coherent package which we propose and support. Disabled people want that package too, and for employers and service providers the existence of a credible national body with the authority to oversee and to enforce the law provides a clear point of reference and source of guidance for those who wish to know how to proceed.
    The Institute of Personnel Development and the Employers Forum on Disability have both called for a national body with powers, status and resources equivalent to those of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. The CBI has also expressed disquiet about the lack of clarity in the plans for the Government's national disability council—in particular about whether it can carry out independent research, and about its interaction with the other equality commissions and the arbitration service ACAS. In the CBI's words:
    "The latter is particularly important given the potential complications arising from overlaps of jurisdiction in cases of compound discrimination".
    That is a diplomatic and technical way of putting it.
    8.15 pm
    Let me put it another way: employers want to know what happens when an employee or job applicant is discriminated against more than once. For example, what happens when a disabled woman is refused promotion for no apparent reason? Most employers do not want to discriminate unfairly, and rightly want to ensure that their competitors do not obtain an unfair advantage by unfair discrimination.
    The unacceptable answer is that, under the Government's proposals, a disabled woman will have much more effective redress if she suffered discrimination on account of her gender than if she did on account of her disability. If the former applied, the Equal Opportunities Commission might take up her case, provide her with legal and financial support, issue a notice of non-discrimination against her employer and impose financial penalties if the employer failed to co-operate—all laudable and practical steps. If the same disabled woman suffered unfair discrimination because of her disability, however, the Government-proposed national disability council would be able to do absolutely nothing.
    The plain fact is that the council will be able to monitor discrimination but not do anything about it. It will be able to advise the Government in certain areas, but not to tell anyone if the Government choose not to follow its advice. It will be able to offer draft codes of practice, but only when asked to do so by the Secretary of State. That is simply not good enough. Disabled people want and are entitled to first-class protection under the law.
    772
    Lord Snowdon recently reminded me of what Martin Luther King said about discrimination:
    "Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrict the heartless."
    With the benefit of 30 years' experience of race relations law in this country, we can and should go further in this area. Effective law can make unthinkable forms of discrimination that were standard practice only a generation before. Enforceable regulations can change the rules of the game and allow those who have suffered discrimination in the past the benefit of the level playing field to which they are entitled in a modern democracy.
    A disability discrimination Act—even the measure before us, with all its weaknesses and omissions—can transform the prospects for disabled people in future generations, especially if it is accompanied by an effective enforcement body that can ensure its implementation and inform Ministers of what more needs to be done to make discrimination against disabled people a thing of the past.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: I have tabled new clauses 14 and 15 and amendments Nos. 52 to 59 to extend the powers of the national disability council. My objective is very much the same as that of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), but I proceed by a different route. Instead of seeking to establish a disability rights commission, I seek to build on the institution that the Government propose to create, the NDC. My amendments would extend the powers of the council. At present, its role will be purely advisory. The amendments would give it a role and powers that would be in line with those of the commissions that have been established under other equal opportunities legislation.
    Why do I wish to extend the powers of the council? I do so because I believe that for us to create rights without providing the means to sustain them is a hollow act. The rights of disabled people and our support for them should be no less than the rights and support that we accord to our fellow human beings on grounds of race and gender. Any discrimination against people because they belong to a particular group or category is odious, dehumanising and deeply offensive to the principles of a liberal and humane society.
    It is not good enough to leave disadvantaged people to use their exiguous resources to assert and gain their rights against others richer and more powerful than themselves. Major employers, such as those in membership of the Employers Forum on Disability, agree with that proposition. For example, British Rail and the Midland bank have observed that, without an enforcement agency, too many firms will continue to do what they want and what is convenient to them.
    We have always accepted in Parliament that it is the role of the state to step in to protect the weak and the vulnerable from the abuse of power, whether exercised by mediaeval barons, mill owners, landlords, trade union bosses or the limited number of today's employers who insist on acting in a discriminatory fashion.
    We should have a disability rights commission or a strengthened NDC. I do not mind what the body is called, so long as it does the job that it is needed to undertake. It must have powers to investigate and enforce.
    We need a commission that has a strategic role, in the same way as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. The legislative model

    773
    that we have in relation to those two bodies will serve us well in the establishment of the body that we need to sustain the rights of those who may experience discrimination because of their disablement.
    Any such body should work with a light touch. No one wants a commission that bears down heavily and is excessively bureaucratic, excessively litigious and looking to interfere and to pick fights. I know that those are the fears of some of my hon. Friends, but I believe that they are very much misplaced. If my hon. Friends look open-mindedly and fairly at the record, they will recognise that that is so.
    Nor is the organisation that I have in mind to be compared with the American Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, which has a particular role that I do not propose for a strengthened NDC. The commission has a remit, I understand, to screen all cases that may come to court. It is much better to do as the Government propose and to provide direct access to tribunals and courts for complainants. The strengthened council's role would, in a sense, be more selective. It would always be seeking to advance the principle of equal opportunity and the unacceptability of unjustified discrimination. It would proceed by taking up cases where there was a special cause to do so—for example, because of their representative importance or because of the wider beneficial impact that its involvement in a case would have.
    The need for that is vital, as are the other needs that have been acknowledged by my hon. Friend the Minister. There is a need for the Government to receive advice and a need for individual disabled people to be assisted by the adoption of practical remedies.
    I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister has argued against a broader enforcement role for the commission or strengthened council on the basis that all disabled people are individuals and disabilities are unique. That is true, but we wish to act against the evil of unjustifiable discrimination, which occurs in an all too regularly repeated range of ways.
    I shall give the House an example. Where there are medical screening procedures with overly restrictive criteria, a procedure that is simple in itself will act differentially and, in effect, involve indirect discrimination. If an organisation has a broad-brush policy, it is wrong to require individuals who may be unfairly affected by discrimination to seek an individual remedy.
    I am assured that the Post Office—I was surprised and disappointed to hear this—has a policy of not allowing its employees who have diabetes to drive its vehicles. It is not against the law for diabetics to drive, but the Post Office has adopted a blanket policy. That is my information. If what I have said is incorrect, I shall apologise and readily withdraw. I am advised on good authority, however, that what I have said is, indeed, the position. The Post Office does not make an individual assessment of the ability of an employee who has diabetes to drive its vehicles.
    The Post Office's policy seems unreasonable, especially as it does not apply the policy to someone who was diagnosed as diabetic before 1984. The policy seems to be comprehensively confused. That is surely a good
    774
    instance of a broad employment issue in an enormous organisation which a disability rights commission or a strengthened NDC could usefully investigate.
    Mr. Pickthall: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I am insulin dependent and know a little about what he is saying. I had not thought of myself as disabled. It is important to understand that the licensing authorities will not allow the driving of public service vehicles by diabetics. That is true of the fire brigade and of heavy goods vehicle drivers, who automatically lose their licence if they become insulin dependent. They can apply for the restoration of their licence after a period, but it is extremely rare for such a driver to regain his licence.
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman's intervention was interesting and helpful. We are clearly in debatable territory. It seems eminently suitable for a public-spirited and expert agency to investigate it and to consider what the appropriate criteria may be, and to make recommendations, if it judges that necessary, for improved employment policy or, possibly, improved legislation.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will note that the body that has instilled that practice is under Government direction. Does he agree that it is important that the Government do something to change that direction?
    Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He makes the point well. The Government have a responsibility to promote good employment practice throughout our economy and society, especially where large public service organisations are involved.
    Let me give the House another instance where a commission could usefully be involved. I am advised again—on the evidence of a consultant psychiatrist writing in The Lancet—that it is the policy of some health authorities not to employ anyone with epilepsy. That seems quite extraordinary and to my mind is disgraceful and indefensible. If an employer does not take a rational view of the nature and prognosis of epilepsy, a disability rights commission or a strengthened national disability council, could look at the issue—for example, in health service employment—and make recommendations.
    Mr. Devlin: Hang on a minute. Suppose a local health authority or health trust were to be sued by a patient for the results of an epileptic attack during a medical procedure, how would the national health trust justify itself to the patient in those circumstances?
    Mr. Howarth: It is interesting that practice between health authorities is very different. Some health authorities—to my mind in this particular respect, the better employers—look carefully at the individual circumstances and the health of particular people whom they might employ, and they do not invariably take the view that there are no circumstances in which they could responsibly employ someone with epilepsy. There may well be certain responsibilities than an epileptic should not be expected to carry out, but I do not think that my hon. Friend, on reflection, would really wish to argue that there are no jobs in the health service that someone with epilepsy could reasonably be expected to perform.

    775
    8.30 pm
    What my hon. Friend says bears out my contention that we badly need an intelligent, expert body charged with the responsibility to help us to evolve good practice in such fields. It seems to me that the system that my hon. Friend the Minister envisages would place unreasonable demands on individuals affected by such discrimination. Certainly, if the individual is left to fend for himself or herself, to try to establish his or her own rights, that will not help adequately to generalise good practice. Indeed, we may be left with a series of piecemeal, confused—even contradictory—resolutions by different industrial tribunals.
    It is tempting for employers in the unhappy situation where they have to make redundancies to look for rather simple rules of thumb, to look for simple criteria, for example, rates of absenteeism. If that is to be the criterion for selecting those who are to be made redundant, it is all too likely that it will bear heavily on people who have good cause to be absent, because they need medical appointments. Those people have valid reasons, because of their condition, to be away from work from time to time. Again, that seems to be the kind of problem with which a commission could deal.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The absenteeism rate of people with disabilities is normally lower than that of others because disabled people are so exceptionally conscientious.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I accept her implied chiding.
    Let me give one instance of the useful work that the Equal Opportunities Commission carries out. I refer to its investigation, the results of which were published in March this year, into employment agencies. The EOC found that there was indeed widespread sex stereotyping, and opportunities were restricted for all too many people. If individuals had been simply left to take their own cases in this matter to tribunals, they would not have had access to the knowledge and experience that the EOC had.
    If some of those individuals had been successful in bringing their cases, I still do not believe that the outcome would have been sufficiently generalised to influence practice in the way in which an EOC investigation is able to do. Within five days of the EOC report being published, 250 organisations contacted it for further advice. I would like to see such opportunities and developments occurring in respect of disability.
    The EOC and the Commission for Racial Equality provide invaluable advice to businesses. Similarly, advice and help will be needed in the disability field—certainly advice and help that go beyond what I believe, with the best will in the world, the placement, assessment and counselling teams or, indeed, citizens advice bureaux, will be able to provide. The citizens advice bureaux do a marvellous job in advising citizens on how they may find remedy for their grievances. I do not think that the CAB would wish to be entrusted with the major role of advising employers on what proper practice should be.
    I very much welcome the Government's commitment to remove the restriction in the National Assistance Act 1948 on the provision of direct payments to disabled people. It always seemed to me to be an unfortunate provision. I recognise the complexity of what will be entailed, however. I was sorry that my right hon. Friends
    776
    felt unable to incorporate in the Bill a clause that would at least have cleared away the legislative roadblock to further detailed progress. That is one more example of where I believe that a commission would be helpful.
    There will, indeed, be much to be thought about, to be considered carefully and to be learnt from subsequent experience. My amendment No. 45, which has been selected, says that the national disability council should have a duty to advise on policy developments in a range of fields, apart from employment. That is one such instance in which it could play a valuable role. I hope that, in due course, it will do so.
    I have proposed that the national disability council should be given additional powers. The strengthened national disability council should have wide powers to provide assistance to people who complain of discrimination. It should have broad law enforcement powers, including the ability to conduct formal investigations and to take certain forms of legal action in its own name. It should have the power to conduct formal investigations either to examine whether a particular organisation is discriminating or to promote equal opportunities within a specific area, such as the practices of employment agencies, to which I referred just now, or estate agents. It should have the power, in specified circumstances, to issue non-discrimination notices and to make recommendations about improving practices to specific organisations.
    It should have the power to apply to the court for orders restraining persons from persistent discrimination. It should have the power to draw up codes of practice, subject to approval by the Secretary of State and Parliament, and to make recommendations for the improved operation of the law.
    The existence of a national organisation, able actively to promote equality of opportunity, both through advising organisations and through taking legal action in specific instances where necessary, is crucial to developing our culture, to changing entrenched attitudes and to working effectively towards removing the patterns of discrimination which still disfigure our society, and which my hon. Friend the Minister deplores as much as I do.
    It is important to recognise that the various powers, duties and activities that a strengthened council would undertake are mutually interdependent. They would reinforce one another. The capacity of the council to carry out successful investigations and to make valuable recommendations will depend on the accumulation of its practical experience: in advising individuals and in taking individual actions, as well as its broader overview.
    It is through operating the totality of their responsibilities that the CRE and EOC have been able to build up the expertise that then makes it possible for them to draft effective codes of practice and recommend practical improvements to the law. It is not only the Government or the individual who is the victim of discrimination who would benefit from that, but organisations of many sorts, especially businesses.
    The credibility and the depth of experience that the existing commissions possess enable them to work pro-actively to remove discriminatory barriers and to promote equality of opportunity. They wish to do that and, almost invariably, they indeed do so in a conciliatory manner. It is not their desire to seek recourse to the courts.

    777
    However, the existence of a strategic enforcement power enables the commissions, when necessary, to influence recalcitrant individuals and organisations as, sadly, is necessary from time to time. I am certain that that long-established mode—we now have 20 years' experience of it—is effective and efficient and would be more so than what the Government propose in respect of disability, which is to rely solely on individual claimants, if they are driven to it and if they can manage to do so, having recourse themselves to legal remedies.
    As the hon. Member for Monklands, West said, that is why organisations such as the Employers Forum on Disability and the Institute of Personnel Management have called for a national body to oversee the operation of disability law, with powers, resources and status equal to those of the EOC and the CRE.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is willing to reconsider his position. I feel strongly that if we do not have either a disability rights commission or a strengthened national disability council, there will remain a hole in the heart of the Bill—a Bill that represents an enormous advance, for which my hon. Friend the Minister should be personally congratulated. I hope that he will recognise this necessity, and be able to persuade our right hon. and hon. Friends of the necessity, of completing the task that he has set himself.
    Mr. Wigley: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, not only to new clause 1, which I support, but to new clause 17, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends. I am grateful to Madam Speaker for including my new clause in this group.
    My new clause provides for the position in Wales, but before discussing that I want to deal with the generality and to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). We all know from our constituency surgeries and from work in our own areas of the difficulties and frustrations faced by disabled people and their families because they cannot get what they need, what they know they need and what they feel they have a right to have.
    Our challenge is to make the Bill meaningful for them; for it to be more than just a tablet of stone that says, "Yes, you have a right, but you cannot have that right delivered to you." The Bill needs to be accessible to them, usable by them, understandable, comprehensible, sensitive, quick acting and within reach. It also needs to be effective—and for it to be so, I cannot but feel that there needs to be more than the council provided for in the Bill.
    The danger is that the council may well give good advice, may well look at the generality of the scene and may be able to help individuals with conciliation services and so move their cases forward, but when it comes to the really hard cases, the ones that conciliation cannot crack, stronger measures may be needed. Existing bodies already try a conciliation process. For example, disability organisations such as RADAR, Mencap and Scope play their role within their client groups to try to get answers to problems. The citizens advice bureau does the same. Numerous agencies try, on a voluntary basis, to get people together to solve the problems, but fail to do so.
    778
    8.45 pm
    I could cite individual cases in my area. In earlier debates, I have mentioned people with disability not being able to get work and not knowing where to turn to get the support that would ensure that the discrimination practised against them was set aside and that they got the opportunities they deserved. I know of a case in the Swansea area, which has been running for some months, of a family with a disabled son who need substantial adaptations to their house. That is within the power of the local authority's grant-making structures, but the machinery is not working and is highly unsatisfactory. There was a need for somebody to get in there and sort it out, but it was only when one of the voluntary sector bodies began to play it rough that the problems began to be sorted out, although they are still not totally sorted out.
    In one of our earliest debates on civil rights, I cited the case of a cinema in Cardiff that would not allow access to someone in a wheelchair because of the difficulties should there be a fire. We have heard all that before. We need a body to which people who have been treated in that way can turn and which they know will take action on their behalf and make it stick. They need to know how to get access to such a body.
    With all the good will in the world, the council, as it is described and defined in the Bill, will be much too passive a body. It will need to have teeth. Although it may be in only a small minority of cases that people need to go to court—the last thing I want to do is to give money to lawyers on either side of the argument—the ultimate sanction of being able to go to court, with an Act of Parliament behind them, must be significant for those who are trying to enforce all the other rights embodied in the Bill and the further rights that we want built into it now or at a later stage.
    If we are to overcome discrimination in employment, leisure services, the provision of facilities, transport and education, there must be a cast-iron guarantee. Without one, people will not have the confidence to come forward. They need to be sure that someone is there who will make sure that their case is heard.
    Having referred to the generality, and having expressed my support for new clause 1 and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, I want to deal with my new clause 17, which provides for the establishment of a disablement commission for Wales. Such a body is needed; Wales specifically needs to have the structure of a commission, with the rights outlined in the new clause. The same case can be made for Scotland, and I am aware that new clause 19, tabled by the Scottish National party, provides for a similar body in Scotland. However, I shall confine my remarks to Wales.
    I believe that such a body in Wales is necessary for three or four reasons. First, there is a high level of disability in Wales—some 300,000 disabled people. The profile of disability has, to some extent, grown out of our industrial past. The characteristics of that manifest themselves in, for example, the high level of invalidity benefit in Wales, which is some 50 per cent. higher than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom. There is a high level of need in Wales, which I am sure Welsh Members of Parliament from all parties recognise.
    Secondly, the Welsh Office in Wales has a one-stop-shop function for a number of critical responsibilities relevant to disability. It has responsibility for health, social services, education, employment,

    779
    housing and planning. All those functions are relevant to disabled people. I have heard friends in the voluntary sector in the west midlands say how sorry they are that they do not have such a government structure that brings those various facets together to develop disability policy.
    No doubt the existence of the Welsh Office enabled Wales to take strides that, I think, were not taken elsewhere in the early 1980s, when Nicholas Edwards was Secretary of State for Wales. The all-Wales strategy for mentally handicapped children and adults was a significant advance. Other advances have been made in Wales in other aspects of disability. We must have a body that relates to public policy, as has already been developed in Wales under the structure in the Welsh Office.
    It is equally important that an interface exists between local government and either the commission, which the new clause would give us, or the council, which the Government have put forward. A new local government structure comes into force in Wales in April next year. The elections are in May of this year. That unitary structure throughout Wales will again bring together at local level all local government departments that deal with disabled people—social services, housing, education and planning. Again, a close working relationship should exist between what we would call the disablement commission for Wales, or the council as the Government would put it, and local authorities. No interface exists in the Government's model, but it is provided for in subsection (2)(a) of new clause 17.
    We believe that it is important that that interface exists and that there should be a close working relationship between the commission and the voluntary sector. Goodness knows, in the world of disability, the voluntary sector is vital. In the past 20 years, that sector in Wales has reorganised itself to shadow the Welsh Office. There used to be a Mencap in north Wales, north-west England and south Wales. Mencap in Wales was established to respond in a strategic manner—I use the words "strategic manner", which were mentioned earlier—to disabled people's needs.
    That is equally relevant in relation to the disablement commission for Wales, for which we are pressing. Coterminosity and co-operation on a day-to-day basis should exist between that body and the voluntary sector. It can be the provider of links with individuals. It can be part of the fine tuning of policy that is needed for feedback to go through to the Welsh Office and to the Secretary of State, as would happen on a general level in London.
    One additional dimension is covered in subsection (12) of new clause 17. In the event of a parliament or legislative assembly for Wales, which is likely to happen after the next general election within a year or two—[Interruption.] I see the Under-Secretary of State for Employment smiling. He may feel that the Conservative party will win the next general election, but opinion polls suggest otherwise.
    When such elected bodies are set up in Wales and Scotland, there will be a question of answerability. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) is not here but, equally, I suggest to him that his model should include provision to ensure that such a structure is answerable to a Scottish or Welsh Parliament or Assembly. A close working relationship must exist with the decision-taking mechanism that affects disabled people. In the Scottish model, most of the powers would
    780
    be devolved to a Scottish Parliament and, in the Welsh model, to the Welsh Parliament or Assembly. Those ideas are on the cards.
    Any commission must be close to the people whom it is serving and who are taking decisions on a day-to-day basis. It should not be remote or faceless. We have felt the lack of a race discrimination structure in Wales. Some cases have been followed in an unfortunate way because of that lack. Developments are afoot to try to overcome that. We have recently established the Welsh Language Board. For many disabled people, the language dimension must be taken on board. An interplay exists between language ability and provision of services, not least in relation to speech therapy services, which are often inadequate.
    Those are the, reasons why we introduced our new clause 17. We want to ensure that there is a commission in the context of Wales. We would equally like the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Monklands, West to be brought into effect after Report. The Government may succeed in withstanding the new clauses in this group, but I hope that the Minister will say clearly how the council, as he has envisaged it, will interface, in Wales and in Scotland, with government structures. I accept that he may not go down the road of envisaging the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, but how will his council make adequate provision for the needs of Wales with the Welsh Office, the Scottish Office, the different local government structures, and the voluntary sector? There appears to be no provision on that in the Bill. That perhaps was not given an adequate airing in Committee.
    If the Government, after considering the debate tonight, withstand our attempt to write in new provisions, will they at least say that some fine tuning is necessary in the other place to ensure that the structures that arise are responsive to regions such as Wales, where circumstances are slightly different and where we need the mechanisms to respond to that? Then and only then will disabled people in Wales receive the full benefits of the legislation that we are enacting. There is a responsibility on us to ensure that that takes place.
    Mr. Devlin: In new clause 1, we have a foretaste of what would come if a Labour Government were ever elected. In the past, Labour Members have made a general onslaught on quangos throughout the country. Representing a constituency that is covered by an efficient quango—the Teesside development corporation—I know that such attacks are regularly on their lips. Despite that, tonight they are trying to establish yet another regulatory body to go along with the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. I am not sure that that is in the interests of the country or of disabled people.
    The country is very much over-regulated. People constantly complain about the European Community coming in and interfering, in the niggly way that it does, with a range of regulation and red tape. They feel that the country is gradually being ground to a halt under a great burden of regulation. I do not wish us to have yet more interfering commissions to regulate the affairs, business and every other feature of life. Some hon. Members may be keen to make well-intentioned changes, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that disabled people are possibly the most regulated group in

    781
    the country by virtue of the fact that they are denied access to transport, jobs and leisure opportunities? Would it not be nice to deregulate life for them?
    Mr. Devlin: Yes, it would be very nice. I have been a member of the all-party disablement group for many years. I have examined many different ways in which these things could be done. I do not see that to create yet another commission is the right way to go about it.
    When I asked a question of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who is not here any more, I said that perhaps the best way forward would be to merge the existing two commissions, put the further commission in with it and create a single commission called something like the fair employment commission. To carry on building yet more bodies which will turn out to be great empires of bureaucracy, officials and inspectors with investigating powers issuing codes of practice will create yet another industry all by itself.
    I have seen the Equal Opportunities Commission, and in particular the Commission for Racial Equality, in action. They take the attitude that anyone who does not agree with the positive discrimination measures that they suggest is politically incorrect and to be treated in an offhand manner.
    Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Devlin: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already, and he did not make a good point then.
    The House should be wary of creating any more such bodies. I dealt with a complaint to the Commission for Racial Equality not many months ago. The initial reaction was negative, even though my constituents had a perfectly valid point. They wanted to know why there was positive discrimination in respect of Asian women in a particular situation. The next thing we knew, there was some fobbing off comment in the local press. People got angry about it and the whole thing became ridiculous, simply because the people in the commission would not accept that there was another point of view which should be treated in a valid and sensible way. I wonder whether we would not be going down the same road with the disablement commission which has been proposed by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
    I listened with great care to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who always makes eloquent and impressive speeches. I have known him for a long time—since he was at the Conservative research department. I know how well informed he is and how much he cares about disabled people and the voluntary sector. I was worried when I heard him say that the commission should work with a light touch. It should not be bureaucratic, overbearing or self-advancing—I think that those were the words that he used.
    My experience of the two commissions is that that is precisely what they are—bureaucratic like nobody's business, overbearing, intrusive and self-advancing in every aspect of life. If we set up another commission, having had experience of the two commissions, we will find ourselves in yet further trouble.
    9 pm
    Mr. Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Devlin: I do not wish to detain the House for long.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Devlin: I give way to my hon. Friend, because I mentioned him.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is kind. He has explained to the House why he does not think that it would be a good idea to have a disability rights commission. He is a lawyer. He will undoubtedly have a commitment to justice. If he does not think that a commission is a good way to promote justice and insists on seeing a commission as only a regulatory body and not a suitable agency to promote justice in our society, what constructive means does he propose?
    Mr. Devlin: If we are to advance further rights for disabled people, which is the purpose of the Bill, we must encourage them to use the court system if they find themselves prejudiced in any way. As my hon. Friend says, I am a lawyer. Rights are enforceable in the courts of law.
    I should like to see, and I am sure that the vast majority of my constituents would like to see, legal aid given to deserving disabled people taking action against bad employment practices rather than handed out to the Maxwell brothers or to people who want to sue the tobacco industry, having spent their entire life smoking and knowing the risk. There is a great deal that we could do with legal aid to make it more accessible to people so that we could make the justice system work rather than allow it to be the perquisite of people who could afford to pay lots of money.
    In my time at the Bar, I took a percentage of cases for nothing because I believed that poor people who cannot afford to go to law should be able to do so and be represented at tribunals. I have appeared before medical appeals tribunals and other tribunals for nothing. That is the way it has to be if we are not to reduce the ludicrous charges which are passed on to the consumer of law.
    Mr. Pickthall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Devlin: No. I am sorry. I have taken two interventions. I am trying to keep my speech short because I know that many hon. Members are anxious to have a go. If the hon. Gentleman wants to debate law with me, I will be happy to do so in a debate on a more appropriate piece of legislation.
    The debate tonight is about whether we should have a commission for disabled people. I firmly believe that we should have no more commissions and that the commissions that we have should be merged. We should have something like a fair employment or equal employment rights commission. We should have no more extra bureaucracies, no more inspectors, no more codes of practice. Let us leave the people of this country to get on with the serious business of creating wealth and adding to the value and quality of life in our country.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Again, I follow the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) who, as before, made well-informed, highly principled and strongly persuasive speeches. I also wish to say a brief word about the speech by the hon. Member

    783
    for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). The House ought to be grateful to him for letting us hear in this debate the authentic voice of Conservative opposition to the very concept of a disabled rights commission.
    Having brought to this House more legislation on disability than anyone else—all of which has stood the test of time—I offer the present Minister a word of well-meant advice. It is that nothing does more to damage to the reputation of a Minister or to that of this House than to enact legislation that cannot be enforced. That is what could happen in the case of this Bill if the Government persist with their proposal for a mere advisory council in place of what we propose in new clause 1. My inclusion in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill of provisions for a strong commission to enforce the Bill's other provisions was to avoid the serious danger of unenforceable legislation.
    Nothing upsets the disability organisations more than the Government's refusal give disabled people in this Bill the same protection against discrimination as the law already affords to women and to ethnic minorities. They cite that as proof positive that, in their Disability Discrimination Bill, the Government are offering only second-class rights to second-class citizens. The Minister must have heard that statement from the disability organisations, as all of us have heard it from them in their condemnation of the Bill for failing to confer full citizenship on disabled people.
    The Government said year after year that to legislate on discrimination against disabled people would lead to a lawyers' paradise; that there would be a glut of litigation. But the disability rights commission we propose is about reducing, not provoking, litigation. It is about keeping differences within bounds, not about encouraging litigation. Disabled people are not looking for avoidable trouble. They have enough problems to contend with already.
    The Government's Bill provides only for an individual to take an action at a tribunal or in the county court, but there will be issues to be determined that affect whole groups of disabled people and that a disabled rights commission could tackle in a constructive way. As I said at an earlier stage of the proceedings on the Bill, the Government's proposal for an advisory council is, in the words of Sir Peter Large, a whey-faced ghost of what is required.
    Not only does it lack teeth: it enjoys no life of its own. It can act only in response to summonses of the Secretary of State. Its subservience is blatantly obvious in that it will be specifically excluded by statute from even daring to offer advice on any of the important issues covered by the Government' Bill. In saying that, I was reflecting the opinion in the organisations of disabled people. They reject the national disability council, and they want, in its place, the disability rights commission for which the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill provides.
    The Government's attitude has not basically altered since an hour-long meeting I had with the Prime Minister after the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was first talked out in January 1992, for which the then Member for Kingswood had to make a personal statement of apology for misleading the House. The Prime Minister said to me at our meeting:
    "The proposal for a Disability Rights Commission sits uncomfortably with the Government's policy of deregulation."
    784
    That is what he said and what the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) has said again tonight. I repeat that the hon. Member has given the House tonight the authentic Conservative view to the very concept of a disability rights commission.
    Mr. Barnes: The view of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) was so strong that, logically, he should also oppose the national disability council. Even though we think that it is a limited measure, it has certain functions to fulfil and considers such things as codes of practice put to it by the Secretary of State. That is the logic of the hon. Gentleman's position, and he should oppose the Government's Bill.
    Mr. Morris: I welcome the opportunity to pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend, who has done marvellous work in carrying on the battle to enact the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I am absolutely certain that, if his energy and commitment can turn that Bill into law, then the battle between the two Bills is not yet over by a long chalk.
    I agree with the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). The lives of disabled people are very heavily regulated by the limitations imposed upon them by their disabilities. They want their very lives to be derogated by a disability rights commission with the full powers of enforcement.
    I return to what the Prime Minister said about the commission being inconsistent with the Government's policy of deregulation. If that is the case, then so is the Equal Opportunities Commission. That also sits uncomfortably with the Government's policy of deregulation. So does the Commission for Racial Equality. That sits uncomfortably with the Government's policy on deregulation as well.
    So I use this debate to warn the millions of people who benefit from the Equal Opportunities Commission and from the work of CRE that there is an implied threat to the EOC and the CRE, in what the Government are saying about our disability rights commission. I hope that people other than disabled people will wake up to the significance of this debate. I hope that they will recognise that the bodies that exist to protect them are in danger if we cannot protect the proposal that we are making for a similar body to protect disabled people.
    There are many views about what precisely it was that plunged this Government to their unprecedented unpopularity last year. Different Members will have different views about that phenomenon, but all of us here should listen to the views of others as well as to our parliamentary colleagues.
    In Wales the week before last, in the constituency of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), I was in discussion with constituents of his who work in the professions supplementary to medicine. Let me confide to the Minister that they were in no doubt why the Government's standing plummeted to an all-time low last year. They agreed without exception that nothing did more to damage this Government than their wholly scandalous treatment of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
    They were disgusted, like millions of other people all over Britain, that such a Bill could lead to three Members of Parliament having to make personal statements of unreserved apology for misleading the House of

    785
    Commons about the Bill. The best way to make good for their malfeasance is for the Government now to concede what the organisations of and for disabled people want from this debate. They want, like the vast majority of other people want, a strong and effective Disability Rights Commission that will fully enforce their rights.
    The House knows my views on unfair discrimination against disabled people. It is that such discrimination is morally wrong, and that what is morally wrong ought no longer to be legally permissible. That requires a strong and effective disability rights commission, and I implore the Minister not to persist in obstructing that vitally important safeguard for disabled people.
    9.15 pm
    Ms Lynne: I support the new clause, because of a desire to assist the Government in seeming consistent and logical.
    The Bill reminds me a little of a cardboard cut-out policeman. It is cost-effective to start with, because it slows traffic and stops people speeding. Placed at the side of the road, it looks like a policeman from a distance and cars slow down. Everyone thinks what a great success it is, until they suddenly realise that it is a cardboard cut-out, and they will not be stopped or fined. Car drivers then ignore it and continue speeding. Without force, without compulsion or without legal sanction, the Bill will be as weak as that cardboard cut-out policeman. It is a public relations novelty with limited effect. Ultimately, unless we have a commission, it will appear to be ridiculous.
    The Bill needs teeth. It needs a commission with the same monitoring and investigative powers as the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, both of which support the setting up of a disability rights commission. They demonstrate that we cannot rely on good will and good practice alone for equal opportunities legislation to be adhered to.
    By introducing the Bill, the Government admit that education and persuasion simply have not worked, and that legal sanction is required. Why, then, do they introduce an advisory council, which is a neutered body whose remit is purely to advise? Might it be that they could not withstand the criticisms or see their failure to adhere to UK or European legislation? I appreciate that they may be resistant to it, but the overriding importance for any legislation we pass is that it be effective and adhered to; otherwise, what is the point of passing it?
    To remain consistent with existing legislation and precedent, the Government must accept this new clause. Our constitution is an unwritten and unspoken acceptance of parliamentary trust, and it requires detail and clarity. Our laws need detail and clarity, but also force. The Bill will be simply academic and will lack credibility unless we have a commission to enforce it.
    It was traumatic enough to start with; the Government were forced kicking and screaming into providing it, and they introduced it in a hurried and embarrassed way. Let us hope that, when it reaches maturity, as I assume it will, it will have a few more teeth and be a little stronger and healthier than it is today.
    I hope that the Government will accept the new clause.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I support the new clauses moved by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)
    786
    and, at the same time, welcome the strength that they would give the Bill. It is good that the Minister has moved forward in positive ways. I hope not only that will he be able to accept the proposal in the new clauses and amendments, but that he will persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends to support them too.
    The argument that we should deregulate was set forth by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). The harsh reality is that this Government have regulated more than they have deregulated. The areas in which they have pursued deregulation have been specifically connected with market forces, yet, if one considers the proposal for this advisory council, one notices that one of its main thrusts is that the council should deal with finance rather than with the specific needs of people who have been blatantly discriminated against.
    Such a proposal comes rather strange from a Government who changed the Fair Employment Agency in Northern Ireland to the Fair Employment Commission. Indeed, it is fascinating that some people in Northern Ireland are agitating for the extension of the Commission for Racial Equality to Northern Ireland. So, in future, a Chinese woman may be able to raise issues of discrimination, but if she happened to be disabled, there would be absolutely no redress in law. Per head of population, however, Northern Ireland has a higher percentage of disabled people than any other part of the United Kingdom.
    Considering the pressure on our time tonight, I simply urge the Government to think again. They have moved with the feeling so far and I welcome that, but I ask them to go a little bit further and to give us a commission, or a council with increased powers, which will strengthen the case of people with disability. Incidentally, it may be rather significant that the Northern Ireland Employers Forum for Disability has employed a person who once worked with the Equal Opportunities Commission in Northern Ireland so that it may forward the case of people with disabilities.
    In other aspects of the Bill, one cannot find a scrap of evidence of support for the most deprived section of our community. If the views of the hon. Member for Stockton, South were accepted, those people would be in a fascinating position. Lawyers approached by disabled people could be dilatory in taking up their cases because they had a remit from the firm which could be sued for disability.
    There is a place for an independent commission or a council with teeth to take up the rights of people with disability. I support, on behalf of my colleagues, the cry from the Conservative and Opposition Benches that the Government should accept such a proposal with good grace and go forward with vigour and power.
    Mr. Barnes: There have been some important votes tonight and we shall have some important votes tomorrow on this Bill, but the most important of them all is that on new clause 1. If the disability rights commission were to be established, it would entirely transform the nature of the Bill. The Bill would still have imperfections if definitions were not put right, and whole areas of exemptions would not be covered, but agreeing to the proposal in new clause 1 is exactly what we should do.
    There are two main factors about the disability rights commission. First, it has already been stressed considerably that it would be the key enforcement agency.

    787
    It is no use giving people rights, even if under this Bill they are restricted rights, and having no means by which we may begin to put them into operation. That would be a cruel deception, and we do not want the Bill to be guilty of that. Conciliation services, legal back-up and the other items described by Opposition Members and certain Conservative Members are the key elements.
    The other thing that annoys the Government, and certainly annoys the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), is that the commission would be a dynamic force. In time, it would help to extend the areas covered by legislation, so that discrimination against disabled people did not take place.
    The concept of reasonableness runs through the Bill, as it does through the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. What is reasonable now depends on current circumstances, the interpretation of the courts, back-up and understanding. That concept is not necessarily static, because the boundaries of its responsibility will be extended as fresh interpretations of that concept are made. The commission would have a key role in that regard. It would monitor, conduct research, issue reports and codes of practice, as well as publish annual reports which would be available to the House. The commission would push the fight against discrimination across different areas of responsibility.
    Because of its intended work, that commission would come to realise that the Bill is subject to certain limitations and restrictions. In time, it would recommend that the enactment of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill represented the final required means of removing exemptions and clarifying definitions. The commission is the key to the Opposition's support for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, as distinct from the Government's stance.
    The commission would not be bureaucratic, nor would it dominate and control, as the hon. Member for Stockton, South has suggested. It would make reports available to the House, which would then have the opportunity to investigate and respond to them. The House might even recommend that certain of the commission's notions should not be adopted, or that the direction of the commission should be altered.
    The commission would do a service for disabled people; a service for others in society and a service to Parliament by resolving the problem of discrimination. A future Secretary of State for Social Security, of whichever party, will always need to be pushed and nudged to ensure that the concerns of disabled people are always before him or her at all times.
    I hope that the key vote on the new clause will be carried, so that we are left with an entirely different Bill.
    Mr. Hague: As hon. Members have explained, the large group of new clauses and amendments is intended to substitute a commission for the national disability council or provide that council with powers akin to those of a commission.
    The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) reminded us that, if we pass legislation, we must ensure that means of redress and enforcement exist. I thoroughly agree that we must be confident of being able to enforce legislation that we pass. The Government have no interest, and I have no interest, in securing the passage of legislation that would not work in practice.
    788
    I believe, however, that the assumption that the creation of a commission represents the only means of approaching the problem is flawed. It is not the only way, and it is certainly not the best or most effective way, of providing for enforcement.
    Hon. Members have maintained that disabled people need a commission with powers similar to the commissions that deal with discrimination in sex and race. We must decide whether disabled people will be best served by a single organisation with those powers. I ask the House to be open to the concept that there are other ways to provide for the needs of Government and Parliament to receive expert policy advice and for the needs of disabled people to be able to seek redress.
    9.30 pm
    There are other ways that will be highly effective in taking us towards our goal of ending discrimination that provide for much of the role carried out by commissions but are better suited to that purpose. They will be better suited because they recognise the need for a high-level organisation to advise Government about policy and to prepare clear, practical codes of practice for business and disabled people, and because they recognise and provide for the specific needs of disabled people for accessible mechanisms to resolve disputes. They will be more effective because they have been developed taking account of the social and economic circumstances of disabled people and business, and will provide technical assistance and the individual approach necessary to overcome discrimination against disabled people.
    Before I discuss the Government's proposals, let me respond to one or two of the specific arguments made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) referred to employment policies in the Post Office and in health authorities. I cannot necessarily comment in this debate on the specific examples he gave, although I can tell him that the example that he gave of Post Office drivers with diabetes is one that I am pursuing in my role not as Minister for Disabled People but as Member of Parliament for Richmond, Yorks on behalf of a constituent. I have written as a constituency Member of Parliament to the Post Office and asked it for the basis of that policy.
    The employers whom my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon mentioned would be required by the Bill to consider whether a reasonable adjustment might allow disabled people to work for them. My hon. Friend cannot sustain his argument by saying that employers such as the Post Office or the national health service would flout the law proposed in the Bill. Indeed, as he said earlier in another debate, legislation itself has a great declaratory force, and I think that, especially with organisations of that type, we would discover that it has great declaratory force. The question of whether the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency permits people with diabetes to drive certain types of vehicle is exactly the type of question that the national disability council may wish to consider and advise the Government on.
    The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), with all the consistency and force of someone who sits in the House as a nationalist, made the case for new clause 17 and for a specific organisation for Wales. The Bill relates to the whole of the United Kingdom. Although there is considerable precedent for setting up a separate Northern Ireland disability council because of the different body

    789
    of Northern Ireland legislation already in existence, and because Northern Ireland has its own advisory bodies such as the transport advisory committee and committees for the employment of disabled people, that is not true of the rest of Great Britain, where a unified approach has traditionally been taken to such matters.
    I said in Committee that we intend that the national disability council will include members representing Wales, Scotland and England as well as the regions of England. Experience of other Great Britain organisations—and of the House, too—suggests that Welsh Members are well able to argue their point of view and to ensure that their interests are appropriately taken into account.
    There are considerable benefits in one organisation taking a consistent approach in advising on the elimination of discrimination—for example, in ensuring that the best and most effective practice can be shared. We are not aware of a need for a separate Welsh or indeed Scottish organisation of any type. Of course, the national disability council will want to listen to the advice and the representations of local government throughout the country—throughout Wales, Scotland and England—and there is no reason why there should not be contact and discussion between the council and representatives of local government.
    There are two reasons why people are asking for a commission to be created in relation to the legislation.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister regard the council as a fairly centralised body, or will it have offices not only in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast but in English cities, such as Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham and Leeds? What role will such offices have? It is vital that disabled people should feel that they are able to access a body that is close at hand rather than a remote body centralised in London.
    Mr. Hague: I do not envisage that the body will have offices around the country, but I expect that it will take steps, through its membership and the way in which it organises its discussions and seeks information, to keep in touch with views from all over Great Britain—and, in the case of the Northern Ireland council, views from all over Northern Ireland. I agree with the hon. Member for Caernarfon that disabled people must have an easily accessible and available body to which they can turn for advice about the matters to which the Bill relates. I will return to that point in a few moments.
    Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hague: No, I must continue with my speech. The hon. Gentleman and I have had many constructive discussions in Committee. I will give way to him later if time permits, but I wish to afford the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) the opportunity to respond to what I have said and to enable the House to reach a decision.
    People seek a commission for two purposes: first, to give advice, follow progress and provide a forum and a focus of expertise; and, secondly, to help people to seek redress. As to the first purpose, I believe that our proposals for the national disability council provide for a strong and well-informed body that will advise the Government on issues relating to discrimination against disabled people.
    790
    It will be a powerful voice for disabled people that will focus on the wider issues, informed by the skills and experience of its members and by information collected by its advice and support services, to which I shall return shortly. It will also be assisted by research commissioned on its behalf and by consultation with existing advisory bodies. I am confident that it will fulfil the important advisory function every bit as well as a commission would and every bit as effectively as the National Council on Disability in America.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Hague: To be fair to both sides of the House, I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is extremely generous. Will he explain to the House how he foresees the national disability council being able to provide advice of the reach and the quality that he requires if it does not have powers of formal investigation?
    Mr. Hague: I have mentioned that it will have the range of information that is provided by research that can be commissioned on its behalf. It will be able to consult existing advisory bodies, information will flow from the operation of the advisory and support services and it will have the continuing day-to-day experience of its members—at least half of whom will be disabled people or their parents or guardians and all of whom will have a great interest in the matter. I do not think that the national disability council will be short of views, evidence and examples of what is happening around the country with which to inform its discussions about the future progress being made in tackling such matters.
    Mr. Berry: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Hague: I must carry on, as I wish to give the hon. Member for Monklands, West time to respond.
    The national disability council's code of practice will be invaluable in providing clear and practical advice to disabled people and to business in what could potentially become a very complex area, given the vast range of businesses that will need to comply with the legislation and the varying and possibly conflicting needs of disabled people with different impairments.
    Our proposals for the national disability council to prepare codes of practice clarify the responsibility of Government and the council, while permitting an open exchange of advice on which to base policy decisions. We have no wish to silence the voice of the national disability council. It will be open to its members to recommend, for instance, that a code of practice be prepared or that an existing code requires updating. The council will be a continuing, powerful voice that will speak to the Government and have its reports laid before Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I intend to ensure that the council's membership will be such that it will be in a strong position to be that powerful voice.
    Some hon. Members advocated a commission not so much to provide advice to the Government and Parliament but to help people seek redress. The Government recognise that disabled people will have a need for advice and support, but that role does not have to be played by the same body that advises the Government on wider issues. The skills needed to advise individuals and to

    791
    resolve disputes are in many ways different from those needed in giving advice and making policy recommendations.
    The discrimination suffered by disabled people is different from that faced by others, and is unique. While the disadvantages may have a similar effect, it is too simplistic to suggest that the causes are the same as those that give rise to sex or race discrimination. The Bill recognises and seeks to address the wide range of causes of discrimination against disabled people.
    It requires service providers and employers to go much further than they have had to do in the past to overcome discrimination against other groups. They are being asked to do more than change their attitudes to those commonly considered proper in a civilised society, as in other legislation. In this case, service providers and employers must act to ensure that their employment practices and their services are accessible to disabled people in the manner required by the Bill.
    An important plank in ensuring that the Bill is enforced and effective is communicating its provisions properly to employers and service providers. The hon. Member for Monklands, West rightly spoke of the CBI's concern that clear and impartial advice should be available to employers both nationally and locally. We will discuss with the CBI and other business organisations how best to make such advice available. We will consult them on draft regulations and the operation of the legislation, and they will have an opportunity—as will other people—to comment on any codes of practice.
    We know from the experience of the Americans with Disabilities Act how important it is to make information available as widely as possible. Despite all the commissions and enforcement bodies in the United States, several years after the enactment of the ADA, most of the public had not heard of it. In those circumstances, of course it is difficult to provide for enforcement.
    I am determined to ensure that employers, service providers and traders across the nation will be in no doubt of what they are expected to do and why. As well as written guidance, we are considering freephone advice lines and other facilities so that employers and service providers can be sure of their responsibilities under the legislation. I am sure that the vast majority of them will want to act in accordance with the measure, provided that we make clear to them the measures passed by this House and the other place and the reasons for our doing so.
    We are determined not only to communicate but to provide conciliation, advice and support. Because the Bill reflects the needs of disabled people, our proposals in those regards also take a different approach. In goods and services, we intend to provide a nationwide, locally available advice and support network whereby people can meet face to face if necessary, without travelling long distances—a point of particular concern to many disabled people.
    That process will inevitably involve an exploration of the facts, and local knowledge could play an important role in bringing greater understanding to resolving disputes involving physical access. We also intend that a standard investigation procedure should apply throughout the country—service providers will welcome a consistent approach, which will consequently help to maximise the number of disputes which are settled in a spirit of co-operation. Where disputes cannot be resolved in this forum, there will be recourse to the courts.
    792
    The Employment Service will be able to help employers and disabled people to identify suitable adjustments at the workplace to overcome the practical effects of a disability. This should help to avoid many disputes arising in the first place. When a complaint is made to a tribunal, there will be access to the conciliation services provided by ACAS, which has many years of experience of conciliation on employment issues. Should these not reach a resolution, there will be access to industrial tribunals, which are tried and tested mechanisms for securing employment rights.
    9.45 pm
    I know that some hon. Members are concerned that the conciliation, advice and support services will not actually provide financial assistance in taking cases to industrial tribunals and courts; they fear, therefore, that disabled people will not be able to enforce their rights. I believe that those fears are unfounded. The procedures in both small claims courts and industrial tribunals are relatively simple. The decision makers in each institution are familiar with, and used to, ensuring that individuals are helped to present their case.
    I would also, however, draw to the attention of the House the evidence of experience with other legislation. Experience of the Commission for Racial Equality suggests that the vast majority of cases are settled without recourse to legal action. Furthermore, of the cases brought to industrial tribunals under the Sex Discrimination Act, 90 per cent. are not assisted by the Equal Opportunities Commission.
    I believe that our proposals will provide the assistance that disabled people will need without setting up the centralised bureaucratic monitoring and policing body proposed in new clause 1 and the amendments.
    I also believe that conciliation, advice and support services will be more effective in achieving resolutions and encouraging employers and service providers to go that bit further to end discriminatory practices when they slip up. We cannot ignore the fact that this legislation, in giving new rights to disabled people, places considerable duties and obligations on business. It will need good guidance to comply with it—we shall give business that—and to increase its understanding and awareness of the needs of disabled people. This we intend to provide through extensive publicity, through guidance about the Act and through practical codes of practice.
    I believe that the new rights can and will be enforced under the arrangements that I have set out, but that they could not be achieved without obtaining the good will and efforts of both service providers and employers. Another policing body could well prove counter-productive. A commission positioned entirely as an advocate for disabled people would not be best placed to encourage those efforts, and as such its success, in my view, would be limited.
    I believe that the combination that I have set out will work. There will be a national disability council to provide continuing advice in the coming years to this House and to this and future Governments. Its membership will include strong representation of disabled people and of others with expertise. We shall make extensive efforts to communicate thoroughly with all those who have duties placed on them, to tell them what those duties are, why they have been placed on them and what, in detail, they are expected to do about them. In

    793
    addition, there will be a locally available advice and support network, where people can talk to people who know the high street in question and who know the circumstances of the employer. All these provide the right combination and will encourage the right kind of attitude across the nation to ensure that the legislation works well in practice.
    I therefore hope that the House will reject the new clauses and associated amendments.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: The more I listened to the debate, including the Minister's speech, the more convinced I became that the rights of disabled people will be well served by the decision of the House to endorse new clause 1. It was moved from the Opposition Benches, but it became clear during the ensuing debate that the divide was not on cross-party lines. We heard the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), whose views we deeply respect, say that rights without means to sustain them are unenforceable. Nothing that the Minister and a handful of his hon. Friends have said has altered my view about the realism of the approach of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon.
    The Minister has said otherwise. He has asked the House to ignore the American experience, to ignore what has taken place in Canada, Australia and New Zealand and to ignore the impact of the Equal Opportunities Commission on gender and race discrimination. Instead, he has asked us to embrace an advisory council that is still ill-defined and still promoted by a Government who are appallingly lethargic in advancing the rights of disabled people and their carers. Given the Government's record of talking out Bill after Bill which would have delivered genuine civil rights, the Government are on trial and I do not believe that they were convincing to a national audience.
    We have heard some interesting speeches. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who makes such excellent contributions on these issues, seemed to be looking forward to a time when we have genuine subsidiarity—which I think that the Father of the House would endorse—in Scotland, Wales and elsewhere. Contrary to the Government's claim that they are handing power to people, the Minister struggled and struggled again in resisting the new clause. He failed hopelessly in his efforts to persuade 6.5 million disabled people, 7 million carers and those who are determined to embrace civil rights that their rights would be recognised.
    It would be churlish not to admit that there was some support for the Minister's view. It did not come from organisations of disabled people or for disabled people. It did not come from the two commissions which exist to ensure that there are equal opportunities and no discrimination. It did not come from the Confederation of British Industry or from the Employers Forum on Disability. It did not come from the overwhelming majority of people who responded to the consultation document which was hastily published and submitted to the British people during a recess last year. There was no support from those organisations and people for the Minister's views.
    There was support from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin)—
    Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way.
    Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber during my contribution to the debate, I do not understand how he can comment on it.
    Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman was attempting to intervene. It is up to the hon. Member who has the Floor to decide whether to allow another hon. Member to intervene.
    Mr. Clarke: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have an efficient colleague in my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who took the trouble to write down even that which was uttered by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin).
    What was the hon. Member for Stockton, South saying? The overwhelming body of opinion which advised the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, and which advises the House, took the view that there was a case for a commission. The hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition were offering no more than a quango. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that a quango is indeed on offer in the Division Lobby today, but it comes from Ministers on the Government Front Bench, not from my hon. Friends or from Members of other parties, to whom I pay tribute.
    Right hon. and hon. Members have travelled from all parts of the United Kingdom tonight to take part in a vital vote, and I welcome their presence. They are not here to support a quango. They say that, in the light of our experience and on the basis of everything that we have talked about today—education, vital though it is, transport, jobs and human rights—the Government have failed miserably in their attempts to reject the case for a commission.
    It is true that the Minister said tonight, as he did this morning on BBC Breakfast News when he spoke from his ivory studio, as I sat elsewhere, recognising the rights that some of us will introduce in a few months' time—or no more than a few years' time—that we would not have a commission, as we rightly have for race and gender, but a little advisory body. He suddenly decided, almost as a flash of inspiration, when questioned on television, that the citizens advice bureaux would have a network of opportunity, which had not been mentioned hitherto in any of our discussions. That is an interesting development.
    The Minister did not say that on Second Reading. He did not say it during the weeks of Standing Committee sittings. Not until this morning, and confirmed tonight, did he announce that he intended to depend so firmly on the activities of that admirable organisation, the CAB. I shall tell the House why he did not say it—
    Mr. Hague rose—
    Mr. Clarke: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to finish.

    795
    Far from suggesting that our new clause is unworkable, the Minister knows that to make further demands on the CAB is unworkable, not least because of the staff reductions that have taken place from one constituency to another as a result of Government policy.
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman and I, and our colleagues in Committee, discussed the Bill for five weeks earlier this year. In Committee, I set out my proposals and how they related to the CAB, and I explained the discussions in which the Government are currently engaged with them. Does the hon. Gentleman have no recollection of that at all? It was clearly set out in Committee.
    Mr. Clarke: I have a full recollection of the ideas that the Minister floated as to the "options"—as he called them—that were before the Committee. Not only do I have a vivid recollection of the fact that there was no agreement, but I challenged the Minister—I will give way to him even in the closing minutes of our debate—to say whether the CAB agreed at any time to accept that responsibility. Of course they have not, because of the reductions in resources and manpower.
    In a letter of 27 March, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux said to my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington:
    "As you know, NACAB strongly supports the call from many organisations for a Disability Commission to ensure enforcement of disabled people's rights. Without a body along the lines of the Commission for Racial Equality or the Equal Opportunities Commission, disabled people will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to enforce their new (albeit limited number of) rights."
    That does not sound to me like an organisation determined to co-operate with the new ideas that the Minister has produced.
    I end by referring, not to hon. Members' important views—if they will forgive me—but to two recent opinions that have been expressed to me as I have travelled around the country, in support of the commission and of civil rights. A woman in Leicester told me last Friday, while sitting in a wheelchair, that her dream was to travel to London—something that she had never achieved and will not achieve because of the limited transport provisions in the Bill. A man from Birmingham told me that he had gone to see a film, as all of us are entitled to do, and was told at the door, "We have three wheelchairs here already." He replied, "I am not a wheelchair—I am a person."
    On behalf of people like that—6.5 million of our fellow citizens—I plead with the House to endorse our new clause.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 299.

    Division No. 117]

    [10.00 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Austin-Walker, John

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Ainger, Nick

    Barnes, Harry

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Barron, Kevin

    Allen, Graham

    Bayley, Hugh

    Alton, David

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Bell, stuart

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Ashton, Joe

    Bermingham, Gerald

    796

    Berry, Roger

    Graham, Thomas

    Betts, Clive

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Boateng, Paul

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Bradley, Keith

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Grocott, Bruce

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Gunnell, John

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

    Hain, Peter

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hall, Mike

    Burden, Richard

    Hanson, David

    Byers, Stephen

    Hardy, Peter

    Callaghan, Jim

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Harvey, Nick

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Henderson, Doug

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hendron, Dr Joe

    Cann, Jamie

    Heppell, John

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Chidgey, David

    Hinchliffe, David

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hodge, Margaret

    Church, Judith

    Hoey, Kate

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Home Robertson, John

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clelland, David

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Coffey, Ann

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

    Cohen, Harry

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Corbett, Robin

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Corston, Jean

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cox, Tom

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cummings, John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hume, John

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Hutton, John

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Illsley, Eric

    Dafis, Cynog

    Ingram, Adam

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Darling, Alistair

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Davidson, Ian

    Janner, Greville

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

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

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Denham, John

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Dewar, Donald

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Dixon, Don

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Dobson, Frank

    Jowell, Tessa

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dowd, Jim

    Keen, Alan

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Eastham, Ken

    Khabra, Piara S

    Enright, Derek

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Etherington, Bill

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Lewis, Terry

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Fatchett, Derek

    Litherland, Robert

    Faulds, Andrew

    Livingstone, Ken

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Fisher, Mark

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Flynn, Paul

    Loyden, Eddie

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    McCartney, Ian

    Foulkes, George

    McCrea, The Reverend William

    Fraser, John

    Macdonald, Calum

    Fyfe, Maria

    McFall, John

    Galbraith, Sam

    McGrady, Eddie

    Galloway, George

    McKelvey, William

    Gapes, Mike

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Garrett, John

    McLeish, Henry

    George, Bruce

    McMaster, Gordon

    Gerrard, Neil

    McNamara, Kevin

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    MacShane, Denis

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    McWilliam, John

    Godsiff, Roger

    Madden, Max

    797

    Maddock, Diana

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Mahon, Alice

    Rowlands, Ted

    Mallon, Seamus

    Ruddock, Joan

    Mandelson, Peter

    Salmond, Alex

    Marek, Dr John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Martlew, Eric

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Maxton, John

    Short, Clare

    Meacher, Michael

    Simpson, Alan

    Meale, Alan

    Skinner, Dennis

    Michael, Alun

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Milburn, Alan

    Smyth, The Reverend Martin

    Miller, Andrew

    Snape, Peter

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Soley, Clive

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Spearing, Nigel

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Spellar, John

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Morley, Elliot

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Stevenson, George

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Stott, Roger

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Straw, Jack

    Mullin, Chris

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Murphy, Paul

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Timms, Stephen

    Olner, Bill

    Tipping, Paddy

    O'Neill, Martin

    Touhig, Don

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Trimble, David

    Parry, Robert

    Turner, Dennis

    Pearson, Ian

    Tyler, Paul

    Pendry, Tom

    Vaz, Keith

    Pickthall, Colin

    Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

    Pike, Peter L

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Pope, Greg

    Wallace, James

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Walley, Joan

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Watson, Mike

    Primaroto, Dawn

    Welsh, Andrew

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Radice, Giles

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Randall, Stuart

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Redmond, Martin

    Wilson, Brian

    Reid, Dr John

    Winnick, David

    Rendel, David

    Wise, Audrey

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Worthington, Tony

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Rogers, Allan

    Rooker, Jeff

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rooney, Terry

    Mr. Joe Benton and

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Mr. George Mudie.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Baldry, Tony

    Alexander, Richard

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Bates, Michael

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Amess, David

    Bellingham, Henry

    Ancram, Michael

    Bendall, Vivian

    Arbuthnot, James

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Ashby, David

    Booth, Hartley

    Atkins, Robert

    Boswell, Tim

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    798

    Bowis, John

    Garnier, Edward

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gill, Christopher

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Brazier, Julian

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gorst, Sir John

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Burns, Simon

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Burt, Alistair

    Hague, William

    Butcher, John

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Butler, Peter

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Butterfill, John

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Harris, David

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hawkins, Nick

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hawksley, Warren

    Cash, William

    Hayes, Jerry

    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)

    Hicks, Robert

    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

    Conway, Derek

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    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)

    Couchman, James

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Cran, James

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

    Hunter, Andrew

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Jack, Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Day, Stephen

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Devlin, Tim

    Jessel, Toby

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Dover, Den

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Duncan, Alan

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dunn, Bob

    Key, Robert

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

    Knapman, Roger

    Elletson, Harold

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Knox, Sir David

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Evennett, David

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Faber, David

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Fabricant, Michael

    Legg, Barry

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Leigh, Edward

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Forman, Nigel

    Lidington, David

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Lightbown, David

    Forth, Eric

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Luff, Peter

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    MacKay, Andrew

    French, Douglas

    Maclean, David

    Fry, Sir Peter

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gale, Roger

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Gallie, Phil

    Madel, Sir David

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Major, Rt Hon John

    799

    Malone, Gerald

    Soames, Nicholas

    Mans, Keith

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Marland, Paul

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mates, Michael

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Spring, Richard

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Sproat, Iain

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Merchant, Piers

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mills, Iain

    Steen, Anthony

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Stephen, Michael

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Stern, Michael

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Stewart, Allan

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Streeter, Gary

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Sumberg, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Sweeney, Walter

    Nelson, Anthony

    Sykes, John

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Norris, Steve

    Thomason, Roy

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Page, Richard

    Thurnham, Peter

    Paice James

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Tracey, Richard

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Tredinnick, David

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Trend, Michael

    Pickles Eric

    Trotter, Neville

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Powell William (Corby)

    Viggers, Peter

    Rathbone, Tim

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Walden, George

    Renton, RtHonTim

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Richards, Rod

    Waller, Gary

    Rifkind,Rt Hon Malcolm

    Ward, John

    Robathan, Andrew

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Waterson, Nigel

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Watts, John

    Wells, Bowen

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Whitney, Ray

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Whittingdale, John

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Sackville, Tom

    Willetts, David

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Wilshire, David

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Yeo, Tim

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Sims, Roger

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Mr. Timothy Wood.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

RAF Bentwaters
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
10.13 pm
Mr. Jamie Cann: Before opening this debate, I would like to make a brief statement. I understand that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) criticised me on a point of order this afternoon for not formally notifying the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that I had arranged an Adjournment debate on a place within his constituency.
If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes had done me the courtesy of notifying me of his intention, I would have been present in the Chamber to explain and apologise. He did not, so I must apologise now. I was not aware of that convention, and I would not have breached it had I known. I accept your strictures on the matter, Madam Speaker, and I apologise unreservedly to you.
The root of the matter is the question of the future of RAF Bentwaters. Its history—for those Members who are interested—is that, until 1993, there were up to 13,000 US service men based at Bentwaters. Their departure in 1993 had a significant economic impact across the whole of east Suffolk, including my constituency of Ipswich. All Suffolk Members should be concerned—I certainly am—about its future use.
Mr. Richard Spring: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cann: No, I will not.
The assets involved in Bentwaters include 1,000 acres of land, 77 homes, 41 flats, 1,000 apartments and 2 million sq ft of offices, industrial space and storage. It is a major asset for the future of east Suffolk and Ipswich, and it must be used properly.
One can imagine the concern that many of us felt when the decision was announced on 8 February that the Government proposed to sell the site—a valuable asset which could create hundreds of jobs—to an organisation known as the Maharishi Yoga Foundation.
The stated aim of the organisation is to achieve a 4,000-place university of natural law which would be accredited to proper universities and which would produce degree courses, each of which would involve twice-daily, 20-minute sessions of transcendental meditation which—for those not in the know—is bouncing up and down on one's backside while shouting out mantras for the security and well-being of the rest of us. The reaction of many people in my constituency was that they were—rightly, in my view—against the proposal.
First, it is unrealistic, as the projected university will not achieve accreditation. The Foundation proposes to make the dead father of the Maharishi himself the chancellor of the university in perpetuity, which gives many of us little faith in the future of the enterprise.
We should look at what the organisation has achieved previously. Mentmore Towers—a huge mansion—was sold to the Foundation in 1978, and there are only about 40 people in occupation of all of those rooms. There will be no economic gain to my constituency—or to the constituency of the grinning Secretary of State for the Environment—if the proposal goes ahead.

801
Secondly, Suffolk is one of the few counties in the country which has no university of its own. Many of us in Ipswich are working hard to try to achieve a university for Suffolk based on the existing Suffolk college in Ipswich, and anything misnaming itself a university within Suffolk will only cut against that legitimate aim.
Mr. Spring: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cann: No, the hon. Gentleman will not give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is a Suffolk Member."] Suffolk Members turn up when Suffolk Members choose. They usually do so only to cause trouble, and never to support Suffolk.
I saw the junior Minister responsible, Lord Henley, to discuss the matter recently. I was assured that the price offered by the foundation was the best offered, and I accepted that. He further assured me that the Maharishi Yoga Foundation is—God knows how—a registered charity, and that its business plan fits the planning brief for the area. Therefore, he had no choice but to go ahead.
Since then, because of the publicity, I have received a deluge of letters from people all over the country—London, Birmingham, Yorkshire, the west midlands, Wales, Canada, the United States of America and Australia—telling me about what has happened when people have joined that organisation.
The gist of the letters is that young recruits are drawn into the cult—that is what it is—and are charged the earth, even for an introduction, never mind for taking the courses. They are promised peace and enlightenment through transcendental meditation, which involves chanting a mantra, bouncing up and down and pretending to fly, and jumping on to mattresses in the lotus position. They are told that, if they achieve the £3,000 course, which comes later, they will be able to fly properly, although they must never show anyone else that they can do so, and to go through walls—even thick ones, I am told—or, more importantly, they are told.
Some people may say that that is fair enough, and that it is a scam, but that is all. It is not all. The maharishi now controls a £2 billion empire from headquarters in Switzerland, with places in America and Skelmersdale and the one projected in Suffolk. Courses are sold at colossal cost to people who are taken in.
The cult pretends to provide medicines. Two members of the organisation—I was going to say the tendency—were struck off by the General Medical Council for selling medicines made of faecal matter to help people with acquired immune deficiency syndrome. They persuaded people to come off AZT, which is the medicine best known for helping people with AIDS. A long list of people have presented themselves to various organisations. After the organisation has dealt with people, they have to attend self-help groups because of mental damage, depression and epilepsy.
I am aware that some Conservative Members will not accept my word, so, with your permission, Madam Speaker, I will quote briefly from six of the letters that I have received, which I have offered to the Ministry of Defence.
This letter is from several people—one has a BA and another a PhD—who write:
"We know of one person in particular who, after practising TM"—
802
transcendental meditation—
"and teaching the subject for many years would have periods of catatonic states where she was unable to work or function properly for days at a time. Another boy suffered epilepsy after practising TM for several years and believes it to be the cause. Another branch of TM is the prescription and selling of certain 'medication', claiming to be Indian Ayurvedic medicine. Two English Doctors who were prescribing this medicine have now been struck off the medical register for attempting to cure people of diseases such as Aids with medicines which when examined in a laboratory were found to contain faecal matter."
Another letter reads:
"My own objections are based on the knowledge we have gained from those who have had first hand experience of the movement and its founder. A few years ago we met someone who was once one of the right-hand men of the Maharishi. He is now writing a book …
He has said that he saw how crooked and irreligious this so called 'holy man' actually is. He extorts money and takes the virginity of young female disciples; the family suffered loss of all their money and his wife was actually forced to have sex with the 'guru' under the pretence that it might be good for her spirituality. She became a manic depressive after using and teaching all the techniques of TM for some years. Finally desperate and ruined they left TM after realising that his wife had lost the will to live and that he had in addition to all this never found the enlightenment that he had been seeking.
Another friend of ours who is an ex-Barrister and well educated from a wealthy and established background was literally reduced to a barking, growling and totally degraded wreck. We saw this with our own eyes and were extremely shocked having had no previous preconceptions about this technique."
[Interruption.] I notice that the committed Christian on the Government Front Bench laughs about that technique.
Another letter is from a psychiatrist, who says:
"I am deeply suspicious of the motives of this group as I have had several patients who have been troubled with depression and in some cases epilepsy"—
letter after letter claims that epilepsy has been caused—
"subsequent to long-term practice of this 'meditation'.
The patients have had a feeling of being brain-washed by the group, which in some cases has taken years to shake off, despite the fact that the group purport to being an innocuous form of relaxation."
Another letter states:
"I have known a number of people, several of them close friends, who, having taken TM courses over a period of time, developed mental and physical problems, some of a subtle nature, and others … resembling symptoms of epilepsy. After an initial sense of wellbeing, depression, confusion and an inability to deal with day to day living were commonly experienced.
A substantial fee is charged for TM courses, especially for so-called 'advanced' courses and 'flying techniques' (which you may have seen demonstrated on … broadcasts some years ago). Through charging high fees TM has become an extremely wealthy organisation, while gradually destroying the wellbeing of its customers."
A psychiatric report published in 1976, entitled "Psychiatric Problems Precipitated by Transcendental Meditation", said:
"The first 'meditation casualty' I encountered was a 34-yr.-old woman who made a serious suicidal attempt following a weekend training course in Transcendental Meditation. Since then I have come across several people who allege that such meditation exacerbated their depressive affect. Similarly, several agitated, restive individuals have reported that the basic procedure of repeating a mantra"—
which is often a word like "teapot" in Indian—
"tended to heighten their ongoing tension and restlessness."

803
My final letter is from the mayor of Rantoul in Illinois, where the outfit tried to buy an ex-base. It says:
"This letter is in response to your request for information about the Maharishi organisation that we dealt with in Rantoul in 1992. It was a most frustrating experience and I am happy that we no longer are involved. Representatives of the Maharishi International University"—
which is what they call it over there—
"of Fairfield, Iowa, visited us and represented themselves as a reputable university. We gave them the benefit of the doubt for quite a while and shared with them our plans for re-use of Chanute Air Force Base which involves a diverse plan for some 2,500 acres of land.
We did find that MIU made many claims that they could not substantiate. They indicated that US News and World Report magazine had rated MIU among the top universities in the United States. A check with US News revealed this not to be true."
Hon. Members who represent Suffolk will recognise the kind of thing that they are being told by that organisation.
The letter went on:
"When the time came for anyone to make application to obtain any of the CAFB properties, MIU ignored completely any of Rantoul's plans for redevelopment, and contrary to any of their discussions with us, they applied for the entire base property.
We found them not to be what they professed at all. They are interested in obtaining lots of property at no cost and excluding anyone not associated with the mediators."
Since receiving those letters, I have written to the Secretary of State for Defence, and sent a copy to the Secretary of State for the Environment. The letter was dated 7 March but, to date, I have not had the courtesy of a reply from the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cann: No. The right hon. Gentleman would not let me in on a previous occasion.
Mr. Gummer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that he has not had the courtesy of a reply. He wrote to me but did not include the letters that he claimed to include. He has given me no notice of tonight's debate nor informed me of anything else that he has done. Moreover, he has not apologised to me this evening. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has."] He has apologised to you, Madam Speaker, but not to me. He has shown discourtesy throughout this whole performance, and he now suggests that I have not replied to his letter.
Madam Speaker: I dealt with that matter on a point of order earlier today.
Mr. Cann: I reiterate that the Secretary of State for the Environment has not replied to my letter. I understand that the Secretary of State for Defence has not replied, because he has a Minister here to respond in person, which I appreciate.
This Adjournment debate is an attempt to bring something out into the open which has been dealt with consistently behind closed doors in the Ministry of Defence. What we are dealing with is not what we initially thought it was—just a matter of economic regeneration in my area of the country. It is not only a matter of the future use of a base. We are talking about Her Majesty's Government, wide-eyed and open, selling the base to a cult which, as we all know, like all other cults, is inherently unstable.
804
If anybody had said that Waco meant wacko before it happened, they would have been accused of trying to scare everybody. If anybody had talked about Jim Jones and what went on in Guyana, where 400 people poisoned themselves with cyanide at the behest of the head of that cult, they would have been accused of exaggerating. Indeed, they would have said the same of what happened recently in Switzerland.
Are we sincerely—this must surely go across the political divide—considering putting this property in the hands of a cult which will attempt to pull in 4,000 young people? If it is possible that the cult will pull in youngsters to be indoctrinated at Bentwaters, as has happened in the rest of the world, where the cult has pulled in 4,000 youngsters who did not quite make it to a proper university, who were desperate and whose parents could afford to pay, I cannot believe that the Government would dream of allowing that sale.
I know that the Government cannot possibly say no to it tonight, but I hope that they can see their way clear, for goodness' sake, to reviewing the matter before the final signature goes on the contract.
10.31 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces for allowing me one minute to speak in this debate.
I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann), and I welcome the fact that he has apologised to you, Madam Speaker. I noticed, however, that he did not feel able to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, in whose constituency affairs the hon. Gentleman has been meddling for some time.
The hon. Member for Ipswich did not say whether this debate was just a publicity stunt, although that is the most charitable interpretation that we may put on his actions. The hon. Gentleman did not say why he did not advise my right hon. Friend of his visit to the constituency of Suffolk, Coastal, and I regret that he was so ill informed about the conventions of this House, after almost three years, that he waited until after he had been rebuked by you, Madam Speaker, before apologising to the House. Neither his predecessor, Michael Irvine, nor his predecessor's predecessor, Ken Weetch, who was a respected Member of this House, would have displayed such ignorance and discourtesy.
I wonder whether the real agenda is the Labour party's desire in Ipswich to dump Ipswich airport on to Bentwaters, against the wishes either of the local community or of the users of Ipswich airport. My right hon. Friend, to whom the arrival of the Maharishi has not been exactly welcome, is now doing his best to reconcile the local neighbourhood to the change of ownership of Bentwaters, and to ensure that any harm which may result can at least be minimised. I deplore the heavy-handed intrusion of the hon. Member for Ipswich, which can only inflame the local situation.
Such intrusion has obviously been undertaken for purely political purposes, regardless of the damage to the lives of the constituents of my right hon. Friend. The presence of three Labour Front Benchers in the House, which is extremely unusual for an Adjournment debate, shows that they approve of and connive at the disgraceful behaviour of the hon. Member for Ipswich, whose

805
manoeuvring will be remembered in this House and in Suffolk for some time to come. This is the face of the modern Labour party, which clearly has the full backing of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
10.33 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): May I start by saying that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) has made a thoroughly reprehensible, naive and foolish speech, showing a degree of malevolence and ignorance almost unparalleled in the time that I have had the honour of being a Minister? Despite the fact that he has offered you, Madam Speaker, an apology, his behaviour tonight is all the more reprehensible, because he has failed to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of the State for the Environment, in whose constituency affairs he is clearly meddling.
Mr. Cann: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Soames: No, I will not.
RAF Bentwaters is in the heart of the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). He has been working on the matters for nearly two years. He is the chairman of the consultative committee of the local authorities and parish councils concerned with planning the future of RAF Bentwaters.
He has been in constant touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence. My right hon. Friend has been concerned with both the principles and details of this difficult case. By local meetings and postal surveys, he has represented with great diligence and care the views of his constituents.
Neither the borough of Ipswich nor either of its two Members of Parliament have been consulted—and quite properly not. The planning authority for the sale of Bentwaters is the Suffolk county council. Indeed, it was only when the Natural Law Foundation emerged as the lead bidder that the hon. Member for Ipswich decided to take an interest in his neighbour's business. I understand that he has a well-known reputation for doing that, and for trying to stir up trouble through the press.
No one could suggest that my right hon. Friend would be a pushover for oriental religion! There cannot be many in the House who could be better equipped to argue forcibly with the proponents of transcendental meditation. It is not for me to judge the hon. Member for Ipswich on such matters, but, between the two of them, I know where I would put my money.
Because of the bad faith of the hon. Member, it is not right for the Ministry of Defence to take sides, but it is right for me to reveal to the House that my right hon. Friend is deeply opposed to the views of the Natural Law Foundation. He has made that clear to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and other Ministers involved. He has had long and detailed discussions about the legal position, but once it became clear that the foundation was the likely purchaser, my right hon. Friend quite rightly sought to deal with it in the best interests of his constituents.
806
My right hon. Friend has met its leaders, and has secured the agreement to provide community facilities, the use of sporting facilities, and the ecumenical use of a Church building. He has maintained his own view with integrity, but, above all, he has sought to do all that is possible to secure good neighbourly relations. That is the proper activity of a highly diligent and active Member of Parliament.
Into that picture has come the hon. Member for Ipswich, who will not have to live with the people involved, who can walk away, having caused as much ill feeling as possible, and who has no responsibility for the future of RAF Bentwaters and its people. That is why I am surprised at this Adjournment debate, of which my right hon. Friend received no notice until he got his Whip and read it last week.
The primary role of the MOD is, of course, to defend the realm. To allow us to do so, our armed forces must have sufficient land to train upon, and be adequately housed—as must the forces of our allies stationed on our soil.
A major objective of my Ministry has always been to ensure that, in restructuring the services and planning the current drawdown from overseas, we do not miss any opportunity to reduce the size of the defence estate, and thereby carry out our obligation to the taxpayer to ensure the best value for money.
The disposal of the United States Air Force base at Bentwaters, Suffolk, forms part of that programme, but it is an element that has generated considerable public interest, particularly as it is the first large American base to be placed on the open market following the recent rundown of the USAF in this country.
The base itself comprises more than 1,000 acres of land and just under 2 million sq ft of building space. It is situated in a rural area, and much of it is located in an area of outstanding natural beauty. The announcement of the USAF withdrawal was made in August 1992 and the closure date set for September 1993.
In the usual way, the most careful consideration was given to any other defence use which may have been appropriate for Bentwaters. We heard nothing from the hon. Member for Ipswich while those discussions were going on. No such alternative use was found for the site, and the whole station was therefore handed to the defence land agent for disposal.
The base, and its sister base at Woodbridge, were home to about 13,500 service men and women, and civilian employees and their families. It was inevitable, therefore, that the closure would have a significant impact on the local economy. That, of course, could not affect our decision on closure, but it was a factor that was very much to the fore.
A working group was established as soon as the United States Air Force withdrawal was announced, and my Department liaised extensively.
In September 1993, an examination in public was held to consider changes to the Suffolk county council's structure plan. That was used as a public forum for the ideas of the working group. A revised draft planning brief was broadly agreed in June 1994. That was formally incorporated within the local plan and the county structure plan in September 1994.

807
From that explanation, it will be obvious that we sought to obtain the broadest measure of agreement concerning the issues in planning terms which could be considered for the site on leaving the Government's ownership. Early interest in the domestic site was shown by Suffolk college, based in Ipswich, and some preliminary discussions took place. However, Suffolk college did not pursue its interest further.
Other expressions of interest were received, and the marketing process was concluded, after critical examination, by the announcement on 8 February 1995 that the offer for the purchase of the whole of the former base made by the Maharishi Foundation had been accepted. The offer made by the Maharishi Foundation, which is a registered educational charity, was the best received and fully conforms with the planning brief agreed during the consultation process.
The foundation has said that it intends to establish a university based on the domestic site, using as many of the existing buildings as possible. In addition, I understand that the foundation intends to set up a related science and business park using other parts of the base.
It is also worthy of note that the foundation has consulted widely since the announcement that its bid had been accepted. It has had detailed discussions with Suffolk Coastal district council, and public meetings have been held to consult local communities around Bentwaters. The local residents in the privately owned houses adjoining the base have been consulted, and the foundation has said that community facilities will be made available on the former domestic site.
There has been some suggestion that my Department should have accepted one of the other bids that was made, and that the Maharishi Foundation is in some way an
808
unsuitable purchaser. On the first issue, I believe that the procedures that are followed allow all the prospective purchasers a fair and equal opportunity.
I can confirm that the foundation's offer was the best deal for the taxpayer. I also believe that the planned uses have the potential to be of significant benefit to the local community, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Nor can I find any basis for the opinion that the foundation is an undesirable organisation. It is a registered educational charity, which has operated in this country and elsewhere for about twenty years and is widely known. There is certainly no reason for rejecting its bid.
As I have said, we received several other offers for the purchase of the site, and some of the prospective purchasers have naturally lobbied hard in support of their bids. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ipswich will understand, however, that I cannot discuss those commercial details, as they are a matter of confidence.
In conclusion, I can confirm that the offer accepted from the foundation is a good deal for the taxpayer, and the normal criteria in assessing proposals made for the purchase of redundant defence property have been followed in full. I therefore remain of the view that the proposed disposal to the Maharishi Foundation should proceed.
I should not like to end without placing again on record my contempt for the disgraceful behaviour of the hon. Member for Ipswich, and my hope that the House will understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has done all in his power to ensure the very best terms and conditions for his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Disability Discrimination Bill
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) which Minister in his Department has responsibility for the Disability Discrimination Bill in respect of the provision of goods and services; [16366]

  (2) what discussions he or his ministerial colleagues have held with Ministers in other Departments in respect of the Disability Discrimination Bill; [16364]

  (3) what is his Department's policy in respect of the Disability Discrimination Bill; [16365]

  (4) what consideration his Department has given to the effects of specific clauses of the Disability Discrimination Bill in respect of (a) small businesses, (b) medium-size businesses and (c) large businesses; [16363]

  (5) if officials in his Department have at any point been involved in discussions concerning any aspect of the Disability Discrimination Bill; [16362]

  (6) what future role he expects his Department to play in respect of the Disability Discrimination Bill; [16361]

  (7) what discussions his Department has held with non-Government bodies in respect of the Disability Discrimination Bill; [16360]

  (8) what role his Department played in the development of the cost compliance assessment for the Disability Discrimination Bill; [16359]

  (9) what assessment his Department has made of the effects of the Disability Discrimination Bill on industry; [16358]

  (10) what discussions his officials have held with other Departments in respect of the Disability Discrimination Bill. [16357]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. and noble Friend Earl Ferrers has responsibility for all aspects of consumer affairs. As well as my responsibility for corporate affairs, I have the responsibility, as deregulation Minister, for leading, under the authority of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, the Government's deregulation initiative, ensuring, across all Departments, that any proposals that may impose burdens on business are properly appraised. DTI Ministers and officials play and continue to play a full part in collective and bilateral discussion with their Government colleagues in developing the Government's policies in areas such as disability, consulting as necessary representative bodies, businesses and consumers on the affects such measures may have and their impact on business compliance costs.

  The Government's assessment of the impact of the Disability Discrimination Bill on business is set out in the compliance cost assessment "Ending Discrimination against Disabled People", issued in January 1995 by the
  404
  Department of social Security, which has the policy lead in Government on disability issues. The role of the DTI deregulation unit in relation to CCAs is to monitor their quality, coverage of smaller firms, and ensure a consistent approach across Government. The unit provides guidance and acts as a source of advise to those requiring help with the preparation of CCAs.

  Pembroke Power Station
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans his Department has to hold a public inquiry into National Power's plans to burn orimulsion fuel in Pembroke; and if he will make a statement. [16631]

  Mr. Page
  National Power plc submitted an application on 5 January 1995 under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the President of the Board of Trade's consent to retrofit flue gas desulphurisation plant at the Pembroke power station in order to use emulsified hydrocarbons as the fuel.

  Should a relevant planning authority object to the application, my right hon. Friend would be obliged to hold a public inquiry before reaching his decision on it.

  If there is no objection from a relevant planning authority, my right hon. Friend may still call for a public inquiry to be held at his own discretion.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a list of the measures his Department has taken to encourage greater use of renewable energy following the Government's acceptance of the conclusions and recommendations of the United Nation conference on the environment and development. [15655]

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures his Department proposes to encourage greater use of renewable energy in pursuance of the Government's support for the declarations and undertakings made at the Rio climate summit in 1992. [15518]

  Mr. Page
  The Government are stimulating the development of new and renewable energy sources and industrial and market infrastructure through a market enablement strategy. The strategy was published as "Energy Paper 62" in March 1994.

  The strategy's principal measure involves stimulating an initial market for electricity-producing technologies close to commercial competitiveness via renewables orders made under the non-fossil fuel obligation. Other measures are aimed at assessing and developing technology options, ensuring that the market is fully informed, removing inappropriate market barriers and encouraging internationally competitive industries to develop.

  The first and the second renewables orders set an obligation of renewables-sourced electricity for approximately 600 MW. The Government announced a third renewables order, for 626.92 MW, in December 1994. They expect this to lead to a further 300 to 400 MW of new capacity.

  The Government intend to work, through the NFFO, towards a figure of 1,500 MW of new renewable electricity generating capacity in the UK by the year 2000,

  405
  thus contributing to the UK's international environmental commitment.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures his Department is taking as a result of the declaration of Madrid "An Action Plan for Renewable Sources in Europe", 16 to 18 March 1994; and if his Department is taking part in the proposed EC discussions on renewable energy. [15966]

  Mr. Page
  A Department of Trade and Industry representative attended the conference on renewable energy in Madrid in March 1994 and my Department is monitoring developments with regard to the establishment of the EU's European Forum on Renewable Energies—EUFORES.

  The Government are stimulating the development of new and renewable energy sources and industrial and market infrastructure through a market enablement strategy. The strategy was published as "Energy Paper 62" in March 1994.

  The strategy's principal measure involves stimulating an initial market for electricity-producing technologies close to commercial competitiveness via renewables orders made under the non-fossil fuel obligation. Other measures are aimed at assessing and developing technology options, ensuring that the market is fully informed, removing inappropriate market barriers and encouraging internationally competitive industries to develop.

  The first and the second renewables orders set an obligation of renewables-sourced electricity for approximately 600MW. The Government announced a third renewables order, for 626.92MW, in December 1994. They expect this to lead to a further 300 to 400MW of new capacity.

  The Government intend to work, through the NFFO, towards a figure of 1,500MW of new renewable electricity generating capacity in the UK by the year 2000, thus contributing to the UK's international environmental commitment.

  Turkey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions have been held with Turkey about increasing trade and the customs union with the EU; and what links have been made to human rights abuse in Turkey. [16682]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  We have a continuing dialogue with our Turkish partners on a wide range of trade issues; there is no direct linkage between customs union and Turkey's record on human rights. However, the Turks are well aware of the importance that we and our EU partners attach to a raising of standards to western norms.

  Business Links
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the funding of Business Links and the progress they have made. [15184]

  Mr. Heseltine
  Business Links have been designed to increase the effectiveness and improve the quality of local business support services by bringing together their delivery and avoiding overlap and duplication.
  406
  Each Business Link is a private sector company which receives part of its funding from my Department, part from local partner organisations, and part from charging for its services. My Department is providing £38.5 million in 1995–96 towards the start-up costs of Business Links and is committed to providing on-going funding after the three-year start-up phase to contribute towards the cost the services offered by Business Links. In 1995–96 our contribution towards services will amount to around £50 million.

  The Business Link programme continues to make good progress with 75 Business Links now open and over 50 more due to open by the end of April. The programme is well on course to reach its target for a national network of 200 Business Links by the end of 1995.

  Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd.
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the bids for VSEL by GEC and British Aerospace; and how soon after the receipt of that report he will be in a position to announce the Government's decision. [16160]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has allowed a single extension of time, to 12 April 1995, for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to report on the bids for VSEL by GEC and British Aerospace. The Department aims to publish MMC merger reports, along with the decision of the President of the Board of Trade on any action which he considers necessary in the event of the MMC finding that a merger is against the public interest, within 20 working days of receipt.

  Rural Post Offices
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment the Post Office has made of the impact of franchising of Crown post offices on the services offered to postal customers with particular reference to rural areas. [16308]

  Mr. Page
  The Post Office believe that the franchising of Crown post offices has a beneficial effect on the services offered to customers in rural areas. When a Crown post office is converted, it is located in the same general vicinity, if not in the same premises, and offers the same range of services. Additional facilities such as longer opening hours are often also provided. The lower costs to the Post Office of providing services through franchise offices assist in maintaining the network of rural post offices.

  Companies (Complaints)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in how many cases in England in each year in the period 1984 until 1994 the official receiver has been unable to pursue an in-depth investigation into complaints against companies because of expenditure restrictions; and if he will make a statement. [15828]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is not maintained centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Lindane
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what prohibitions exist for companies that wish to export products containing lindane, gamma HCH, or gamma BHC to(a) Switzerland, (b) Germany and (c) the United States of America; and if he will make a statement. [15513]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Products containing lindane, gamma HCH or gamma BHC require an export licence, under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, only if the exporter knows or suspects that the goods might be used for purposes connected with weapons of mass destruction. If an export licence is required, it will be required for any destination including Switzerland, Germany or the United States of America.

  Parliamentary Space Committee
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussion his Department has had with the parliamentary space committee; and if he envisages further consultations in the run-up to the European Space Agency ministerial conference. [16686]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I held a meeting with the parliamentary space committee on 16 March, at which we had a fruitful discussion of a range of issues, including Earth observation activities, satellite-based telecommunications and broadcasting, and satellite navigation. At the meeting, I announced additional Government funding of £2.612 million for the European Space Agency GNSS satellite navigation programme, £1.5 million for the ESA ARTES4 telecommunications technology programme and £1 million to cover the cost of delay to the launch of ESA's ERS2 remote sensing satellite. I would be glad to hold further consultation with the committee in the run-up to the ESA ministerial conference.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the effect of the revocation of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1986/1323 on the supply of fireworks to children under 16 years. [15818]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  After revocation of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1986 it will remain illegal to supply fireworks to those aged under 16 as such supply would breach section 31 of the Explosives Act 1875, as amended by the Explosives (Age of Purchase) Act 1976. Breaches of this prohibition are triable by a magistrates court and currently may result in a fine of up to £5000. The 1986 regulations are being repealed as they reproduced the provisions of the 1875 Act as amended and also empowered the courts to impose a custodial sentence of up to six months for those convicted of the sale of fireworks to persons under 16. I understand the courts have never imposed a custodial sentence. Bearing in mind the scale of the fines which may now be imposed, the Government believe that it is no longer necessary to provide for a custodial sentence.

  Post Office
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to give the Post Office the commercial freedom it seeks. [16379]
  408
  Mr. Eggar
  The Post Office operates several businesses. We are actively engaged in widening the opportunities for Post Office Counters and are helping to automate its services.

  We will announce any plans to change the present arrangements governing the remainder of the Post Office in due course.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure that his ministerial management information system for establishing objectives for his Department includes deregulation objectives(a) for him and (b) for each of the Ministers within his Department. [15567]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  One of the principal aims of the Department is to work to reduce regulatory and administration burdens on business. Each Minister has to pursue this objective in the policy areas for which he or she is responsible. There is also a Minister with particular responsibility for promoting deregulation in the Department.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has for withdrawing regulations within his Department. [15551]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Under the deregulation initiative, which is co-ordinated by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, over 1,000 regulations have been targeted by Departments for amendment or repeal to remove unnecessary burdens on business. Other prime targets are:ensuring that new regulations, whether UK or EC, are introduced only if they are needed and have the minimum possible compliance costs;
  making enforcement procedures more business friendly—one aim is to see 100 local business partnerships established by March 1996; and
  promoting a deregulatory approach in the European Union.

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much funding his Department is giving to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux in 1995–96; how much it would have been if the 1994–95 level had been fully increased to reflect the change in the cost of living; and what assessment he has made of the effect of this change in funding in real terms on the number of regional offices sustained by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. [14670]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Funding from my Department for the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux for 1995–96 will be £11,916,000. Core funding for 1994–95 was also £11,916,000. Based on the adjusted gross domestic product deflator given in the Treasury Red Book, annexe A to chapter 6, this figure would have increased to £12,297,312. It is for the association to decide how best to use the resources which are available to it, and it would not be appropriate for the Department to intervene in operational decisions such as the number of regional offices which are sustained by the association.

  Argentina
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the value of(a) exports to and (b) imports from, the Argentine in each of the past five years. [16232]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The information is published by the Central Statistical Office in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", available in the Library of the House.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Lord Present of the Council (1) if he will ensure that his ministerial management information system for establishing objectives for his Department, includes deregulation objectives(a) for him and (b) for each of the Ministers within his Department; [15569]

  (2) what targets he has for withdrawing regulations within his Department. [15561]

  Mr. Newton
  The objectives in question are not applicable to the Privy Council Office, which does not itself generate regulations.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Mr. Mohd Ashfaq
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal has been granted to the Home Office in the case of Mr. Mohd Ashfaq, Ref: TH/1740/94;IMM/C2021. [L16629]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The application by the Home Office is currently being considered by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at interdepartmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in his Department. [15620]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not currently employ any specialist advisers.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to his Department since May 1992. [15621]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There have been no political advisers appointed to the Lord Chancellor's Department since May 1992.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Political and Special Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) if he will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to his Department since May 1992; [15637]

  (2) what facilities in terms of (a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at interdepartmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in his Department. [15636]

  The Attorney-General
  There are and have been no such political or specialist advisers in any of the Departments for which I have been responsible since May 1992.

HEALTH

  Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of redundancy payments to national health service staff(a) in each of the regional health authorities, and (b) for the national health service as a whole for each of the last 10 years. [15366]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information will be placed in the Library.

  Private Practice
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimates her Department has made as to the cost to public funds of providing private health care within the NHS including the costs of capital investment and training of medical staff. [15767]

  (2) if her Department will commission an independent inquiry to establish the full costs of providing private health care within the NHS; including the costs of capital investment and training of medical staff. [15766]

  Mr. Sackville
  Private practice in the national health service results in further funds being made available to improve services for all patients and reduces the burden on public funds. Private patients are charged at a commercial rate. The availability of private practice in the NHS increases choice for patients. An independent inquiry would divert resources unnecessarily from patient care.

  Nurses
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of all(a) C grade, (b) D grade, (c) E grade, (d) F grade and (e) G grade nursing posts remained vacant as at 1 April on each of the last 10 years for each regional health authority. [15769]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Figures on nursing vacancies collected by the Office of Manpower and Economics are available in the annual report of the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives,

  411
  Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine. Copies of the review body's report are placed in the Library each year.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will instruct family health services to stop the practice of allowing dental contractors to take early retirement other than for genuine medical reasons.[16390]

  Mr. Malone
  Under the limited early retirement scheme agreed with the dental profession, decisions on which applicants to accept are taken centrally on the advice of a selection panel. Full account is taken of the need to maintain the accessibility of general dental services.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on the long-term effects on health of exposure to fluoride; [16336]

  (2) if she will indicate the ways she has considered of delivering fluoride to its target population other than through the main water supplies; and if she will make a statement; [16335]

  (3) what has been the incidence of caries in (a) fluoridated areas and (b) unfluoridated areas, for each year since 1990; and if she will make a statement. [16337]

  Mr. Malone
  Information, by year, about the incidence of caries compared between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas is not readily available. However, epidemiological evidence in general continues to support the Government's position on the positive benefits of fluoridation. Studies which have been carried out contrasting comparable fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas have consistently shown that the reduction in dental decay is between one third to one half greater in the fluoridated than in the comparable non-fluoridated area.

  The long-term health effects of fluoride have been a widely considered aspect of this issue over the 50 years since water fluoridation began. No significant long-term ill effects have ever been found to exist as a result of domestic water fluoridation at the optimum level of one part per million.

  There may be a number of alternative ways of delivering fluoride to the target population, and we are considering what these are, but it is generally held that fluoridation of domestic water is the most efficient means of delivery, and offers the best cost benefit.

  The Government remain convinced that fluoridation of drinking water is a safe, effective and cost-effective public health measure and will continue to support the introduction of such schemes, particularly where the dental health of the population is known to be poor. In 1994 the Government agreed to help with the capital funding of seven schemes in the north of England which would bring fluoridation to 1.7 million more people.

  Road Accident Victims
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will order the South Birmingham health trust to cease soliciting payments, under the Road Traffic Acts, from road accident victims. [16247]

  Mr. Sackville
  Health service hospitals are empowered to collect the emergency treatment fee under section 158 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The fee must be covered by 412
  motor vehicle insurance policies and is payable by vehicle users, in respect of each person given immediate treatment or examination arising from a road traffic accident.

  Overseas Health Care Companies
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations her Department has received from health care firms from abroad seeking to expand into the United Kingdom health sector. [16889]

  Mr. Sackville
  Ministers and officials receive representations from health care firms from abroad on a regular basis. As such representations can take the form of visits, telephone calls or letters and can be made at ministerial or official level no figure on the number of representations is kept or can be estimated.

  Lindane
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence or research is available from(a) within the United Kingdom, (b) the USA and (c) other countries in respect of any correlation between aplastic anaemia and bone marrow failure with the use of lindane, gamma HCH or gamma BHC; and if she will make a statement. [15497]

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1992 the Advisory Committee on Pesticides reviewed the substantial number of worldwide reports, published in the open literature as well as unpublished reports, on lindane exposure and aplastic anaemia. The ACP review focused particularly on cases of people in the United Kingdom who had been diagnosed as having aplastic anaemia and who had been exposed to lindane in pesticidal products. The committee concluded that the weight of evidence suggested that lindane does not cause aplastic anaemia in man. On the basis of the information available, the ACP recommended that no regulatory action on this aspect was justified.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has of skin complaints being caused by lindane, gamma HCH or gamma BHC; and if she will make a statement. [15496]

  Mr. Sackville
  In the United Kingdom lindane is used mainly as an agricultural pesticide. Its only other use in the UK is in some products licensed under the Medicines Act 1986 for the treatment of scabies and crablice, and available only from pharmacies. There are no veterinary uses of lindane in the UK.

  The London poisons unit undertook a review of suspected cases of lindane poisoning reported to the unit between 1969 and 1988. The results were submitted to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides for evaluation during its review of lindane in 1991–92. Data were available on 110 cases, in six of which skin irritation was reported. Details of this review were published in December 1992 in the document "Evaluation on Gamma HCH (Lindane 2," copies of which are available in the Library.

  Dermatoses can be caused by an allergic reaction to any chemical, whether naturally occurring or manufactured, and some people may be especially sensitive to ingredients of pesticides or medicines. Apart from these very rare cases, no adverse effects should be expected in the short, medium or long term if the product is used in strict accordance with the recommendations on the label and accompanying literature, which give dose and safety precautions.
  413
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence is available from the World Health Organisation regarding the rates of breast cancer in countries where the use of lindane or gamma hexachlorocyclohexane is banned or restricted. [15502]

  Mr. Sackville
  Lindane is used in many countries. In developed countries, the use of pesticides is regulated by the conditions of approval, and is to that extent restricted. Conditions of approval vary from country to country. Since 1984 lindane, or gamma hexachlorocyclohexane, has been withdrawn from use as a pesticide in Indonesia, Kuwait, Morocco, New Zealand, St. Lucia and two European Union countries, Sweden and Finland.

  There are several known risk factors involved in the development of breast cancer but no convincing evidence that exposure to lindane is one. Breast cancer rates alone, in countries in which lindane is banned, give no indication of whether or not there might be a causal relationship.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effect of exposure to lindane gamma HCH or gamma BHC on pregnant women and their foetuses. [15493]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information on humans is very limited. Adverse effects have been reported in spray operators or workers involved in the manufacture of gamma HCH. These include an increased incidence of spontaneous abortions and stillbirths. However, in all cases exposure to other pesticides or chemicals involved in the manufacture of gamma HCH occurred, therefore it is not possible to conclude that these effects are related to exposure to gamma HCH.

  The Advisory Committee on Pesticides has reviewed both published and unpublished data on the effects of lindane on human and animal reproduction and fertility. It did not conclude that, used under the terms of approval, there is a risk from lindane to pregnant women or their foetus.

  Full details were given in the document "Evaluation of Gamma HCH (Lindane 2)", December 1992, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which EU countries lindane, gamma HCH and gamma BHC are banned or restricted; and if she will make a statement [15506]

  Mr. Sackville
  The use of lindane is restricted in the United Kingdom and all other European Union countries. Approval for the use of lindane as a pesticide has been withdrawn in Sweden and Finland.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has that lindane, gamma HCH or gamma BHC causes or contributes to CHARGE syndrome; and if she will make a statement. [15494]

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1994 the subcommittee on pesticides reviewed data from the CHARGE Association family support group, and cases of CHARGE syndrome linked with pesticide exposure which had been reported to the Health and Safety Executive. The SCP agreed that no conclusions could be drawn from the reports available, but that the situation be reviewed on a periodic basis.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which products designed to kill lice on children 414
  contain lindane, gamma HCH or gamma BHC; and if she will make a statement. [15495]

  Mr. Sackville
  Medicines Control Agency records show that quellada application is the only product currently licensed in the United Kingdom containing lindane—alternatively known as gamma HCH or gamma BHC—which is indicated to kill lice on children.

  The Medicines Control Agency ensures that all medicines on the UK market meet acceptable standards of safety, quality and efficacy.

  Organochlorines
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has that organochlorines may be a contributory factor in the cause of breast cancer; and if she will make a statement. [15510]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health's independent expert advisory committee on the carcinogenicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment reviewed the available epidemiology data on breast cancer in women and levels of lindane in serum and breast fat tissue at its meeting on the 16 March 1995. The committee concluded that there was no clear evidence of an association between serum and fat levels of lindane and breast cancer at the present time, and recommended that the matter be kept under review.

  Well Woman Centres
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list each well woman centre and indicate which are currently part-funded by individual health authorities.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has given to fundholding general practitioners regarding purchasing from well woman centres. [15754]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  It is for national health service purchasers, both fundholding general practitioners and health authorities, to decide whether, and to what extent, they purchase services from well woman centres. Not all services which are provided by well woman centres are included in the fundholding scheme.

  "Handle with Care" Leaflet
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what age of child is dealt with in the "Handle with Care" leaflet, sponsored by her Department. [15752]

  Mr. Bowis
  Babies and toddlers.

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 6 March,Official Report, columns 41–42, if the figures for clinical negligence include legal costs; and if she will itemise those costs. [15750]

  Mr. Malone
  All the figures include legal costs. The new method of estimating total costs of clinical negligence is not broken down between legal costs and damages paid.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which management consultants have been employed by her Department to assist in the assessment of applications for NHS units for trust status; how much each was paid; and how many assessments they undertook in each wave. [15846]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies the then Minister for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), gave him on 3 November 1993,Official Report, column 225, and on 12 July 1994, Official Report, column 528. The information for the fifth wave of national health service trusts is as shown.

  Lead management consultants

  Number of assessments

  Cost £

  BDO Consulting

  17

  15,139

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  52,139

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ensure that her ministerial management information system for establishing objectives for her Department, includes deregulation objectives(a) for her and (b) for each of the Ministers within her Department. [15564]

  Mr. Sackville
  The need to avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens on business and on others is identified as an objective in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement of aims, goals, priorities and key challenges for the Department of Health for 1994–95, and subsequent years, which was published on 18 April 1994 and placed in the Library. Each Minister has to pursue this objective in the policy areas for which he or she is responsible. There is also a Minister with particular responsibility for promoting deregulation in the Department.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets she has for withdrawing regulations within her Department. [15545]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs today.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at interdepartmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in her Department. [15624]

  Mr. Sackville
  Special advisers are members of the civil service, have the same conditions of service as civil servants and are subject to the same rules of conduct as other civil servants, with certain limited exceptions. They have facilities appropriate to their duties.
  416
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to her Department since May 1992. [15625]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has not appointed a special adviser since May 1992.

  Children's Homes (Lay Assessors)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that appropriate police checks are undertaken in respect of lay assessors who have access to children's homes. [16043]

  Mr. Bowis
  Police checks are generally available for those who have substantial unsupervised access to children in children's homes. Lay assessors do not fall into this category. It is the responsibility of local authorities to satisfy themselves about the suitability of people they engage as lay assessors, for example by checking CVs and taking up references.

  Hepatitis
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many died as a result of infection with the hepatitis C virus in the NHS for(a) 1992, (b) 1993, and (c) 1994. [16583]

  Mr. Sackville
  The current international classification of diseases, 9th revision, does not allow us separately to identify the hepatitis C virus.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people currently have the hepatitis C virus in the United Kingdom. [16585]

  Mr. Sackville
  There have been no large population seroprevalence studies in the United Kingdom which could give precise estimates of the numbers infected.

  Small studies in transfusion centres at the time of introducing HCV testing estimated the prevalence in blood donors to be 0.06 per cent. This would be an underestimate of the numbers in the United Kingdom population as a whole because the group at most risk of infection, those who have injected drugs, are asked to self-defer from blood donation. There is evidence to suggest that perhaps between 50 and 80 per cent. of intravenous drug users have been infected with hepatitis C. Rates vary with geographical area.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with haemophilia died as a result of infection with the hepatitis C virus in the NHS in(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994. [16630]

  Mr. Sackville
  We understand from the United Kingdom haemophilia directors that, of 119 haemophilia patients known to have died in 1992, 10 showed the cause of death as liver disease of which hepatitis C may have been the cause. In respect of the 1993 figures, I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 1 December 1994, column 830. I understand that figures for 1994 are not yet available.

  Haemophilia
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department carried out since 1989 on haemophilia; and if she will make a statement. [16582]
  417
  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has not carried out any such research. The main agency that the Government support for biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current mortality rate for women with breast cancer in England, for each health authority. [16580]

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest available data on incidence to mortality ratios are published in table 15 of cancer statistics, registration, 1989, series MB1, No. 22, HMSO, 1994, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women have died from breast cancer in the United Kingdom in each year since 1989. [16581]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of women who have died from breast cancer—ICD1 174—in the United Kingdom, 1989–1992.

  1989: 15,667

  1990: 15,179

  1991: 15,403

  1992: 15,221

  1International classification of diseases, 9th revision.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many men were diagnosed with breast cancer in the NHS for(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994 respectively; and if she will make a statement. [16579]

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest available data on male breast cancer registrations are published in table 2 of cancer statistics, registrations, 1989, series MB1 No. 22, HMSO, 1994, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Asthma
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the NHS of asthma, and asthma-related disorders for(a) 1992, (b) 1993, and (c) 1994. [16584]

  Mr. Sackville
  The net ingredient cost of national health service prescriptions for asthma medication was £305.2 million in 1992, £348.6 million in 1993 and £381 million in 1994. The net ingredient cost is the basic price of a drug before discounts and the addition of dispensing costs or fees. Information on the cost of other NHS services for asthma is not available for the years requested. In 1989–90, excluding community health services, they cost an estimated £72 million.

  Wakefield Health Authority
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role is played by the chair of the Yorkshire and Northern health region in the strategic planning of health care within the area covered by Wakefield health authority. [16350]

  Mr. Sackville
  District health authorities are directly accountable to regional health authorities. The regional health authority provides the strategic framework for regulating the relationship between purchasers and providers and ensures that local services are developed within the context of national guidelines. The authority 418
  also seeks to ensure that the most comprehensive and cost-effective balance of primary and secondary services is secured at a local level.

  Strategic Decisions
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms exist to resolve disagreements on strategic decisions at local level between purchasers and providers and community health councils. [16348]

  Mr. Malone
  Health authorities are expected to consult health care providers about local health strategies and to make every endeavour to resolve differences locally. Disagreement between health authorities and providers can be referred to the regional health authority for arbitration as set out in EL(91)11, "NHS Contracts: Guidance on Resolving Disputes." Health Authorities are required, under regulation 19 of the Community Health Council Regulations, as amended, to consult the community health council on proposals for substantial developments or variations in the provision of health services in the district. Copies of EL(91)11 are available in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on the extent to which the strategic planning of health provision at local level may be affected by the decisions of private investors of capital. [16351]

  Mr. Sackville
  The strategic planning of health provision is undertaken by the national health service. It is not affected by the decisions of private investors of capital.

  Chorionic Villus Sampling
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information she has on the link between chorionic villus sampling intrauterine tests and subsequent deformities in babies subjected to the test; [16341]

  (2) if she will launch an investigation into the links between chorionic villus sampling and deformities in babies; [16343]

  (3) what follow-up of mothers and babies who have been subjected to chorionic villus sampling tests her Department undertakes; [16342]

  (4) how many cases of deformities in babies subjected to the chorionic villus sampling test her Department knows of. [16344]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on 22 March, columns 207–208.

  A further article in The Lancet in 19941 considered the risks associated with chorionic villus sampling undertaken between 56 and 72 days' gestation.

  The follow-up of mothers and babies is a matter for local clinical decision. The continuing surveillance and monitoring of babies' health to detect any deviation from normal health is accepted as good clinical practice in the national health service. The recent report of the Advisory Group on Congential Limb Reduction Defects published in February 1995 drew attention to the need for a hypothesis-driven study of the putative causal link between chorionic villus sampling and limb reduction deformity. The Department is awaiting the results of a major study carried out in the United States before taking

  419
  this forward. It seems most likely that this study will address many of these questions.
  1Firth Boyd, Chamberlain, Mackenzie and Huson, analysis of limb reduction defects in babies exposed to chorionic villus sampling, The Lancet, Vol 343, 30 April 1994.

  Newchurch and Company Database
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost to the NHS executive of setting up the private finance database run by Newchurch and Company. [16522]

  Ms Sackville
  The cost to the Department of Health national health service executive of setting up the private finance database run by Newchurch and Company and operating it to date has been £70,000 plus £12,250 value added tax.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what objective assessment of the operation of the internal market in health in any particular locality is undertaken on her behalf. [16352]

  Mr. Sackville
  The main way in which the operation of the internal market is assessed is through the monitoring of the performance of trusts and district health authorities against targets and objectives which are set to ensure the national health service delivers good-quality, responsive services in an efficient manner.

  These include: performance against the patients charter standards which have recently been expanded; position on waiting times; extent of efficiency gains measured through the efficiency index; and progress towards achievement of "The Health of the Nation" targets. These are available at a district level.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information she has on requests by general practices to hospitals to delay to come in—TCI—dates for non-urgent patients until the commencement of the new financial year for financial reasons; [16680]

  (2) what guidelines she has given to general practices concerning the information to be supplied to patients, whose non-urgent TCI dates have been delayed as the request of their general practice until the commencement of the new financial year for exclusively financial reasons; and if she will make a statement. [16676]

  Mr. Malone
  Fundholding general practitioners, like other national health service purchasers of health care, are required to assess the needs of their population and establish contracts for services accordingly. All emergency cases will be seen immediately and urgent cases are placed on a common waiting list. For non-urgent cases, national or local patients charter standards apply. The patients charter makes it clear that health authorities and general practitioners should give detailed information to patients on local health services, including quality standards and maximum waiting times.

  Pinderfields Hospital
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to ensure that Pinderfields hospital, Wakefield, remains open as a district general hospital maintaining regional specialisms. [16349]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. John Greetham CBE, chairman of the authority, for details.

  Local Health Provision
  Mr. Hincliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors determine whether she would intervene in the proposals of an individual health authority with regard to future health provision at local level. [16347]

  Mr. Malone
  It is for health authorities to determine health provision for their area taking account of local needs. Normally, Ministers are involved only in cases where, following consultation by the health authority, plans to close or significantly change the use of health service facilities are contested by the community health council.

WALES

  European Union Funding
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table giving the total amount of European Community money that has been awarded in grants for each financial year from 1986–87 to the present to(a) each local authority in Wales, (b) the Welsh Development Agency and (c) other organisations, giving the total annually of all such EC grants to Wales. [15346]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 22 March 1995]: The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to ministerial meetings (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at interdepartmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in his Department. [15602]

  Mr. Redwood
  Special advisers are members of the civil service, have the same conditions of service as civil servants and are subject to the same rules of conduct as other civil servants, with certain limited exceptions. They have facilities appropriate to their duties.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what targets he has for withdrawing regulations within his Department. [15548]

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs.
  421
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that his ministerial management information system for establishing objectives for his Department, includes deregulation objectives(a) for him and (b) for each of the Ministers within his Department. [15577]

  Mr. Redwood
  One of the most important objectives which I have set for my Department is the encouragement of the growth, efficiency and competitiveness of Welsh industry and agriculture. The removal of unnecessary regulatory and administrative burdens, together with improved practice in enforcement and future legislation, is central to the achievement of this objective, which is naturally supported by my Welsh Office ministerial colleagues. Most regulations are United Kingdom or England and Wales regulations where the Welsh Office is not the lead department.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to his Department since May 1992. [15603]

  Mr. Redwood
  The answer is:

  Mr. Michael McManus

  Mr. Hywel Williams

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which management consultants have been employed by his Department to assist in the assessment of applications for NHS units for trust status; how much each was paid; and how many assessments they undertook in each wave. [15845]

  Mr. Richards
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 1 November 1993 by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North, (Mr. Jones),Official Report, column 51.

  In addition, Secta Consulting Ltd. was appointed to assess five applications for NHS trust status from April 1995 at a cost of £17,625.

  NHS Waiting Times
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has issued to family health services authorities and fundholding general practices concerning information to be given to their non-urgent patients whose TCI—to come in—dates have been delayed until the commencement of the new financial year for exclusively financial reasons; and if he will make a statement. [16675]

  Mr. Redwood
  I have not issued any guidelines on this subject.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has regarding general practitioners' requests to hospitals to delay the TCI dates for non-urgent patients until the commencement of the new financial year for exclusively financial reasons. [16679]
  422
  Mr. Redwood
  I have no details of any requests from general practitioners to hospitals to delay planned admissions until the new financial year.

  Health Promotion Authority for Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of States for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 22 March Official Report, column 258, how many of the board members of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales whose terms are expiring on 31 March have been informed that they are not being reappointed. [16677]

  Mr. Redwood
  One.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been his Department's expenditure on TECs in 1994–95; and what are the plans for(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [16338]

  Mr. Redwood
  Negotiations are continuing with TECs on their contracts for 1995–96. When these negotiations are completed I will write to the hon. Member.

  Final outturn figures for 1994–95 will not be available until the appropriation accounts are approved. When I write to the hon. Member on TEC contracts, I will let him also have the latest provisional outturn figures available at the time.

  Expenditure in 1996–97 will be dependent on TEC contract negotiations which will take place early in 1996.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date the publication by the Countryside Council for Wales's action plan for 1995–97 period will take place. [16678]

  Mr. Redwood
  I hope to publish the action plan shortly.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Prescribed Disease D4
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 825, if he will place in the Library a copy of the paper on prescribed disease D4, mucous membrane, prepared by a senior medical adviser of the Department of Social Security in January 1995. [15824]

  Mr. Hague
  A copy of the paper has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when David Towler of the Sunderland TUC unemployed centre may expect to receive a reply to his letter dated 6 February regarding the case of Mrs. Jackson and the training arrangements for medical boarding doctors addressed to Dr. S. M. Reed of the Benefits Agency medical section. [15825]

  Mr. Hague
  Following several telephone conversations with Mr. Towler, it was assumed that the matter had been dealt with. Dr. Reed wrote to Mr. Towler on 23 March to clarify the position.

  Compensation Recovery Scheme
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to conduct research into the impact of the compensatory recovery unit on the lives of those who are obliged to pay back DSS benefits to the CRU. [15986]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The compensation recovery unit recovers benefits attributable to an injury or disease from the compensator rather than the plaintiff. It performs this function effectively. We have no plans to mount the research to which the hon. Member refers.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the extent of the practice of awarding £2,500 to those seeking compensation as victims of illness, accident or disease so as to avoid claw back of benefit to the compensation recovery unit. [15987]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The level of settlement is a matter for the plaintiff and defendant, so no such assessment has been conducted. I understand, however, that a study of the level of settlement in some 10,000 compensation awards was recently completed on behalf of the Association of British Insurers. This study was conducted in support of evidence recently given by the association on the subject of compensation recovery to the Social Security Select Committee. The study concluded that the incidence of awards of £2,500 was not disproportionate.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he keeps on the impact of the compensation recovery unit upon the lives of those who have to pay DSS benefits to the CRU. [15985]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Department keeps such information as is necessary to discharge its responsibilities.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at inter-departmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in his Department. [15610]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what targets he has for withdrawing regulations within his Department. [15553]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Corporate Affairs.

  Income Support
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the level of(a) over-payments and (b) under-payments of income support in each year since its introduction; and what sums have been recovered. [15751]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is set out 424
  in the tables. Information is not collected on underpaid amounts. These are paid to claimants as soon as they are discovered.

  Table 1—Losses due to irrecoverable and unrecovered overpayments of Income Support

  Year

  Amount (£000s)

  1988–89

  41,112

  1989–90

  40,211

  1990–91

  28,608

  1991–92

  32,974

  1992–93

  46,612

  1993–94

  55,820

  Table 2—Recoveries of overpayment via Benefits Agency Districts

  Year

  Amount (£000s)

  1988–89

  15,348

  1989–90

  17,068

  1990–91

  15,483

  1991–92

  15,377

  1992–93

  19,431

  1993–94

  32,830

  Note:

  Information on the totals of recoverable overpayments is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that his ministerial management information system for establishing objectives for his Department, includes deregulation objectives(a) for him and (b) for each of the Ministers within his Department. [15573]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This Department's deregulation objectives are set out on pages 2, 47 and 48 of the 1995 departmental report, "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995–96 to 1997–98", published on 9 March 1995. One of our key tasks for the next three years is to reduce the burdens on business wherever possible, particularly by dealing with the differences in national insurance and Inland Revenue procedures.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to his Department since May 1992. [15611]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 1 December 1994,Official Report, column 891.

  Child Support
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances child maintenance payments can be obtained from service men posted abroad; what plans he has to review this issue; and if he will make a statement. [15544]

  Mr. Burt
  Child Support rules apply equally to service personnel and civilians. Where service men are posted abroad the Child Support Agency retains jurisdiction where it appears that the absent parent maintains sufficient links with the United Kingdom to be considered
  425
  habitually resident here. This applies in the overwhelming majority of cases. There are no plans to review these arrangements.

  Incapacity for Work Benefits
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the numbers and proportion of claimants of an incapacity benefit who have been assessed as capable of their usual occupation or an alternative who have lodged an appeal against this decision in each of the last four quarters. [16704]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Available information is in the tables.

  Table A—Outcome of claims referred to Benefits Agency Medical Services

  Quarter ending

  Capable of normal occupation

  Capable of alternative work

  September 1993

  6,000

  28,000

  December 1993

  5,000

  25,000

  March 1994

  5,000

  28,000

  June 1994

  4,000

  25,000

  September 1994

  4,000

  27,000

  Notes:

  1. Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. References are for Sickness Benefit, Invalidity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance, but excludes those references where the National Insurance contribution conditions for Sickness/Invalidity Benefit have not been satisfied and benefit is payable because the person's incapacity is the result of an accident at work or a prescribed industrial disease.

  Disabling condition

  Higher rate

  Lower rate

  Total

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Arthritis

  82,300

  20.1

  179,500

  30.6

  261,900

  26.3

  Frailty

  54,400

  13.3

  95,500

  16.3

  149,900

  15.1

  Heart disease

  18,300

  4.5

  38,800

  6.6

  57,100

  5.7

  Stroke related

  53,000

  13.0

  52,400

  8.9

  105,500

  10.6

  Dementia

  69,800

  17.1

  46,600

  7.9

  116,400

  11.7

  Chest disease

  15,100

  3.7

  26,600

  4.5

  41,700

  4.2

  Blindness

  10,300

  2.5

  32,000

  5.5

  42,300

  4.2

  Parkinson's disease

  17,200

  4.2

  15,100

  2.6

  32,300

  3.2

  Muscle/joint/bone disease

  7,800

  1.9

  13,200

  2.2

  21,000

  2.1

  Other

  81,000

  19.8

  86,900

  14.8

  167,900

  16.9

  Total

  409,200

  100

  586,700

  100

  995,900

  100

  Columns may not add due to rounding.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division 5 per cent. extract

TREASURY

  Taxation
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the percentage of total income received by(a) the top 1 per cent., (b) the top 5 per cent., (c) the top 10 per cent., (d) the bottom 70 per cent. and
  426
  3. Figures for June and September do not include references to Durham Medical Examination Centre. Figures for September do not include references to Swansea Reference Office.

  Table B—Appeals lodged against decisions on Sickness Benefit, Invalidity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance

  Quarter ending

  Total number of appeals lodged

  September 1993

  8,853

  December 1993

  9,982

  March 1994

  7,957

  June 1994

  8,821

  Notes:

  1. Figures taken from the Quarterly Social Security Appeal Tribunal Statistics and the Quarterly Medical Appeal Tribunal Statistics produced by the Government Statistical Service.

  2. Figures are for all appeals, including those against decisions that the person is capable of work.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates will receive the £10 per week supplement to disability working allowance for those working more than 30 hours a week. [16705]

  Mr. Hague
  We estimate that around 2,000 of the current 4,752 disability working allowance recipients will benefit from the new £10 per week additional allowance.

  Source: Disability Working Allowance monitoring statistics for the month ending February 1995.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of States for Social Security what are the numbers of people currently receiving attendance allowance by main disabling condition, broken down by(a) entitlement to the highest rate and (b) entitlement to the lowest rate of the allowance. [16703]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table. This shows separately the disabling conditions that apply to at least 2 per cent. of the total recipients:

  (e) the bottom 10 per cent. of taxpayers in 1994–95; and what are the estimated figures for 1995–96; [15670]

  (2) what was the percentage of the tax take in 1994–95 and the estimated take for 1995–96 from (a) the top 1 per cent., (b) the top 5 per cent., (c) the top 10 per cent., (d) the bottom 70 per cent. and (e) the bottom 10 per cent. Of taxpayers; [15672]
  427
  (3) what was the tax take in the year 1994–95; and what is the estimate for 1995–96 for (a) the top 1 per cent. (b) the top 5 per cent., (c) the top 10 per cent., (d) thebottom 70 per cent., (e) the bottom 10 per cent. of taxpayers and (f) all taxpayers; [15669]

  (4) what was the (a) total income and (b) average income earned in 1994–95 and estimated to be earned in

  Shares of gross income before tax (per cent.) Group of Taxpayers

  Top 1 per cent.

  Top 5 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  1994–95

  8

  20

  29

  43

  3

  1995–96

  8

  20

  30

  43

  3

  Amount of gross incomes before tax (£ billion) Group of Taxpayers

  Top 1 per cent.

  Top 5 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  All taxpayers

  1994–95

  31.8

  78.3

  117.5

  172.7

  12.3

  398.5

  1995–96

  33.7

  82.7

  124.4

  181.8

  12.8

  420.9

  Average amount of gross income before tax (£per year) Group of Taxpayers

  Top 1 per cent.

  Top 5 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  All taxpayers

  1994–95

  123,700

  60,900

  45,700

  9,600

  4,800

  15,500

  1995–96

  128,700

  63,200

  47,500

  9,900

  4,900

  16,100

  1Less than 0.5 per cent.

  Shares of total income tax liability (per cent.) Group of Taxpayers

  Top 1 per cent.

  Top 5 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  1994–95

  16

  33

  44

  29

  1—

  1995–96

  15

  32

  44

  29

  1—

  1 Less than 0.5 per cent.

  Amount of total income tax liability (£ billion) Group of Taxpayers

  Top 1 per cent.

  Top 5 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  All taxpayers

  1994–95

  10.7

  22.6

  30.4

  19.8

  0.3

  69.0

  1995–96

  11.4

  24.1

  32.7

  21.6

  0.3

  74.7

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest estimated levels of uncollected(a) income tax and (b) tax in general (i) in cash terms, (ii) in current values and (iii) as a percentage for each year since 1978–79. [15668]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 23 March 1995]: The latest estimated level of uncollected income tax for each year since 1978–79 is as follows:

  Year

  Amount in £ thousands

  As a percentage of total tax collected

  Amount expressed in 1993 terms

  1979

  39,617

  0.48

  102,581

  1980

  45,091

  0.45

  95,912

  1981

  55,020

  0.48

  104,397

  428
  1995–96 of (i) the top 1 per cent., (ii) the top 5 per cent., (iii) the top 10 per cent., (iv) the bottom 70 per cent., (v) the bottom 10 per cent. of taxpayers and (vi) all taxpayers. [15671]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 23 March 1995]: Provisional estimates are given in the table.

  Year

  Amount in £ thousands

  As a percentage of total tax collected

  Amount expressed in 1993 terms

  1982

  70,143

  0.49

  121,754

  1983

  93,721

  0.59

  156,312

  1984

  126,905

  0.73

  201,386

  1985

  138,468

  0.68

  205,365

  1986

  187,088

  0.77

  269,238

  1987

  228,220

  1.11

  315,203

  1988

  385,025

  1.59

  511,668

  1989

  366,543

  1.33

  450,883

  1990

  364,862

  1.27

  410,069

  1991

  523,817

  1.80

  553,333

  1992

  1,090,223

  4.32

  1,104,361

  1993

  1,107,615

  4.69

  1,107,615

  1994

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  429
  2 The latest estimated level of uncollected tax in general for each year since 1978–79 is as follows:

  Year

  Amount in £ thousands

  As a percentage of total tax collected

  Amount expressed in 1993 terms

  1979

  64,339

  0.24

  166,594

  1980

  90,590

  0.28

  192,692

  1981

  112,648

  0.31

  213,742

  1982

  200,785

  0.47

  348,523

  1983

  288,168

  0.61

  480,622

  1984

  422,896

  0.80

  671,097

  1985

  469,345

  0.81

  696,096

  1986

  479,142

  0.73

  689,533

  1987

  551,369

  0.84

  761,517

  1988

  856,832

  1.16

  1,138,663

  1989

  719,226

  0.90

  884,717

  1990

  789,303

  0.94

  887,098

  1991

  1,437,041

  1.57

  1,518,016

  1992

  2,519,290

  2.84

  2,551,961

  1993

  2,405,865

  2.66

  2,405,865

  1994

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  The figures in this table comprise all duties administered by the Inland Revenue, value added tax and all other duties administered by Customs and Excise.

  The figures for 1994 are not sufficiently complete to allow the necessary comparison to be made and consequently the information is not available in the form requested. Therefore, the figures are expressed in accordance with the 1993 prices.

  Insolvencies, where the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise have very little control over the amount recoverable, account for the vast majority of remissions of tax.

  Tax Planning and Avoidance
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he distinguishes between tax planning and tax avoidance. [15583]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 23 March 1995]: In broad terms, the Government regard tax planning as the organisation of a taxpayer's affairs to secure the mitigation of tax liabilities in a manner consistent with the intentions of Parliament. Tax avoidance centres around attempts to frustrate the wishes of Parliament, either by way of escaping tax on transactions, or obtaining tax relief, in circumstances other than those intended by Parliament.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at interdepartmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in his Department. [15604]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Specialist advisers have the same access to facilities as other civil servants in the Treasury.

  Privatisation Advertising
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent on the advertising of privatisation sales, for each sale since 1979. [15355]

  Sir George Young
  The table shows the cost to the Government of adverting in each privatisation by floatation or secondary share sale since BT, 1984. Information on the advertising costs of earlier sales is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Advertising costs in privatisations

  Share offer

  Year

  Costs (ex VAT) £ million

  BT (1)

  1985

  9.7

  Britoil

  1985

  3.0

  Cable and Wireless

  1985

  2.2

  British Aerospace

  1985

  1.7

  British Gas

  1986

  21.4

  British Airways

  1987

  2.8

  Rolls-Royce

  1987

  1.6

  BAA

  1987

  4.9

  BP

  1987

  18.3

  British Steel

  1988

  4.9

  Water

  1989

  5.3

  Regional Electricity Companies

  1990

  14.2

  Generating Companies (1)

  1991

  5.6

  Scottish Electricity Companies

  1991

  5.3

  BT (2)

  1991

  14.0

  Northern Ireland Electricity

  1993

  1.1

  BT (3)

  1993

  11.9

  Generating Companies (2)

  1995

  8.1

  Bank Lending
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total lending by(a) United Kingdom banks and (b) banks of Federal Germany to enterprises in Eastern Europe. [14420]

  Mr. Nelson
  According to the Bank for International Settlements, loans by UK banks to eastern Europe as at the end of June 1994, stood at $4,209 million. Of this, the Bank of England estimates that $796 million was lent to the non-bank private sector. Total lending by Germany to eastern Europe as at the end of June 1994 was $42,733 million. Neither the Bank of England nor the Treasury has access to information on the breakdown of this figure.

  Construction Industry Review
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response his Department has made to the Latham review. [14432]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government's response to the Latham review was contained in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Construction and Planning to the Latham conference on 25 July 1994. Her Majesty's Treasury has an interest in Sir Michael's recommendations in terms of value for money in public procurement and the efficient contribution of the construction of industry to the economy. The Treasury has therefore been involved in the follow-up work on the review.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much sterling has appreciated or depreciated against all the other currencies of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries since April 1992; and by how much sterling has been devalued in overall terms since that date. [15984]

  Mr. Nelson
  In April 1992 sterling's exchange rate index averaged 100.2 per cent. At close of business on March 23 1995 the ERI was 15 per cent. lower, at 85.2 movements in sterling's rate against other OECD currencies can be found in "International financial Statistics", published by the International Monetary Fund.

  VAT (Camping and Temporary Caravans)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the rates of VAT charged on payments for sites for camping and temporary caravans in each of the member countries of the European Union. [15869]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The rates of VAT charged on payments for sites for camping and temporary caravans in each member country of the European Union are set out in the table:

  Per cent.

  Austria

  10

  Belgium

  6

  Denmark

  25

  Finland

  22

  France

  5.5

  Germany

  15

  Ireland

  12.5

  Italy

  9

  Luxembourg

  15

  Netherlands

  6

  Portugal

  5

  Spain

  7

  Sweden

  12

  United Kingdom

  17.5

  Press Officers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many press officers there are in his Department currently; and what the figure was in 1979. [16557]

  Mr. Nelson
  Seven press officers are currently employed in the Treasury. Information for 1979 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Genome Research
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of his budget will be allocated to research into ethical, legal and social issues arising out of genome research. [14217]

  Mr. Horam
  The Medical Research Council expects to spend £15.5 million on the genome initiative in 1995–96. Ethical, social and legal issues will be one aspect of this 432
  research, but it is not possible to provide separate figures. The Economic and Social Research Council sponsors social research on the human genome worth around £200,000.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of magistrates appointed to the bench in the County Palatine in the last 12 months is in full-time employment. [14216]

  Mr. David Hunt
  Seventy-eight per cent.

  Engineering
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the Institute of Structural Engineers to discuss the role of engineering in Britain. [14219]

  Mr. Horam
  Although no formal meetings have taken place with the institute, Ministers have had several meetings with the Royal Academy of Engineering which works for and represents all engineering disciplines.

  Regulatory Authorities
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the standard of service applied by regulatory authorities under the citizens charter procedures; and if he will make a statement. [14220]

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am satisfied that the regulatory authorities act in accordance with charter principles in prescribing standards of service for the organisations they regulate.

  Science (Children)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to encourage more children to develop an active interest in science; and if he will make a statement. [14221]

  Mr. David Hunt
  During the national week of science, engineering and technology, I announced a new competition to find the best primary and secondary schools in the United Kingdom. Classes have been invited to submit by 31 July video films of up to five minutes duration, or photo-essays, saying why theirs is the best science school in the country. Each of the winning primary and secondary schools will receive £1,000 for new scientific and technological equipment. The winners and two runners-up in each category will receive a day trip to the museum or hands-on centre of their choice, sponsored by the Office of Science and Technology. I shall announce the results during the week of the British Association's science festival in September.

  Select Committees
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new guidance his Department has issued to civil servants giving evidence to, or appearing before, Select Committees. [15970]

  Mr. Horam
  Updated guidance on "Departmental Evidence and Response to Select Committees" was issued to Departments in December of last year. As announced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House,
  433
  14 December 1994, Official Report, column 712, copies were sent to Chairmen of Select Committees. and were also placed in the Library.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many press officers there are in the Central Office of Information. [16553]

  Mr. Horam
  One.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at interdepartmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in his Department. [15641]

  Mr. David Hunt
  Special advisers are members of the civil service, have the same conditions of service as civil servants and are subject to the same rules of conduct as other civil servants, with certain limited exceptions. They have all the facilities listed in the question to the extent necessary for the performance of their duties.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will ensure that his ministerial management information system for establishing objectives for his Department, includes deregulation objectives(a) for him and (b) for each of the Ministers within his Department. [15574]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend has no ministerial responsibility for regulation legislation.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what targets he has for withdrawing regulations within his Department. [15552]

  Mr. Horam
  The Departments for which my right hon. Friend is Minister are not responsible for regulation legislation.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to his Department since May 1992. [15642]

  Mr. David Hunt
  The answer is:

  Date appointed

  Mr. D. Rutley

  January 1994

  Mr. M. McManus

  July 1994

  I have also been asked to list the political advisers in the Chief Whip's Office as follows:

  Date appointed

  Miss S McEwen

  June 1992

  Inquiry Lines
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which telephone inquiry line services have been set up by the Government Departments as a result of the citizens charter. [16307]

  Mr. Horam
  Many public service organisations have set up their own telephone inquiry lines to ensure that their customers can make easy contact with them. OPSS does not hold central records of all these lines, or whether they result directly from the charter programme, but Government helplines are known to exist in the following areas.

  Agriculture

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Helpline: 0645 335577. Local rates. 0900–1700 weekdays.

  Customs and Excise

  Customs and Excise Helpline: 071–202 4227. Standard rates. 0900–1700 weekdays.

  Education

  Department of Education: Inquiries 071–925 5555. Standard rates. 0900–1700 weekdays.

  Employment

  Dial a Job: 071–287 0100. Standard rates. 0900–1700 weekdays.

  Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

  Information Centre Helpline: 0742–892345. Standard rates. 0900–1700 weekdays.

  HSE Autofax: 0742–892333. Standard rates. 24 hours a day.

  Redundancy Payments Service Customer Service Unit Helpline: 0800–848489. Free. 0900–1700 weekdays.

  Work Permits Information Line: 071–273 5337. Standard rates. 0900–1700 weekdays.

  Energy Efficiency

  Energy Efficiency: 071–276 6200. Standard rates. 0900–1700 weekdays.

  Energy Action Grants Agency (grants for improving energy efficiency): 0800–181667. Free. 0830–1730 weekdays.

  Building Research Establishment Saving Money on Heating: 0923 664664. Standard rates. 0900–1630 weekdays.

  Environment

  National Rivers Authority Emergency Hotline for Environmental Incidents: 0800–807060. Free. 24 hours a day.

  Air Quality Information: 0800–556677. Free. 24 hours a day.

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Foreign Travel Advice Unit: 071–270 4129. Standard rates. 0930–1600 weekdays.

  Health

  Health Information Service (Information about health, local NHS services, waiting times, common diseases, conditions and treatments): 0800–665544. Free. 1000–1700 weekdays.

  Aids Helpline: 0800–567123. Free. 24 hours a day.

  Home Office

  General Inquiries: 071–273 4599. Standard 24 hours a day.

  Nationality and Citizenship Inquiries: 051–236 4723. Standard rates. 0900–1600 weekdays.

  Immigration Inquiries: 081–686 0688. Standard rates, 0900–1645 Mon-Thur. 0900–1630 Fri. 24 hour recorded information for visitors: 081–760 1600, Standard rates.

  435

  Students: 081–760 1622. Standard rates.

  Work permit holders: 081–760 1644. Standard rates.

  Au Pairs: 081–760 1666. Standard rates.

  Home Office Publications Unit: 071–273 3072/2302. Standard rates. 0915–1700 weekdays.

  Inland Revenue

  Taxback Information Line: 0800–660800. Free. 24 hours a day.

  Post Office

  Post Office Counters Helpline: 0345–223344. Local rates. 0815–1800 weekdays. 0830–1300 Saturday.

  Social Security Freeline:

  English: 0800–666555. Free. 0830–1630 weekdays.

  Urdu: 0800–289188. Free. 0900–1600 weekdays.

  Chinese: 0800–252451. Free. 0900–1630 weekdays.

  Punjabi: 0800–521360. Free. 0830–1630 weekdays.

  Welsh: 0800–289011. Free. 0900–1630 weekdays.

  Language line: Details available from Benefits Agency local offices.

  Family Credit Helpline: 0253–500050. Standard rates. 0730–1830 weekdays.

  Benefit Inquiry Line for People with Disabilities: 0800–882200. Free. 0830–1830 weekdays. 0900–1300 Saturday.

  Minicom: 0800–243355. Free.

  Disability Living Allowance Customer Care Helpline: 0345–123456. Local rates. 0730–1830 weekdays.

  Child Support Agency Inquiries: 0345–133133. Local rates. 0830–1800 weekdays.

  Social Security Advice Line for Employers: 0800–393539. Free. 0900–1630 Mon-Thur. 0900–1600 Friday.

  War Pensions Agency Helpline: 0253–858858. Standard rates. 0815–1715 Mon-Thur. 0815–1630 Friday.

  Minicom: 0253–859999. Standard rates.

  Trade and Industry

  General Inquiries: 071–215 5000. Standard rates. 0830–1730 weekdays. Answerphone at other times.

  Innovation: 0800–442001. Free. 0830–1730 weekdays. Answerphone at other times.

  Business in Europe Hotline: 0272–444888. Standard rates. 24 hours a day.

  DTI Services for Businesses: 0800–500200. Free. 24 hours a day.

  Transport

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency Customer Inquiry Unit (Drivers): 0792–772151. Standard rates. 0815–1630 weekdays.

  Customer Inquiry Unit (Vehicles): 0792–772134. Standard rates. 0815–1630 weekdays.

  Cones Hotline: 0345–504030. Local rates. 24 hours a day.

  London Transport Travel Information: 071–222 1234. Standard rates. 24 hours a day.

  The citizens charter unit has itself set up and run a number of
  telephone information lines which are directly related to the charter;

  a) 0800 100101 sent out copies of guides to the citizens charter White Paper. Calls to this line were free. The service ran from 22 July 1991 until 16 March 1994.

  436

  b) 0345 300130 provided information about how to obtain copies of the follow-up charters produced by Departments and agencies. Calls to this line were charged at a local rate. The service ran from 25 November 1992 until 16 March 1994.

  c) Charterline (0345 203040), a telephone information helpline service for local and national public services, was piloted in the east midlands from 19 May 1993 until 6 May 1994. Calls were charged at a local rate.

  d) The citizens charter publications line on 0345 223242 was set up on 16 March 1994 to send out copies of the Guide to citizens charter White Papers; details of how to obtain the follow-up charters; the code of practice on access to government information; charter mark award scheme information; charter news; and complaints task force information. The service is still running; calls are charged at a local rate.

  e) Public nomination lines for 1995 charter mark awards were set up on 13 March 1995. These include the following:

  English:—0645 400 444

  Gujerati:—0645 400 440

  Urdu:—0645 400 441

  Hindi:—0645 400 442

  Punjabi:—10645 400 443

  Bengali:—10645 400 445

  Deaftext:—10645 400 447

  These services will run until 31 May 1995. Calls are charged at the local rate.

  f) Charter mark 1995 applicants helpline on 0171 270 6142 was set up on 14 March and will run until 14 July 1995. Calls are charged at normal rate.

EMPLOYMENT

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at interdepartmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in his Department. [15630]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to his Department since May 1992. [15631]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The answer is:

  Michael McManus: Appointed 28 May 1993

  Alison Broom: Appointed 21 July 1994

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UK Military Training Scheme
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from how many countries students received training during 1994 that was wholly or partially paid for from the United Kingdom military training assistance scheme; and if he will name those countries. [16176.]

  Mr. David Davis
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the financial year 1993–94 students from 65 countries received training wholly or partially paid for from the United Kingdom military training scheme. The countries were Albania, Antigua, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Czech Republic, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Montserrat, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanaka, St. Kitts, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad, Uganda, Ukraine, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 210, regarding the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review and extensions conference, if there are any indications that any participants do not share the UK aim of obtaining an indefinite and unconditional extension of the treaty. [15993]

  Mr. David Davis
  There is not yet a consensus of support for the indefinite and unconditional extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty at the review and extension conference beginning in April. We are lobbying hard at ministerial and official levels to convince state parties that the indefinite and unconditional extension of the treaty would best serve their security interests.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries that have not ratified the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. [16532]

  Mr. David Davis
  The following states are not yet members of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty:

  Andorra

  Angola

  Brazil

  Chile

  Comoros

  Cook Islands

  Cuba

  Djibouti

  Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

  India

  Israel

  Micronesia

  Niue

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Palau

  United Arab Emirates

  Vanuatu

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provisions govern the setting up of a European Commission investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. [15217]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The criminal investigation into the Lockerbie bombing is a matter for the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, with assistance from the law enforcement authorities in other countries. It is not a matter for the European Commission, which has no competence in criminal matters.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations concerning Lockerbie Her Majesty's Government are making to the 103rd session of the council of the Arab League in Cairo in March. [15218]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will submit to the Security Commission any evidence pertaining to Lockerbie, available to Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States, enabling them to support a case against two accused Libyans, which was withheld from the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. [15219]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that his ministerial management information system for establishing objectives for his Department, includes deregulation objectives(a) for him and (b) for each of the Ministers within his Department. [15559]

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 6 February,Official Report, columns 21–22.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what targets he has for withdrawing regulations within his Department. [15543]

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs today.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to Ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at interdepartmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in his Department. [15626]

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to his Department since May 1992. [15627]
  439
  Mr. Goodlad
  Mr. Michael Maclay was appointed to this Department as a special adviser on 19 July 1993. Mr. Maurice Fraser, the other special adviser, was reappointed to the Department on 13 April 1992.

  Arms Exports
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will outline the ways in which the international behaviour of a buyer country would act as a deterrent to the export of arms from the United Kingdom, as stated in the common criteria for arms exports of the EC states, adopted by the heads of government of European Community countries in June 1991; [16528]

  (2) if he will state the criteria which are used when deciding not to export arms to countries that abuse human rights, as stated in the common criteria for arms exports of the EC states, adopted by the heads of government of European Community countries in June 1991; [16527]

  (3) if he will state the criteria which are used when deciding not to export arms where they might have a detrimental effect on the internal situation in the country of final destination, as stated in the common criteria for arms exports of the EC states, adopted by the heads of government of European Community countries in June 1991. [16529]

  Mr. David Davis
  Applications for export licences for defence equipment are considered case by case on the basis of agreed criteria which include the internal situation in the country of final destination.

  United Nations Covenants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries that have not ratified the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. [16536]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley has requested is contained in United Nations document—reference ST/HR/4/Rev.10. A copy will be placed in the Library. Since the publication of this document the following states, to our knowledge, have become party to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights:

  Kyrgyzstan

  Namibia

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries that have not ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights. [16535]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley has requested is contained in a United Nations document—reference ST/HR/4/Rev.10. A copy will be placed in the Library. Since the publication of this document the following states, to our knowledge, have become party to the international covenant on civil and political rights:

  Kyrgyzstan

  Namibia

  UN Weapons Conventions
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries that have not ratified the inhumane weapons convention. [16533]
  440
  Mr. David Davis
  The 48 countries which have ratified the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention are:Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium. Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Laos Republic's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Yugoslavia.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries that have not ratified the chemical weapons convention. [16537]

  Mr. David Davis
  The following 132 countries have signed, but not yet ratified, the 1993 chemical weapons convention:Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Fasso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, E1 Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldavia, Monaco, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russia, Rwanda, Samoa (Western), San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, The Holy See, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zaire, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

  A further 31 countries have neither signed nor ratified the convention:
  Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Botswana, Egypt, Grenada, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kiribati, Lebanon, Libya, former Yugoslavia, Republic of Macedonia, Mozambique, North Korea, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Surinam, Syria, Taiwan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will list those countries that have not ratified the biological and toxin weapons convention. [16531]

  Mr. David Davis
  The following 18 countries have signed, but not ratified, the 1972 bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons convention:Burma, Burundi, Central African Republic, Egypt, Gabon, Guyana, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Nepal, Somalia, Syria, Tanzania, United Arab Emirates.

  A further 37 countries have neither signed nor ratified the convention.
  Algeria, Andorra. Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bermuda, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Georgia, Guinea, The Holy See, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgizstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Moldova, Micronesia, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Sudan Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Western Samoa, Zambia.

  Turkey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the human rights restrictions in Turkey; and if he will make a statement. [16681]

  Mr. David Davis
  Our concerns about human rights form a major part of our dialogue with Turkey, both bilaterally and with our EU partners. The Turkish Government have undertaken to make a number of reforms in this area. We look forward to seeing these put into effect.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions he has taken to protest at Turkish military actions in Iraq. [16685]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have made it clear to the Turkish authorities in both London and ankara that we look to them to withdraw their troops at the earliest opportunity, and that the principle of territorial integrity should be upheld. We have also registered strongly our concern that non-combatants in the region should not be affected.

  UN Mercenaries Convention
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to ratify the UN convention against the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries. [16526]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have no plans to ratify the UN convention against the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries that have not ratified the international convention against the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries. [16530]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have no plans to ratify the UN convention against the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries. The latest information that we have on countries that have ratified the convention is from 31 December 1993. At that time no states except three, the Maldives, Suriname and Ukraine had ratified the convention.

  UN Register of Conventional Arms
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries that have not filed reports to the United Nations register of conventional arms. [16534]

  Mr. David Davis
  Those countries who have submitted returns to the United Nations register of conventional arms are contained in the Secretary-General's report A/49/352 of 1 September 1994. A list of those countries will be deposited in the Library of the House.

  There is no list of countries who have not yet submitted returns.

  Mr. Nicholas Ingram
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the state of Georgia, United States of America regarding the proposed electrocution of a British citizen, Mr. Nicholas Ingram, and if he will make a statement. [16674]
  442
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Due legal process has not yet been completed and it would not be appropriate for us to intervene at this stage. We continue to watch the case carefully.

  Mr. Zia Rahman Farooqi
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whose name appears on the documentation approving the entry visa for Mr. Zia Rahman Farooqi; [16428]

  (2) who granted an entry visa to Mr. Zia Rahman Farooqi, leader of the Sipah-i-Sahaba, Soldiers of Islam; [16426]

  (3) which Minister was asked to approve the decision to grant an entry visa to Mr. Zia Rahman Farooqi. [16427]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 16 March,Official Report, column 657.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Pergau Dam
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what means parliamentary authority was sought for the expenditure of £2.938 million on the Pergau dam project, listed in table 1 of class II, vote 5 of the estimates for 1992–93 as having been incurred in the years prior to 1992–93. [15524]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Parliamentary authority was sought through the supply procedure for 1991–92. The project became effective in July 1991.

  Namibia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what concerns there are about the prospect of drought in Namibia; and what international plans there are to counteract this. [15537]

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 23 March 1995]: There has been considerable rainfall recently in the north. This has alleviated the drought situation but has led to some flooding. The Namibian Government have made provision for the purchase of grain to meet foreseeable needs for the next 15 months. The international community, through the Food and Agriculture Organisation and world food programme, continues to monitor the situation closely.

  West Bank
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he has responded to the suggestion of the Foreign Secretary of Israel that Britain should fund one of the industrial parks to be set up on the green line on the west bank. [15528]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 23 March 1995]: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister noted the Israeli Government's proposal for the establishment of industrial parks, and expressed willingness to look at the idea. It will require careful consideration by the UK and our EU partners.

  Slovakia
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what way the United Kingdom Government representative intends to vote on the proposed funding by the European bank for reconstruction and development and EURATOM for the completion of the Soviet designed nuclear power plant at Mochovce in Slovakia, at the meeting of the bank's board on 28 March. [16107]

  Mr. Goodlad
  At the request of the Slovak Government, the EBRD board of directors agreed on 22 March to postpone consideration of the Mochovce project.

  ODA Funding
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much Overseas Development Administration funding has been applied through the Swiss firm SGS Silviconsult. [16197]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Contracts to the value of £666,789 have been awarded to SGS Silviconsult Ltd of Mill Street, Oxford, a UK-registered company owned by the SGS Group.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will itemise the manner in which Overseas Development Administration funding applied through SGS Silviconsult has been spent; and if he will make a statement. [16198]

  Mr. Goodlad
  To date, the ODA has paid a total of £252,646 to SGS Silviconsult Ltd. on the following contracts:

  Forestry Revenue Collection Study—Tanzania—March—June 1991–£43,689.

  Cpatu Rainforest Silviculture Research Project—Brazil—October 1993 to date (5 year contract)—£190,945.

  Forestry Economics—Nigeria—March—April 1994—£18,012

  The total value of these contracts is £666,789.

EDUCATION

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will ensure that her ministerial management information system for establishing objectives for her Department, includes deregulation objectives(a) for her and (b) for each of the Ministers within her Department. [15565]

  Mr. Forth
  As designated departmental Minister with responsibility for deregulation, I am keen to keep the burden of regulation down. Indeed, an efficiency scrutiny is currently under way to review and make recommendations on the scope of minimising the administrative burden on schools.

  Insecticide Sprays
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have been sprayed with lindane, gamma HCH or gamma BHC in the last year; and if she will make a statement. [15491]

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Specialist Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at inter-departmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in her Department. [15632]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Special advisers are members of the civil service, have the same conditions of service as civil servants and are subject to the same rules of conduct as other civil servants, within certain limited exceptions. They have facilities appropriate to their duties.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to her Department since May 1992. [15633]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has had two political advisers since May 1992: Clifford Grantham, and presently Dr. Elizabeth Cottrell.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what targets she has for withdrawing regulations within her Department. [15546]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs.

  Capital Bids
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what capital bids in total have been granted for grant-maintained schools for 1995–96; to which schools they were granted; and how much was each grant. [16520]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  These matters are now the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the agency to write to the hon. Member with this information.

  Liverpool Blue Coat School
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what funding has been made available to Liverpool Blue Coat school for the improvement of physical education and changing facilities; when the local education authority was asked to provide information about the project to her Department; when approval was given; and when the work must commence and be completed in order to qualify for funding. [16340]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Liverpool LEA applied on 18 May 1994 for a supplementary credit approval of £150,000 to enable the Blue Coat school to rationalise its PE provision. This followed a letter from the then Secretary of State dated 19 April 1994 to the chairman of governors of the Blue Coat school explaining that if the LEA were unable to meet its liability from within existing resources, it was open to the LEA to apply for an SCA. The LEA was informed on 10 March 1995 that its application had been successful. The SCA may be used in respect of expenditure defrayed or credit arrangements entered into or varied during financial year 1994–95.

  Students with Disabilities
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the review of further and higher education announced in the White paper "Ending Discrimination Against Disabled People".

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government introduced in 1992 as part of the Further and Higher Education Act comprehensive provisions covering students with disabilities in further and higher education. We shall be considering carefully the points raised in debates on the Disability Discrimination Bill. Additionally, as promised, we will be reviewing the effectiveness of education legislation in meeting the needs of these students.

  This review builds on the achievements of colleges, universities and the funding councils in increasing provision for students with disabilities in further and higher education. It offers us a chance to work with the funding councils, representative bodies for higher education and organisations for the disabled to ensure that the legislative framework meets the needs of students with disabilities, and to consider appropriate proposals for practical action.

  The review will be wide ranging including:
  —in higher education, how the new flexibility in capital spending can be used to improve facilities for students with disabilities.
  —ways in which the arrangements for increasing further education college staff's awareness of the needs of students with disabilities can be improved and whether inspections of the quality of provision for these students can be strengthened.
  —considering whether any further funding incentives could be given to colleges to encourage the enrolment of students with disabilities and if any related guidance could be offered.
  —the administration of the disabled student's allowances to see whether more needs to be done to raise awareness of their purpose and availability.
  —the advice and information service provided by Skill—the National Bureau of Students with Disabilities.
  —considering whether the charters for further and higher education can be improved in respect of availability of information to students with disabilities.

  Copies of the review programme have been placed in the Library.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action she is taking to implement the findings of the Audit Commission report on special needs pupils. [16592]

  Mr. Forth
  The Audit Commission/HMI report "Getting in on the Act" was published in June 1992 and made several recommendations to enhance clarity and accountability in schools and LEAs to ensure better provision for pupils with special educational needs.

  The recommendations have been the subject of revised legislation in part III of the Education Act 1993; and in guidance within several circulars covering the organisation of special educational provision, pupils with problems, and local management of schools. The Government have also issued a code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs, which came into force on 1 September 1994.

  A subsequent Audit Commission report "The Act Moves On: Progress in Special Educational Needs" acknowledges that the code of practice has been warmly welcomed by almost all those involved in education and indicates that the Government have acted promptly to
  446
  address those deficiencies in the national framework which were suggested by the 1992 report.

  Sex Education
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to monitor the parental right of withdrawal in relation to sex education; and how this right is reflected in the revised version of the framework for the inspection of schools; [16088]

  (2) if guidance for inspection of sex education policy and implementation in schools' programmes will be included in the revised version of the framework for inspection of schools; [16090]

  (3) how many and which organisations have responded to the consultation carried out by Ofsted on the proposed revision of the framework for the inspection of schools; [16089]

  (4) what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure the effectiveness of schools' governing bodies for health education and sex education; and how these are reflected in the revised version of the framework for inspection of schools. [16087]

  Mr. Forth
  The new statutory requirements for sex education, under the Education Act 1993, came into force on 1 September 1994. The Department's circular 5/94 offered guidance on the implementation of the new arrangements, including the role of school governors and the exercise of the parental right of withdrawal. We have no plans at present to monitor specifically the right of withdrawal.

  Questions on the framework of inspection are a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, Chris Woodhead. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the numbers of grant-maintained schools in each local education authority area and the political control of the authority when those schools voted to become grant maintained. [15996]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested on political control is not readily available. The following table shows the total number of GM schools in each LEA area and the current political control of that LEA.

  Operating GM schools and political control of LEAs

  LEA area

  Number of GM schools

  Political control

  Avon

  2

  NOC—Largest party Labour

  Barking

  0

  Labour

  Barnet

  12

  NOC—Largest party Conservative

  Barnsley

  0

  Labour

  Bedfordshire

  14

  NOC—Largest party Labour

  Berkshire

  20

  Labour/Liberal

  Democrats/Independent joint administration—Largest party Liberal Democrats

  Bexley

  8

  NOC—Conservative minority administration—Equal largest parties Conservative and Labour

  Birmingham

  23

  Labour

  447

  Operating GM schools and political control of LEAs

  LEA area

  Number of GM schools

  Political control

  Bolton

  4

  Labour

  Bradford

  13

  Labour

  Brent

  14

  Conservative minority administration—Largest party Conservative

  Bromley

  18

  Conservative

  Buckinghamshire

  18

  Conservative

  Bury

  1

  Labour minority administration—Largest party Labour

  Calderdale

  14

  NOC—Largest party Conservative

  Cambridgeshire

  22

  Liberal Democrats/Labour joint administration—Largest party Conservative

  Camden

  2

  Labour

  Cheshire

  7

  Conservative/Liberal

  Democrats—Largest party Labour

  Cleveland

  0

  Labour

  Cornwall

  0

  Liberal Democrats

  Corporation of London

  0

  Independent

  Coventry

  0

  Labour

  Croydon

  12

  Labour

  Cumbria

  37

  Labour minority administration—Largest party Labour

  Derbyshire

  25

  Labour

  Devon

  7

  Liberal Democrats minority administration—Largest party Liberal Democrats

  Doncaster

  0

  Labour

  Dorset

  11

  Liberal Democrats

  Dudley

  7

  Labour

  Durham

  0

  Labour

  Ealing

  9

  Labour

  East Sussex

  0

  Liberal Democrats/Labour joint administration—Largest party Liberal/Democrats

  Enfield

  6

  Labour

  Essex

  143

  Labour/Liberal Democrats joint administration—Largest party Labour

  Gateshead

  0

  Labour

  Gloucestershire

  47

  NOC—Largest party Liberal

  Democrats

  Greenwich

  1

  Labour

  Hackney

  1

  Labour

  Hammersmith

  1

  Labour

  Hampshire

  31

  Liberal Democrats/Labour/Independent joint administration—Largest party Liberal Democrats

  Haringey

  0

  Labour

  Harrow

  1

  NOC—Largest party Liberal Democrats

  Havering

  4

  Labour minority administration—Largest party Labour

  Hereford and Worcester

  5

  Labour/LiberalDemocrats joint administration—Largest party Conservative

  Hertfordshire

  39

  NOC—Largest party Labour

  Hillingdon

  23

  Labour

  Hounslow

  2

  Labour

  Humberside

  3

  Labour

  Isle of Wight

  0

  Liberal Democrats

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Independent

  Islington

  0

  Labour

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3

  Conservative

  448

  Operating GM schools and political control of LEAs

  LEA area

  Number of GM schools

  Political control

  Kent

  87

  NOC—Largest party Conservative

  Kingston upon Thames

  5

  Liberal Democrats

  Kirklees

  2

  Labour

  Knowsley

  1

  Labour

  Lambeth

  15

  Labour minority administration—Largest party Labour

  Lancashire

  11

  Labour

  Leeds

  2

  Labour

  Leicestershire

  5

  NOC—Largest party Labour

  Lewisham

  1

  Labour

  Lincolnshire

  54

  Labour/Liberal Democrats joint administration—Largest party Conservative

  Liverpool

  4

  Labour minority administration—Largest party Labour

  Manchester

  0

  Labour

  Merton

  1

  Labour

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  Labour

  Newham

  1

  Labour

  Norfolk

  30

  Labour minority administration—Largest party Conservative

  North Tyneside

  1

  Labour

  North Yorkshire

  1

  NOC—Largest party Liberal Democrats

  Northamptonshire

  23

  Labour

  Norhumberland

  1

  Labour

  Nottinghamshire

  3

  Labour

  Oldham

  0

  NOC—Largest party Conservative

  Oxfordshire

  1

  NOC—Largest party Conservative

  Redbridge

  1

  NOC—Largest party Labour

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  Liberal Democrats

  Rochdale

  8

  Conservative/Liberal Democrats joint administration—Largest party Labour

  Rotherham

  0

  Labour

  Salford

  1

  Labour

  Sandwell

  2

  Labour

  Sefton

  0

  NOC—Largest party Liberal Democrats

  Sheffield

  11

  Labour

  Shropshire

  9

  Labour/Liberal Democrats joint administration—Largest party Conservative

  Solihull

  1

  Conservative/Independent joint administration—Largest party Conservative

  Somerset

  5

  Liberal Democrats

  South Tyneside

  0

  Labour

  Southwark

  10

  Labour

  St. Helens

  0

  Labour

  Staffordshire

  8

  Labour

  Stockport

  0

  NOC—Largest party Liberal Democrats

  Suffok

  0

  Labour/Liberal Democrats joint administration—Largest party Labour

  Sunderland

  0

  Labour

  Surrey

  34

  NOC—Largest party Conservative

  Sutton

  11

  Liberal Democrats

  Tameside

  3

  Labour

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  Labour

  449

  Operating GM schools and political control of LEAs

  LEA area

  Number of GM schools

  Political control

  Trafford

  4

  Conservative

  Wakefield

  0

  Labour

  Walsall

  9

  NOC—Largest party Labour

  Waltham Forest

  3

  NOC—Largest party Labour

  Wandsworth

  8

  Conservative

  Warwickshire

  8

  Labour minority administration—Largest party Labour

  West Sussex

  1

  Liberal Democrats minority administration—Largest party Liberal Democrats

  Westminster

  0

  Conservative

  Wigan

  0

  Labour

  Wiltshire

  32

  NOC—Largest party Liberal

  Democrats

  Wirral

  2

  NOC—Largest party Labour

  Wolverhampton

  3

  Labour

  Note:

  Political control of LEAs is correct as at 21 February 1994.

  Key:

  NOC—No overall control.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools she has been notified will be unable to meet the requirements of the national curriculum because they have been refused the necessary capital by the Funding Agency for Schools. [15525]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A number of schools have expressed serious disappointment that, as a result of constraints on the total available for capital grants next year, they will not be able to develop their curriculum in the way they had hoped. However, my right hon. Friend has not received notification that any school will be unable to meet the minimum requirements of the national curriculum for this reason. Decisions on capital grants for individual schools are a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools.

  Teachers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Eduction how many full-time teachers there were in secondary schools with(a) arts, (b) social science and (c) science qualifications in 1979, 1984 and 1994. [15062]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is available only for 1988 and 1992. In those years, the number of full-time teachers in maintained secondary schools in England with qualifications in the different subject areas was as follows:

  Thousands

  1988

  1992

  Arts

  97.5

  84.7

  Social Sciences

  92.4

  91.2

  Sciences

  96.0

  91.2

  Where teachers have qualifications in more than one category, they are included in all relevant categories. The total number of full-time teachers in 1988 and 1992 was 191,300 and 175,800 respectively.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Channel
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what statutory obligations there are upon cable companies relating to the provision of the Parliamentary Channel. [15403]

  Mr. Newton
  There is no statutory obligation on cable companies to carry the Parliamentary Channel.

  The Parliamentary Channel is provided by United Artists. United Artists is a shareholder in PARBUL, the company which is responsible for providing all television coverage from the Chamber of the House of Commons, the Chamber of the House of Lords and Committees of both Houses. United Artists provides a service to cable companies which is available to almost all those homes connected to broadband cable as part of the basic package of services provided by the local cable operator. The service is free to schools which are connected to broadband cable.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 1033, what is the result of his reflection on law officers making statements at Lockerbie.

  Mr. Newton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate cannot disclose details of evidence in the Lockerbie case any more than he can in any other pending criminal case.

PRIME MINISTER

  Civil List
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the total payment at 1994 prices under the civil list since 1965. [16516]

  The Prime Minister
  The total payment for the period 1965–94 adjusted to 1993–94 prices, is £188 million.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl the validity of the position of the Government of Malta in relation to Lockerbie. [15220]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Malta about Lockerbie. [15221]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Libya (Sanctions)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl the legitimacy of UN sanctions against Libya. [15222]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Iraq (Turkish Military Activity)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister when he was informed of the Turkish military activities in Iraq; and what actions he took. [16683]
  451
  The Prime Minister
  We were informed of the Turkish military activities in northern Iraq on 20 March, after they began. We made clear to the Turks that we expected them to withdraw their troops at the earliest opportunity. We have also registered strongly our concern that non-combatants in the region should not be affected.

  Mr. Graham Kirkham
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what incentives were offered by him to Mr. Graham Kirkham following the Prime Minister's recent visit to Doncaster. [16251]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (Israel)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he raised the prospects of Israel joining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with his Israeli counterpart or with other members of the Israeli Government during his recent visit to Israel. [15990]

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed a broad range of subjects. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty was briefly discussed with Foreign Minister Peres.

  Security Service
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the publication of "A Perfect English Spy" by Tom Bower, with reference to the implications for the Official Secrets Act 1989 and his answer of 22 July 1993,Official Report, column 321, regarding an officially authorised biography of the late Sir Dick White. [16060]

  The Prime Minister
  This book has only just been published. The Government will study the contents and consider what, if any, action needs to be taken.

  Universities (Business Links)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to improve the relationship between business and higher education. [16383]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education on Monday 19 December 1994,Official Report, column 919.

  Specialist Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at inter-departmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in his Department. [15614]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

SCOTLAND

  Registers of Scotland
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the financial 452
  performance of the Registers of Scotland executive agency for each year since 1990; what profits have been generated; how much of such profits has been paid to the Treasury; and if it is his policy that the agency should continue to generate profits in this way. [15527]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Registers of Scotland agency. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. A.W. Ramage, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Alan W. Ramage to Mr. John Home Robertson, dated 27 March 1995:
  I refer to your question about the financial performance of Registers of Scotland Executive Agency in each year since 1990.
  The Agency is required by statute to cover all expenditure by fee income. Income in excess of expenditure, in terms of cash-based Vote accounting, is surrendered to Treasury at the end of each financial year. The information relating to the financial years from 1990–91 to 1993–94 is shown below.

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Surplus/Deficit (£000s)

  (276)

  1,346

  5,291

  5,819

  It may be helpful if I explain that the comparatively large surpluses in 1992–93 and 1993–94 arose from the processing and elimination of backlogs of work which had built up as a result of the very high level of activity in the Scottish property market during the preceding five years. Accounts prepared on an accruals basis reflect more accurately the Agency's trading position and show, for 1992–93 and 1993–94, trading surpluses of £2.823m and £0.149m respectively.
  Projections of future property market activity allied to more flexible working systems indicate that it will be possible to match income more closely to expenditure in the years to 1997–98. The Agency's forecasts for 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 are that income will exceed expenditure by approximately £100,000 (or less than 0.5% of expenditure) in each of these years.

  Quangos
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 25 November 1994,Official Report, column 338–39, if he will list quangos which have been abolished since April 1993. [15801]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 March 1995]: Between 1 April 1993 and 1 April 1994, the latest date for which figures are available, one non-departmental public body was abolished. This was the Scottish Health Service Advisory Council, which ceased to exist in June 1993.

  Abortions
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown by week of pregnancy of the number of abortions performed upon women in Scotland in(a) 1992 and (b) 1993 under the grounds of (i) risk to life of woman, (ii) to prevent grave permanent injury to physical or mental health of woman, (iii) substantial risk of child being born seriously handicapped, (iv) to save the life of woman and (v) to prevent grave permanent injury to physical or mental health of woman. [15961]
  453
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 March 1995]: The information is set out in the following tables:

  1992

  Period of gestation (weeks)

  Ground (i)

  Ground (ii)

  Ground (iii)

  Ground (iv)

  Ground (v)

  05

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  06

  0

  11

  3

  0

  0

  07

  0

  30

  3

  0

  0

  08

  3

  57

  7

  0

  0

  09

  3

  24

  3

  0

  0

  10

  1

  43

  7

  0

  0

  11

  1

  12

  3

  0

  0

  12

  0

  9

  5

  0

  0

  13

  0

  2

  6

  0

  0

  14

  1

  8

  6

  0

  0

  15

  0

  1

  5

  0

  0

  16

  0

  3

  10

  0

  0

  17

  0

  0

  12

  0

  0

  18

  0

  1

  15

  0

  0

  19

  0

  0

  23

  0

  0

  20

  0

  0

  20

  0

  0

  21

  0

  2

  6

  0

  0

  22

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  23

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  24

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  25

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  26

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  27

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Total

  11

  204

  144

  0

  0

  1993

  Period of Gestation (weeks)

  Ground (i)

  Ground (ii)

  Ground (iii)

  Ground (iv)

  Ground (v)

  06

  0

  3

  3

  0

  0

  07

  1

  12

  2

  0

  0

  08

  1

  40

  3

  0

  0

  09

  1

  7

  2

  0

  0

  10

  1

  22

  1

  0

  0

  11

  1

  7

  5

  0

  0

  12

  0

  1

  8

  0

  0

  13

  0

  5

  4

  0

  0

  14

  1

  2

  4

  0

  0

  15

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  16

  3

  1

  9

  0

  0

  17

  0

  0

  12

  0

  0

  18

  0

  1

  22

  0

  1

  19

  0

  1

  15

  0

  0

  20

  0

  0

  11

  0

  0

  21

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  22

  0

  0

  8

  0

  0

  23

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  24

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  25

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  26

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  27

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  28

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Total

  9

  102

  123

  0

  1

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which management consultants have been employed by his Department to assist in the assessment of application for NHS units for trust status; how much each was paid; and how many assessments they undertook in each wave. [15844]
  454
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 19 July 1994,Official Report, column 123–24.

  In addition, KPMG Management Consulting was appointed to assist in the assessment of all eight applicants in the fourth wave of NHS trusts at a cost of £28,690, including VAT.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to his Department since May 1992. [15613]

  Mr. Lang
  Since May 1992, my Department has appointed three persons as political advisers—Mr. Alan Young, Mr. Gregor Mackay and Mr. Mark Izatt. Only two have been in post at any one time. Mr. Young resigned in November 1994 and was replaced by Mr. Izatt.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Crown Office has sought to interview David Lovejoy about his advice to the Iranian chargé d'affaires in Beirut, Hussein Niknam, concerning the arrival of Charles McKee and Matthew Garnam in Beirut to obtain information on the locations of hostages. [16149]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has made clear in relation to the Lockerbie case, as in any other case, it is not appropriate for the investigating or prosecuting authorities to give details of investigative steps which have been taken.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the numbers and percentages of women employed at these grades and (c) the numbers of staff employed of administrative grades and the number of these staff that are women in his Department for each year since 1985. [16327]

  Mr. Lang
  The available information is shown in the following tables.

  Staff in post in the Scottish Office and its executive agencies All permanent staff

  1985

  1986

  Department

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  SO core and agencies (other than SPS)

  4,389.0

  2,642.0

  4,242.5

  2,551.0

  SPS

  2,653.0

  227.5

  2,794.0

  230.0

  Total

  7,042.0

  2,869.5

  7,036.5

  2,781.0

  Note:

  1. Data as at 1 April.

  1 Includes Industrials.
  455

  1987

  1988

  Department

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  SO core and agencies (other than SPS)

  4,100.5

  2,583.0

  3,944.0

  2,501.0

  SPS

  2,901.0

  247.5

  3,135.5

  256.5

  Total

  7,001.5

  2,830.5

  7,079.5

  2,757.5

  1989

  1990

  Department

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  SO core and agencies (other than SPS)

  3,833.5

  2,439.5

  3,795.5

  2,479.5

  SPS

  3,527.0

  276.5

  3,711.0

  288.5

  Total

  7,360.5

  2,716.0

  7,506.5

  2,768.0

  Staff in post in the Scottish Office and its executive agencies selected groups of staff

  1992

  SO core and agencies (other than SPS)

  SPS

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Per cent. Female

  Male

  Female

  Per cent. Female

  Unified G1

  1.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Unified G2

  7.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Unified G3

  22.0

  2.5

  10.2

  —

  —

  —

  Unified G4

  14.0

  1.0

  6.7

  —

  —

  —

  Unified G5

  104.5

  16.0

  13.3

  3.0

  —

  —

  Unified G6

  73.0

  9.5

  11.5

  9.5

  —

  —

  Unified G7

  324.5

  52.5

  13.9

  —

  —

  —

  Sub total

  546.0

  81.5

  13.0

  12.5

  0.0

  0.0

  1993

  SO core and agencies (other than SPS)

  SPS

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Per cent. Female

  Male

  Female

  Per cent. Female

  Unified G1

  1.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Unified G2

  7.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Unified G3

  20.0

  2.5

  11.1

  1.0

  —

  —

  Unified G4

  12.0

  3.0

  20.0

  1.0

  —

  —

  Unified G5

  111.5

  13.5

  10.8

  4.0

  —

  —

  Unified G6

  71.5

  10.5

  12.8

  12.0

  —

  —

  Unified G7

  339.0

  65.0

  16.1

  12.0

  2.0

  14.3

  Sub total

  562.0

  94.5

  14.4

  30.0

  2.0

  6.3

  1994

  SO core and agencies (other than SPS)

  SPS

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Per cent. Female

  Male

  Female

  Per cent. Female

  Unified G1

  1.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Unified G2

  7.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Unified G3

  22.0

  2.5

  10.2

  1.0

  —

  —

  Unified G4

  12.0

  3.0

  20.0

  1.0

  —

  —

  Unified G5

  106.5

  15.0

  12.3

  5.0

  —

  —

  Unified G6

  71.5

  11.5

  13.9

  2.0

  —

  —

  Unified G7

  336.0

  72.0

  17.6

  14.0

  4.0

  22.2

  Sub total

  556.0

  104.0

  15.8

  23.0

  4.0

  14.8

  1992

  SO Core and agencies (other than SPS)

  SPS

  Admin. staff

  Male

  Female

  Per cent. Female

  Male

  Female

  Per cent. Female

  SEO

  144.0

  18.0

  11.1

  —

  —

  —

  HEO

  375.0

  188.0

  33.4

  —

  —

  —

  EO

  276.0

  343.0

  55.4

  —

  —

  —

  AO

  312.5

  557.5

  64.1

  —

  —

  —

  AA

  223.0

  396.0

  64.0

  —

  —

  —

  Sub Total

  1,330.5

  1,502.5

  53.0

  —

  —

  —

  456

  1991

  1992

  Department

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  SO core and agencies (other than SPS)

  3,779.5

  2,502.5

  3,691.0

  2,441.0

  SPS

  3,729.0

  275.0

  3,940.5

  288.0

  Total

  7,508.5

  2,777.5

  7,631.5

  2,729.0

  1993

  1994

  Department

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  SO Core and Agencies (other than SPS)

  3,635.5

  2,462.5

  3,597.0

  2,438.0

  SPS

  4,197.0

  428.0

  4,096.5

  438.0

  Total

  7,832.5

  2,890.5

  7,693.5

  2,876.0

  457

  1993

  SO Core and Agencies (other than SPS)

  SPS

  Admin. staff

  Male

  Female

  Per cent. Female

  Male

  Female

  Per cent. Female

  SEO

  149.0

  23.5

  13.6

  5.0

  2.0

  28.6

  HEO

  387.5

  191.5

  33.1

  18.0

  5.0

  21.7

  EO

  257.0

  341.5

  57.1

  13.0

  7.0

  35.0

  AO

  312.0

  521.0

  62.5

  16.0

  2.0

  11.1

  AA

  248.0

  425.5

  63.2

  16.0

  10.0

  38.5

  Sub Total

  1,353.5

  1.503.0

  52.6

  68.0

  26.0

  27.7

  1994

  SO Core and Agencies (other than SPS)

  SPS

  Admin. staff

  Male

  Female

  Per cent. Female

  Male

  Female

  Per cent. Female

  SEO

  150.5

  28.0

  15.7

  5.0

  2.0

  28.6

  HEO

  386.0

  192.0

  33.2

  17.0

  8.0

  32.0

  EO

  289.0

  348.0

  54.6

  14.0

  11.0

  44.0

  AO

  299.0

  508.5

  63.0

  20.0

  22.0

  52.4

  AA

  227.5

  426.5

  65.2

  11.0

  4.0

  26.7

  Sub Total

  1,352.0

  1,503.0

  52.6

  67.0

  47.0

  41.2

  Note:

  1. Data as at 1 April.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the Scottish population is covered by private medical insurance. [16330]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment his Department has made of increases in the cost of private medical insurance in the last five years. [16331]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Department has not made any such assessment.

  Dr. David Fieldhouse
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Scottish Office received a recorded letter DY/9586/1114/7GB, posted by Dr. David Fieldhouse in Bradford on 18 March, pertaining to oral question 2 to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 22 March; and when it was brought to his attention.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A letter dated 18 March to 1995 to the Secretary of State for Scotland from Dr. David Fieldhouse was received at St. Andrew's house in Edinburgh on 20 March 1995. This letter was brought to the attention of the Secretary of State on 21 March 1995.

  Allowances
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the car mileage allowance payable to(a) civil servants, (b) members of quangos, agencies and trusts appointed by him, (c) employees of quangos, agencies and trusts which he funds, (d) employees of local authorities and (e) elected members of local authorities, giving details of each class of motor vehicle.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 March 1995]: Information held centrally on car mileage allowances is as follows:
  458

  Organisation

  Car mileage allowance

  Scottish Office

  32p per mile

  Local authority members

  Maximum rates are as follows:

  500–999 cc—30.7p per mile

  1000–1199 cc—35.0p per mile

  Over 1199 cc—42.1p per mile

  Scottish New Town Development Corporations

  Scottish Council for Local Authorities Services rates

  Members and Staff of Non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs)

  The majority of NDPBs apply the same rates as The Scottish Office. Those that do not use a wide variety of ranges ranging from a public Transport Rate of 12.3p per mile to a full of 61.1p per mile.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the overnight allowance payable to(a) civil servants, (b) members of quangos, agencies and trusts appointed by him, (c) employees of quangos, agencies and trusts which he funds, (d) employees of local authorities and (e) elected members of local authorities, giving details of each category of claim, including (i) London, (ii) overseas or foreign trips and (iii) United Kingdom visits excluding London.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 March 1995]: Information held centrally on overnight allowances is as follows:

  Organisation

  Overnight allowance

  Scottish Office

  £65.15 per night (London) £62.40 per night (elsewhere)

  Staying with Friends

  £25.00 per night

  Overnight by train or boat

  £21.00 per night (taxable)

  Residential course allowance

  £5.15 per night

  Lodging allowance

  £32.45 per night (London) £31.00 per night (elsewhere)

  Overseas

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office Worldwide subsistence rates

  459

  Organisation

  Overnight allowance

  Local Authority Members

  £79.60 (London or Approved Conference) £69.80 (elsewhere)

  Scottish New Town Development Corporations

  Scottish Council for Local Authorities services rates

  Members and staff of Non Departmental Public Bodies(NDPBs)

  The majority of NDPBs apply the same rates as the Scottish Office. The rates of those that do not vary from £98.70 (London) to £48.85 (elsewhere)

  Career Breaks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) men and (b) women applied for career breaks in his Department or its agencies; and how many have had their employment terminated in the last five years.

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

  Publicity and Publications
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure on(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.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: Publicity campaigns and publications for my Department are

  Campaign

  Nature

  Total cost £

  Purpose

  1993–94

  Children's Panels

  Press

  84,000

  To recruit from all sections of the community, members to the Children's Panels.

  Fire Prevention

  Press/TV

  169,000

  To promote the installation of smoke alarms.

  Open Door

  Press

  123,000

  To publicise The Scottish Office Central Enquiry Unit, the service it provides and to encourage the public to use it.

  Organ Donor

  TV/Press/Print

  116,000

  To promote the carrying of donor cards and to advise card holders to let their next of kin know of their wishes.

  Road Safety

  TV/Metrobus

  308,000

  To promote road safety among school-age children.

  Further and Higher Education Charter

  Press/TV/Adshels/Radio/Print

  136,000

  To promote awareness of the new Charter to parents and students.

  Right to Buy

  Print/Press/TV

  306,000

  A campaign targeted at public sector tenants to make them aware of the Right to Buy and Rent to Mortgage Schemes.

  460
  commissioned through the Scottish Office information directorate. Expenditure by it on all forms of advertising for the period requested is:

  £

  1994–95

  2,225,000

  1993–94

  1,874,000

  1992–93

  1,648,000

  1991–92

  2,104,000

  1990–91

  1,911,000

  1989–90

  2,713,000

  1988–89

  1,470,000

  1987–88

  1,507,000

  1986–87

  1,228,000

  1985–86

  1,001,000

  1984–85

  1,102,000

  1983–84

  592,000

  1982–83

  664,000

  1981–82

  724,000

  1980–81

  744,00

  1979–80

  629,000

  Expenditure on information publications through the information directorate is:

  £

  1988–89

  630,000

  1989–90

  920,000

  1990–91

  591,000

  1991–92

  824,000

  1992–93

  1,107,000

  1993–94

  816,000

  1994–95

  776,000

  All figures expressed in 1994 prices.

  Figures not available for information publications before 1988–89.

  In addition to information publications, my Department has produced many hundreds of specialised publications each of interest to particular target groups. Information on these could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Details of publicity campaigns for the period from 1 April 1993 to 1 March 1995 are shown in the following table.
  461

  Campaign

  Nature

  Total cost £

  Purpose

  1994–95

  Drugs and Solvents

  Press/TV/Radio/Print

  250,000

  To make parents aware of drug and misuse solvent amongst children and offering booklets containing advice. Campaign ran in conjunction with Department of Health.

  Domestic Violence

  Press/TV/Print/Posters

  482,000

  Targeted at males who assault their partners, the campaign attempts to change attitudes while stating that domestic violence is a criminal offence.

  Children's Panels

  Press

  86,000

  Repeat of 1993–94 campaign.

  Electoral Registration

  Press/TV

  99,000

  A two part campaign: (i) to encourage householders to complete their electoral registration forms and (ii) to urge new voters, in particular, to check the draft electoral registers.

  Organ Donors

  Press/Print

  145,000

  A campaign requesting donor card holders to enrol in the national register.

  Fire Prevention

  TV

  231,000

  To promote the maintenance of household smoke alarms.

  Road Safety

  TV

  232,000

  Repeat of 1993–94 campaign.

  Right to Buy

  Print/Press/TV

  220,000

  Repeat of 1993–94 campaign.

  Drugs and Solvents Misuse

  TV/Radio

  90,000

  Repeat of 1993–94 campaign.

  Water and Sewerage

  Print

  108,000

  Producing a leaflet for distribution to every Scottish household to make householders aware of the annual costs of these services.

  Local Government Reform

  Print

  139,000

  Producing a leaflet for distribution to every Scottish household advising of the changes to the forthcoming restructuring of local government.

  The planned publicity budget for my Department for 1995–96 is £2.5 million.

  No records are held centrally regarding publicity campaigns and publications for agencies and public bodies. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Ombudsmen
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will require the local government ombudsman to report annually on the nature of the cases referred to him or her in which he or she has decided to exercise discretion and conduct on investigation notwithstanding the existence of a remedy which could be pursued through the courts. [15066]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  No; it is to the local authority associations that the local government ombudsmen report annually, and the content of their reports is a matter for them.

  Corruption
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local councilors have been found guilty in each year since 1979; and what were their political affiliations. [15333]
  462
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received to date concerning possible unitary status for Blackpool and Blackburn. [15651]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We have received a small number of representations commenting on our decision, announced on 2 March, to direct the commission to look again at the case for giving the districts of Blackpool and Blackburn unitary status. Some have welcomed the decision; others have opposed it.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to obtain for his Department's library a copy of the recent DRI/McGraw-Hill report on carbon dioxide emissions across Europe. [15896]

  Mr. Atkins
  None.

  Cats
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has formed of the impact to bird life from predation by domestic cats. [14900]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Joint Nature Conservation Committee has advised that although hunting by domestic
  463
  cats may have a detrimental effect on some local bird populations, there is no evidence that this is significantly affecting the conservation status of birds at the national level.

  Lindane
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what inquiries the Government's Building Research Establishment has made into the use of lindane, gamma BHC or gamma HCH; and what were the results. [15498]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Building Research Establishment has for a number of years conducted research into many aspects of the behaviour, fate and efficacy of lindane when used as a wood preservative. The results of much of this research have been published, either in professional journals or in the research establishment's publications. Some information on the non-agricultural uses of lindane appeared in the review which was published in December 1992—"Evaluation on Gamma HCH (Lindane II; Evaluation No. 64)", a copy of which is lodged in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the extent of pollution of the North sea by lindane, gamma HCH, gamma BHC or comparable pesticide products; and if he will make a statement. [15512]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information on the North sea distribution of organochlorines such as lindane—gamma HCH—is given in the 1993 "Quality Status Report on the North Sea", with more detailed information in six sub-regional reports produced by the UK. Copies of these reports are in the Library of the House. The highest concentrations of lindane in North sea waters were found in the southern North sea and German bight. Monitoring by UK fisheries departments, reflected in the quality status report, has found little indication of serious organochlorine contamination of fish tissue in our North sea estuaries. Similarly, concentrations of organochlorines in marine mammals stranded on the UK North sea coast are generally low.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the similarities between DDT and lindane or gamma hexachlorocyclohexane. [15511]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Both lindane and DDT are organochlorine insecticides. However, lindane is less persistent than other organochlorine pesticides and, as it is excreted rapidly from mammals, has less potential to accumulate in man or wild animals.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the(a) household, (b) garden, greenhouse or park and (c) pet care products in which lindane or gamma hexachlorocyclohexane are used. [15508]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is already in the public domain for all products containing lindane registered by the Health and Safety Executive or the pesticides safety directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and all these products must indicate that they contain lindane. For products registered up to October 1994, this information is listed in "Pesticides 1995, Reference Book 500"—the Blue Book—a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Any products containing lindane registered since then are listed in the monthly "Pesticides Register" which is produced by the Health and Safety Executive and 464
  pesticides safety directorate and published by HMSO. I understand that there are no pet care products containing lindane licensed in the UK at present.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ban the use of lindane, gamma HCH, and gamma BHC in wood preservatives. [15509]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, Ministers established an independent committee, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, to provide them with advice on the approval of pesticides. Current policy on the approval of lindane is based on the advice of this committee. In 1992, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides considered a substantial body of evidence on the toxicology and behaviour of lindane when it reviewed its use as a non-agricultural pesticide, including as a wood preservative. The advisory committee recommended that approvals should continue as there was no evidence of an unacceptable risk to human health from use of lindane as a wood preservative. The Ministers of the pesticide approving Departments accepted these recommendations.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice is issued by the Building Research Establishment in respect of the number of hours people should stay out of enclosed areas sprayed with lindane, gamma BHC or gamma HCH; what information he has to the comparable advice given to customers by the producers of this product; and if he will make a statement. [15503].

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Guidance on re-entry periods for occupants of buildings treated with wood preservatives appears on product labels. As such it is a statutory condition for the approval of use of a product, recommended by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and agreed by Ministers. In the case of lindane, unprotected persons and animals should not re-enter treated buildings for a minimum period of 48 hours and only then if the timber is dry.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he is giving to local authorities who use lindane fumers with insecticide smoke to clear houses of insects and other pests. [15504]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Adequate requirements and advice are already in place. Work with lindane is covered by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994—COSHH. COSHH requires employers to inform, instruct and train their employees about: the nature of the substances they work with; the risks created by exposure to those substances and the precautions to be taken. Under the provisions of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986, conditions of approval and instructions for use appear on lindane pesticide products.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the use of lindane in lofts inhabited by bats. [15505]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Bats are protected animals under schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. All wood preservatives containing lindane carry the statement that: before treating any structure used by bats, English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage or the Country Council for Wales should be consulted. The conservation bodies have lists of products which are acceptable for use in
  465
  roosts; products containing lindane are not recommended for this purpose.

  DDT
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if DDT is soluble in body fat and tissue of(a) animals and (b) humans. [15514]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  DDT is soluble in the fatty tissue of man and other animals.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what considerations underlie the banning of DDT. [15507]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In the United Kingdom, concern over the environmental effects of DDT led to reductions in use from the 1960s culminating in a complete ban by 1986. Because of its properties and widespread use, DDT accumulated in the environment, exposing animals higher up the food chain to concentrations which produced various toxic effects. DDT was implicated in the decline in populations of a number of these animals, most notably birds of prey through egg-shell thinning.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what targets he has for withdrawing regulations within his Department. [15563]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs earlier today.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that his ministerial management information system for establishing objectives for his Department, includes deregulation objectives(a) for him and (b) for each of the Ministers within his Department. [15570]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The aims and objectives for the Department of the Environment are set through its management information system for Ministers—MINIS. The Department's commitment to the deregulation initiative is reflected in the aims and objectives for the relevant policy areas.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each local authority area(a) the number of empty homes and (b) the proportion of empty homes in (i) the private sector, (ii) the local authority sector and (iii) the housing association sector. [15686]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Local authorities in England report the numbers of their own dwellings that are vacant at 1 April on their annual housing investment programme—HIP1—return. The latest figures for individual local authorities can be found in section A of the "1994 HIP1 All Items Print", a copy of which is in the Library; figures are given separately for vacant dwellings inside and outside the authority's area.

  Housing associations report the numbers of their own dwellings vacant at 31 March on their annual HAR10/1 return. I have today placed in the Library a table giving the reported numbers of vacant housing association dwellings in each local authority area. The listed figures
  466
  are incomplete as there are an estimated 700 vacant dwellings in England—3 per cent. of vacant dwellings—for which an analysis by district is not available.

  In addition to providing information on those of their own dwellings that are vacant, local authorities are also asked to provide estimates of the number of private sector and other public sector vacant dwellings in their area on their annual HIP1 returns. The reported information for each local authority can also be found in section A of the "1994 HIP1 All Items Print".

  There are doubts about the quality of some of the estimates of these vacants provided by authorities. Information from the 1991 English house condition survey suggests that the England total for the private sector may be an over-estimate, and data from central Government Departments on their own vacant dwellings, for which no geographical breakdown is readily available, indicate that there is under-reporting of public sector vacant dwellings.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at inter-departmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in his Department. [15628]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right. hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster earlier today.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers in his Department since May 1992. [15629]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is as follows:

  Name

  Period

  Mr. Patrick Rock

  Joined on 1 May 1992, left on 27 May 1993.

  Mr. James Gray

  Joined on 3 June 1992. Still with the Department.

  Mr. Keith Adams

  Joined on 28 May 1993. Still with the Department.

  Housing
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of newly built housing tenancies required to meet demand annually; and how this figure is calculated. [15919]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) on 1 February,Official Report, columns 685–86.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to fund housing associations in accordance with the 1992 autumn statement. [15920]
  467
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Housing Corporation funds housing associations under its approved development programme. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Housing announced the ADP allocations for 1995–96 on 15 December 1994. Details were placed in the Library of the House. These allocations supersede those made following the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the housing and non-housing debt for the London boroughs of Lambeth, Hackney, Islington, Southwark, Newham, Haringey, Camden, Waltham Forest, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets and Greenwich; and if he will make a statement; [16346]

  (2) what is the housing and non-housing debt for Birmingham, Leeds Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Bradford and Sheffield; and if he will make a statement. [16345]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 2 March 1995 to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East, (Mr. Congdon)Official Report, column 692.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the value of the housing and non-housing assets of Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Bradford and Sheffield; and if he will make a statement; [16356]

  (2) what is the value of the housing and non-housing assets of the London Boroughs of Lambeth, Hackney, Islington, Southwark, Newham, Haringey, Camden, Waltham Forest, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets and Greenwich; and if he will make a statement. [16355]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much is owed in(a) domestic rates, (b) community charge and (c) council tax to the London boroughs of Hackney, Islington, Southwark, Newham, Haringey, Camden, Waltham Forest, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets and Greenwich; and if he will make a statement; [16354]

  (2) how much is owed in (a) domestic rates, (b) community charge and (c) council tax for Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Bradford and Sheffield; and if he will make a statement. [16353]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Information on uncollected domestic rates and community charge for each local authority is not available centrally. However, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy regularly publishes estimates for individual authorities: figures for 31 March 1994 are available in its "Revenue Collection Statistics 1993/94" publication, and are given in the table:

  Arrears outstanding at 31 March 1994 for:

  £(000)

  Domestic rates

  Community charge

  Council tax

  Birmingham

  9,615

  1n/a

  18,406

  Leeds

  4,061

  1n/a

  8,386

  Liverpool

  22,696

  68,402

  10,703

  468

  Arrears outstanding at 31 March 1994 for:

  £(000)

  Domestic rates

  Community charge

  Council tax

  Manchester

  2n/a

  2n/a

  37,061

  Newcastle

  2n/a

  1n/a

  34,116

  Bradford

  2n/a

  1n/a

  34,378

  Sheffield

  4,095

  24,907

  7,995

  Hackney

  16,689

  13,325

  12,824

  Islington

  2n/a

  2n/a

  310,270

  Southwark

  3,853

  26,215

  7,693

  Newham

  5,314

  26,183

  7,703

  Haringey

  5,559

  35,426

  10,917

  Camden

  55,616

  21,301

  8,742

  Waltham Forest

  9,683

  20,352

  7,043

  Lewisham

  2n/a

  2n/a

  35,617

  Tower Hamlets

  8,657

  7,190

  2,639

  Greenwich

  3,953

  13,735

  5,055

  1 No information was published by CIPFA for these authorities at 31 March 1994. But CIPFA did publish estimates of their Community Charge arrears at 31 March 1993 and they were as in the following table.

  2 No information was published by CIPFA for these authorities and these figures are not available centrally.

  3 No information was published by CIPFA for these authorities: the figures shown are the Department's estimates on information provided in May 1994.

  Community charge arrears

  £(000)

  Birmingham

  92,993

  Leeds

  37,966

  Newcastle

  24,005

  Bradford

  21,000

  Housing Association Tenancies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what number of housing association tenancies were built in each year since 1988. [15918]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The available figures are shown in the publication "Housing and Construction Statistics". Figures for housebuilding by housing associations in England between 1988 and 1993 are in table 6.1(a) of the annual edition for 1983–93; table 7.1 shows corresponding figures for dwellings renovated. Figures for housebuilding in 1993 and 1994 were shown in table 1.2(a) of the December 1994 edition of part 1 of this publication. The figures for renovations during the first part of 1994 are shown in table 2.15 of the September 1994 edition of part 2 of this publication.

  Copies of theses publications are in the Library.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for implementing Council directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste. [16872]

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has today issued for public consultation draft special waste regulations and accompanying guidance, together with an assessment of compliance costs and a paper on charging proposals. Copies have been placed in the Library.
  469
  The existing regulations date from 1980, and set out additional controls over the most dangerous wastes designed to ensure that they are monitored and safely managed from "cradle to grave". The new proposals implement the 1991 hazardous waste directive, and the EC list of hazardous wastes adopted by the Council of Ministers in December. They also introduce other desirable changes. The key details are:
  —A new definition of special waste which embraces both the EC List of hazardous waste and any other waste which is special under the current regulations. New technical guidance will be the subject of a separate consultation exercise later in the spring.
  —Pre-notification to waste regulation authorities of waste movements will be simplified. Wasteholders will be able to prenotify a series of repetitive movements, and carriers will be able to prenotify collection rounds. Where movements cross authority boundaries, wasteholders need no longer notify both authorities. A redesigned consignment note should help wasteholders provide descriptions of their waste and its associated hazards so as to assist sound management.
  —Fees will be payable when movements are pre-notified, as part of the policy of charging for local authority services, and in line with the "polluter pays" principle. The fees should recover authorities' supervisory costs.
  —Restrictions are introduced on mixing by carriers and consignees, of different special wastes and of special with non-special wastes.

  Subject to the outcome of public consultation, our aim is to introduce the new regulations and associated guidance this summer. The Government believe that the proposals will introduce a useful measure of deregulation, with no diminution of the controls which help to minimise the risk these wastes can pose to human health and the environment.

  Neighbour Noise
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans are there to deal with neighbour noise. [16871]

  Mr. Atkins
  Inconsiderate noisy neighbours can cause extreme distress and suffering to many. My concern about the steeply rising complaints about domestic noise and the effectiveness of the current legislation to deal with these problems resulted in the formation last October of a working party to review the situation.

  I am today placing in the Library of the House and publishing a consultation paper which sets out the conclusions and recommendations of the working party. The key recommendations are:
  —Good practice guidance should be made available to local authorities on the management of noise services.
  —Local authorities should be encouraged to provide information to residents about their authority's noise complaints service and to increase public awareness of neighbour noise issues. Government should consider supporting publicity initiatives to increase awareness of what constitutes unacceptable noise.
  —Consideration should be given to issuing general guidance on the sorts of noise problems which might constitute a statutory nuisance.
  —Local authorities should be encouraged to provide services which respond to complaints outside working hours wherever such services are required.
  —Local authorities should be encouraged to establish streamlined local arrangements for obtaining warrants to enter domestic premises to temporarily confiscate noise-making equipment or silence intruder alarms.
  470
  —A code of good practice should be issued jointly by the professional representative bodies to police forces and local authorities to encourage effective local arrangements for dealing with noise complaints.
  —A specific power of temporary confiscation of noise-making equipment—to provide a stronger legal base for existing practice—should be introduced, with the power for local authorities to levy an administration charge for its return.
  —Local authorities should be encouraged to seek, where appropriate, deprivation orders for the permanent confiscation of noise-making equipment following prosecution.
  —Consideration should be given to the creation of a criminal offence, separate to the statutory nuisance regime, to apply to night time neighbour noise disturbance.

  The paper invites comments in particular on the options for creating a new criminal offence, including a direct noise offence based on the World Health Organisation guidelines of 35dB(A) for acceptable indoor night noise levels. Such an offence has the potential to provide a swifter remedy than the current statutory nuisance regime for some of the most disturbing neighbour noise problems.

  Copies of the consultation paper are being sent to all district, borough and island councils in England, Wales and Scotland, representative bodies for local authorities and the police, voluntary noise groups and a wide variety of other organisations. The consultation period lasts until 30 June.

  Wherever possible, attempts should be made to resolve problems informally. However, it is vital that effective legislation is in place to deal with situations where a formal remedy is the correct course. I am grateful to the working party for producing what I believe is a worthwhile package of proposals which, if implemented, will strengthen current neighbour noise controls, improve the management of local authority noise services and improve liaison between local authorities and the police.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at interdepartmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in his Department. [15622]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets he has for withdrawing regulations within his Department. [15558]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A reply by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, in response to a similar question today from my hon. Friend, sets out the targets across the Government. In the Home Office our targets for deregulation include the following:

  Liquor licensing

  Abolish the compulsory afternoon break in licensing hours on Sundays, Christmas day and Good Friday for both on-licensed and off-licensed premises and for registered clubs, and permit

  471
  of-licensed sales from 10 am on these days, through the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill;

  abolition of "the long-pull offence" by the repeal of section 165 of the Licensing Act 1964;

  amend the rules for special hours certificates so that discotheques and other places where public dancing takes place do not effectively have to close an hour early when the clock goes forward to British summer time in the spring.

  Gambling

  Issue a consultation paper on removing restrictions applying to casinos and bingo clubs;

  extend the duration to three years, from one, and provide for simplified renewal procedure for bookmakers permits and betting office licences, contained in the Betting Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963;

  relax existing controls over greyhound racing contained in the Betting Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963;

  removal of certain restrictions on betting offices facilities under the Betting Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 concerning the supply of refreshments, displays of information and television screens;

  increase the number of jackpot machines allowed in casinos, licensed bingo clubs and registered members clubs under section 31 of the Gaming Act 1968;

  allow all-cash amusement-with-prizes machines in adult premises, including betting shops.

  Charities

  Following up proposals made by the charities and voluntary organisations task force.

  Others

  Abolition of the licence to kill game contained in the Game Act 1831 and 1860;

  abolition of pedlars certificates by the repeal of the Pedlars Acts 1871 and 1881.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to his Department since May 1992. [15623]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. P. Rock

  Mr. D. Cameron

  Miss R. Whetstone

  Violent Offenders
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners who are serving sentences for violent crime are former members of the armed services, with particular reference to those who were previously involved with active combative duties; and if these figures are equal in proportion with the percentage of the United kingdom non-prison population who are members of the armed services. [15764]

  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. Graham Allen, dated 27 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, how many prisoners who are serving sentences for violent crime are former members of the armed services, with particular reference to those who were previously involved with active combative duties; and if these figures are equal in proportion with the percentage of the United kingdom non-prison population who are members of the armed services.
  I regret that the information requested is not available centrally.

  Prison Escapees
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will collect information on how many prisoners escaped from Morton Hall open prison in(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994; how many have been returned to prison; how many absconders were convicted of drug offences; and how many of these are still at large; [15460]

  (2) if he will collect information on how many prisoners escaped from Leyhill open prison in (a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994; how many have been returned to prison; how many absconders were convicted of drug offences; and how many of these are still at large; [15461]

  (3) if he will collect information on how many prisoners escaped from Kirkham open prison in (a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994; how many have been returned to prison; how many absconders were convicted of drug offences; and how many of these are still at large; [15462]

  (4) if he will collect information on how many prisoners escaped from Askham Grange prison in (a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994; how many have been returned to prison; how many absconders were convicted of drug offences; and how many of these are still at large; [15463]

  (5) if he will collect information on how many prisoners escaped from Drake Hall prison in (a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994; how many have been returned to prison; how many absconders were convicted of drug offences; and how many of these are still at large; [15464]

  (6) if he will collect information on how many prisoners escaped from Spring Hill prison in (a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994; how many have been returned to prison; how many absconders were convicted of drug offences; and how many of these are still at large; [15465]

  (7) if he will collect information on how many prisoners escaped from Ford open prison in (a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994; how many have been returned to prison; how many absconders were convicted of drug offences; and how many of these are still at large; [15466]

  (8) if he will collect information on how many prisoners escaped from High Point open prison in (a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994; how many have been returned to prison; how many absconders were convicted of drug offences; and how many of these are still at large; [15467]

  (9) if he will collect information on how many prisoners escaped from North Sea Camp in (a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994; how many have been returned to prison; how many absconders were convicted of drug offences; and how many of these are still at large; [15468]

  (10) if he will collect information on how many prisoners escaped from Rudgate open prison in (a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994; how many have been returned to prison; how many absconders were convicted of drug offences; and how many of these are still at large; [15469]

  (11) if he will collect information on how many prisoners escaped from Standford Hill open prison in (a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994; how many have been returned to prison; how many absconders were convicted of drug offences; and how many of these are still at large; [15471]

  (12) if he will collect information on how many prisoners escaped from Sudbury open prison in (a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994; how many have been

  473
  returned to prison; how many absconders were convicted of drug offences; and how many of these are still at large. [15472]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Alan Williams, dated 27 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions asking how many prisoners absconded from Askham Grange, Rudgate, Kirkham, Spring Hill, Standford Hill, High Point, Sudbury, Drake hall, Leyhill, Ford, Morton Hall and North Sea Camp prisons in each of the last three years; how many have been returned to prison; how many absconders were convicted of drug offences; and how many of these were still at large.
  Information on the number of absconds and those convicted of drugs offences is shown in the attached tables, a copy of which will be placed in the Library at the House. I regret that information on the number of absconds who have been returned to prison or are still at large is not recorded centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Establishment

  Number of absconders

  Number of absconders convicted of drug offences

  1992

  Askham Grange

  39

  3

  Drake Hall

  121

  4

  Ford

  59

  2

  High Point

  16

  0

  Kirkham

  281

  10

  Leyhill

  14

  0

  Morton Hall

  72

  0

  North Sea Camp

  62

  0

  Rudgate

  91

  2

  Spring Hill

  38

  2

  Standford Hill

  66

  4

  Sudbury

  106

  2

  1993

  Askham Grange

  23

  3

  Drake Hall

  55

  3

  Ford

  39

  2

  High Point

  N/A

  N/A

  Kirkham

  349

  13

  Leyhill

  25

  0

  Morton Hall

  78

  0

  North Sea Camp

  49

  1

  Rudgate

  135

  2

  Spring Hill

  61

  1

  Standford Hill

  69

  4

  Sudbury

  74

  2

  1994

  Askham Grange

  36

  5

  Drake Hall

  135

  11

  Ford

  38

  1

  High Point

  N/A

  N/A

  Kirkham

  274

  13

  Leyhill

  20

  0

  Morton Hall

  51

  0

  North Sea Camp

  56

  2

  Rudgate

  125

  0

  Spring Hill

  38

  4

  Standford Hill

  85

  7

  Sudbury

  55

  2

  There are no figures for Highpoint open prison for 1993 and 1994 because it closed on 18 November 1992.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications for asylum were outstanding at the date the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 came into force; [15145]

  (2) how many of the asylum applications outstanding at the date of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 came into force were determined during the period 1 August 1993 to 31 December 1994; and of these how many were granted refugee status, how many were granted exceptional leave to remain, and how many were refused. [15146]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  At the date the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 came into force—26 July 1993—there were an estimated 42,500 applications for asylum outstanding.

  During the period 1 August 1993 to 31 December 1994, 25,740 decisions were made on applications for asylum. Of these, 5,485 decisions were made on applications which were outstanding at the date the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 came into force. Some 345 were grants of refugee status, 1,275 were grants of exceptional leave to remain and 3,865 were refusals of asylum and exceptional leave to remain.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter of 23 February from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill concerning Mr. Levin Larkin and Mrs Marie Petit; and if he will make a statement. [16339]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State replied to the hon. Member on 24 March.

  Prisoners Transfer
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to relocate prisoners convicted to terrorist offences from prisons in Great Britain to Prisons in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. [16635]

  Mr. Howard
  The Criminal Justice Act 1961 contains provision for prisoners sentenced to imprisonment in one United Kingdom jurisdiction to request transfer to another United Kingdom jurisdiction. Requests are considered on their individual merits against criteria announced to Parliament on 23 November 1992. There are no plans to change these provisions.

  It is not possible for prisoners to transfer between United Kingdom jurisdictions and the Republic of Ireland. The Republic has not joined the United Kingdom in ratifying the Council of Europe convention for the transfer of sentenced persons or otherwise sought an international agreement with the United Kingdom to provide for such transfers.

  Whitemoor Prison
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the outcome of Sir David Yardley's disciplinary investigation following the escape of prisoners from Whitemoor prison on 9 December 1994. [17025]
  475
  Mr. Howard
  Sir David Yardley has submitted the report of the investigation he conducted under the Prison Service code of conduct and discipline to the permanent under-secretary of state for the Home Office. He has recommended that no disciplinary charges should be laid against any individual member of staff. These recommendations have been accepted by those responsible for taking disciplinary decisions under the code. However, Sir David Yardley's report also identifies serious performance shortcomings on the part of a number of individuals in respect of whom appropriate management action will be taken. Final decisions on that action will be taken after those concerned have been given the opportunity to make representations. This action will be in addition to the extensive management action relating to staff, recommended in Sir John Woodcock's report, which is already in progress.

  Refugees
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the concessionary policy which he operated until January 1994 applied to relatives other than spouses and minor children of Somali nationals with refugee status in the United Kingdom. [17026]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The terms in this concession were spelt out in a Home Office letter to interested parties dated 17 May 1990, and the relevant provisions remained unaltered throughout its lifetime. Our normal policy on family reunification for those recognised as refugees in the United Kingdom is to allow immediate reunion with spouse and minor children. When we announced the concession for Somali nationals we said that we would be willing to consider admitting others on a similar basis if they could show that they had been a dependent member of the refugee's immediate family unit before the refugee came to the United Kingdom and that there were exceptional circumstances. The concession was withdrawn in January 1994.

  Prison Security
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what terms of reference or guidelines he has given to General Sir John Learmont for the inquiry he is conducting into prison security. [16571]

  Mr. Howard
  On 19 December 1994,Official Report, columns 957–58, I announced to the House that I was appointing General Sir John Learmont to review security throughout the Prison Service. The terms of reference for the review are:
  In the light of the report of the inquiry into the attempted escape from HM prison Whitemoor on 9 September 1994, to review physical security and security procedures in the Prison Service in England and Wales, and to make recommendations.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many press officers there are in his Department currently; and what the figure was in 1979. [16575]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Department's records do not contain a breakdown between press officers and paid publicity staff before 1983. There are currently 15 press officers, including the director and deputy director of information.

  Mentally Ill Prisoners
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration his Department has given to establishing special prisons for seriously mentally ill prisoners, staffed by personnel who are trained to deal with them. [15763]

  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. Graham Allen, dated 27 March 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what consideration has been given to establishing special prisons for seriously mentally ill prisoners, staffed by personnel who are trained to deal with them.
  It is Government policy that mentally disordered offenders needing care and treatment should, wherever possible, receive it from the appropriate health and social services, rather than through the criminal justice system. Any prisoner suffering from a serious mental illness would be likely to fulfil the criteria for transfer to hospital set down in the Mental Health Act 1983.
  Section 47 of that Act confers on the Secretary of State power to issue a warrant directing the transfer to hospital of any sentenced prisoner, if he is satisfied, by reports from two doctors, that the prisoner is suffering from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, mental impairment or severe mental impairment of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him/her to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment. In a case of psychopathic disorder or mental impairment, such treatment must be likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration of the condition concerned.
  Section 48 of the 1983 Act makes similar provision in respect of unsentenced and certain other categories of prisoners who are suffering from mental illness or severe mental impairment and in urgent need of treatment.
  Such transfers are often to one of the three special hospitals or to NHS medium secure units.
  It would be inappropriate for people in this group to be treated in prison, except on a voluntary basis pending imminent transfer. There has been a marked increase in the number of transfers from prison to hospital under sections 47 and 48 in recent years from 115 in 1983, through 206 in 1988, to 776 in 1993. At present the provisional total for 1994 is 746.

  Mr. Roger Levitt
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours of community service Roger Levitt has served; and what tasks he has undertaken. [155601]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Mr. Levitt's 180-hour community service order was completed in September 1994. In his case, the unpaid work included carpentry, building work and site clearance.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Educational Broadcasts
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his future plans for broadcasts of educational value. [14195]

  Mr. Dorrell
  In our White Paper on the future of the BBC we said that the BBC should continue to broadcast educational programmes of all kinds. The Broadcasting Act 1990 includes a number of provisions to ensure that the other terrestrial broadcasters provide educational
  477
  programmes, for schools, adult education and general consumption.

  Football Stadiums
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has for further legislation to improve safety facilities in football stadiums which are already all-seater. [14196]

  Mr. Sproat
  None.

  Cross-media Ownership
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to change the law on cross-media ownership. [14197]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The ownership rules are currently under review. I will make an announcement about the outcome once the Government have determined the way ahead.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the Library Association to discuss the funding of public libraries. [14198]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend met the Library Association on 3 October last year. Discussions were wide ranging, around an agenda of topics provided by the Library Association itself. I met members of the association on 10 October, at the launch of London Libraries Week.

  National Lottery
  Dr. Sprink
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the consultation on priorities for distribution of funds from the national lottery. [14200]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department consulted on the arrangements for the distribution of national lottery proceeds to the arts, sport, the heritage and millennial projects in spring last year, when a number of representations were received from interested bodies. The National Lottery Charities Board is consulting on its funding strategy. Representations on the NLCB's consultation are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which organisations his Department has consulted since the commencement of the national lottery to discuss the impact of the lottery on charity donations and other existing fund raising schemes. [14201]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department has carried out no such consultation since the commencement of the national lottery. The views of a number of charitable organisations were taken into account in the preparation of the national lottery legislation.

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage to what extent he now calculates income from the national lottery in the first year of operation will exceed his first estimate. [14206]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Camelot's application for the section 5 licence to run the national lottery forecast that in the first full year of operation, to March 1996, around £750 million would be raised for the good causes. No formal forecast of the income to the national lottery distribution fund has subsequently been made, but it is widely 478
  accepted that the launch of the national lottery has been highly successful and that the proceeds to good causes have exceeded expectations. I am confident that the forecast of £750 million for good causes in the first full year of operation will be met.

  British Hotels
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what encouragement he is giving to improve standards in the British hotel sector. [14202]

  Mr. Sproat
  On 1 March my Department published "Tourism—Competing with the Best" which sets out a number of measures aimed at revitalising the accommodation sector. The English tourist board has begun work to strengthen the Crown classification and grading scheme and my Department is working on a benchmarking initiative which will complement the work being done by the CBI.

  Holidays
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to encourage more United Kingdom residents to take their holidays in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [14203]

  Mr. Sproat
  On 1 March my Department published "Tourism—Competing with the Best" which identifies short breaks and additional holidays in the UK as markets with particular potential for growth. The document sets out a work programme including action to improve the ease with which holidays in the UK can be booked and measures to help improve quality and value for money in the accommodation sector, which will be of benefit to all parts of the domestic market.

  Hall i'th' Wood Museum
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will visit the Hall i'th' Wood museum when he next visits Bolton. [14204]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I shall bear in mind the invitation to visit Hall i'th' Wood museum for when I am next in the area.

  Millennium Fund
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what he expects his major proposals for the use of the millennium fund to be; and if he will make a statement. [14205]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Decisions on the distribution of national lottery proceeds to projects which mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the new millennium will be made by the Millennium Commission on the basis of the merits of individual applications received. The commission expects to be able to make announcements about the first successful applicants in July this year.

  Regional Offices
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many regional offices English Heritage has; what is the current total complement of staff employed; and if he will make a statement. [14190]

  Mr. Dorrell
  English Heritage has six main regional offices with a total 144 of staff and 13 sub-offices, which are bases for 34 regional technical and curatorial staff. In
  479
  addition, English Heritage has 15 staff based in four regional offices administering historic properties restoration works operations. These figures exclude directly employed craftsmen and staff employed at English Heritage's historic properties.

  Regional Orchestras
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what initiatives he will take to assist regional orchestras. [14199]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Arts Council and the BBC are responsible for formulating policy on regional orchestras. The council has set up a new challenge fund of £450,000 for 1995–96. The fund will help secure the financial position of the regional orchestras and enhance musical provision around the country.

  Battersea Power Station
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent discussions he has had, and with whom, about the future of Battersea power station; and if he will make a statement. [14188]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Discussions continue between Wandsworth council, English Heritage and the owners, Parkview International, on a master plan for the whole of the Battersea power station site. The Government are not party to the discussions, but hope that the future of this important historic building will be satisfactorily resolved with a minimum of further delay.

  Chess
  Mrs Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what administrative procedures are involved in the transfer of the responsibility for chess from the Department for Education to his Department;

  (2) when he expects responsibility for chess to be transferred from the Department for Education to his Department.

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education on 15 March 1995,Official Report, column 620, on the current nature and extent of the Department for Education's interest in chess. I am currently considering whether it would be appropriate and practicable for my Department to take an interest in sponsoring chess.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Government Reform
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary for Northern Ireland if he will list all proposals for reform of the government of Northern Ireland which have been publicly announced by the Government since 1979; and if he will place in the Library a summary of how each of these schemes of devolved government would have been financed. [14802]

  Mr. Ancram
  Since 1979, the Government have made the following proposals for reform of the government of Northern Ireland 480

  The 1982 White Paper: Northern Ireland: A Framework for Devolution (Cmnd 8541 April 1982)

  The Northern Ireland Act 1982

  The "Frameworks for the Future" Document

  A copy of the proposed financial arrangements have been placed in the Library as requested.

  Publicity and Publications
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total expenditure on(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. [14607]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]The detailed information requested for expenditure on all forms of publicity, publications and pamphlets within the NI Departments, the Northern Ireland Office, agencies and public bodies is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, details of publicity costs by public expenditure programme for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments are given in table 12.8 of the Northern Ireland departmental report, Cm 2816, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  The information on publicity campaigns and publications costing more than £50,000 is listed in the following table.

  Publicity campaign

  Nature

  Purpose

  Drink Driving Speeding Seat Belts

  Television, Radio, Newspapers and Promotional Material

  Road Accident reduction through public awareness of dangers.

  Help the Earth Week

  Television, Radio, Newspapers and Promotional Material

  Promote Energy Efficiency and impact on Environment.

  Overseas Awareness Raising Programme

  Promotional Material

  Promote NI as investment location. IDB contact with investors.

  Confidential Telephone

  Television, Radio and Newspapers

  Publicise the existence of the confidential telephone and to encourage usage of the system to combat terrorism.

  Crime Prevention Awareness

  Television and Promotional Material

  Public awareness of methods to combat crime.

  NIE Share Offer

  Television, Newspapers and Posters

  Increase Public Awareness/Interest in Share Offer.

  Fire Service

  Television Advertising

  Fire Awareness and Prevention.

  481

  Publicity campaign

  Nature

  Purpose

  Keep Warm, Keep Well Campaign

  Television, Radio, Posters and other Promotional Material

  To remind older people and carers of the need to keep warm in winter.

  Agriculture in NI

  (Monthly Journal)

  Provide information about policy priorities and services.

  Polling and Public Survey Organisations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, 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. [14507]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 20 March 1995]: A list of surveys carried out for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments by polling or public survey organisations during 1993–94 and 1994–95 has been placed in the Library.

  Quality Management Initiatives
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will(a) list in detail the total quality management initiatives implemented by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland and (b) supply evidence of the success of these initiatives since their implementation. [15425]

  Mr. Ancram
  Initiatives introduced by the Department of Agriculture are based upon the citizens charter, including chartermark. There are early signs that these initiatives are beginning to achieve the desired results.

  The Department of Agriculture, in association with local industry bodies, has been instrumental in implementing a range of quality assurance schemes. These, along with success criteria, as determined by the number of businesses and level of production covered by each, are as follows:

  Initiative

  Launch Date

  Businesses Approved

  Quality assured Output as percentage of Total Output

  Farm QA Scheme

  April 1991

  (Beef)

  6,143

  50

  Farm QA Scheme

  April 1992

  (Lamb)

  2,000

  27

  Pig QA Scheme

  October 1993

  232

  55

  Schools
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by school(a) the amount in grants awarded, (b) the number of pupils attending each school and (c) the number of teachers employed at each school covered in table 4.21 of Northern Ireland expenditure plans and priorities 1994–95 to 1996–97. [15413]
  482
  Mr. Ancram
  For information on pupil numbers and funding, I refer the hon. Member to the LMS budget statements for controlled and maintained schools published by the five education and library boards and to the financial statements for grant-maintained integrated and voluntary grammar schools published by the Department of Education. Copies of these are available in the Library.

  Information on the number of teachers employed at each school is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Agriculture Courses
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students are currently attending courses for each agricultural college(a) on a full-time basis and (b) on a part-time basis; and how many are employed at each of the colleges. [15430]

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of students currently attending courses at the three colleges operated by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, on a full-time and on a part-time basis, is as follows:

  Enniskillen

  Greenmount

  Loughry

  Total

  a) Full-time

  51

  315

  295

  661

  b) Part-time

  86

  237

  167

  490

  In addition, the colleges expect to deliver approximately 11,000 trainee days to people working in the Province's agri-food industry during the present academic year via short courses covering management and technical topics.

  As well as providing education and training, the colleges are responsible for the Department's technology services and certain other aspects of agri-food industry development. The total number of staff engaged in providing all services are:

  Enniskillen

  Greenmount

  Loughry

  Total

  31

  146

  125

  302

  These figures include support staff such as farm workers, cleaners, administration staff, in addition to the teaching staff and technologists.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students are currently pursuing courses at the faculty of agriculture and food science at Queen's university, Belfast at degree level and at postgraduate level; and how many of them have opted for modules within the courses which cover environmental issues. [15431]

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of students currently pursuing courses at the faculty of agriculture and food science, Belfast is 231 at degree level and 168 at postgraduate level.

  All undergraduate students cover a range of environmental issues as integral parts of core modules within each of the degree courses. In addition, 21 undergraduate students and 30 postgraduate students are taking optional modules which specifically cover environmental issues.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons there is a planned increase of £14 million in ERDF-Trade, Industry, Employment from 1995–96 to 1996–97 in Northern Ireland referred to in Northern Ireland expenditure plans and priorities 1994–95 to 1996–97, table 6.1. [15408]

  Mr. Ancram
  The 1996–97 forecast represents the anticipated level of ERDF receipts based on the expenditure proposals submitted by Government to the European Commission in November 1993, in connection with the 1994 to 1999 round of European structural funds assistance. These figures have already been revised in our 1995 public expenditure plans to reflect the contents of the Northern Ireland single programme document, which was agreed with the European Commission on 29 July 1994.

  Agriculture and Fishing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will describe the two schemes which provide grants for investments within agriculture and the fishing industry, as mentioned in Northern Ireland expenditure plans and priorities 1994–95 to 1996–97, section 5.21; and if he will give a breakdown of the 15 agricultural projects within which received aid from these schemes in 1993 and of the 11 projects within the fishing sector which received aid from these schemes. [15429]

  Mr. Ancram
  Grants for processing and marketing of agricultural products are made under European Commission Regulation No. 866/90, which is designed to improve the agricultural processing and marketing infrastructure in member states. Aid is given towards the cost of capital investments—new and refurbished buildings and new equipment. In Northern Ireland, the scheme provides grants at the rate of 35 per cent. of eligible expenditure, up to a limit of £1 million. The minimum eligible project size is £70,000 eligible costs.

  The 15 projects awarded grants in 1993 are in the following list.

  Beneficiary

  Project description

  £ Amount of award

  Etherson Meats Ballymoney

  Extensions and alterations to existing factory premises

  104,505

  Castlewood Farm Products Belfast

  Refurbishment of new premises

  286,171

  Fred C. Robinson Ballyclare

  Construction of chill, curing and processing facilities and purchasing of additional plant

  470,882

  Wm Sprott Ltd. Portadown

  Rationalisation and upgrading of processing capabilities

  460,243

  Unipork Holdings Cookstown

  Rationalisation of group killing and chilling facilities

  900,000

  Townsend Meats Cullybackey

  Construction of new meat processing plant designed to conform to latest EC requirements

  169,837

  484

  Beneficiary

  Project description

  £ Amount of award

  Lean and Easy Limavady

  Processing and marketing of boneless lamb products

  26,477

  S and M Meats Castlewellan

  Establishment of EC—approved meat processing plant

  148,533

  Fermanagh Creameries Lisnaskea

  To increase competitiveness and expand production of speciality cheeses

  379,400

  Robert Clarke Ltd. Keady

  Installation of egg grader and factory refurbishment

  297,277

  G. Bell and Sons Crossgar

  Integrated cutting premises for poultry meat

  112,174

  North Down Grain Ltd. Ballywalter

  Extension of cereal, oilseed and pulses drying, processing and storage facilities

  86,792

  J. J. Quinn Dungannon

  Construction of new cold storage facilities

  102,988

  Pippin Foods Ltd. Portadown

  Expansion of existing facilities; new plant and equipment

  251,306

  Kelly Flowers Ltd. Lisburn

  Construction of a temperature-controlled flower and plant packaging and presentation unit

  49,622

  Grants to improve the processing and marketing of fisheries and aquaculture products are made under European Council Regulation No. 4042/89. Like the agricultural scheme, aid is given toward the cost of capital investments—new and refurbished buildings and new equipment. In Northern Ireland, the scheme provides grants at the rate of up to 35 per cent. of eligible expenditure up to a limit of £900,000. Total project costs must not be less than £25,000 and not more than £6 million.

  The 11 fisheries projects awarded grant in 1993 are in the following list.

  Beneficiary

  Project description

  £ Amount of award

  Quibros Exports

  Provision of facilities for processing and packaging of fresh and frozen fish at Cookstown, Co Tyrone

  59,649

  Newport Fish Co Ltd.

  Expansion of existing processing facilities at Cookstown, Co Tyrone

  38,354

  Goldfish Ltd.

  Improvements to processing facilities at Belfast

  30,940

  485

  Beneficiary

  Project description

  £ Amount of award

  C and O Milligan

  The modernisation and extension of fish processing facilities at Ardglass, Co Down

  201,254

  Byrne Fish

  The construction of a new fish processing factory designed to conform to the latest EC regulations at Ballyhornan, Co Down

  72,456

  Middleton Seafoods

  Modernisation of factory of increase efficiency and marketing opportunities and improve hygiene standards at Portavogie, Co Down

  69,338

  T H Nicholson

  The construction of a new fish processing factory designed to conform to EC standards at Kilkeel, Co Down68, 733

  J W Cochrane

  Modernisation, refurbishment and extension of fish processing factory to bring about compliance with forthcoming EC legislation at Ardglass Co Down

  148,511

  Kilkeep Kippering

  The modernisation, upgrading and refurbishment of fish processing facilities to conform to the latest EC standards at Kilkeel, Co Down

  79,946

  George Milligan

  Upgrading of processing facilities at Ardglass, Co Down

  194,250

  Kenneth Kennedy

  New fish processing factory at Ardglass, Co Down

  279,088

  Farming Community (Suicides)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many suicides there have been in the Northern Irish farming community in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [14259]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 23 March 1995]: Deaths in the farming community caused by suicide are a cause for concern.

  The number of deaths registered as suicides in relation to farmers and farm labourers in Northern Ireland in the five year period to 1993 are set out in the table. Deaths are recorded according to date of registration and not by date of occurrence.

  1989: 2

  1990: 3

  1991: 8

  486

  1992: 3

  1993: 10

  1994: 6 (to September)

  Specialist Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at inter-departmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in his Department. [15616]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensure that his ministerial management information system for establishing objectives for his Department, includes deregulation objectives(a) for him and (b) for each of the Ministers within his Department. [15616]

  Mr. Ancram
  Yes. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ensures that Northern Ireland Ministers seek to further the aims and objectives of the deregulation initiative in the areas for which they are responsible.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to his Department since May 1992.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I appointed Mr. Jonathan Caine as my special adviser in June 1992.

  Irish Language
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new plans he has to increase the numbers of parents who can choose Irish language tuition as a second language at all Irish schools. [16634]

  Mr. Ancram
  None. At present, any school may offer a course in the language, and pupils may choose Irish to fulfil their modern language requirements as part of the compulsory curriculum at post-primary level.

  Most of the schools which currently offer Irish as part of their language studies provision have a tradition of doing so. However, as with any other course, schools planning to provide Irish will take into account factors such as demand for it from parents and pupils, the availability of qualified teachers and space for it within the timetable.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if all inspectors responsible for reporting in all Irish schools are fluent Irish speakers; and if he will make a statement. [16633]

  Mr. Ancram
  Generally, members of inspection teams who report on Irish medium schools are fluent in, or have a good working knowledge of, Irish.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made recently of the adequacy of the resources available for second language
  487
  teaching of Irish in all schools and for teaching Irish in all Irish schools. [16636]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is a matter for individual schools within their delegated budgets to decide what resources they should devote to any aspect of the curriculum—including Irish. In addition to mainstream budgets, the Department of Education also makes available a grant of some £40,000 per annum to assist the Irish medium schools with production of curricular materials. The teaching of Irish in schools is assessed by the inspectorate on the same basis as any other subject.

  Mr. Gerry Adams
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if Mr. Gerry Adams is or has been in receipt of income support or any other social security benefit. [16367]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Alec Wylie to Mr. Toby Jessel, dated 23 March 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent question about Mr. Gerry Adams.
  I should first explain that information on a person's entitlement to social security benefits, including whether or not they are claiming or getting benefit, is confidential. I am therefore unable to comment on individual cases. However, I can assure you that all claims to benefit are assessed and regularly reviewed by independent adjudication officers, strictly in accordance with social security law and payment is made only where there is a valid entitlement.
  I hope this letter sets out the position for you.

  Temporary Contracts
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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) less 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.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 15 March 1995]: The information has been placed in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sugar Beet
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in rank order the acreage under sugar beet in(a) each county and (b) each region. [15501]

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested has been compiled from the June 1994 agricultural census of England and Wales and is as follows:

  June 1994 Agricultural Census Sugar Beet Coverage

  Area

  County

  Hectares

  Acres

  Norfolk

  57,012.2

  140,877.1

  Lincolnshire

  33,600.0

  83,025.6

  Suffolk

  22,974.3

  56,769.5

  488

  June 1994 Agricultural Census Sugar Beet Coverage

  Area

  County

  Hectares

  Acres

  Cambridgeshire

  22,878.4

  56,532.5

  Shropshire

  10,103.8

  24,966.5

  Humberside

  9,439.2

  23,324.3

  Nottinghamshire

  8,281.1

  20,462.6

  North Yorkshire (Northallerton)

  7,918.1

  19,565.6

  North Yorkshire (Beverley)

  4,538.6

  11,214.9

  Hereford and Worcester

  4,486.3

  11,085.6

  Essex

  4,219.9

  10,427.4

  Staffordshire

  2,335.6

  5,771.3

  South Yorkshire

  1,770.1

  4,373.9

  Leicestershire

  920.0

  2,273.3

  Bedfordshire

  482.3

  1,191.8

  Northamptonshire

  417.7

  1,032.1

  Somerset

  411.5

  1,016.8

  West Yorkshire

  405.2

  1,001.2

  Lancashire

  337.5

  834.0

  Derbyshire

  304.2

  751.7

  Merseyside

  223.6

  552.5

  West Midlands

  170.7

  421.8

  Hertfordshire

  168.1

  415.4

  Cheshire

  160.5

  396.6

  Gloucestershire

  149.0

  368.2

  Warwickshire

  148.1

  366.0

  Cornwall

  142.4

  351.9

  Oxfordshire

  120.1

  296.8

  Wiltshire

  117.1

  289.4

  Clwyd

  66.3

  163.8

  Dorset

  63.2

  156.2

  Devon

  52.5

  129.7

  Greater Manchester

  41.0

  101.3

  Powys

  17.4

  43.0

  Buckinghamshire

  10.0

  24.7

  Dyfed

  8.1

  20.0

  Gwynedd

  5.3

  13.1

  South Glamorgan

  3.3

  8.2

  Hampshire

  1.0

  2.5

  Kent

  0.4

  1.0

  Avon

  0.0

  0.0

  Berkshire

  0.0

  0.0

  Cleveland

  0.0

  0.0

  Cumbria

  0.0

  0.0

  Durham

  0.0

  0.0

  East Sussex

  0.0

  0.0

  Greater London (E)

  0.0

  0.0

  Greater London (SE)

  0.0

  0.0

  Gwent

  0.0

  0.0

  Isle of Wight

  0.0

  0.0

  Isles of Scilly

  0.0

  0.0

  Mid Glamorgan

  0.0

  0.0

  Northumberland

  0.0

  0.0

  Surrey

  0.0

  0.0

  Tyne and Wear

  0.0

  0.0

  West Glamorgan

  0.0

  0.0

  West Sussex

  0.0

  0.0

  England

  194,403.7

  480,371.5

  Wales

  100.4

  248.1

  England and Wales

  194,504.1

  480.619.6

  June 1994 Agricultural Census Sugar Coverage (by Region)

  Counties within Regions

  Area Hectares

  Acres

  Cambridgeshire

  22,878.4

  56,532.5

  Norfolk

  57,012.2

  140,877.1

  Suffolk

  22,974.3

  56,769.5

  East Anglia Region

  102,864.9

  254,179.2

  Derbyshire

  304.2

  751.7

  489

  June 1994 Agricultural Census Sugar Beet Coverage (by region)

  Counties within Regions

  Area Hectares

  Acres

  Leicestershire

  920.0

  2,273.3

  Lincolnshire

  33,600.0

  83,025.6

  Northamptonshire

  417.7

  1032.1

  Nottinghamshire

  8,281.1

  20,462.6

  East Midlands Region

  43,523

  107,545.3

  Humberside

  9,439.2

  23,324.3

  North Yorkshire (Beverley)

  4,538.6

  11,214.9

  North Yorkshire (N'allerton)

  7,918.1

  19,565.6

  South Yorkshire

  1,770.1

  4,373.9

  West Yorkshire

  405.2

  1,001.2

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  24,071.2

  59,479.9

  Hereford and Worcester

  4,486.3

  11,085.6

  Shropshire

  10,103.8

  24,966.5

  Staffordshire

  2,335.6

  5,771.3

  Warwickshire

  148.1

  366.0

  West Midlands

  170.7

  421.8

  West Midlands Region

  17,244.5

  42,611.2

  Bedfordshire

  482.3

  1,191.8

  Berkshire

  0.0

  0.0

  Buckinghamshire

  10.0

  24.7

  East Sussex

  0.0

  0.0

  Essex

  4,219.9

  10,427.4

  Greater London (E)

  0.0

  0.0

  Greater London (SE)

  0.0

  0.0

  Hampshire

  1.0

  2.5

  Hertfordshire

  168.1

  415.4

  Isle of Wight

  0.0

  0.0

  Kent

  0.4

  1.0

  Oxfordshire

  120.1

  296.8

  Surrey

  0.0

  0.0

  West Sussex

  0.0

  0.0

  South East Region

  5,001.8

  12,359.4

  Avon

  0.0

  0.0

  Cornwall

  142.4

  351.9

  Devon

  52.5

  129.7

  Dorset

  63.2

  156.2

  Gloucestershire

  149.0

  368.2

  Isles of Scilly

  0.0

  0.0

  Somerset

  411.5

  1,016.8

  Wiltshire

  117.1

  289.4

  South West Region

  935.7

  2,312.1

  Cheshire

  160.5

  396.6

  Lancashire

  337.5

  834.0

  Merseyside

  223.6

  552.5

  Greater Manchester

  41.0

  101.3

  North West Region

  762.6

  1,884.4

  Clwyd

  66.3

  163.8

  Dyfed

  8.1

  20.0

  Gwent

  0.0

  0.0

  Gwynedd

  5.3

  13.1

  Mid Glamorgan

  0.0

  0.0

  Powys

  17.4

  43.0

  South Glamorgan

  3.3

  8.2

  West Glamorgan

  0.0

  0.0

  Wales

  100.4

  248.1

  Cleveland

  0.0

  0.0

  Cumbria

  0.0

  0.0

  Durham

  0.0

  0.0

  490

  June 1994 Agricultural Census Sugar Beet Coverage (by Region)

  Counties within Regions

  Area Hectares

  Acres

  Northumberland

  0.0

  0.0

  Tyne and Wear

  0.0

  0.0

  North Region

  0.0

  0.0

  Notes:

  1. County totals in acres may not add up to regional totals, this is due to rounding to 1 decimal place.

  2. This data relates to main holdings only—minor holdings excluded.

  Lindane
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if lindane or gamma hexachlorocyclohexane is used in agricultural production, with particular reference to crop spraying, and if he will
  make a statement. [15500]

  Mrs. Browning
  Lindane is approved for use on a number of crops. The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides is currently reviewing the agricultural uses of lindane. I expect the committee to report its conclusions later this year.

  Farm and Food Prices
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much(a) farm prices and (b) food prices have increased in the United Kingdom since September 1993. [15822]

  Mr. Jack
  The index of producer prices of agricultural products increased by 8.6 per cent. between September 1993 and January 1995. Over the same period, the retail prices index for food increased by 2.4 per cent.

  Common Agricultural Policies
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total budget of the common agricultural policy in each year since 1973; what proportion of the EC's total budget this accounts for; and what proportion of the common agricultural policy was allocated to the United Kingdom. [15790]

  Mr. Jack
  For the years 1973 to 1992, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 9 March 1994,Official Report; column 275. The information in respect of 1993 and 1994 is as follows:

  Total CAP expenditure (EAGGF Guarantee) (mecu)

  As percentage of total EC expenditure

  Total UK receipts as percentage of total EC CAP expenditure

  1993

  35,088

  55

  8.2

  1994

  32,924

  50

  8.5

  Sources:

  1993 annual financial report of the guarantee section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund and Commission working doc. VI/72/94–15.12.94

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest figure for(a) the total value of moneys illegally abstracted from

  491
  the common agricultural policy's export refund and price support schemes and (b) how much the common agricultural policy has lost through the evasion of customs duties and farm levies; and if he will estimate the proportion of defrauded funds that are recouped. [15794]

  Mr. Jack
  The information is in table 2, page 40, of the Commission report titled "Protection of the Community's Financial Interests: The Fight Against Fraud—1993 Annual Report", which was published on 23 March 1994. A copy was placed in the library.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the proportion of common agricultural policy spending that does not go to farmers but is(a) paid to middlemen who store unwanted surplus food and (b) is used to subsidise this surplus for export onto world markets. [15795]

  Mr. Jack
  Information on EC expenditure up to 1993 on intervention storage and on export refunds in contained in annexe 9 and annexe 5, respectively, of the annual financial reports of the guarantee section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. These have been deposited in the Library of the House of Commons. For 1994, intervention storage accounted for 3.4 per cent. of total expenditure, and export refunds for 24.8 per cent. The corresponding figures for 1995, based on the draft supplementary and amending budget, are 3.5 per cent. and 19.6 per cent. respectively.

  Cereal Farmers
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cereal farmers in the United Kingdom last year received cash benefits in excess of £40,000 from the common agricultural policy; and what proportion received these benefits without growing anything. [15793]

  Mr. Jack
  Statistics on the distribution of payments under the arable area payments scheme are not yet available as the final oilseed payments are still being made. I will write to the hon. Member when the figures that he has requested are available.

  EC Fresh Meat Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each member of the European Community the domestic legislation equivalent to the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992. [15640]

  Mrs. Browning
  I am placing the information in the Library.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at interdepartmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in his Department. [15638]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what targets he has for withdrawing regulations within his Department. [15554]

  Mr. Jack
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that his ministerial management information system for establishing objectives for his Department, includes deregulation objectives(a) for him and (b) for each of the Ministers within his Department. [15572]

  Mr. Jack
  One of the principal aims of the Department is to work to reduce regulatory and administrative burdens on business. Each Minister has to pursue this objective in the policy areas for which they are responsible. My noble Friend the Earl Howe has particular responsibility for promoting deregulation in the Department.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to his Department since May 1992. [15639]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Since May 1992, the following political advisers have been appointed to my Department:

  Dates

  Mr. Keith Adams

  April 1992 to May 1993

  Dr. Elizabeth Cotterell

  May 1993 to July 1994

  Mr. David Rutley

  July 1994 to date

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of BSE cases in cattle born in each year since 1979. [15907]

  Mrs. Browning
  The following is a table which gives the contribution of BSE cases by year of birth. The data includes only cases with known dates of birth, cases with estimated dates of birth are therefore excluded.

  Year

  Number of cases

  1980

  102

  1981

  256

  1982

  1,381

  1983

  4,446

  1984

  7,994

  1985

  10,856

  1986

  19,122

  1987

  34,640

  1988

  19,494

  1989

  6,859

  1990

  1,070

  1991

  22

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the proportion of cattle and BSE has changed by age, and if this follows his Department's projections. [15908]

  Mrs. Browning
  The table shows the age specific incidence of confirmed cases of BSE in herds with
  493
  homebred cases. The figures are in line with the Government's projections, and clearly show the impact of the action taken to prevent recycling of infection through

  Age specific incidences of confirmed cases of BSE herds with homebred cases

  BSE affected herds: cases with a clinical onset in 1990

  BSE affected herds: cases with a clinical onset in 1991

  Age years

  Numbers of animals at risk

  Number of cases of BSE

  Incidence (per cent.)

  Numbers of Animals at risk

  Number of cases of BSE

  Incidence (per cent.)

  Range of dates of birth

  1

  0

  0

  0.00

  0

  0

  0.00

  Born after 18 July 1988

  2

  35,137

  24

  0.07

  48,575

  11

  0.02

  3

  65,317

  863

  1.32

  90,284

  1,687

  1.87

  4

  57,444

  2,265

  3.94

  79,769

  4,601

  5.77

  5

  48,888

  1,696

  3.47

  67,138

  2,641

  3.93

  22 January 1988–30 December 1989

  6

  39,497

  785

  1.99

  53,589

  1,065

  1.99

  2 January 1987–30 December 1988

  7

  29,681

  207

  0.70

  40,406

  362

  0.90

  Born before 18 July 1988

  8

  21,004

  40

  0.19

  28,565

  99

  0.35

  9

  13,516

  11

  0.08

  18,917

  27

  0.14

  11

  4,337

  2

  0.05

  6,157

  2

  0.03

  12

  3,247

  2

  0.06

  4,602

  2

  0.04

  BSE affected herds: cases with a clinical onset in 1992

  BSE affected herds: cases with a clinical onset in 1993

  Age years

  Numbers of animals at risk

  Number of cases of BSE

  Incidence (per cent.)

  Numbers of Animals at risk

  Number of cases of BSE

  Incidence (per cent.)

  Range of dates of birth

  1

  0

  0

  0.00

  0

  0

  0.00

  Born after 18 July 1988

  2

  56,705

  12

  0.02

  53,051

  8

  0.02

  3

  104,919

  686

  0.65

  97,325

  436

  0.45

  4

  92,327

  6,178

  6.69

  84,494

  2,781

  3.29

  5

  77,656

  5,095

  6.56

  70,730

  5,762

  8.15

  22 January 1988–30 December 1989

  6

  61,481

  1,719

  2.80

  55,862

  2,806

  5.02

  2 January 1987-30 December 1988

  7

  45,971

  474

  1.03

  41,530

  694

  1.67

  Born before 18 July 1988

  8

  32,340

  195

  0.60

  29,132

  211

  0.72

  9

  21,137

  60

  0.28

  18,986

  80

  0.42

  10

  12,489

  10

  0.08

  11,212

  39

  0.35

  11

  6,733

  4

  0.06

  6,273

  10

  0.16

  12

  5,582

  5

  0.09

  4.992

  3

  0.06

  BSE affected herds: cases with a clinical onset in 19941

  Age years

  Number of Animals at risk

  Number of cases of BSE

  Incidence per cent.

  Range of dates of birth

  1

  0

  0

  0.00

  Born after 18 July 1988

  2

  36,825

  1

  0.00

  3

  68,093

  125

  0.18

  4

  58,425

  1,271

  2.18

  5

  48,184

  1,996

  4.14

  22 January 1988-30 December 1989

  6

  37,933

  2,177

  5.74

  2 January 1987-30 December 1988

  7

  27,646

  719

  2.60

  Born before 18 July 1988

  8

  19,561

  199

  1.02

  9

  13,076

  61

  0.47

  10

  7,707

  37

  0.48

  11

  4,265

  11

  0.26

  12

  3,464

  4

  0.12

  1 Herbs with cases accumulateed by 5 January 1995.

  2 Partly influenced by feed ban.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the peak age of BSE detection in cattle born after the feed ban. [15909]

  Mrs. Browning
  The peak age of onset of BSE in cattle born after the ban is four years of age.
  494
  feed. The increasing incidence in animals six years of age and older is as expected as these were predominantly born before July 1988.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has to show the likelihood of a herd with a BSE case in one year developing another case the year after compared with herds unaffected by BSE. [15910]
  495
  Mrs. Browning
  In 1993 17,201 herds had one or more cases of BSE confirmed of which 8,102 of these herds also had one or more cases confirmed in 1994. The likelihood of a herd with a BSE case one year developing another case the year after was therefore less than 50 per cent.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of(a) reported and (b) confirmed BSE cases by age group for 1994. [15911]

  Mrs. Browning
  The distribution of cases restricted and subsequently confirmed, by age at clinical onset is:

  Age

  Reported

  Confirmed

  0–1

  3

  0

  1–2

  43

  0

  2–3

  274

  12

  3–4

  984

  429

  4–5

  4,256

  3,502

  5–6

  7,093

  6,150

  6–7

  9,922

  8,418

  7–8

  3,946

  3,030

  8–9

  1,188

  799

  9–10

  485

  274

  10–11

  238

  126

  11–12

  105

  44

  12–13

  52

  11

  13–14

  27

  6

  14–15

  15

  2

  15–16

  1

  0

  16–17

  3

  1

  17–18

  0

  0

  18–19

  1

  0

  The data include only cases with known dates of birth, cases with estimated dates are therefore excluded.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of British cattle, by age group, were tested for BSE in 1994; and what proportion of each herd were tested in 1994 for BSE. [15912]

  Mrs. Browning
  No cattle were tested for BSE in 1994. No test is yet available to identify BSE in the live animal.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of reported cases of BSE, the number of reported cases tested and the number of cases confirmed for each month from June 1988. [15913]

  Mrs. Browning
  It is not possible without incurring disproportionate costs to detail the number of reported cases of BSE and the number of confirmed cases of BSE for each month from June 1988. Information on the number of suspect cases reported and placed under restriction each week since the disease was made notifiable until 28 September 1994 is, however, contained in table 2 of the Government's latest BSE progress report.

  No reported cases were tested during this period as no test is yet available to detect BSE in the live animal.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the level of compensation per bovine reported with BSE for each year since 1988. [15923]

  Mrs. Browning
  BSE compensation is not paid in respect of bovines reported with BSE. Compensation is paid in respect of animals suspected of being infected with 496
  BSE and which are compulsorily slaughtered under the Animal Health Act 1981 which requires the Government to compensate farmers for animals slaughtered at their behest.

  It is not possible, without incurring disproportionate costs, to provide the level of compensation for each BSE suspect compulsorily slaughtered. However, the total amount of compensation paid in respect of BSE suspects slaughtered since 1988 is:

  1988: £527,142

  1989: £2,826,788

  1990: £9,030,752

  1991: £15,741,463

  1992: £28,205,613

  1993: £36,290,273

  1994: £22,546,902

  When a BSE suspect is compulsorily slaughtered the amount payable is an amount equal to the lower of either the market value of the animal or the appropriate monthly indicative market price.

  The figures given do not include ex-gratia payments.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of herds, in each year since 1988, had reported cases of BSE in cattle aged(a) one, (b) two, (c) three, (d) four and (e) five years. [15925]

  Mrs. Browning
  It is not possible without incurring disproportionate costs to detail the percentage of herds in each year since 1988 which had reported cases of BSE in cattle aged one to five.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evaluation he has made of the incidence of BSE in siblings of infected cattle compared with siblings of uninfected cattle. [15915]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on 19 July 1994,Official Report, column 142.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has to identify BSE occurrence in cattle exported from the United Kingdom to Portugal. [15915]

  Mrs. Browning
  Portugal has reported six cases of BSE in cattle imported from the United Kingdom. Most of the Portuguese cases were born in that country.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of BSE cases in(a) 1992, (b) 1993, and (c) 1994; and what were his Department's projections for this period. [15916]

  Mrs. Browning
  Of the cases reported and placed under restriction in the calendar years 1992 and 1993, 36,680 and 34,371 cases respectively were confirmed. So far for 1994, 23,661 cases of BSE have been confirmed; there are, however, still some cases outstanding.

  We do not make projections on the likely number of confirmed BSE cases. Projections are, however, made, for financial purposes only, on the number of BSE suspects that are likely to be slaughtered. The projections made for the financial years in question are:
  497

  Financial year

  Estimated slaughterings

  Actually placed under restriction

  Of which slaughtered

  Of which confirmed

  1992–93

  37,889

  45,569

  43,814

  37,115

  1993–94

  40,000

  40,501

  38,589

  32,050

  1994–95

  33,475

  125,119

  124,024

  117,586

  1 As at 23 March 1995. There will be further cases in all categories.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what comparisons his Department has made between the tissue distribution of spongiform encephalopathy in cattle and spongiform encephalopathy in sheep. [15922]

  Mrs. Browning
  The comparative distribution of infectivity in the tissues of cattle with BSE and sheep with scrapie is covered in detail in chapter 5, and specifically in table 5.2, of the spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee's September 1994 report "Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies—A Summary of Present Knowledge and Research", HMSO London, ISBN 011 242 9874. A copy of this report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his projection for the number of cattle detected with BSE at age five years in 1997. [15924]

  Mrs. Browning
  Estimates of the future number of cases are made for submission to the public expenditure survey to secure the necessary budget for compensation payments and the incineration of carcases. It is not possible to predict the occurrence of cases in birth cohorts which have not yet been affected, or to produce precise estimates of the details of future cases born in years such as 1991 for which there have been only a small number of cases. However, because BSE has already been confirmed in some animals born in 1991, it is likely that more 1991 born animals will succumb at five years of age during 1997.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the in-herd BSE rate and the national rate; and if he will make a statement. [15926]

  Mrs. Browning
  The national rate of BSE compared with the in-herd rate since 1988 is:

  Year

  National Percentage

  Within herd Percentage

  1988

  0.08

  1.78

  1989

  0.18

  1.91

  1990

  0.35

  2.16

  1991

  0.63

  2.44

  1992

  0.92

  2.72

  1993

  0.86

  2.43

  1994

  0.59

  2.05

  Figures are not available for years prior to 1988.

  The decline in incidence since 1993 reflects the effect the ruminant feed ban is having on the BSE epidemic. The absence of a rise in the in-herd incidence is a further indicator that horizontal transmission is not playing a significant role in the epidemic.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what comparison he has made of the incidence of(a) scrapie information in sheep and (b) BSE in cattle between 1979 and 1994. [15928]
  498
  Mrs. Browning
  None. There is no direct link between scrapie infection in sheep and BSE in cattle.

  BSE and scrapie were made notifiable in 1988 and 1993 respectively. Prior to this date, data on the incidences of these diseases were either not available or incomplete and cannot therefore be compared. By the time scrapie was made notifiable in 1993, the incidence of BSE was declining in response to the ruminant food ban which also applies to sheep. Any comparison of the subsequent incidences of the disease is, therefore, meaningless.

  Epidemiological investigations into BSE did take into account the presence or absence of sheep on the farm, and indeed whether scrapie was present in any sheep flocks with which cattle came into contact either directly or indirectly. There was no evidence of a direct association between scrapie in sheep and BSE in cattle on the same farm.

  Ruminant Protein Feed Ban
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has to quantify the amount of food banned to cattle which was previously fed to sheep. [15927]

  Mrs. Browning
  The ruminant protein feed ban prohibited the use of both bovine and ovine protein in feeds intended for bovines, ovines and other ruminants at the same time. The Government have no data on the amount of ant protein fed to sheep prior to the introduction of the ban. However, the industry has estimated that the amount of concentrated feed containing ruminant protein which was fed to sheep prior to the ban was in the region of 410,000 tonnes per annum. Meat and bone meal was included far less frequently in sheep rations than in feed intended for cattle.

  MV Caroline
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what time the MV Caroline arrived at Brightlingsea port on 3 March; what time it docked and what time it was due to dock; what happened to the livestock whilst they were waiting for the MV Caroline to dock; if the animals were unloaded from the lorries, fed watered and rested in this period; if the 15-hour journey rule was adhered to; and if he will make a statement. [16002]

  Mrs. Browning
  On 3 March, the Caroline berthed at Brighlingsea at 23.10 hours. The animals—four truckloads of sheep and one of calves—had been conveyed to the port earlier because the police had been informed, incorrectly as it turned out, that the vessel would arrive on the previous tide.

  The animals could not be returned to lairage, as the police could not guarantee safe passage through the crowd of protesters. Feeding of the lorryload of calves was successfully accomplished on the lorry. The attempt was made to unload the four truckloads of sheep, truck by truck, into a bunker area where they could be offered hay and water. However, this attempt had to be abandoned after reloading of the first lorry—completed at 19.30—because of the severe stress being caused to the sheep by their proximity to the noisy crowd of protesters who had broken through the outer gate.

  The sheep were loaded into pens on board the Caroline, where hay and water was immediately available to them,

  499
  between 23.45 and 01.20 hours. The 15-hour period since they had previously been fed and watered expired at 22.00 hours.

DEFENCE

  Disposal Sales Agency
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) of 20 December 1994,Official Report, column 1197, if he will make a statement on the progress of the Disposal Sales Agency towards the meeting of its targets. [15810]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Disposal Sales Agency is progressing well in meeting its targets. The agency's achievements will be published in its 1994–95 annual report, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the publications produced by his Department or the Disposal Sales Agency to assist in the sale of surplus equipment; and if he will place a copy of these in the Library. [15785]

  Mr. Freeman
  Brochures for specific items, usually describing a particular ship, produced by the Disposal Sales Agency are classified and cannot, therefore, be placed in the Library. General brochures, which publicise the availability of various commodities coming up for sale in the near future, are unclassified; I will be arranging for copies of these to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the number and location of staff serving the Disposal Sales Agency; if he will give the staff budget for the current financial year; and if he will express the staff costs as a percentage of the operating costs. [15807]

  Mr. Freeman
  At the end of financial year 1994–95, the number of staff serving in the Disposal Sales Agency will be 65 in the UK and 30 in Germany. The sales function in Germany has recently been contractorised, and staff numbers will reduce to 12 by 30 September 1995.

  The staff budget for the current financial year is £2.94 million; staff costs amount to 50 per cent. of the operating costs.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the costs expended and (b) the receipts accrued by the Disposal Sales Agency from the start of the 1994 financial year to the last month for which figures are available. [15783]

  Mr. Freeman
  The answers are:Costs expended 1 April 1994 to 28 March 1995: £3.3 million
  Receipts accrued 1 April 1998 to 28 February 1995: £63.5 million

  Surplus Equipment Sales
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline the procedures for the sale of surplus Ministry of Defence equipment through auctioneers, term contractors and joint venture partners; and if he will give a statement. [15809]
  500
  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, report 557—"Disposal by Sale of Defence Surplus Equipment and Stores", and to the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee of Public Accounts on 26 January 1994.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list, by volume and type, the surplus(a) furniture or household items, (b) clothing, (c) plant, machinery or tools, (d) electrical goods, (e) electronic goods, (f) computer equipment, (g) ships, (h) aircraft, (i) tanks and (j) vehicles sold to preservation groups in the last year for which information is available; if he will identify the groups involved; and if he will give the total receipts for each category of item; [15805]

  (2) if he will list, by volume and type, the surplus (a) furniture or household items, (b) clothing, (c) plant, machinery or tools, (d) electrical goods, (e) electronic goods, (f) computer equipment, (g) ships, (h) aircraft, (i) tanks, (j) vehicles and (k) other items sold to commercial companies in the last year for which information is available; if he will identify the companies involved; and if he will give the total receipts for each category of item; [15804]

  (3) if he will list, by volume and type, the surplus (a) furniture or household items, (b) clothing, (c) plant, machinery or tools, (d) electrical goods, (e) electronic goods, (f) computer equipment, (g) ships, (h) aircraft, (i) tanks, (j) vehicles and (k) other items sold to private individuals in the last year for which information is available; if he will identify the companies involved; and if he will give the total receipts for each category of item. [15806]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Disposal Sales Agency currently has around 4,000 interested parties on its trades lists, covering 51 main commodity ranges further segmented into commodity types. In addition, several thousand customers attend auction sales throughout the country where approximately 40,000 lots are sold annually.

  To break this information down by volume and type, to identify the purchasers and to give total receipts for each category of item would incur disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the auctioneers, term contractors and joint venture partners currently involved in the sale of surplus Ministry of Defence equipment. [15808]

  Mr. Freeman
  The list is as follows:

  Miscellaneous Auctioneers

  Midland Marts

  Harrison and Hetherington Ltd.

  Russell Baldwin and Bright

  Fuller Peiser Ltd. (from 1 April 1995)

  Edward Symonds and Partners (from 1 April 1995)

  John Law

  Phillips

  Sothebys

  Savills Walker Walton Hanson (from 1 April 1995)

  Vehicle Auctioneers

  ADT Ltd.

  Central Motor Auctions

  Hartfield Auctions

  Term Contractors

  William Tracey

  M. Hanratty

  J. Graham

  501

  Birds Commercial Metal

  J. Wells and Son

  Wisbech Metal

  Stone Bros.

  N. Spurr

  Bridge Supply

  J. Hurst and Sons

  J. W. Ransome

  A. V. Smith

  Southern Industrial

  Thomas Muir

  Mountelm

  Fordpad

  G and P Batteries

  Reliance Scrap

  James Rollason

  M. R. J. Phillips

  Hanningfield Metals

  Barnstable Metals

  Kirton Motor Spares

  G and I Dargie

  F. Watson and Sons

  Skipbridge Processors

  S. Calvert and Sons

  Robert Gibbs

  Pounds Marine

  Geo Johnson

  Henderson Kerr

  Clonteen Ltd.

  L. C. Hughes

  Sheppard Group

  J. K. Miller

  James W. Cory

  Silver Lining Industries Ltd.

  Silvo Chem Ltd.

  D. Charlett

  Tenrich Tyres

  Mr. Cook

  Woods Tyres

  Tyre Depot (Sandy)

  D. McFarlane and Sons

  Dundee Tyres

  Western Tyres

  Creigiau Tyres

  Associated Fuels Ltd.

  Hunting Secon Ltd.

  Waste Oil Ltd.

  Ailsa Industrial Svcs Ltd.

  Norver Paints Ltd.

  Boots (Northern Ireland)

  Avesta Sheffield

  Joint Venture Partners

  Leafield Logistics and Technical Services

  Military Aircraft Spares

  Royal Ordnance plc

  Hall and Watts

  MSI Defence Systems Ltd.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by type and number, the items of surplus Ministry of Defence equipment held for(a) two years, (b) five years and (c) 10 years awaiting sale. [15784]

  Mr. Freeman
  The answer is as follows.

  Items held for two years

  1 Destroyer

  2 Frigates

  76 120mm Wombats

  502

  32 105mm Howitzers

  46 Phantom Spey Engines

  Items held for five years

  Nil

  Items held for 10 years

  Nil

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the percentage share of the world market for surplus military equipment enjoyed by the United Kingdom; and if he will publish a table showing, in order, the top 10 nations that export surplus military equipment. [15812]

  Mr. Freeman
  The United Kingdom enjoyed a 4 per cent. share of the world market for surplus military equipment over the five years 1990–94.

  Top ten exports of surplus military equipment

  1990–94

  Percentage

  United States

  61

  Germany

  12

  United Kingdom

  4

  Netherlands

  4

  Iran

  2

  Bulgaria

  2

  Moldavia

  1

  Romania

  1

  North Korea

  1

  Qatar

  1

  Others

  11

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend(Mr. Byers) of 25 January,Official Report, columns 285–86, if he will list the location of overseas staff employed by the Defence Export Services Organisation; if he will list the number employed in each country; what is the total annual cost of keeping staff overseas; and if he will make a statement. [15786]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  Location

  Staff numbers

  Estimated cost 1994–95 £'000

  Riyadh

  2

  138

  Kuwait

  3

  102

  New Delhi

  6

  86

  Kuala Lumpur

  5

  197

  Seoul

  3

  110

  Canberra

  2

  88

  Jakarta

  3

  167

  Bangkok

  3

  101

  Ankara

  2

  78

  In addition, there are 54 Disposal Sales Agency staff based in Germany, whose costs are not separately identified from UK-based DSA staff, and 83 project management staff whose costs are paid by the overseas customer on whose behalf the project management work is undertaken.

  Army Base Repair Organisation Ashford
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement on
  503
  the future of ABRO, Ashford; and if he will make a statement. [15756]

  Mr. Freeman
  The decision on the future of support from ABRO facilities has been delayed due to the complex nature of the issue it raises and to allow for a very full consultation process. I hope to announce a decision shortly.

  Specialist Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d) access to ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at inter-departmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in his Department. [15634]

  Mr. Soames
  Special advisers are members of the civil service, have the same conditions of service as civil servants and are subject to the same rules and conduct as other civil servants, with certain limited exceptions. They have facilities appropriate to their duties.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to his Department since May 1992. [15635]

  Mr. Soames
  The information is given below:

  Perry Miller (already in post May 1992)

  Crispin Blunt (appointed February 1993)

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what targets he has for withdrawing regulations within his Department. [15562]

  Mr. Freeman
  The MOD does not have any targets for withdrawing regulations because it is not a regulator of business or responsible for any primary or secondary legislation under which regulations are made with a significant impact on business.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that his ministerial management information system for establishing objectives for his Department includes deregulation objectives(a) for him and (b) for each of the Ministers within his Department. [15568]

  Mr. Freeman
  The MOD is not a regulatory department but is playing a full part in the Government's deregulation initiative, principally by simplifying its dealing with industry wherever possible. The MOD's departmental report contains a standing objective to meet Government requirements, such as deregulation.

  Official Service Residences
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the findings of Sir Peter Cazalet's investigation into official service residences. [15962]

  Mr. Soames
  Sir Peter's Cazalet's report on "Representational Entertainment in the Forces" is expected to be submitted to the Ministry of Defence shortly after Easter. I shall make a further statement when 504
  it has been received and my Department has had an opportunity to consider it.

  Service Personnel (Suicide)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 522 to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), what consideration he gave to including in his answer a reference to Sergeant Robin Feddon, as raised in his statement on 26 July 1993, Official Report, column 976–80; and if he will reconsider his Answer in respect of other claimed cases of suicide of Gulf war veterans serving in Germany. [14933]

  Mr. Soames
  My answer of 14 March about the number of Gulf war veterans who have committed suicide was unfortunately incorrect since it did not take account of the suicide of Sergeant Feddon. Our records are being checked and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) as soon as possible to set the record straight.

  Turkey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what United Kingdom forces or logistical back-up have been made available to Turkey to support(a) internal and (b) external military operations; and if he will make a statement. [16684]

  Mr. Soames
  Turkey is a NATO ally. Along with other allies, the UK gives support in a number of ways, including through NATO collective funds which support a range of military facilities in all NATO nations to meet NATO operational requirements.

  Ballistic Missile Defence
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the pre-feasibility study on ballistic missile defence; and when he expects to receive a copy of the report. [16539]

  Mr. Freeman
  Work progresses on the pre-feasibility study for ballistic missile defence. A report will be made available to Ministers in the autumn of 1996 and will include the results of the pre-feasibility and associated studies.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procurement plans he has for ballistic missile defence; and if he will make a statement. [16538]

  Mr. Freeman
  It is too early to make a statement on procurement plans for BMD. However, the results of the BMD pre-feasibility study programme will inform UK BMD policy and thus UK procurement plans. Announcements will be made as data become available and the options for BMD become clearer.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total sum refunded by British Rail following claims under the citizens charter.
  505
  Mr. Watts
  The latest BR figures show that, up to 12 November 1994, £8.6 million has been paid to passengers claiming compensation under BR's passengers charter.

  M25
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what explanation he has received from the Highways Agency for its delay in submitting a scheme for motorway link roads between the Chertsey and Wisley junctions on the M25. [14901]

  Mr. Watts
  The Highways Agency is looking at a range of options for providing additional capacity between junctions 10 and 12 of the M25 motorway. It will submit its recommendations on the scheme following completion of this work.

  Rail Modernisation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold discussions with Railtrack about the time remaining before modernisation; and how the Government can help in the process. [15683]

  Mr. Watts
  I meet Railtrack regularly to discuss west coast main line modernisation and other important projects. On 21 March 1995 I announced approval for the letting of a contract for the development of the signalling system for the WCML project.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost of Railtrack's feasibility study team analysis of whether to modernise the rail network; when the work began; what studies have been completed in this time; and what factors governed the time scale of the inquiry. [15682]

  Mr. Watts
  The feasibility study for the modernisation of the west coast main line was started on 24 March 1994. This study was completed, on time, in December 1994. The time scale for the study was driven by the scale of the task involved. The cost of the study is a commercial issue for Railtrack.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what factors led to the granting to Railtrack of permission to study the west coast main line; what consideration was given to asking an independent body to undertake the study; to what supervision Railtrack is subjected in the course of the study; and what independent study will be carried out before the franchising director adopts Railtrack's recommendation; [15685]

  (2) what has been the involvement of (a) the franchising director and (b) the Secretary of State in Railtrack's recent study of rail modernisation. [15684]

  Mr. Watts
  The project was awarded to a consortium of private sector organisations following a competition. Ministers and the franchising director have been kept closely in touch with progress on the study. The franchising director is currently discussing its conclusions with prospective franchisees.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what facilities in terms of(a) access to telephones, (b) use of equipment, (c) use of offices, (d)
  506
  access to ministerial meetings, (e) sight of correspondence, (f) attendance at interdepartmental meetings and (g) access to civil servants are available to specialist advisers in his Department. [15606]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Special advisers are members of the civil service, have the same conditions of service as civil servants and are subject to the same rules of conduct as other civil servants, with certain limited exceptions. They have facilities appropriate to their duties.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that his ministerial management information system for establishing objectives for his Department, includes deregulation objectives(a) for him and (b) for each of the Ministers within his Department. [15576]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  One of the aims of this Department is to work to reduce the burden of unnecessary regulation. Each Minister has to pursue this objective in the policy areas for which he is responsible. There is also a Minister with particular responsibility for promoting deregulation in the Department.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets he has for withdrawing regulations within his Department. [15549]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs.

  Road Tunnels
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the location, length in metres and cost of all road tunnels(a) constructed by his Department in each of the past 10 years and (b) proposed for construction in future with estimated cost. [15681]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Robert Key, dated 27 March 1995:
  As you know, Mr. John Watts, the Minister for Railways and Roads has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will list the location, length in metres and cost of all road tunnels (a) constructed by his Department in each of the past 10 years and (b) proposed for construction in future with estimated cost. This is attached.
  You will understand that any simple cost comparisons, based on tunnel length, could be very misleading given the many differing factors which will apply in each case—tunnel location (urban/rural region), geological and groundwater conditions, total lane width and construction method (bored NATM or cut and cover etc).

  Schemes with Tunnels

  Location

  Length (in metres)

  Actual cost (£m)

  Date opened

  [1] Tunnels opened since 1985

  Hatfield tunnel (A1(M) Hertfordshire

  1,150

  23.6

  12/86

  Round Hill tunnel (A20 Kent)

  390

  13.2

  11/93

  [2] Tunnel schemes under construction

  Green Man Hackney—M11 (East London)

  174

  7.04

  —

  George Green Hackney—M11 (East London)

  300

  8.43

  —

  507

  Schemes with Tunnels

  Location

  Length (in metres)

  Actual cost (£m)

  Date opened

  Southwick (A27 Sussex)

  490

  14.9

  —

  [3] Tunnel schemes about to start construction

  Fore Street tunnel (A406 North London)

  310

  17.0

  —

  Meir tunnel (A50 Staffordshire

  284

  6.01

  —

  [4] Tunnel schemes in planning

  —

  1—

  —

  Western Circus tunnel (A40 West London)

  187

  8.0

  —

  Regents Park Road tunnel (A406 North London)

  830

  30.5

  —

  Ealing Common tunnel (A406 West London)

  520

  21.7

  —

  Wilmer Way tunnel (A406 North London)

  298

  12.7

  —

  Bounds Green—Green Lanes tunnel (A406 North London)

  198

  7.6

  —

  Hindhead tunnel (A3 Surrey)

  1,720

  35.0

  —

  Worthing Bypass tunnels (A27 Sussex)

  580

  25.0

  —

  River Rother tunnel (A259 Sussex)

  300

  19.0

  —

  Saltaire Relief Road tunnel (A650 Yorkshire)

  2,500

  135.0

  —

  Wychbury tunnel (A456 Worcestershire)

  330

  9.74

  —

  1Estimated cost (£m) RCPI 95

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the names of those persons appointed as political advisers to his Department since May 1992. [15607]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Mrs. E. F. Laing was appointed as political adviser from 13 April 1992 to 20 July 1994. Mr. M. G. E. Simmonds has been appointed as political adviser since 24 October 1994.

  Delayed Rail Journeys
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions during each of the last four years rail journeys have been delayed as a result of either poor weather or criminal activity affecting overhead electrical power supply. [15749]

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

  A303
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set up a round table conference to consider improvements to the A303 at Stonehenge; and if he will make a statement. [15929]

  Mr. Watts
  I hope to do so and will announce the arrangements later in the year.

  Ship Loading Hours
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many hours a day it is(a) possible and (b) permissible for a ship the size of the MV Caroline to be
  508
  loaded with goods brought in by heavy lorries at Brightlingsea docks. [16001]

  Mr.Norris
  The statutory powers of the Brightlingsea harbour commission do not specify hours within which vessels have to be loaded with goods.

  Bilateral Aviation Agreements
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he had made a UK/USA bilateral aviation agreements; and if he will make a statement. [16673]

  Mr. Norris
  Formal UK/USA aviation talks took place in London from 22 to 24 March. Various proposals designed to increase competition in air services between the two countries were discussed. The talks are due to continue in Washington on 10 April.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the Home Office on extending the powers and jurisdiction of the British Transport police; and if he will make a statement. [16301]

  Mr. Watts
  None

  Scottish Rail Services
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of representations which he has received from Highlands and Islands Enterprise in respect of the highlands to London sleeper and Motorail services; if he will place in the Library a copy of the economic assessment which he has made of the impact of the withdrawal of such services; and if he will make a statement. [15142]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend has recently received a letter from the chairman of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. A copy of that letter has been placed in the Library.

  The withdrawal of the London-Fort William sleeper and Motorail service with effect from 28 May is a commercial decision by the British Railways Board. The franchising director will take account of any representations on the economic impact of the withdrawal of this service within the context of his consultation with the Scottish regional councils and the rail users consultative council on the draft passenger service requirement for ScotRail later this year.

  Roads (Co-ordination)
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who is responsible for co-ordinating road openings by local authorities, utilities and the Highways Agency. [15510]

  Mr. Watts
  The duty of co-ordination, under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, falls on the relevant street authority—the Highways Agency, on behalf of the Secretary of State, for motorways and trunk roads, the local highway authority for all other roads maintainable at public expense, and the street managers for private streets. The duty extends to co-ordination with other street authorities when the works affect roads for which those authorities are responsible.

  Southend Lane, London
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department will approve the funding for the bridge works at Southend lane, London SE26, and when he expects the road improvement scheme to commence and finish. [16175]

  Mr. Norris
  A scheme including the reconstruction of the bridge was not successful in Lewisham's transport policies and programme bid for 1995–96. The Government office for London is discussing with Lewisham how the proposals might be modified for consideration in next year's submission. Nothing definite can be said at present about the funding or timing of the scheme.

  Trans-European Road Network
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if United Kingdom roads designated trans-European road network roads may benefit from EU funding. [15977]

  Mr. Watts
  Schemes to upgrade existing UK roads or construct missing links designated part of the trans-European road network may benefit from EU funding under the trans-European networks budget line, when the draft financial regulation currently under discussionis adopted. The draft regulation provides for support up to a maximum of 10 per cent. of total investment costs.

  Roads (Recycled Materials)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what use is made in new road building of recycled material from old roads. [15890]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 27 March 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for the Environment, what use is made in new road building of recycled material from old roads.
  It is government policy to encourage conservation and facilitate the use of reclaimed materials to reduce pressure on sources of primary aggregates and obtain environmental benefits. Wherever practical the Highways Agency provides the opportunity in trunk road contracts for including recycled materials from old roads in new road construction. Our requirements for materials are set out in the Specification for Highway Works published by HMSO. material from old roads can be used in a variety of ways. it can be incorporated within road foundations as a fill material, be used as an aggregate within either bituminous or cement bound layers, or as in the case of bituminous planings be mixed with new bitumen and aggregate for use in road construction or maintenance.
  Since 1992 up to 10% of new surfacing can be drawn from reclaimed bituminous material such as planings from old roads. Following the results of further research, this summer we are raising the percentage allowable to 30% for certain bituminous materials,. We also permit a wide range of options for reuse and recycling of old concrete roads, indeed crushed concrete is highly valued as an aggregate by the construction industry. The Highways Agency is shortly to publish new advice on the conservation and use of reclaimed materials in road construction and maintenance which highlights the scope for reuse and recycling and is aimed at encouraging a greater awareness of the opportunities available.
  No central records are kept of actual quantities of old road material used in new roads. However, the DOE's Mineral Planning Guidance MPG6, published in April 1994, indicated that 80% of
  510
  road planings, for example,were recycled in some form. Not all of this will be in roads as planings are in great demand for use on parking areas, footpaths and farm accesses. Estimates suggest that there are around 7–8 million tonnes of bituminous road planings produced each year.

  Marchioness
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set up a public inquiry into the sinking of the Marchioness in order to resolve issues of public importance which have not been settled either by criminal or civil proceedings or by inquest procedures. [15906]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 24 March 1995]: We do not believe that it would be appropriate or necessary to set up a public inquiry into the loss of the Marchioness. The marine accident investigation branch has carried out a full and thorough investigation into the disaster and its report has been published. The inquest into the deaths of those who died in the disaster has not yet been concluded.

  Speed Limiters
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to act upon excessive speeds of commercial vehicles reported under section 11 of his "Road Traffic Statistics Great Britain 1994". [16250]

  Mr. Norris
  Speed limiters will be fitted to coaches and new heavy goods vehicles by 1 January 1996.

  Insurance Policy Discs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require all vehicles to display a current insurance policy disc on the windscreen in addition to tax discs. [16270]

  Mr. Norris
  As explained in answers given by my predecessor on 23 June 1993,Official Report, columns 171–72, and 1 February 1994, Official Report, column 628, there would be practical problems associated with a windscreen insurance disc system. However, we continue to take the problem of uninsured driving very seriously and are discussing with the industry various possible measures, including windscreen discs which might reduce the level of evasion of insurance requirements.

  Stansted Airport
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if people living near Stansted airport can continue to rely on the assurances given in the 1985 White Paper that a second main runway would not be constructed. [16381]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The 1985 White Paper stated that, on demand forecasts at the time, it was not possible to justify such a runway in the foreseeable future. On current demand forecasts, I do not see a second runway as a realistic prospect and that is why my response to the runway capacity in the south-east group made no reference to it.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many press officers there are in his Department currently; and what the figure was in 1979. [16548]
  511
  Mr. Norris
  The number of press officers in the Department is currently 11. This compares with 10 in 1984. Before that date the information division was a common service of the Department of Transport,512
  Department of Environment and Property Services Agency. Figures prior to 1984 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.
The Duke of Beaufort The Duke of Beaufort— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.
Lord Dulverton Lord Dulverton— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Psychotherapy: Development of NVQs
The Lord Bishop of Worcester The Lord Bishop of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in setting up the lead body to develop national vocational qualifications in psychotherapy, they will consult the British Confederation of Psychotherapists.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the British Confederation of Psychotherapists was consulted in setting up the lead body, Advice Guidance and Counselling and Psychotherapy, but has chosen not to participate since the spring of 1994. Work on national vocational qualifications for psychotherapists is at an early stage and the confederation will be consulted at every stage of development.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the Conference of Psychoanalytical Psychotherapists was of the opinion that a deeper and more far reaching discussion was needed? Is he further aware that in February 1995 the Department of Employment declared that it wanted to see higher standards—and this is a matter of standards—in national vocational qualifications and to collaborate with all those who want to see those higher standards? Will the Minister reassure the House that the Conference of Psychoanalytical Psychotherapists will be brought into any further dialogue, in view of the fact that it includes the Tavistock Clinic, the Portman Clinic and the 10 most senior psychoanalytical psychotherapist bodies?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right about the Department of Employment's plans and aspirations for higher level vocational qualifications. It is open at any time for the British Confederation of Psychotherapists to participate in the work that has been carried out. The Department of Employment and the lead body would be most pleased if that were to happen.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, are those at the Tavistock Clinic being consulted? I recently received a letter from them indicating their grave anxieties. They point out that psychotherapy, concerning itself with the complexity of human emotions and motivation, is singularly unsuitable to be dealt with by mapping occupational competences. In view of the fact that the
1400
clinic is a major employer of psychotherapists and the biggest training institution for psychotherapy, will the Minister look at those anxieties most seriously?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, raises an important point. The Tavistock Clinic is an important component in the British Confederation of Psychotherapists. The confederation is dealing with the lead body, but if the noble Baroness wishes to draw to my attention any particular anxieties I should be delighted to receive them and to take the matter forward.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is anxiety about this issue, which is highly complex? Psychotherapists deal with the abused and the abusers. Therefore, will he tell the House whether he is co-operating fully with the Department of Health and his colleague who is sitting at the end of the Bench?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to confirm that there is close co-operation between the Departments of Health and Employment in respect of this matter. It is true that the whole area of psychotherapy is difficult and complicated.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, while the matter is undoubtedly complex, does the Minister agree that there is some urgency about registration because false memories can be involved, leading to false accusations and some injustices?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Government believe that self-regulation is the best answer in the circumstances. Of course, there are instances where something more binding is relevant and that is why the Government are reviewing the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act. Against that background, one of the reasons why NVQs are valuable is that they provide a yardstick to the public about the knowledge of people who are carrying out activities.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I believe that the Minister just said that self-regulation may be the answer. However, is he aware of some of the appalling consequences that have taken place in America because of unskilled or badly skilled people in the line of psychotherapy being allowed to run wild? Will the Government do their best to ensure that that does not happen in this country?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sure that we all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick: we do not want to see that kind of thing happening in this country. However, in reply to the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, after having said that we felt that self-regulation was the best initial approach, I continued to say that the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act is being reviewed, and that is obviously something that we shall bear in mind.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what is the present route for qualification as a psychotherapist? Further, can he also tell us why it is considered that the essentially modular form of learning which is involved with NVQs is more suitable?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, one of the problems that faces those looking at psychotherapy is that there appears

1401
to be no generally recognised qualification. That is one of the reasons for the difficulties as regards the scope of the lead body in the first place. As I understand it, membership of the British Confederation of Psychotherapists requires slightly different membership criteria from the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapists. It is because there is no agreed corpus of knowledge underlying the particular technique, which, as has already been mentioned, is to do with the treatment of the mind, that many such difficulties arise.

Gibraltar Air Links
2.46 p.m.
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek talks with the Moroccan authorities towards the implementation of the 1976 Exchange of Notes (Cm. 6798), and the amendment of the current UK-Morocco air services arrangements for a Morocco-Gibraltar-Paris route.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, Royal Air Maroc can commence operations on a route Morocco-Gibraltar-Paris at any time. However, if a Moroccan airline wished to pick up passengers in Gibraltar for Paris—and vice versa—on that route, the Moroccan authorities would need to seek to amend the current UK/Morocco air services arrangements accordingly. At air service talks on 13th January, the Moroccan authorities made no such request. We expect to resume talks shortly.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response which rather follows the line of the Written Answer 1 received on 17th January. However, bearing in mind that there is only the UK-Gibraltar-Morocco route and that Great Britain is responsible for the external relations of Gibraltar, is it not for the Government to seek to encourage a further route which would benefit the economic development and the tourism of Gibraltar?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords; I do not agree with my noble friend. As with any other country, if Royal Air Maroc wanted to operate a Morocco-Gibraltar-Paris service with traffic rights, it would be up to the Moroccan authorities to request them from us; not the other way round
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister accept that it would be very much to the advantage to the economy of Gibraltar if such a route were put into operation? It would help Gibraltar to combat attempts by Spain to create every sort of difficulty as regards traffic to Gibraltar.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the point to be considered here is that we cannot force a foreign airline to operate a service. However, if that airline feels that it has the commercial need and requirement for such a service it
1402
would approach its national authorities which would seek to engage our national authorities in air service negotiations and make that part of a package.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to refer to my supplementary question again. In fact, I happened to mention "a further route"; I did not just say a route from Morocco. However, as the Government said in a Written Answer on 16th June last year that,
"some details of the 1987 Agreement need to be updated to take account of the liberalisation of air transport in the Community" [Official Report, 16/6/94; col. WA 109.],
can my noble friend the Minister say what progress, if any, has been made? Will my noble friend also bear in mind the fact that Morocco is not bound by Council regulations?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, indeed, Morocco is not bound by Council regulations. The important point on the airport agreement side is that the ball is in Gibraltar's court. The Gibraltarian administration refuses to implement the agreement because it believes that it cedes important concessions on the issue of sovereignty to the Spanish. This is not the position of Her Majesty's Government. We continue to press the Government of Gibraltar to act in this area. The emphasis is on the Gibraltarians; we will continue to press them to make progress on this important issue.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply with which I wholly concur—maybe uncharacteristically—can he confirm that this specific Question has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of the sensitive Gibraltarian/Spanish relationship'? Is he further aware that the Opposition support the view that he has taken? There was of course a deal struck in 1986–87, in which I had some part to play, which concluded a not wholly satisfactory arrangement between Britain and Spain on the issue. It is a sensitive matter and it does not help if rather irrelevant questions are imposed on it.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is difficult to separate out the issues. We believe that coming to an agreement on the airport is important for a number of reasons. I wholly agree with the noble Lord that this is a sensitive point. We continue to press for progress.

National Hospital for Neurology
2.51 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the application for trust status submitted by the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery has been rejected and whether, in the light of the concern that this decision has caused in the national and international neurological community, they will reconsider the question.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege:): My Lords, we believe that the National Hospital will benefit from trust status but, after careful consideration, my

1403
right honourable friend the Secretary of State has decided that the hospital's interests will be best served by joining with another hospital that is equally committed to research and teaching, rather than operating independently.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, I first declare an interest as the current president of the World Federation of Neurology—a federation of some 75 neurological associations across the world. Does the Minister agree that this hospital has an exceptionally proud record of patient care and service to the community; that it is at the moment financially viable; and that its associated institute of neurology has obtained one of the highest ratings in the HEFC national assessment exercise for the quality of its research? Can we be assured that if it were to merge with another hospital to form a trust its identity would be confirmed?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to agree with the president of the world federation of neurological associations and I congratulate him on that very distinguished position. This particular hospital and its institute have a very proud record. The hospital is, we believe, of world standing but we do not believe that its future is necessarily viable. That is why we are looking ahead. If it joins a trust—as we are recommending it should—with another hospital, we would want to keep the excellence and the worldwide reputation and expertise embodied in Queens Square.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, rightly refers to the concern in the international neurological community about a possible merger. Is the Minister also aware of the great concern felt in the National Health Service because of the potential threat to the number of intensive care beds in this specialty which may be threatened by the merger? Have the Government taken into consideration the cases of, for example, the patient who had to be flown from the south of England to Leeds for intensive care, and of the surgeon—a matter raised in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Smith—who unfortunately died as a result of a lack of beds? Have the Government considered these service concerns when considering the merger?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have considered all these aspects; indeed, we commissioned an independent inquiry, a review of neuro-sciences within the London area. The review was undertaken by some very distinguished consultants and professors in neuro-sciences. Their verdict was unequivocal. They said that the historical pattern of service provision is not fully geared to meet current population needs. Changes in demography mean that service sitings are no longer relevant as we move into the 21st century. As to the expertise in tertiary neuro-sciences centres such as that at Queens Square, the review recommended that such centres should be sited within a multi-specialty general teaching hospital and should have formal research and training links with medical schools and higher education institutes. We have accepted those recommendations,
1404
but we have suggested to the National Hospital that it should choose its partner rather than be pushed into a gunshot wedding.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that her answer is reassuring in referring specifically to the excellence of this hospital? I hope that I can ask her now to redouble the assurance. Is she quite confident that the excellence of this institution will not be diluted by being spread?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is our intention not only to protect and maintain the expertise within this hospital and within the institute, but also to promote its excellence. We believe it is a remarkable institution and we want to see it strengthened.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say which other hospital she has in mind for the merger?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it really is up to the National to choose its partner. Clearly, it is considering a number of options. As the institute is already looking at University College London, perhaps that may influence its final decision. But the choice is the National's.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the decision be made quickly? As the Minister knows, committee meetings and consultations take doctors away from patients. Is she aware that some patients are suffering from long waiting times in that hospital?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have the support of both the chairman and the medical director of the National Hospital. They are preparing to bring forward a recommendation next month.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, says that the hospital is financially viable. The Minister in her reply says that the decision is based on the fact that it may not necessarily be viable in the future. What evidence has the Minister to substantiate that course of action? What proof is there that the hospital will not be viable? It may well be viable if the case is not proved. Have the Government taken any soundings of the highly qualified professional staff who man the hospital as to whether the service may deteriorate if there is a merger with another hospital?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we always consult with staff whenever there is a proposal. The evidence is that 13 district health authorities who commissioned services have indicated that next year they will reduce work to be done by this hospital. Indeed, the hospital itself is planning to handle up to 15 per cent. less work over the next three years.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, do the Minister's previous answers imply that there will be no reduction in the number of beds for this particular speciality?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I cannot give that undertaking. It depends what happens in terms not only of the number of contracts that are placed with this hospital but also movements in clinical activity in the way that medical science is changing. Your Lordships

1405
will be aware that, because things are done very differently today, over the years we have seen a remarkable decrease in the number of beds as more and more activity takes place on a day case basis.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, will the Minister accept that there is a major multi-million pound development of a new building going on at the Queens Square site at the moment? If, as she very properly suggests, a merger with another major hospital does take place, may we be assured that the existing site will nevertheless be retained?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is really for the trust to decide once it is formed. I am aware that in the National Health Service it is a very dangerous thing to say, "Never, never, ever".

Turkey and Northern Iraq
2.59 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ask the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights to refer the military operations by Turkey in northern Iraq to the Chairman in Office of the OSCE with a view to laying the matter before the Permanent Committee as a violation of Articles 34 to 37 of the OSCE's Budapest Declaration.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the matter is likely to be discussed within the OSCE later this week. We would expect Turkey to act in accordance with all the commitments of the Budapest Declaration, including those relating to the code of conduct and the human dimension.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Ambassador Audrey Glover has already referred the matter to the chairman in office and that discussion is taking place on how best to proceed? Is he also aware that at the Budapest meeting it was agreed that, where a matter was of sufficient importance, it could be referred to the Committee of Ministers, and should be in this case? Does the Minister recall the dictum of the former Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, that you do not just walk into someone else's country? In view of the fact that the Turks have invaded Iraq with 35,000 troops, jets, tanks and helicopters and are terrorising not only the PKK but also the native Kurdish people of northern Iraq, is this not a matter of sufficient importance to command the attention of the highest levels of the OSCE?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is right about going into other people's countries. We note the Turkish Government's assurances that their operations are temporary and aimed solely at destroying the PKK's capability to mount attacks against Turkey from northern Iraq. We look forward to the Turks abiding by their undertaking to withdraw at the earliest opportunity.
1406
We have made quite clear our concern that non-combatants in the region, including UN staff and relief workers, should not be affected.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the Government's own communiqué published by way of Answer to a Written Question in another place recently Her Majesty's Government claimed special credit for the humanitarian issues that were raised at the Budapest conference? In those circumstances, may we have the Government's assurance that they will take the initiative in ensuring, particularly as Turkey is a potential member of the European Union, that the humanitarian objectives and standards (with which Her Majesty's Government have presumably concurred) are observed in both the spirit and the detail?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The human dimension of the Budapest Declaration owes a great deal to British involvement. That is something of which we can be proud. The noble Lord is also right in saying that there has been a series of serious human rights abuses in Turkey which the Government have regularly drawn to the attention of the Turkish authorities at the highest level, making quite clear our disapproval of those abuses.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Government work through all available channels to achieve a timetable for the withdrawal of Turkish forces from the invaded territory? Will they also ensure that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees is able to protect those refugees from Turkey already in that area and ensure that none of them is forcibly repatriated to Turkey?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can assure the House that we shall do everything that we can to try to ensure that Turkish troops withdraw as soon as possible. Equally, we shall endeavour to do everything that we can to contribute to ensuring that the actions to which the noble Lord refers take place. However, he will appreciate that the area is a long way from here and it is difficult to stand at this Dispatch Box and say that this or that will happen.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, given the record of the Turks in Cyprus and the Government's continued repetition of assurances that they will do their best, and given the fact that in 20 years no solution has been reached, what grounds are there for thinking that the situation will be any different in respect of this latest invasion?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we have to do our best to try to bring about a successful outcome to this matter. The noble Lord mentioned an example where none of us has been as successful as we would have liked.

1407
However, one has only to look to Northern Ireland to see that if one keeps on trying hard enough one can sometimes make a breakthrough.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, can my noble friend advise the House, or at least this Member of your Lordships' House, exactly what OSCE stands for?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Turkish invasion seems to have attracted little or no protest from Iraq. Does that not suggest that there may well be some collusion between Turkey and Iraq to attack the Kurdish population in that area on the basis of singling out the PKK for attack by the Turks? Is it not a fact also that it is very likely that thousands of innocent people are being caught up in this pincer movement and it is the Kurdish population as a whole who are bearing the brunt of this action?
Does the Minister agree that the welcome evacuation operation undertaken by the United Nations in securing the release of some 2,000 innocent Kurdish people from that situation ought to be thoroughly welcomed in all free parliaments of the world? Is there any hope that that possibility may be reopened in order to secure the evacuation of further people?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the point that the noble Lord makes about some form of joint operation between Iraq and Turkey has been canvassed in the media. I know of no evidence to support that view. Clearly, we must all welcome the action taken to secure the release of the people affected, to which the noble Lord referred. Let us hope that we shall see the end of this episode, as he said.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can the noble Lord imagine the furore that would have occurred if before the current peace initiative in Northern Ireland the British Army had gone south of the Border to eliminate possible IRA bases there? What, in effect, is the difference between the current situation in Turkey and Iraq and such a hypothetical situation?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, that is a hypothetical question and there is no direct parallel.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree, however, that that question raises the principle of hot pursuit? Do Her Majesty's Government believe that the PKK is a terrorist organisation, and would it not be as well to recognise that fact because so far the questions on this matter seem to have been notably one-sided?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The PKK is a terrorist organisation. However, the response to the threat posed by an organisation of that kind should be proportionate.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it not the case that under Article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter no state has a right to enter the territory of its neighbour except as a matter of self-defence or in accordance with a
1408
resolution of the Security Council? Pending any further decisions by the OSCE on action that it may take in the future, could it not send a mission to the area, as it did in the case of Chechenia, to establish the facts and report back so that future decisions may be based on sound knowledge of the violations of human rights and the Budapest Declaration which are occurring?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is right. It is important that we take decisions and discuss these matters on the basis of information, which at present is sketchy. Obviously any means of improving our knowledge of these matters will be to everyone's advantage.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister saying that, despite our knowledge of the serious violations of human rights in Turkey, we shall permit that corrupt country to join the European Union?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the question of Turkish membership of the European Union is a long way hence.

Building Societies (Switched Accounts) Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to permit the distribution of funds by building societies to a person who switched funds from a shareholding account to a deposit account during the qualifying period for such a distribution. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Dubs.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
I do not want to detain your Lordships for more than a moment, but I should like to express thanks to those members of the small but distinguished Committee which carefully examined the business of the Bill. They made a recommendation on a vote of three to two that the sponsors of the Bill should seek to arrange with the Registrar of Friendly Societies that some of the places on the board of the new heritage foundation should be open to election by direct franchise in Letchworth. The sponsors have assured me that they will try to achieve that as soon as possible in accordance with the wishes of the Committee. However, no change is made to the text of the Bill; and, therefore, I hope that the Bill which has been favourably received in all parts of your Lordships' House may now complete its progress.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Stewartby.)
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may take another moment to add my thanks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby. As the noble Lord said, the

1409
selection of the members of the board of management was a matter of concern to many of the petitioners. It was a concern that I mentioned to the House at Second Reading.
I am grateful to the committee for having pursued the matter and for having sought the views of the Registrar of Friendly Societies as there was a widespread understanding that the election would not be an acceptable procedure under the rules governing industrial and provident societies. I was glad to learn that the registrar wrote to the Committee that at no time had he said that a structure involving direct election of governors by a constituency comprising the town of Letchworth, or a section of that town, would be unacceptable. I am glad that the Committee decided to allow for direct election of six of the 30 governors.
I, too, wish to support the Third Reading of the Bill and to wish the foundation well in the years ahead.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Law Reform (Succession) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
3.13 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 9 [Purpose of Part III]:
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 16, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:
("(1) The rules in this Part apply for choosing the law (in this Part referred to as "the applicable law") to be used for determining issues relating to tort or (for the purposes of the law of Scotland) delict.
(1A) The characterisation for the purposes of private international law of issues arising in a claim as issues relating to tort or delict is a matter for the courts of the forum.
(2) The rules in this Part do not apply in relation to issues arising in any claim excluded from the operation of this Part by section 13 below.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to clarify Clause 9(1) of the Bill. Part III of the Bill deals with litigation in one of the three jurisdictions of the United Kingdom concerning a wrong occurring outside that jurisdiction, the wrong being non-contractual—what English law calls a tort and Scots law calls a delict. In other words, the scenario with which the Bill is concerned is an action in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland about a wrong occurring outside that jurisdiction which, if occurring within, would be classified as a tort or delict.
There are clearly two steps involved in the litigation. The first step is to decide whether the issue relates to what we call a tort or delict. The expression commonly used is "characterised" as a tort or delict. The second question is to decide what law is to be applied to that issue once it has been so characterised.
Clause 9(1) of the Bill, in its present form, addresses only the second step. The first step is assumed but not addressed. To clarify the position, my amendment splits subsection (1) into two parts. The new subsection (1) defines step two: the selection of the law to be applied to the trial of the issue. Although that is step two, it is placed first because that is what Part III of the Bill is all about. Subsection (1A) addresses step one—the preliminary question which has to be answered—as to whether the issue is to be characterised as an issue relating to tort or delict. That is to be a matter for decision by what is called the court of the forum, which by definition in Clause 9(6) means the court sitting in England or Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland.
The Public Bill Committee agreed that some such clarification of Clause 9(1) was desirable but the amendment then proposed was not moved. I am indebted to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the services of his draftsman in getting the necessary amendment into a proper form. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, as will be apparent from the introduction by my noble and learned friend, I am very happy with the clarification of Clause 9 of the Bill. I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for moving the amendment, for the work he did as chairman of the Committee, and to the Members of the Committee who devoted much time to study of the problem. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Exclusion of defamation claims from Part III]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 13 and insert the following new clause:
("Exclusion of Defamation and related claims from Part III
.—(1) Nothing in this Part applies to affect the determination of issues arising in any claim to which subsection (2) applies.
(2) This section applies to any claim which is characterised by the courts of the forum for the purposes of private international law as relating to tort or delict and which is—

(a) a claim under the law of any part of the United Kingdom for libel, slander, slander of title, slander of goods or other malicious falsehood and any claim under the law of Scotland for verbal injury: or

(b) a claim under the law of any other country corresponding to or otherwise in the nature of a claim mentioned in paragraph (a) above; or

(c) a claim which is otherwise based upon a law for the protection of reputation, self-esteem, privacy or confidentiality, whether of an individual or group of individuals, or of a juristic person or of an organ of government.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad that at Committee stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in effect accepted the Law Commission's observation in paragraph 3.31 of its report that,
"given the public interest in free speech and in the proper functioning of public institutions, it is not desirable that those who make statements in this country should have their freedom of expression circumscribed by the application of foreign law".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accepted that observation in relation to defamation law, and Clause 13 has been inserted into the Bill in its present form in Committee so that defamation claims based on foreign laws can be brought in our courts only if they would be actionable under our own laws as well.
In my view there are still two respects in which Clause 13 remains unsatisfactory. In the first place, the definition of "defamation claims" in Clause 13(2), purely by reference to a list of English torts such as libel and slander, and the Scots law of verbal injury, leaves a large degree of unnecessary vagueness and uncertainty. That is one main reason for my seeking to add paragraph (c) to Clause 13(2); in order to create greater certainty by making clear that where a claim is based on a law which does not correspond to the list of English and Scottish torts and delicts, but which is in substance a claim,
"based upon a law for the protection of reputation, self esteem … whether of an individual or group of individuals, or of a juristic person or of an organ of government",
it will be excluded from Part III.
Perhaps I may give an example to explain what I mean. Let us suppose that under the law of Ruritania it is a civil wrong to bring the president or government into disrepute by undermining public confidence in their capacity to govern. A law of that kind is not unknown in some parts of Asia, Africa or the Caribbean. A claim based on such a law would not necessarily be in the nature of a claim of the kind mentioned in Clause 13(2) (a). But it would certainly come within the wider words of my proposed paragraph (c).
As I understand the position, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accepts that foreign torts of this kind should be within Clause 13. The first object of my amendment is to put the matter beyond doubt for the sake of achieving legal certainty. Knowing the controversial nature of the decision of Pepper v. Hart, I do not think it satisfactory for the matter to be dealt with only by a statement in the House which can then be placed before the courts. With respect, in my view it should be on the face of the Bill.
The second main aim of my amendment is to cover foreign laws of privacy of a kind unrecognised by common law or statute law in this country. I am glad to be able to report, speaking from this Bench, that, because of the dangers which such a law would create for free speech and a free press, my party recently decided at its Scarborough conference that it was not in favour of enacting a statute creating a new tort of media intrusion on privacy of the kind previously suggested by the Government. The Liberal Democrats preferred to press for the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law and to leave it to the courts to develop appropriate remedies for invasions of personal privacy on a case-by-case basis. According to press reports last Friday, it seems that the Government too have, happily, now decided not to create a general tort of privacy in this country.
The Law Commission in its report drew particular attention to invasion of privacy as a prime example of a foreign tort not recognised in this country. It emphasised that it was not desirable that British broadcasters and
1412
newspapers should be held liable for such a foreign tort of privacy. I submit that the Law Commission was perfectly right. Surely it is even more objectionable to allow plaintiffs to sue in our courts on the basis of a foreign law of privacy, without a public interest defence, than to allow them to sue on the basis of a foreign libel law less liberal than our own law. A foreign privacy law which forbids the publication of truthful statements and lacks any public interest defence surely poses a greater threat to free expression than does a foreign libel law, especially where prior restraint on free expression may be obtained through interlocutory privacy injunctions.
Perhaps I may give the example of French law. For the purpose of this debate I consulted M. Roger Errera, a member of the French Conseil d'Etat, who chaired the committee of inquiry on the press and the judiciary appointed by the French Minister of Justice, in 1984, and who gave evidence on privacy to Sir David Calcutt's committee. I can briefly summarise the position as follows. French defamation law is civil and criminal in nature. French defamation law is less intrusive on free speech and freedom of the press than is English defamation law. That is because the newspaper has the defence of publication in good faith and also because damages awards are modest compared with English jury awards. However, the limited nature of French defamation law is complemented by French privacy law, even though the two are legally distinct.
French privacy law has developed to protect not only honour and reputation but also the individual's personality. Unlike defamation law, any interference with privacy gives rise to a right to a remedy. Good faith is no defence, nor is the truth of what is published and there is no developed public interest defence in France. The civil courts there have very broad powers not only to award damages for invasions of privacy, but also to order preventive measures, including interlocutory injunctions to restrain invasions. The French civil code was recently amended, in 1993, so that damages may be awarded and injunctions granted against newspapers for breaching the civil right to respect for the presumption of innocence, pending the determination of a pending criminal case. The French courts may also order the press to publish corrective statements drafted by the courts.
Let us then suppose that a British broadcaster or newspaper publishes news and comment which is heard or read in France as well as in this country, and which breaches the French civil law of privacy or of the presumption of innocence or both. Suppose that the news and comment are accurate. They are published in good faith, their publication is in what we would regard as the public interest. As I have explained, these defences are not available in French law. The alleged victim could not invoke French penal law or other public law in our courts under the Bill. But under Clause 13 as it now stands, he or she could sue the broadcaster or the newspaper not only in the French courts for what is wrongful civil and criminal misconduct under French law, but the plaintiff could also sue in our courts for damages and injunctions on the basis of French civil law, even though that conduct is not wrongful under English or Scots civil law.
As regards the claim based on interference with the presumption of innocence, I recognise that our courts might perhaps refuse to apply the French law on the ground that, although civil in nature under French law, in substance it should be regarded as penal in nature in this country. But it is not clear that that would be so and in any event what is clear is that our courts could not do that in relation to a privacy claim, which is plainly civil in nature.
Under the Bill as it stands, the only safeguard for free speech and a free press based in this country would be the power to disapply French privacy law preserved by Clause 14(3) on the ground that it would conflict with British principles of public policy—a power which our courts would understandably be reluctant to exercise.
Because the definition of defamation-related claims excluded from Part III, in Clause 13(2), is so narrowly and technically worded, it would not cover a claim based on these foreign torts, even though—as I have sought to explain—they would unnecessarily interfere with the right to free expression. An alleged victim could therefore use our courts to obtain a remedy for conduct not regarded as unlawful under our own legal system and in circumstances which would severely chill free expression.
That was the very mischief which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wisely—if I may say so respectfully—recognised in Committee as needing to be dealt with in relation to defamation claims. It is the very same mischief because a foreign privacy law is at least as capable as a foreign libel law of unnecessarily chilling free speech and a free press. Indeed, I would say that it is much more capable of chilling free speech in the absence of a public interest defence and given the power to obtain prior restraint on publication in the form of interlocutory privacy injunctions.
It may be said that, in the context of the European Economic Area, plaintiffs may, under the Brussels and Lugano Conventions, readily enforce foreign judgments based on foreign torts in this country. That is true. But it seems to me to be one thing to facilitate the enforcement of foreign judgments and quite another to allow our own courts to be used to adjudicate and grant remedies in circumstances which I have described. Moreover, many examples of foreign torts menacing press freedom come from countries beyond the European Economic Area, and therefore beyond the Brussels and Lugano Conventions.
For example, I happened to be in New Delhi in January in court to hear an application by the so-called "Bandit Queen", Phoolan Devi, for an injunction to prevent Channel 4 from exhibiting a film about her life, not only in India but also in the UK and, indeed, world-wide. Her claim was founded partly upon a privacy tort recently developed out of the Indian constitution by the Supreme Court of India. Happily, the case was settled amicably. But if this Bill is enacted in its present form, then it would become possible for another "Bandit Queen" to sue here on an Indian tort of privacy unknown to our law, to prevent a film from being shown here.
In one respect, I recognise that my amendment may be too wide. That is in referring to confidentiality. There are well-developed remedies under our law for breaches of confidence in commercial and other areas of life. It would therefore seem unnecessary and undesirable to refer to confidentiality and I would readily accept that that should be omitted from my amendment. However, that apart, I very much hope that the amendment will commend itself to the House. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the principle of Part III of the Bill is that the double actionability rule should be abolished and that foreign law should be applied to foreign torts. The Special Public Bill Committee heard a broad range of evidence and decided to exclude defamation from the general rule. That had been the view of the Law Commission, and the Committee responded positively to representations it received from the press.
I do not accept that a similar case can be made—certainly, it was not made to the Committee—for excluding foreign breach of confidence or privacy claims. If the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, it is unduly insular to suppose that foreign laws protecting rights of privacy are beyond the pale. Out of caution I should perhaps declare an interest in these matters as a member of the appointments commission which appoints members to the Press Complaints Commission. The Press Complaints Commission represents a system of self-regulation of the press with a majority of lay over press members.
My position is that I remain a supporter of self-regulation of the press, provided that it remains effective and the public can have confidence in it. At present I am unconvinced that we require a statutory law of privacy in this country. On the other hand, I certainly do not regard a foreign law of privacy as untoward and therefore one that we should not enforce in appropriate cases in this country. Therefore I oppose the amendment.
I have confidence that the courts will have no difficulty in developing the public policy exception in Clause 14(3); I do not agree with the noble Lord that they would show any reluctance to do so. I, too, am confident that the courts would take into account freedom of expression as a value to be protected as a matter of public policy in any privacy based claim from abroad which seemed to imperil freedom of expression in this country.
Further, Clause 13(2) does not call for the amendment that the noble Lord proposes. I am well content for the courts to be allowed to develop, by decision, the existing words in Clause 13(2) (b),
"any claim under the law of any other country corresponding to or otherwise in the nature of a claim",
defined in Clause 13(2) (a).
In my view also, foreign torts protecting reputation and self-esteem would be caught by the language of Clause 13(2) (b), and there could be a danger in attempting an exhaustive list lest it be argued subsequently that any claim not expressly included must

1415
have been intended to be excluded. For my part, the broad language of the existing Clause 13(2) is preferable. For these reasons I oppose the amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I intervene in this interesting discussion to make two points. First, we are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, and that convention includes a right of privacy. Secondly, the European Convention on Human Rights, on the matter of privacy, does include a public interest exception. I draw the conclusion which I believe follows from those two observations.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, that brief intervention was extremely valuable. I follow the line that my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg took for a very different reason. Before I develop that reason, perhaps I may raise one very small point; it may be completely incorrect. I had no opportunity of putting down an amendment on this possibly trivial matter, but I owe it to the noble and learned Lord at least to draw the matter to his attention. Clause 13(2) (a) of the Bill contains the words,
"slander, slander of title, slander of goods or other malicious falsehood".
Slander does not of itself amount to malicious falsehood. Libel does not of itself amount to malicious falsehood. It is an entirely separate tort which is meant to cover the situation where someone deliberately tells a falsehood and does so maliciously so as to cause harm. Therefore, it being a separate tort, I do not understand the word "other".
Having made that minor technical point, I turn to the root of the amendment, I oppose the amendment because I should like us in this country to have experience of actions which protect the privacy of the individual. I say that because I hope it will encourage any government, whatever their complexion, to bring in a law of privacy.
Many of us realise that men in public life have some sort of reputation which has to be kept. All of us who are in public life realise that. This country suffers—as do many other countries, including the United States—from the fact that you will never get men and women of calibre, who are capable of serving their country well, when their rights of privacy are from day to day absolutely despoiled in the press.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Mishcon: We have experienced enough for me not to give examples. There are people who are capable of public service in this country who have been not only embarrassed by publicity but hounded out of office as a result of it. I therefore hope that if we have experience of foreign laws that protect individuals—matters of public policy and public interest excepted—we shall then say (we may not follow fully the example of France which was given by the noble Lord, Lord Lester) that in our own way we shall carve out a proper law of privacy to enable people of ability and repute to know that their
1416
families will not be portrayed on the front pages of a newspaper, nor the fact that one of their children happens to take drugs.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I, too, seek to oppose the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. So far as the first part of the amendment is concerned, I consider that the amendment adopted by the Committee is sufficiently wide to cover with sufficient precision the area of defamation, and claims like defamation, which it was thought right to exclude from the general provisions of this part of the Bill. The general principle of this part of the Bill has been to depart from the rule of double actionability which hitherto prevailed in such claims and to use the appropriate applicable law, that law to be determined in the light of the circumstances set out in Clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill.
The Committee that deliberated on this Bill decided that it was wise to give quite a considerable amount of flexibility to the court of the forum by allowing not only the whole case to be the subject of consideration in relation to an applicable law but also separate consideration of whether any particular issue arising in the case should be dealt with by a different applicable law from that which might apply to another issue in the case. So a very flexible system has been set up under this Bill in accordance with the views of the special Committee that dealt with it in detail.
Against that background it seems to me that clear principle is required if one is to make an exception. Having considered this matter carefully, the Committee concluded that it was wise to make an exception in respect of defamation—it received quite cogent evidence on that point—in that statements made in this country might well infringe defamation laws in other countries; and that it was accordingly wise, in the light of the circumstances with which the industry is faced, to make such an exception. In fact, that exception, as approved by the Committee, goes beyond what was inserted by the Law Commission. It is a wider exception than the Law Commission proposed. That having been done, I submit that that is where it should stop.
So far as concerns the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, your Lordships will see that it does not depend on anything to do with statements. The latter part of his amendment concerns infringements in relation to privacy and confidentiality. In my submission, it would be quite wrong, having regard to the general principle to which I referred, to give effect in this Bill to that amendment.
I have recently looked at the Morris v. Beardmore decision in this House in connection with attempts by the police to go into a private residence. It is a case that has recently been referred to by Anthony Whittaker in The Times as having possibly been lost sight of in the debates about privacy in this country. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said in that case (recorded at page 464 in 1981 Appeal Cases)—which is related, as I said, to the question of police officers entering a private house—
"In formulating my reasons for allowing the appeal and restoring the decision of the magistrates, who acted with excellent judgment in dismissing the charges, I have deliberately used an adjective

1417
which has an unfamiliar ring in the ears of common lawyers. I have described the right of privacy as 'fundamental'. I do so for two reasons. First, it is apt to describe the importance attached by the common law to the privacy of the home. It is still true, as was said by Lord Camden, CJ … in … 1765".
The noble and learned Lord then quotes those words and goes on to refer to the European Convention on Human Rights. So, the common law of England has long recognised a right to the privacy of one's home. I submit that it would be quite wrong to exclude privacy in the way proposed by this amendment. The way in which the Bill has been dealt with by the Committee amply protects any right of that kind.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Heme Hill, once more used a phrase which attracted a certain amount of attention when he used it last. He spoke of "chilling" the press of this country. I believe I am right in saying that in his concluding example he suggested that under this Bill the Indian lady could have required the courts of this country to prevent a film with the kind of subject matter of the case in Delhi from being shown here. So far as that goes, this Bill is concerned with events that happen outside this country. It is in different law districts of this country or outside the country that the matter would arise. I believe that the Bill has been left in an appropriate state by the Committee. This amendment goes too far in trying to restrict the principle of the Bill.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for drawing my attention to the use of the word "other". I should like to consider that point carefully. We may possibly return to it at Third Reading. It is the kind of issue that might be appropriate for that occasion. In the meantime, I urge your Lordships not to accept this amendment should the noble Lord decide to press it to a Division.
In the course of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, made reference to certain decisions of the Government. Obviously, he knows more about those than I do. The question of what should be the law in this country is a matter of concern but different from the particular matter with which we are concerned today.
I hope that, if the noble Lord presses his amendment, your Lordships will not accept it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps I may say on the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—I invite consideration of this point—that the word "other" was used in relation to slander of goods. I have a very dim, distant and therefore probably wholly unreliable recollection that in regard to that tort malice is required.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. That is probably in accordance with the authorities as they still stand, notwithstanding the length of time to which my noble and learned friend referred. There may still be a question
1418
of whether, in the context, the word "other" is the most appropriate one. I should certainly like to consider that point and I am grateful to my noble and learned friend.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I feel that I owe some kind of apology to those noble Lords who are not legally qualified and may find this discussion somewhat difficult to follow. Certainly, for myself, this has been an important and interesting debate.
Let me say first that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that the way forward in protecting the right to privacy in this country is through effective voluntary machinery—the Press Complaints Commission—and the development of common law. The case of Morris v. Beardmore referred to by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and, I believe, the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, in the Spycatcher case, indicate that there is potential for growth in the common law in further protecting privacy, including media intrusions of privacy. So it is common ground that there is scope for development of the common law and the use of the Press Complaints Commission. So the real issue is about what our courts and laws should do where a foreign privacy law goes much further than would the developing English common law.
It is probably my own lack in grasping what has been said, but I continue not to understand at all the difference in principle between disallowing foreign libel laws where they do not match English libel law on the ground that foreign libel laws menace free speech unnecessarily and yet allowing foreign privacy laws which are not matched by English privacy laws, even though they too might, in a particular case, menace free speech law unnecessarily. It seems to me that both kinds of interference with free speech are simply different forms of interference arising from foreign laws. I fail to understand the principle which indicates why one should be excluded and the other admitted even though there is a mis-match between the foreign system and the English system.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, drew attention to the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees both the right to privacy and the right to free speech. But that by itself does not provide adequate guidance to English judges, even if it were part of our law, as to how to deal with the problem that the amendment raises. I should make clear—it is a defect in the amendment—that the amendment is intended to cover only statements made by the media in this country of exactly the kind that troubled the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in relation to the law of defamation.
I should like to reflect on all that has been said in the course of this short but interesting debate and consider whether there is any need to return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Transitional provision and savings]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 41, at end insert ("including acts or omissions where the knowledge required to bring an action for damages in respect of any claim for loss or damage they occasion is not available until after the commencement of this Part").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. They are all related, as I shall attempt to show.
As your Lordships will know, I am not a lawyer and would not normally intervene in legal matters of this complexity. However, your Lordships may recall that I have a long-standing connection with the construction industry. I was asked by a construction company to raise these matters for clarification due to certain fears it had arising out of the Bill. The company is called Cape. It is a fire engineering company and supplies fireproof materials to the construction industry.
Although I shall refer to the company specifically, its position is quite general in relation to other companies. Cape used to own a company in South Africa which supplied asbestos to customers in the United States of America. That company was sold in 1982 to a South African interest. Cape has been named as the defendant in numerous personal injuries claims in the United States on the basis of United States law in respect of the damage caused by the asbestos supplied by the South African subsidiary. It resisted those claims on the grounds that it has no presence or assets in the United States and is not prepared to submit to the jurisdiction of the US courts. A case was brought against Cape in the High Court in England in 1988—Cape v. Adams —and the judgments in the High Court and the Court of Appeal confirmed that Cape was not liable for the default judgments made against it in the United States. It was confirmed by those judgments that litigants in the United States could not penetrate what is called the "corporate veil" which exists between a parent company and its subsidiaries under English law.
Cape and its lawyers, who drafted these amendments for me, fear that a claim could be brought against the company. When a cause of action arises in the case of industrial disease where there has been exposure to asbestos, the cause for action may not arise until many years after the exposure when the effects of the exposure manifest themselves. In some cases that can take as long as 25 to 30 years. It is feared that the Bill as it stands may leave a company which supplied asbestos to the United States many years ago, prior to the passing of the Bill, exposed to claims arising after the Bill is passed.
As many noble Lords will be aware, a person may be exposed to asbestos as a result of stripping out material from an old building. That may occur at any time because many buildings throughout the world still contain asbestos. In this country the exposure could take place after the passing of the Bill, even though the supplier ceased to have any control over the material many years prior to the exposure. In the United States and Italy, for instance, a parent company is fully liable for the debts of its subsidiaries. In effect there is no
1420
corporate veil. The Bill will place English companies in a situation where they will cease to be protected by the laws of England in respect of acts carried out by subsidiaries abroad. Also, the Bill makes no reference to damages, which is extremely important when a company is exposed to the laws of the United States where damages may be severe.
Leaving the general background, I rum specifically to Amendment No. 3. In the Second Reading debate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the Bill was not retrospective. The amendment seeks to make that clear on the face of the Bill rather than in the columns of the Official Report. However, this afternoon I received a letter from the noble and learned Lord—I thank him for his courtesy in sending it to me—which relieves my anxieties in part on this matter. However, at the same time I should like his observations on retrospection to be recorded in the Official Report.
Amendment No. 4 relates to what is known as the corporate veil. For instance, in America liability against a defendant can be established on grounds alien to English law. In broad terms, any parent company obtaining a financial benefit from the activities of a subsidiary can be made liable for the activities of that subsidiary and can be made responsible for any damages awarded against the subsidiary. That is achieved in various states in America by piercing the corporate veil. In England, while that may occur, it is rare and was expressly not allowed in the case of Cape v. Adams where the supply of asbestos was by a South African subsidiary. That should be compared with the practice in the United States, where, on the same facts, American courts entered judgment against Cape for the activities of its subsidiaries even though Cape did not itself supply the product. If the English courts apply American law to the cases in England, it is part and parcel of that law that a parent company can be made liable for the acts of its subsidiaries. English courts will have to apply that law if the Bill is enacted. Amendment No. 3 asks for clarification.
Amendment No. 5 refers to damages. Mr. John Taylor, the Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department, wrote to Michael Grylls MP on this matter some weeks ago. Mr. Taylor said that very large damages will not be awarded by English courts, as they are in America. However, the Bill offers no protection in that respect. I take it that the damages will be entirely a matter for the court.
The danger to Cape and other companies lies in the United States where, according to the current issue of the Economist published at the weekend, asbestos victims in the United States are five times as likely to sue as they are in the United Kingdom. Great danger lies there to companies in this position. If Mr. Taylor is saying that, for the purposes of establishing liability between the parties, the applicable law as set out in Clause 11 of the Bill should apply but that such law should not apply to the assessment of damages which would be in accordance with English law, it would be better if the Bill were to say so clearly on its face. I am told that the public policy provisions would not apply under paragraph 13(a) (i) as there is at least one English court decision enforcing Texas levels of damages.
It is not my intention to press the amendments today. My intention is to probe the meaning of the part of the Bill to which I have referred for the comfort of Cape and for the comfort of other British companies which might find themselves in the same position, especially in the United States. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I take Amendment No. 3 and then deal briefly with the other amendments. Amendment No. 3 suggests inserting at the end of Clause 13 the words:
"including acts or omissions where the knowledge required to bring an action for damages in respect of any claim for loss or damage they occasion is not available until after the commencement of this Part".
The provision in the Bill states:
"Nothing in this Part applies to acts or omissions giving rise to a claim which occur before the commencement of this Part".
I do not think that one can have knowledge of acts or omissions before the acts or omissions occur. Accordingly, the amendment is already more than covered by Clause 14(1). As the noble Lord said, I sought to explain that to him in a letter which I wish he had received even earlier.
With regard to Amendment No. 4, questions of the liability of a holding company for its subsidiary will be an issue which will be separate from the issue of straightforward liability in the area to which the case referred. I would think it highly likely that the correct way to apply this Bill to that would be by determining the relationships between the holding company and the subsidiary on the basis of the law governing that particular relationship in the place where the relationship was constituted.
With regard to damages, issues relating to the quantum or measure of damages are at present and will continue under Part III to be governed by the law of the forum; in other words, by the law of one of the three jurisdictions in the United Kingdom. Issues of this kind are regarded as procedural and, as such, are covered by Clause 14(3) (b).
It follows from this that the kind of awards to which the noble Lord referred of damages made in certain states, in particular in parts of the United States, will not become a feature of our legal system by virtue of Part III. Our courts will continue to apply our own rules on quantum of damages even in the context of a tort case where the court decides that the "applicable law" should be some foreign system of law so far as concerns the merits of the claim.
Some aspects of the law of damages are not regarded as procedural and, in accordance with the views of the Law Commissions in their report on the subject, Part III does not alter this. These aspects concern so-called "heads of damages"—the basic matter which is being compensated for—such as special damage relating to direct financial loss. Whether a particular legal system permits such a head of damage is not regarded as procedural but substantive and therefore not
1422
automatically subject to the law of the forum. This seems right given the intimate connection between such a concept and the particular nature of the case in issue. But again, I foresee no significant increase in awards of damages because a particular head of damage permitted by some foreign system of law would continue, so far as the quantum allocated to it in any finding is concerned, to be regulated by our own domestic law of damages.
I hope the noble Lord will feel reassured on the three matters he has raised and will feel able in particular to withdraw Amendment No. 3.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am always reassured when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says something to me, no matter what it is. Not being a lawyer I shall study Hansard tomorrow to see just how and where I have been put right. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]

Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Leeds Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1995
4.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 9th February be approved [11 th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the order was approved in another place on 6th March. It is one of four required to wind up the Leeds Development Corporation. Its effect is straightforward. It simply revokes the 1988 order which designated the Leeds Urban Development Area and established the development corporation.
Revocation is in two stages. That part of the 1988 order which designated the urban development area is to be revoked on 1st April. The part which established the development corporation is to be revoked on 1st July.
I should like briefly to explain why there is a two-stage wind-up process and why we need four orders in total to wind up the development corporation. The intention is that the Leeds Development Corporation will cease to exercise any operational functions after 31st March. It is appropriate therefore that the urban development area should cease to exist as from 1st April. There will then be a three-month non-operational period during which time the corporation, with just a few staff, will prepare its final accounts and report and wind up its affairs. Finally, the corporation will be dissolved on 1st July.
None of the other three orders required to wind up the corporation is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. A dissolution order will be made at the end of March requiring the corporation to cease to act from 1st April and dissolving it on 1st July. That order is not subject to any parliamentary procedure.
The other two orders were laid before the House on 24th February and are subject to the negative resolution procedure. One order transfers planning functions from the corporation to Leeds City Council at the end of March. The other transfers to the Secretary of State for the Environment any assets or liabilities that the corporation has not disposed of by wind-up. This is a necessary safety net to ensure that there is a residual home for any remaining assets and liabilities.
I have explained what the area and constitution order does and how it ties in with the other wind-up orders. I should now like to explain why the Government are now winding up the Leeds Development Corporation: indeed, why we intend to wind up all 12 UDCs in England over the next three years.
I must make quite clear that this is not because they have failed to meet the objectives we set them: quite the reverse. It is precisely because the Leeds Development Corporation has largely done what it set out to do, and others will have done so over the next three years, that we now are able to embark on this wind-up programme.
UDCs were always intended to have limited lives—some shorter than others, depending upon the extent of the problems they faced. They were set up in order to provide a focused approach to the physical and economic regeneration of particular run-down urban areas; to give these areas a much-needed shot in the arm. At the same time, we have looked to UDCs to establish a solid base for sustainable regeneration that other bodies, both in the public and private sectors, can build upon after they have gone.
This is what Leeds and other development corporations have done: mainly by way of assembling land, providing infrastructure, facilitating much-needed development, and improving the local environment. An important part of their remit has been to lever in as much private investment as possible. Their records in this regard are impressive. Take the case of Leeds. In spending £55.7 million of public money, the development corporation has drawn in £350 million of private sector investment, including £45 million from abroad. That gives a ratio of public to private investment of 1:6.3.
I was pleased to have the opportunity to see for myself how the corporation has transformed the area when I visited Leeds in January. I should like to highlight some of its achievements. In Holbeck, life has been brought back into an important conservation area by restoring historic workshops and redeveloping adjacent sites. The south side of Boar Lane has been transformed into a smart office and hotel location. The Calls and Riverside is now a lively business, residential and restaurant district.
In the Kirkstall Valley, the former power station ash tip has been transformed into a 10 hectare nature reserve. A new village heart has been put back in Hunslet with the new Hunslet Green development,
1424
which has turned 20 hectares of derelict land into a new urban village complete with new shopping and sporting facilities. Under construction at the moment, and due to open at Easter 1996, is the £42 million Royal Armouries Museum. The development corporation was instrumental in persuading the Royal Armouries to move to Leeds, and the development is expected to attract 1 million visitors a year.
I could go on to list many other outstanding examples of the corporation's achievements, but I think I have made my point. The corporation has a record to be proud of, and I congratulate its board and officials for their remarkable achievements in under seven years.
I should mention also that the corporation has made every effort to ensure that its exit is an orderly one, and that suitable succession arrangements are in place. The city council, as well as inheriting the corporation's planning functions, is taking over responsibility for maintaining amenity areas landscaped by the corporation. English Partnerships intends to take over responsibility for a number of projects that will not be completed by the end of March. In both cases, the corporation is paying an agreed endowment sum to its successor.
We charged the Leeds Development Corporation with the task of pump-priming regeneration of its area and it has achieved that objective admirably. We asked it to achieve an orderly exit, and it has done that also. The time has now come, therefore, to wind up the corporation, and we need to approve the area and constitution order to do that. I recommend this order to the House for approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 9th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Viscount Ullswater.)
4.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing this order. I say at the outset that it is welcome, not perhaps entirely for the reasons that the noble Viscount adduced but because we believe that the proper way to develop inner cities is in partnership between councils, local authorities and the private sector. They can do that by themselves without the need for urban development corporations. Indeed, we welcome the fact that the development of the centre of Leeds is basically going to move along the lines that we would recommend, as the noble Viscount has described.
The question then arises as to whether this urban development corporation has worked in any meaningful sense. Indeed, do UDCs work? I would seek to define "work" a little more closely. Has it really helped to regenerate previously derelict inner city areas which would otherwise not have been regenerated? Has it improved the lot of local residents? Has it created employment that otherwise would not have been created? I believe that those are three good criteria by which to measure the success or otherwise of any urban development corporation, and in particular the one which is before us today; namely, the Leeds Development Corporation.

1425
I shall not talk about the others, but as regards the Leeds Development Corporation I believe that the position is uncertain. We ask ourselves what it has achieved in seven years of existence. As the noble Viscount will know, there was already a good working partnership between Leeds City Council and the private sector. I ask your Lordships this question: what would have happened if the resources which have been made available to the UDC had been made available direct to Leeds City Council? Our belief is that Leeds would have achieved the same attraction of private funds because that is exactly what it did in the Asda development, which was near completion before the UDC came into existence.
The next question about Leeds is: what sort of jobs have been created? We have heard a figure of over 8,000 jobs. Perhaps the noble Viscount can help me on this matter. I cannot find anywhere a precise statement on whether these jobs are temporary or permanent. Do they relate to the unemployment position in Leeds, which is essentially that of male heads of households? Are the jobs planting trees? Are they jobs in economic and public relations consultancies, in which many have been employed by the UDC and perhaps to good purpose?
I hope the noble Viscount will confirm that these are not jobs which are in pursuit of the development corporation's housing strategy for the simple reason that the corporation had no housing strategy. For an urban development corporation to set out to regenerate an inner city without having such a strategy seems to me very odd, to say the least.
Neither did the Leeds Development Corporation pay much attention to social projects. Will the noble Viscount confirm that of the total expenditure of that corporation only 0.2 per cent. went on any project of a social nature? Will the noble Viscount also confirm that this and the housing question were the objects of a severely critical report from the National Audit Office published on 27th July 1993? So everything is not quite as successful as the noble Viscount described.
The noble Viscount said that he visited Leeds. He will have reflected on and heard the opinions of my honourable friends in another place who said that in many instances the Leeds Development Corporation neglected local small businesses which are precisely the kind of businesses which are required for regeneration of that nature. The corporation is very keen on big developments, but not very keen on local, small businesses.
Generally speaking, have UDCs worked? We understand from the noble Viscount that there will be an orderly wind-up of all 12 UDCs over the next three years. Have the Government lost faith in the whole exercise? We hear very little about UDCs nowadays. They used to be trumpeted as the great new weapon by which the inner cities would be regenerated. There is none of that now. There is none of the publicity or hype that we had previously. The fact of the matter is that urban development corporations have had a difficult time—not least because they have been operating in an economic climate which has not been favourable. I
1426
accept that, but given that the Government are to wind up all of the UDCs, I must ask whether they have lost faith in them. If they have lost faith, I think that it would be more honest for them to say so instead of using the fig-leaf of saying that they were simply pump-priming operations which were to be handed over to the local authorities when ready.
I said at the beginning of my speech—I say it again—that we welcome the order because we believe that the future regeneration of our inner cities lies with local authorities working in partnership with the private sector. It was for that reason that I put my questions to the noble Viscount in a constructive manner and in the hope that he will be able to answer them.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I should like to contribute briefly because we are talking about my favourite home-town and I have had some experience of its affairs in a public capacity. We are also talking about what we always used to call "quangos", but they are now referred to as NDPBs—non-departmental public bodies. Given that at the end of this week I finish 10 years' service on the Commission for the New Towns, which is one such body, and I currently chair the Louth Hull Housing Action Trust, perhaps I should declare an interest in the subject.
To appreciate fully the extent of the achievements of the urban development corporation, I believe that one has physically to visit the area in question. It would be even better if one could not only see the area as it is now but know what it was like previously. I can say without any doubt that the transformation—I use that word deliberately—is quite remarkable. Indeed, I commend to your Lordships a splendid illustrated booklet on Leeds. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will make a copy available to any noble Lord who wishes to see it. It graphically illustrates the "befores" and "afters". It is most impressive.
It has always been said that if one were to give development money to the local authority, it would do the job just as well. But it is not like that. I have worked for a local authority. Indeed, I was the leader of the authority in Leeds for many years—and I know about this. Other Members of your Lordships' House who are in the Chamber at the moment could also tell the House about the constraints upon local authorities when trying to carry out all the functions and services for which they are responsible, when trying to keep an even balance between what is done in one area as compared with another and when trying to match up to the pressures placed upon them by all of their citizens. It is a hard thing to do. And it is not just a question of money. Without breaching any confidences, I can tell the House that it is simply not the case that previously it was only money that prevented us achieving all that we had hoped. Today I can compare my city with any other in the country, but it was not always like that and it was not simply a question of money.
The previous Labour leadership discussed with me at great length what more might be done and how it might be done. Although there were political pressures at the time, when the money became available through the establishment of the development corporation, many

1427
were more than happy that that money was coming in. In fact, the leader and the deputy leader of the city council are members of the board of the development corporation, and I pay credit to them. I am sure that their contributions to what is a small board played no small part in the achievements that are there for all to see.
Perhaps I may comment also on the board itself. According to the proceedings of another place, the chairman of the board was abused in a debate. He does not deserve that because he has done a splendid job of work. He is a most able man. Indeed, I hope that we shall always find such men coming forward on to such bodies and playing their part in helping to regenerate our cities. In fact, all members of the board are distinguished local people. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, is a member of that board, and no one can question her abilities and what she has to offer. Therefore, I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, although the point that he made is always made in such circumstances.
Another feature of the work of development corporations is that when money comes into a city, not only does it enable an area or areas of that city to be improved, but it means that the resources of the local authority can be better used to meet its other objectives. I know that that point, too, is appreciated.
The Minister gave us some examples of what he thought were the successes of the corporation. I shall not detain your Lordships by speaking of others, except to mention that one of my favourites is what has happened in Hunslet Green which was a problem area throughout all my years in the city. Any noble Lord who visits the area now and talks to the people who live there and to those in its forum will be able to understand just what the corporation has done and what it has meant to a far greater extent than is possible simply by listening to what is said here today.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that there was no housing strategy. But I must advise him that 561 houses exist today that were not there previously. You can call that "strategy" or whatever, but I like what has happened very much indeed.
There is no doubt that, without the input of the development corporation, the city of Leeds would not now be set to receive the Royal Armouries which will mean so much to it. That is a wonderful example of a local authority, the private sector and the Government all putting in funds. It is a very happy story.
Perhaps I can tempt the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to visit Leeds to see what has happened along the riverside and, who knows, even to stay at one of the hotels there. That part of the city was previously derelict, but it is now delightful. Indeed, I would welcome the noble Lord to the city myself and would be glad to show him round if he needed it.
I must not go on. If my enthusiasm is showing through too much, I hope that your Lordships will make allowances for the fact that I am talking about my home-town. I do not need to go there to see it because I know it. Like my parents, I was born there. I was brought up there, and I am very proud of it.
1428
I should like to finish by saying one or two thank-yous. I should like to thank the Government for putting in the funds in this way. We would not have had all the extra jobs and the millions of pounds of private sector investment without it. None of it would have happened without that. The Secretary of State who made the appointments to the board deserves congratulations on that. I have already said how much I appreciate what the leadership of the city council has brought to the party. We should not let this occasion pass without a word of praise for its officers. The chief executive, Martin Eagland, is an outstanding officer. Indeed, they have all done a fine job, as have all involved in businesses, the professions and, indeed, the community at large, 300 of whom turned out last Friday to say farewell. The Secretary of State came along. It was a splendid occasion.
There are those who seek to belittle what has happened. Politicians, as they did in another place, seek to score points. There are those who argue about the precise number of jobs that are being created. How many thousand was it really? How many hundreds of millions of pounds have gone in? Was it more or less than has been said? People can argue about that if they like, but when all the talking is done, the reality is there for all to see. An important area of the City of Leeds has been transformed. I use that word again deliberately.
Where there has been dereliction for a long time, there is now much of which everyone in the city can be proud. Much more needs to be done in Leeds. It will henceforth be the responsibility of others to do it. I say merely that I cheer them on in their doing of it because I want to see everything possible done to make the city a better place than it is at the moment—good though it is in comparison with all others. I pay tribute to all concerned for a job very well done.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I welcome the contribution made to the debate by my noble friend Lord Bellwin. He has the knowledge and expertise which I certainly do not have, and so I welcome what he said. From the first he said that the transformation of the areas that the Leeds Development Corporation has tackled is remarkable.
Almost seven years ago the Government gave the Leeds Development Corporation the task of bringing back prosperity, business, jobs and housing to two very different areas of the city, at South Central Leeds and the Kirkstall Valley. It was given the powers and the resources to focus single-mindedly on removing the barriers which were preventing regeneration from taking place. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that the city council could of course have done that if it had been given the money. Perhaps it could have done, and perhaps it would have done in time, but, as my noble friend Lord Bellwin said, it was not just the money. It is not always just a question of money. The city council was looking at different priorities, and that makes it difficult for it to focus on any particular area. Hunslet Green was, I understand, an area of high-rise flats. The

1429
area was derelict for five years or more before the development corporation came along. So it is a question of when the regeneration would have taken place.
The corporation is dedicated to its task. It has shown the vision, focus and determination to solve the problems which were holding back progress. Its achievements in attracting investors and breathing new life into the city are there for all to see.
I gave some illustrations earlier of how the corporation has succeeded in regenerating particular areas of the city. I should now like to sum up its achievements with some key output figures, starting with jobs. During its lifetime the corporation has helped to create over 9,000 jobs. That figure is not one calculated by the corporation itself. It has been arrived at by independent economic consultants, based on a full survey of all completed developments within the designated urban development area. That influx of new jobs bodes well for the future and looks set to increase as new developments are completed and businesses consolidate and expand. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked whether the corporation really had created jobs where there were none before. That independent assessment of the number of jobs created is an important one to examine.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I wonder whether he could help me. As I understand it, his ministerial colleague in another place said that 8,300 jobs had been created. Does that mean that an extra thousand have been created in the past month or so?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the final report from the consultants indicated that there has been an increase of over 9,000 jobs during the existence of the development corporation, and so I can give the House an updated figure.
Some 561 houses, as my noble friend said, have been built within the urban development area, mainly in the riverside area and on the Hunslet Green development. Hunslet Green has been one of the fastest selling housing developments in the north of England. As well as low-cost houses for sale, the development includes 58 housing association dwellings for rent.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked whether only 0.2 per cent. of expenditure had been of a social nature. The spending on community projects totals £120,000, but the 58 housing association dwellings for rent represent a social benefit. That is an important part of the scheme.
Other key outputs include the reclamation of 68 hectares of land; the completion of 11.4 kilometres of highways and footpaths; and the creation of 366,000 square metres of non-housing floorspace, with planning consent granted for a further 170,000 square metres. Those are impressive achievements and ones of which the corporation can be proud.
Now that the Leeds Development Corporation has so successfully fulfilled its remit we are able to wind it up. Our aim now is to secure an orderly exit of all 12 UDCs in England over the next three years. In that respect, the
1430
lessons Teamed from this first wind-up will, I am sure, prove very useful. Furthermore, my department has commissioned consultants to evaluate the impact of Leeds Development Corporation, together with the next two corporations which will be winding up. That will permit an objective, overall assessment of the corporation's efficiency and effectiveness and determine the extent to which strategic regeneration goals have been met.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that there was a National Audit Office report in 1993 which was critical of UDCs. I shall read out the press notice of 25th August 1993 relating to that NAO report. It says:
"Sir John Bourn, head of the National Audit Office, told Parliament today that, overall, urban development corporations have made valuable contributions towards regenerating their areas, with significant successes, although external factors, in particular the economic downturn, have had a crucial effect on the ability of corporations to deliver their intended outputs".
The quotation from Sir John Bourn backs up what I have been putting forward in the House.
In drawing this debate to a close perhaps I may once again commend the achievements of the Leeds Development Corporation in bringing new development and economic vitality to the city. I should like to express particular gratitude to the corporation's chairman, Peter Hartley, and his fellow board members, including, as my noble friend said, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and to its chief executive, Martin Eagland, and his dedicated staff. They have undertaken their task with considerable dedication. I know that they have worked hard and successfully met the objectives that we set them.
Although the Leeds Development Corporation is coming to its end, regeneration of the city will go on. Leeds has a great deal to offer and I trust that the public and private sectors will continue working in partnership to build upon the corporation's successes. But we must now see through the process of winding up the Leeds Development Corporation. To that end, I commend this order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1995
4.40 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Boundary Commission for Wales for completing on time its difficult, complex and demanding task. Since the report was completed and submitted to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary the commission's Deputy Chairman, Mr. Justice Pill, has been promoted to the Court of Appeal. This means that under the terms of the Act he will no longer be able to serve as deputy chairman. I am sure

1431
that your Lordships will wish to join with me in paying tribute to the contribution he has made during his period in office.
The order is intended to give effect without modification to the final recommendations for new parliamentary constituencies contained in the fourth periodical report of the Boundary Commission for Wales. Article 2 of the order substitutes the 40 constituencies described in the schedule for the present 38 constituencies in Wales. The draft order has already been approved in another place and, if it is approved by your Lordships today, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will submit it to Her Majesty in Council to be made. The order will come into operation on the fourteenth day after the day on which it is made but will not affect the existing boundaries until the first general election held thereafter.
The four parliamentary boundary commissions are constituted under the first schedule to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. Under the 1986 Act, they were required to carry out a general review of parliamentary constituency boundaries not less than 10 or more than 15 years from the date of the submission of their last report. In 1992, Parliament decided to increase the frequency of general reviews and the Boundary Commission Act 1992 provides that a general review should be carried out not less than eight or more than 12 years after the submission of the previous report.
The Boundary Commission for Scotland has also submitted its report, which will be debated by your Lordships as the next item of business. The Boundary Commission for England has not yet submitted its report to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I understand that it is unlikely to do so before April. Nor has the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland yet submitted its report.
The Boundary Commission for Wales began the present review on 9th November 1993 and completed its work in December 1994. The process by which the commission arrived at its recommendations is governed by a set of rules for the redistribution of seats. Those rules are set out in Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act. The rules give the commission a wide discretion in fulfilling its statutory obligations while taking account of local ties, administrative boundaries and geographical considerations.
Inevitably, in any area considered by the commission there are a range of possible options for the drawing of parliamentary constituency boundaries. Often a compromise has to be found. Local opinion may be strongly divided, even on occasions along party political lines. During the review the commission held local inquiries in every county except Mid-Glamorgan, where only one objection to its provisional recommendations was received. Your Lordships will appreciate therefore that there has been a great deal of public consultation before the formulation of the commission's final recommendations and one has only to read the report to appreciate the care which it has taken in conducting the review.
I turn now to the recommendations. The two substantive changes to emerge from the report are the recommendations that there should be additional seats
1432
in Clwyd and Dyfed. These recommendations have arisen from the calculation of a theoretical entitlement of seats for each county. This theoretical entitlement is the electorate of the county at the enumeration date, divided by the electoral quota for Wales as a whole. In Clwyd that theoretical entitlement was 5.55 seats and in Dyfed it was 4.74 seats. These figures were rounded up to the nearest whole number, six and five respectively.
The commission looked very hard at alternative options that would have avoided an increase in the number of Welsh seats. One way of avoiding an increase might have been to adopt schemes which straddled county boundaries and the commission gave careful considerations to such possibilities. However, it rejected them upon an application of Rules 6 and 7 together with Rule 4. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that Rule 4, in its application to Wales, requires that so far as is practicable county boundaries should not be crossed. Rule 5 permits a departure from the "strict application of Rule 4" in the two circumstances there specified but these do not allow the commission complete freedom to depart from Rule 4 to achieve electoral equality.
In that respect, there is an important difference between the rules as they apply to England and to Wales on the one hand and to Scotland on the other. In its application to Scotland, Rule 4 merely required that regard be had to the boundaries of local authority areas. That provided the Boundary Commission for Scotland with a good deal more freedom in drawing up constituencies.
The additional seats in Clwyd and Dyfed have necessitated substantial boundary changes in those counties. Elsewhere in Wales, the commission has recommended no change to the boundaries of 27 constituencies. Apart from the changes in Clwyd and Dyfed, therefore, the only changes recommended by the commission are to two constituencies in South Glamorgan to reflect a small change in local government ward boundaries. The commission has also recommended that the name of one constituency in Powys should be changed. Modest though these changes may be, they caused considerable local debate. The issues were fully aired at local inquiries following which the commission decided to recommend the adoption of its final recommendations.
The commission considers that, once the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 comes into force, it may be appropriate in parts of Wales to hold interim reviews to consider possible realignments of the constituency boundaries it is now recommending. However, following consultations, it has said that it does not expect this to be appropriate before the next general election.
As I said, it is clear that the commission has approached the tasks given to it by Parliament with meticulous care and attention. That was recognised in the debate on the report in another place. Such conduct is only what we would have expected from a totally impartial body of this kind. I therefore have no hesitation in commending the commission's final recommendations to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for clearly setting out the details of the order. Indeed, it was helpful because in many cases he was able to use exactly the same words as his colleagues in the Commons. Therefore, I was able to read his speech before he actually made it.
We on these Benches accept the way in which the boundary commissions have been set up. We also accept the way in which the determination of constituency boundaries has been separated from government and, largely, from Parliament. Clearly, the approval of the orders is almost a formality. It is right that the commissions should be so independent and that the Government should have recommended to Parliament that the orders be accepted without modification. We certainly shall not oppose them.
However, I must point out that the orders before the House are somewhat fragile. The considerations of the boundary commission have taken place at the same time as the reorganisation of local government in Wales. As a result, Rules 4 and 5, referred to by the noble and learned Lord—which prohibit, except in exceptional circumstances, the crossing of county boundaries in setting parliamentary boundaries—refer to county boundaries which, in a very short time, will no longer exist. Therefore, we have new boundaries set for a certain number of counties in Wales—Clwyd and Dyfed are the two that I have in mind—which have been distorted to some extent by existing county boundaries which will no longer exist. That has perhaps resulted in one more seat in North Wales than might otherwise have been justified by the numbers. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will not be pleased with that conclusion, but that is certainly the effect of this peculiar, fragile, and short-lived boundary commission report which is before the House.
Of course, it is welcome that 27 of the seats will not be changed in any way. I do not suppose that anyone will worry about the change of the name from Montgomery to Montgomeryshire. But, even so, it seems strange that we must have such boundary commissions with that degree of formality when we all know that there will have to be interim reviews very soon. With that very minor caveat, we welcome the order.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I have two brief questions rather than comments to put. I will not follow the noble Lord down the route of the number of constituencies in the north because, obviously, one of them—the smallest—would be the constituency I previously represented in another place. I would not want my title in this place to be affected by a change in constituency name.
1434
The first question that I should like to ask refers to the nature and scope of the interim review which may follow. It would be most helpful to the House if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could indicate what scope and limitation there will be on the nature of that particular review and how things might have been different. The noble and learned Lord drew attention to the different situation in Scotland. It would be helpful if he could explain a little more fully the situation in Wales.
My second point relates to a direct interest of mine; namely, the promotion of the Welsh language. Where there are two names in regular usage, I believe that from now on the boundary commission should use both the Welsh language and the English language form whenever it designates the name of a place.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I have a brief intervention to make. I have no quarrel with the recommendations in the order. However, I believe that I detect one or two slight spelling mistakes in place names. On page 6, under the section relating to the tiny constituency of Pontypridd, "Rhydeflen" and "Rhydfelen" are both mentioned in line 6. Of course, one of those must be wrong. I suspect it is the first one. It should be Rhydfelen. Further, halfway down the same page under the heading "Cardiff Central", I believe that the name "Adamsdown" should be Adamstown; in other words it should be spelt with "t" and not a "d". Then, a little further on, under the heading "The Vale of Glamorgan", "Gibbonsdown" should read Gibbonstown. I just hope that the correct spelling will be incorporated and that those mistakes—if they are mistakes—will not be set in concrete.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, one learns something every day in this House. If I may say so, my noble friend made points that I shall certainly draw to the attention of those who are responsible for setting the exact names to ensure that, when the order is made, it is made in the appropriate fashion.
I turn now to the points raised. Interim reviews and the new local government Act were mentioned. As I am sure noble Lords will recall, even when the new local government Act comes into force for Wales, the counties are preserved for the purposes of parliamentary constituencies and also for the purposes of Lords Lieutenant. The counties are not exactly the same as those which exist now, but the changes are relatively small. Therefore, although the commission could not take account of the new set up, the changes that are likely to be required by virtue of the new preserved counties will not be very large.
As regards the timing of the review, I must stress that that is a matter for the commission. As I indicated, the commission has already said that it does not envisage having such a review before the next general election. As to the scope of the review, that is also a matter for the commission. It is really up to the commission to decide what it wishes to do. Nonetheless, for the reasons I have given, it is not expected that the changes to be made will be substantial. They may be of significance to certain local populations, and so on, but I do not believe that they will be substantial.

1435
I noted the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, as I am sure did other noble Lords. The noble Lord is no doubt aware that much was done during the carrying out of the review by way of ensuring that people who wished to make their representations in the Welsh language had every opportunity to do so. Indeed, that is a further sign of the Government's commitment to ensure that such procedures are correct. With those observations, and sharing those made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the need for, and the commendable independence of, such a review, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1995
4.58 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not know whether, on this occasion, my speech has already been previewed elsewhere, but that may very well be so. Indeed, I see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is of that view.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: You cannot change it now!
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland received the fourth periodical report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland on 15th December 1994. The report recommended changes to parliamentary constituency boundaries in Scotland. I wish, at the outset, to thank the commission under its deputy chairman, Lord Davidson, for all the work it undertook. Again, the commission was presented with a challenging timetable. It fulfilled the task with admirable speed.
When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State received the report, he gave careful consideration to its recommendations. He decided to lay the draft Order in Council which is before the House today without making any modification to the commission's recommendations. The order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and was approved in another place. If the draft order is approved by your Lordships today, my right honourable friend the Secretary of state will submit it to Her Majesty in Council.
The new constituencies will take effect at the next general election. Any by-election in the intervening period will not be affected by the new arrangements and will be held on the existing boundaries. Since the last review was completed in 1983, as I said a few moments ago the Boundary Commission Act 1992 has been passed. That set a deadline of 31st December 1994 for the completion of the review. The review has been completed in time. The 1992 Act also reduced the length of time between each review in Scotland from between 10 to 15 years to between eight to 12 years, as in Wales.
1436
This will allow general elections to be held using constituencies which are based on—as far as possible—up-to-date electorates.
The Act also had a further implication in Scotland with the commission having to consider local authority boundaries which were in place on 1st June 1994. This meant that the commission could not take into account the effects of reorganisation of local government in Scotland. The commission decided at the outset of its review that Scotland was adequately represented with 72 constituencies. It therefore did not propose to increase the number of seats. As is required by statute, the commission calculated that the electoral quota for Scotland for the purposes of the review was 54,569. That was a total electorate in Scotland on 16th February 1992—the date the commission gave notice of its intention to proceed—divided by the current number of constituencies.
To maintain separate constituencies for the islands areas and also to retain Scotland's representation of 72 constituencies with constituencies of roughly equal electorates, the commission decided to cross regional boundaries. The commission decided to pair Lothian and Border regions together and Central and Tayside regions together. To ensure full consideration was given to all the commission's proposals, in mainland Scotland local inquiries were held in each region, or combination of regions, and with one exception they were all conducted by sheriffs principal who were appointed by the Secretary of State. Most of the recommendations made by the assistant commissioners were accepted by the commission.
Much criticism has been directed at the commission's decision to use regional electoral divisions as its building blocks for the constituencies. In its report the commission explains that these were the only up-to-date electoral arrangements available to it. The commission declined to use a mixture of the old district wards and the new electoral divisions as these could not be used universally because they often did not fit with one another. The commission has recommended a reduction of one parliamentary constituency in Strathclyde and an increase of one in Grampian. A reduction has taken place in the City of Glasgow owing to the decline in the electorate there.
I am glad that the commission has recognised that the existing range in electorate is wholly unacceptable. Discounting for the time being the islands areas—the commission correctly considers that there are strong geographical reasons why they should be considered separately—the electorates range from 84,000 in Gordon to just over 31,000 in Caithness and Sutherland constituency. Under the proposals recommended by the commission this range of electorate has been reduced to between 67,000 and 42,000. The commission's recommendations will also mean that 69 per cent. of the constituencies, compared with 42 per cent. at present, will fall within 10 per cent. of the 1992 electoral quota. Some people have said that too much emphasis has been placed on numbers. However, had the commission paid more attention to numbers, the range in the electorate would have been even closer.

1437
As with all reviews of this nature, criticisms will always be made. We must acknowledge, however, the difficulty faced by the commission in applying the rules for redistribution of seats which contain sometimes conflicting requirements. Under the current statute the commission is able, should it so wish, to undertake interim reviews. I am sure that the commission will give some thought to the contrast which will arise between the recommended constituencies and the new local authority councils. A decision on whether or not to conduct any future interim review is, however, a matter for the commission. The boundary commission is an independent body which has conducted its review with full public consultation. For this reason I commend the draft Order in Council to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has fallen straight into my trap. He did not repeat the speech made in another place. Instead he is guilty of what Fowler's Modern English Usage calls elegant variation. He cannot win whatever he does. As with the previous order, we commend the arrangements whereby the independence of the boundary commissions is secure. As I should have done in relation to the previous order, we congratulate the boundary commissions for both Wales and Scotland on the way they have carried out their work which has met with widespread approval from those particularly in another place who are most concerned with the recommendations.
But, again, the position in Scotland is that we have an order which will be shortlived. It will apply for the next election but it is most unlikely to apply without modification for any further election. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate told the House that the Boundary Commission for Scotland had greater freedom with regard to crossing boundaries than the boundary commissions for England and Wales. But although it has taken the opportunity to cross regional boundaries in two cases by combining Lothian and Borders on the one hand and Central and Tayside on the other, it has taken the decision—which it need not have taken—to stick to regional electoral divisions. That may not matter too much in most of Scotland where the electoral divisions are relatively small—say 3,000 or 4,000—but in Strathclyde, for reasons that I do not fully understand (although I am sure my noble friends on the Front Bench understand them very well) these divisions are very large. Often they comprise 17,000 or 18,000. That certainly has led to anomalies. It has led to a particular anomaly as between Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley on the one hand and Ayr on the other hand. The Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley constituency, which is 10 times the size in area of the Ayr constituency, also has a very much larger electorate because the electoral district next to Ayr, which includes Alloway, is so large at 17,000 that if it were transferred to Ayr from the other constituency the imbalance in population would be even
1438
greater. The boundary commission did not feel that it was able to take Alloway away from the rest of that electoral division.
Therefore, there are anomalies still in the way these matters are considered. Of course, as with Wales, the ongoing reform—if that is the right word—of local government in Scotland will affect regional boundaries and boundaries of individual districts and will make it necessary to have the interim orders which the noble and learned Lord referred to in his speech. But, again, as regards the principle of these orders and as regards the independence with which the boundary commission has carried out its duties, we have no quarrel.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I hope I may be permitted to ask my noble and learned friend one question. Assuming that this order in respect of Scotland is accepted, will the boundaries be on an Ordnance Survey map of the area? That is quite important to people who are trying to find out exactly where the boundaries lie. I know they appeared in the much older maps. I am perhaps asking an unfair question, not having given my noble and learned friend any notice of this, but I would like to have an answer at some time.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I do not think I can say that my noble friend's question is unfair. It is challenging and it is not one I can answer. I just do not know whether it is the intention to put the boundaries on the Ordnance Survey. I shall certainly find out and write to my noble friend while taking this opportunity to say that I am sure all noble Lords are happy to see him back in his place after his recent illness.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, while welcoming the order, made points again about the particular problems which arise. I acknowledge that in particular in Scotland, with its regional electoral divisions, there have been anomalies. Indeed, as he knows, there were two judicial reviews brought, one arising out of Ayr in particular. But in the end the decision of the boundary commission was upheld. I think it recognises that the solutions are not ideal, but they partly arose because the local government boundary commission had not yet finished its work on the district wards. For that reason in future it will be open to the boundary commission to undertake further interim reviews of such scope as it considers appropriate. In the meantime, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Evidence (Family Mediation) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
5.9 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
This is a small Bill with a single, limited purpose. At the same time, in order to scrutinise the Bill properly and to get it right, it has been necessary to take some account of the wider context in which the Bill is set—

1439
how family mediation is practised in Scotland and how the courts operate in Scotland when dealing with the civil cases to which the Bill relates.
Because the Bill is important to the success of family mediation and because, sadly, as noble Lords have said, family mediation is increasingly important to many people, and notably to their children, it has been most encouraging that during our discussions the Bill has received support from all sides of this House, including the Cross Benches. The Government have been extremely helpful and supportive by making available the expertise of officials and parliamentary draftsmen, and, of course, in what Ministers themselves have said from the Dispatch Box.
I should like to place on record my appreciation of the contributions made by many people, both inside and outside this House, during the passage of the Bill. I am grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for its advice and support for the Bill; to the Comprehensive Accredited Lawyer Mediators (CALM) for the thoughtful, helpful and co-operative way they have contributed their experience and wise thinking which has led to useful amendments to the Bill; to Dr. Eric Clive of the Scottish Law Commission for his expert help in suggesting amendments; and to the Lord President of the Court of Session for his advice. I am sure that we all look forward to the introduction of the Lord President as a Life Peer in this House tomorrow.
I am also extremely grateful to noble Lords who have spoken so helpfully and constructively in our debates. From the Labour Front Bench the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, with his usual skill and thoughtfulness, raised important points which have led to significant amendments to the Bill. From the Liberal Democrat Front Bench the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, has brought his supportive and professional social work experience to bear in a most useful way. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, from his long experience as a High Court judge, in commending the Bill, pointed out a desirable improvement that might be made. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was subsequently able to respond with amendments which the House accepted on Report. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who I am delighted to see is again in his place, has taken a close interest in our proceedings and has written to me about one point. My noble friend and neighbour, Lord Lyell, has given support with characteristic enthusiasm, for which I am grateful.
Above all, I am grateful to my noble and learned friends the Lord Advocate and Lord Fraser of Carmyllie for the work they have put in on the Bill, and to the officials of the Scottish Courts Administration and the Scottish Home and Health Department who have given generously of their skill and expertise and shown great patience and tolerance in so doing.
Last but by no means least, I pay tribute to Family Mediation Scotland, and notably to its director Susan Matheson, who is my principal adviser on the Bill and has done her best to assist other noble Lords who have asked for advice. Being a voluntary organisation, Family Mediation Scotland has limited resources at its disposal but its expertise and professionalism are of the highest
1440
quality. That, coupled with copious energy and dedication, has made it possible for me to steer the Bill thus far. I pay tribute to all concerned in Family Mediation Scotland.
During its passage through this House we have amended the Bill in a number of important ways and, I believe, have improved it considerably so that it is now a workable piece of legislation within which mediators, with small adjustments to their present practice, will be able to work more successfully than ever before and with even more fruitful outcomes for their clients in Scotland.
I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Third Reading and a fair wind to continuing all-party support in the other place. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
5.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, periodically makes forays over the Border, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, to general acclaim, carried through the Local Government (Wales) Bill. Flushed with that success, he has today carried through a measure of Welsh law. Despite that fact I am conscious that any contribution by English lawyers on matters of Scots law are rarely received with enthusiasm. I intervene at this stage to make three short points, and I do so early so that anything that I say which is incorrect may be corrected by the famous Scots lawyers who are present in your Lordships' Chamber.
My first point concerns a matter of general agreement, namely to congratulate the noble Baroness on having carried through this Bill. In England we have the same problem, namely the confidentiality of statements made during the course of marriage conciliation. My predecessor in office set up a small body of welfare officers founded on the probation service to assist in family conciliation, particularly as regards children. During my time that was extended because the various marriage guidance agencies were prepared to help. The National Marriage Guidance Council (now called Relate), the similar Roman Catholic body and the Jewish Marriage Council were all agreed that, if their work was to proceed, it was essential that it should be undertaken under the cover of confidentiality. Otherwise, parties would simply not be prepared to make candid statements to the person engaged in helping them. That is the problem that faced the noble Baroness.
In England we managed to proceed by judge-made law. I believe that in this branch of the law that is generally preferable. The judge-made law made it plain that statements made in the course of marriage conciliation would be privileged and would not be disclosed in subsequent proceedings. Although I have preference for judge-made law in this regard, I wholly agree with the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission that in this case it was essential to have legislation. That is because judge-made law can proceed only when the suitable case comes up. It was impossible

1441
to wait for that in the sphere which this Bill covers. I entirely agree that that was the right way to proceed; and I congratulate the noble Baroness.
I wish to mention a matter that I raised with the noble Baroness. She sent my second letter (she having thrown the first into the wastepaper basket) to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He promptly answered it, and I am grateful. He will forgive me if I say that I am not sure that I entirely agree, for this reason. It is a question of retrospection. The issue was raised at Committee stage. It seems to me important that this veil of confidentiality should be drawn over conciliation whenever it takes place.
The normal English law—I do not know whether it is the same in Scotland; I believe that it is—regarding construing statutes is that where a provision affects substantive law, there is a presumption against it being retrospective; but when it affects procedural law, there is a presumption that it is retrospective. Matters of evidence generally, and certainly in this case, are considered as matters of procedure. I believe that it is desirable that the Bill should be retrospective.
In his letter, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate pointed out a complication. When I wrote to the noble Baroness I suggested that the point should be dealt with expressly on the face of the Bill. I do not now believe that that is desirable. I believe that the Bill should go through the other place on the nod. I apprehend that, if it does not do so, it would have great difficulty in being carried into law this Session. I merely ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to keep open the possibility of argument for retrospection if I am right in thinking that that is desirable.
The last point that I wish to make arises from a remark by my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey at Committee stage. He hoped that the system of mediation would be carried beyond the matrimonial law into the general civil law. I strongly agree with that. It seems to me highly desirable that no one should be embroiled in litigation if mediation, counselling, can avoid the conflict.
As for conciliation in matrimonial affairs, there have been overwhelming arguments in favour of a family court. That was suggested as long ago as the 1950s in evidence to the Morton Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce. It has been taken up repeatedly ever since by persons of the highest authority. For example, the Law Society Family Law Committee has endorsed it. The only department which I know is opposed to it is the Lord Chancellor's Department. I venture once again to urge the value of a family court. In particular, I envisage that it should have two sides: a welfare side and a judicial side, rather like the Conseil d'Etat in France. The welfare side would have a conciliation department; and only after conciliation and counselling have failed would the matter go for resolution by the judge himself.
1442
With those suggestions, I end as I began by congratulating the noble Baroness on having carried this far what I regard as an important and valuable measure.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in extending congratulations from this side of the Chamber to the noble Baroness for the work that she has done in this difficult area of society. The noble and learned Lord has put many propositions before your Lordships' House. I am sure that when we have an opportunity to study them in greater depth noble Lords will find them fascinating. Indeed, perhaps some government departments may even find them fascinating. If I may say so, he certainly raised some interesting matters.
However, as I understand it, the essence of the Bill is simplicity. I would hope that simplicity will be the keynote of family mediation. The noble and learned Lord raised issues which seem to have been matters of correspondence between himself, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the noble Baroness to which I have not been privy. Therefore I do not choose to trespass on that ground. No doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, will deal with those matters when he speaks.
I congratulate the noble Baroness not only on introducing this important socio-legal Bill but also on guiding it through the House with considerable negotiating and presentational skill. I do not wish this to become a mutual admiration society, but I am grateful to her for the kind remarks she made about my contributions to the Bill as it progressed through your Lordships' House. I entirely agree with her that it is a small Bill, but it has large implications. It is hoped that in operation it will bring a civilising influence into an area of life which was, and perhaps still is, associated with animosity and antagonism between parties. Very often the children were the victims while the parties fought their own battles.
During the passage of the Bill reservations have been expressed about certain areas. I know that those have been considered. While the final shape of the Bill will be subject to further scrutiny—for example, in relation to the child under Clause 2 of the Bill—I agree with the noble Baroness that, as amended, it is a practical Bill. It gives a statutory foundation upon which the people involved in the mediation process can operate. I am sure that the agencies to which the noble Baroness referred will be grateful to your Lordships' House. We hope that the Bill will receive the same consideration in another place.
As is the custom and practice in your Lordships' House, we hope that the Bill has benefited from the scrutiny to which it has been subjected. Once the Bill is brought into operation, its practical functioning will be the real test. Any serious defect which comes to light may be considered in the context of the Children (Scotland) Bill when that legislation comes from another place to your Lordships' House.
The relevance of the proceedings to criminal proceedings is a matter which I raised. Perhaps I sounded a little tedious, but I wanted the point clarified. That has now been done without shadow of doubt, with

1443
the result that the form which persons attending mediation signed beforehand and which stated that all matters which had passed during the mediation would he confidential, will be altered. Thus the parties coming into the mediation process will know that any matters which arise can be admitted in criminal proceedings. It is to be hoped that, if family mediation means anything and is successful, the number of cases to which the point may apply will be few.
The Bill is a good example of non-controversial, purely Scottish legislation which, with co-operation and common sense all round, has been seen through your Lordships' House without undue delay after its introduction. The noble Baroness indicated that she is somewhat intimidated when intervening on Bills of a basically legal content. However, the resolution which she has shown indicates that she need no longer fear lawyers and as time goes on it may be the lawyers will have to fear her. With that concluding remark, I repeat my congratulations to the noble Baroness on the work she has done.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in continuing to support the Bill and in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for the vigour, energy and enthusiasm with which she introduced it, encouraging us all within and outside the Chamber. I also wish to express my thanks to Susan Matheson, the director of Family Mediation Scotland, for her help and encouragement.
The Bill makes a useful contribution to the social work task of converting the sad area of failed adult relationships and broken homes into the possibility of continuing family life within estrangement. The contribution of the Bill, when enacted, can be characterised in this way. First, I believe that there will be more joint minutes of agreement presented in the divorce courts, both before the sheriff and before the Court of Session. Secondly, I believe that the process will enable separating couples to make workable agreements, workable arrangements for the care of their children in the future and help them become effective parents in estrangement rather than bickering adults. I commend the Bill, not only here but in its passage through another place.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I too support my noble friend Lady Carnegy in her Bill. I join other noble Lords in congratulating her on the tact and skill which she has shown in dealing with the various issues which have arisen during discussions in your Lordships' House.
The Bill is relatively straightforward in principle but points were made in our debates which were not without difficulty. As a result of them being raised, the Bill has been greatly improved, but they were not altogether straightforward to resolve. We are grateful to the noble Baroness for all she did to ensure that the difficulties were resolved.
Many people outside this House who helped with the Bill have been mentioned. I concur in thanking them and express particular appreciation to Dr. Eric Clive of
1444
the Scottish Law Commission, who was helpful in resolving some points raised at short notice. His knowledge of the area of family law was invaluable. Like others, I thank all those who contributed to the work on the Bill, in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. In their own ways, they all brought their experience to bear.
Today the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, intervened and, far from that being unwelcome, it is always good to hear him. At the weekend it happened that I was reading one of his most distinguished contributions to Scots law on an appeal some years ago on a matter of assythment. He referred to the "legal Briinnhilde" of assythment in Scotland —a very elegant way of putting it. He has intervened to effect in Scots law in the past. He made several points today and I am sure we all agree that, whatever the scope for judge-made law, it was an area in which legislation was required.
The noble and learned Lord raised a question with my noble friend Lady Carnegy as to the precise scope for retrospection in relation to the Bill. For the reasons I gave in correspondence with him, we envisage that it would be best to apply the Bill so that it comes into effect on cases where the evidence is heard after the date of commencement but not those where the evidence has been partly heard, because that could lead to injustice. Subject to that, we are anxious for the legislation to come into force as quickly as possible.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, also mentioned the general principle that mediation and informal resolution are better than litigation. I am sure that noble Lords agree and there are now facilities for alternative dispute resolution which we hope will lead to such matters being resolved. The noble and learned Lord particularly referred to the role of the family courts. In Scotland, the sheriff court has traditionally been thought of as the best way of dealing with the matters. There are problems over jurisdiction in Scotland, where the smaller population makes it more difficult to have a family court. However, the points which he made will certainly have been noted by us and also by others because his experience in family law is unrivalled. The points made in that connection may arise in relation to the Children (Scotland) Bill.
Finally, it is hoped that the Bill will contribute to strengthening the whole system of mediation. In that spirit, I, like others, hope that the Bill will commend itself to those who deal with it in another place.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the short debate and particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Having listened to us at some length, he at last spoke and we were extremely interested in what he said. Some of it I shall only understand when I read it—if then. I am glad that he agrees with the Scottish Law Commission that in this instance there is no time to wait for judge-made law and that it is right to intervene with legislation for Scotland.

1445
As regards retrospection, I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will bear what the noble and learned Lord said in mind when, in due time, he makes the order for the commencement of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, revealed to me that I had omitted to let him see the letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I thought I had done so and apologise to him. If he would like to see the letter retrospectively, I should be only too glad to provide a copy! The first copy disappeared—I know not where. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, forgave me and sent another. He suspects the wastepaper basket, but I am not sure.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has been anxious about the position of the child right through the proceedings on the Bill. I am sure that he and all of us in the House—certainly myself—will pay careful attention when we take the Children (Scotland) Bill through its stages, to ascertain whether the necessary cross references to this Bill have to be made.
I simply say to the noble Lord that the day when lawyers do not intimidate me has not yet arrived. It may come one day, but I find it rather an alarming business when we get into the deep arguments in which we often engage in this House and in which we have been involved in relation to this Bill. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for his kind remarks.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate responded in part to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. It will be interesting to see, as the Bill proceeds, and as the Children (Scotland) Bill proceeds, how he can take account of the noble and learned Lord's remarks. I thank all noble Lords for their kind remarks. I commend this Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Insurance Companies (Reserves) Bill
5.41 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
On 6th March, the Insurance Companies (Reserves) Bill was read in this House for the first time, having been passed by the other place. The Bill seeks to amend the law relating to insurance companies, in particular the Insurance Companies Act 1982. The main purpose of the Bill is to confer power on the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the maintenance of reserves by insurance companies.
It is an indication of how desirable this measure is that it is supported by all the main parties, as well as the industry itself. It is worth noting particularly the very great depth of consultation between the Association of British Insurers, the DTI, the Government Actuary's Department and the Inland Revenue that prefaced the matter being brought before Parliament.
Although the Bill is short—it comprises only three clauses—it is highly technical. That said, this should not be allowed to obscure its importance and the very
1446
considerable and beneficial impact that it will have on the prudent regulation and international competitiveness of the UK insurance industry.
Before embarking on a detailed explanation of the Bill's clauses, it may be helpful to the House if I indicate the areas of the insurance industry where these regulations will not have effect. First, the Bill will not impact upon the operation of Lloyd's; nor will the scheme apply to or have any effect upon insurance brokers or other insurance intermediaries. Equally, those areas of the market that are non-volatile—for example, health and motor insurance—will not be subject to the regulations. The reality is that claims equalisation reserves would not, in fact, have any impact upon claims management of such business on the basis that the judgment as to the likely exposure to claims pay-out in any given accounting period is a relatively predictable discipline. Therefore there is no requirement to set aside any additional contingent reserves in expectation of a random and unexpected increase in exposure.
Indeed, this factor lies at the heart of the perceived requirement for equalisation reserves. The July 1993 consultative document envisaged that any CER scheme should apply to,
"certain types of particularly volatile non-life insurance business … [where] the requirement should be focused on high risk/high reward lines where the profitability of the underwriting is dependent on the random incidence of infrequently occurring events".
Such classes of business have an inherent instability. Unpredictable tragedies and events create sudden and substantial claims within the industry. For example; the dreadful storms of 1987 and 1990 in the south east resulted in property damage claims of £1.4 billion sterling and £2.4 billion sterling respectively over and above and beyond the normal cycle of experience for this class of business. Thus, there is a strong argument in favour of limiting the impact of this volatility by introducing mechanisms whereby the insurance industry can impose as much stability as possible upon its management of catastrophe risk and claims. This is the purpose of equalisation reserves; namely, to equalise the level of risk and claims exposure over the perceived cycle of the class of business.
I turn now to a detailed examination of the clauses in the Bill. Clause 1(1) is its main provision. It inserts the new Section 34A in Part II of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, which contains various provisions relating to the regulation of insurance companies, and is particularly concerned with various continuing financial obligations of insurers. Subsection (1) of Section 34A confers, and defines the scope of, the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of equalisation reserves.
It is important here to recognise that the phrase "general business" is specifically defined in Section 1(1) of the 1982 Act and, for the purposes of interpretation, can be assumed to be "non-life" business. The intention is to ensure that those certain types of general business that display the characteristics of volatility for which equalisation reserves are appropriate can be subject to the regulations.

1447
The Bill does not contain any express rules for determining how such regulations may be made, although subsection (4) of Section 34A defines their anticipated structure in broad terms. This is entirely consistent, in so far as Section 97 of the 1982 Act already confers power on the Secretary of State to make regulations for any purpose for which regulations are authorised or required to be made under that Act. In this context, my understanding is that the consultative process entered into by the DTI on this is ongoing and it is likely to be in a position to present its proposed regulatory framework in the near future.
By way of explanation, it is envisaged that general business insurers will be required to place a proportion of their premium income, the amounts being varied according to type, in the described business to a non-distributable equalisation reserve. A maximum size of the reserve will also be prescribed. Amounts will he required to be taken from reserves according to a prescribed trigger related to exceptional claims. It should also be noted that the regulations will make appropriate provision for special circumstances, such as where insurers transfer or cease writing business.
Nor does the Bill make express provision for penalties for non-compliance with Section 34A. Again, this matter is adequately covered by the 1982 Act, Section 71 of which will automatically apply in cases of default.
Subsection (2) of Section 34A describes in, as it were, a geographical sense the insurance companies to which Section 34A applies. Essentially, as defined in Section 15 of the 1982 Act, the intention is to include all insurance companies which are subject to the requirement to obtain authorisation and which are subject to supervision in the United Kingdom.
It is possible that equalisation reserves may be inappropriate for certain descriptions of insurance company, notwithstanding that they may qualify for the regulation by virtue of subsection (2) of Section 34A, and that therefore facility for such companies to be excluded from the scheme be allowed for in the regulations. This is the purpose of subsection (3) of Section 34A.
Clause 1(2) of the Bill inserts in Section 32 of the 1982 Act a new subsection (7), the purpose of which is to require insurance companies to treat their equalisation reserves as a liability for the purposes of calculating their margin of solvency.
The primary purpose of Clause 2 is to enable the Secretary of State to provide in regulations that Section 68 of the 1982 Act should apply to Section 34A. Section 68 allows the Secretary of State to ensure that the suitability and appropriateness of regulations and obligations imposed on individual companies by virtue of the 1982 Act can be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I should stress that, at this stage, no clear need for Section 68 to apply to Section 34A has been established—hence the provisions of subsection (2) ensuring that it does not apply automatically —but it remains important to ensure that the Secretary of State is in a position to respond positively should such a need arise.
Clause 3 concerns the Short Title of the Bill together with its commencement and extent.
1448
Noble Lords will be aware that the Bill has a European dimension. Few would question the enormous importance of the insurance industry to the nation. Despite some of its recent difficulties, it continues to be one of the UK's greatest assets, making substantial contributions to the economy in terms of employment (some 60,000 jobs in London) and invisible earnings (some £4.6 billion sterling in 1993). Here, I cannot resist the opportunity to celebrate the very welcome balance of trade figures published last week. It is therefore salutary to reflect that that performance has been achieved against a background of competitive disadvantage with a number of our European partners.
As your Lordships will be aware, the Insurance Division of the DTI is the regulatory and supervisory body of the UK insurance industry. The main statutory authority for its work is the 1982 Act. However, there is also an extensive history of insurance directives emanating from the Commission and being implemented by member states. The primary aim, effectively sealed by the implementation of the third non-life directive in July last year, has been of harmonising the regulation of insurance companies and the introduction of home state supervision, thus facilitating the development of the single market in insurance throughout Europe. Further harmonisation is anticipated from such measures as the insurance accounts directive, which is intended to take effect from the current financial year onwards.
However, it is generally accepted that the UK insurance industry cannot compete on an equal footing with many of its European counterparts, notably France and Germany, because of the availability of equalisation reserves in such countries. As the DTI/Inland Revenue consultation document observed in that context:
"for a variety of reasons there has been a decline in the UK share of world insurance markets. It is often argued that this decline will accelerate as the single European market in insurance grows in importance".
Thus, since 1989, over 60 UK and foreign-owned companies have ceased writing business in London, contributing to the loss of some 10,000 jobs in the industry. That has occurred during a period of increasing competition and a run of natural disasters—for instance, the Piper Alpha tragedy, Hurricane Andrew and the storms of 1987 and 1990, to which I have already referred.
Recent results demonstrate a welcome recovery—again, I sing the praises of last week's trade figures—but there can be no doubt that equalisation reserves can play a very important part in further improving the UK industry's European and international competitiveness.
In this context I venture to suggest that, whatever the state of the current debate about Europe and wherever individuals may wish to place themselves on the Europhile/Eurosceptic divide, there appears to be a consensus that Europe should be a free trade area. Thus, I see no inconsistency at all in seeking as a matter of priority and urgency to put our non-life industry on a more equal footing with those of other member states. Indeed, I would further argue that it is entirely prudent and desirable that we should seek so to do.

1449
That leads me to a secondary plank of the Bill. It was said in another place that, however sensible its provisions are, implementation of the scheme will be meaningless unless it is accompanied by a corresponding accommodation with respect to the tax treatment of the equalisation reserves. The competitive advantage of other nations' insurance companies is as much a function of the tax relief allowed against their reserves as of the schemes themselves. In that context, my right honourable friend Stephen Dorrell, when Financial Secretary to the Treasury, observed:
"Given the overall fiscal position, I am clear that it would not be appropriate for the Exchequer to suffer a net cost from the introduction of such a scheme".
In fact, implementation of an equalisation reserves scheme would be broadly neutral, except in so far as payment of tax on sums transferred into reserves would be deferred until such time as they were transferred out. In effect, the amount of tax due will not change but its payment will be spread over a longer period. Viewed from a more sanguine perspective, there is a mitigating principle of prudence that argues in favour of tax relief for reserves.
I have already alluded to the impact that the equalisation reserves scheme will have on the UK industry's ability to compete more effectively in Europe. But over and above that, there exists the clear benefit of giving considerable additional comfort both to regulators and to policy holders as to the underlying financial and commercial security and health of the companies concerned. Pursuing the logic of that a little further, it is entirely possible, if not very likely, that those UK companies which are subject to the proposed regulations will be very much better placed to expand their business. Given the considerable expertise that exists in this country, it is churlish to imagine that the industry would not be able to respond positively to that challenge. Increased turnover implies improved profits, which in turn would generate more revenue for the Exchequer.
I am mindful that the Treasury prefers to think in terms of certainties rather than such speculative postulations. Nonetheless, it is my understanding that Treasury Ministers have given an undertaking to consider tax relief for a suitable scheme. DTI and Revenue officials have been working together to that end. Proposals for a scheme of tax relief which the Government might be minded to implement will be included in the consultation document which is due for publication in the spring.
I am equally conscious of the concerns of many noble Lords with respect to delegated powers—notably the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I would not seek to dissuade the noble Lord from his deeply held convictions on this matter; but there are some broad principles underlying the regulation of the insurance industry which may be instructive in this context.
As I have already explained, the 1982 Act confers a number of regulation-making powers on the Secretary of State. In that sense, a body of delegated legislation already exists in this area. It is entirely appropriate that the purposes of the Bill should be consistent with
1450
existing procedures. Indeed, Section 97 of the Act prescribes the use of the negative resolution procedure as the means for effecting regulations made under its existing powers. It is also worth noting that equalisation reserves are necessarily complex and technical instruments, requiring considerable flexibility in the light of changing circumstances and experience. Because of that, a considerable amount of time-consuming consultation is required to draft workable regulations. It is for those reasons that the negative resolution procedure is deemed appropriate.
My explanation of the Bill thus far has been entirely enthusiastic. That said, I am not blind to a need for some minor consequential amendments. Therefore, I should like to give your Lordships advance notice that I shall propose amendments to the Bill in Committee. It occurs to me that a requirement exists, as it were, to broaden the scope of the reporting arrangements in Companies Act accounts. At present the Companies Act only refers to credit equalisation reserves. In my view, it will also need to refer to any equalisation reserves required by this Bill.
Finally, although I have touched on a number of these points already, I should like to consider in a little more depth the potential benefits which will accrue from the Bill being enacted. Let us first consider the consumer. It is the general perception of the industry that those classes of business which are anticipated to be subject to regulation have in the past, because of their volatility, exposed policy holders to knee-jerk price reactions arising from sudden increases in claims exposure. For example, home building premiums increased by some 50 per cent. between 1989 and 1993, principally, although not exclusively, because of the high incidence of claims arising from the windstorms of 1987 and 1990. However, many households are now experiencing level or reduced premiums. Equalisation reserves will considerably assist insurers to smooth the impact of such random peaks of claims experience, thereby enabling them to pass that on to the consumer in the form of very much more consistent pricing of premiums and, by extension, increased price stability should have the eventual benefit of making policy premiums more affordable.
What of the industry itself? I have already mentioned the benefits of increased competitiveness, particularly in the single market, and a potential upturn in general business capacity. Such effects are very welcome, the more so if they contribute favourably to maintaining the UK's special status in the global insurance market. Perhaps more importantly, equalisation reserves attracting tax relief will enable insurance companies to manage and administer their capital more efficiently. Additionally, they will add to a company's solvency and availability of capital to underwrite risk. In an industry so reliant on public and market confidence in its financial health and well-being, that is of crucial importance. In this context, as I have already intimated, the prudential aspects of the Bill are paramount and will make a major contribution to the protection of the policy holder, thereby greatly improving the reputation of the UK industry globally.

1451
In conclusion, the thrust of the Bill is to achieve two worthy objectives: first, to make the regulatory supervision of volatile non-life business more prudential; and, secondly, to confer competitive equality upon UK insurance companies in the single market. With that in mind I commend the Bill to the House and hope that your Lordships will be content to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Northesk.)
6 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, for the comprehensive way in which he introduced this Second Reading. The purpose of the Bill (which, although very technical, is very simple), is, as he explained, to introduce a scheme for the equalisation of reserves for the non-life business of insurance companies, particularly in relation to insurance claims arising out of catastrophes. It is not hard to think of the sort of catastrophes that may arise, because there have been so many in the recent past. We had the Piper Alpha catastrophe in the North Sea in 1988; the European storms in 1987 and 1990, to which the noble Earl referred, and the various hurricanes in the United States and elsewhere. It would seem obvious, therefore, that something needs to be done to build up reserves to meet that sort of situation. That in itself is sufficient justification for the Bill.
A further justification relates to what is happening on the Continent of Europe. As the noble Earl clearly stated, these arrangements apply to our main competitors, particularly in Germany and France. If we are to compete with them, then clearly we ought to be observing the same broad rules so long as they appear to be justifiable, which I believe them to be in this case.
I am a great believer in smoothing-out operations. If we had been able to work out a way in which we could smooth out the ebbs and flows of booms and busts, I am sure that we should all be much better off. For one thing, the level of unemployment would be much lower. That may be more difficult to achieve than the limited objectives of the present Bill, but, where we can carry out smoothing operations and where, from the fiscal point of view, that can have a neutral impact, then we should do so.
The fiscal aspect is of great importance. It is not mentioned in the Bill, but the understanding is that, when within the next few weeks the Government release their consultative document, they will lay down the basis on which the regulations will be framed and that will include the fiscal aspects. Clearly this scheme could only work if there was a fiscal benefit to the insurers to set up the fund which will be offset when the reserves are drawn out.
We from these Benches support the Bill for three reasons. First, it would give the insurers greater stability of earnings and thereby help them to promote and extend their business and make them more competitive. Secondly, it would lead to greater stability of premiums for the insured. After the storms of 1987 and 1990 particularly in this country, premiums went up to a high
1452
level and subsequently subsided. That volatility of premiums is to the disadvantage of those who take out insurance and to some degree it may be avoided. Finally, from the Treasury's and the taxpayers' point of view, it could lead to a smoothing out of tax receipts and, let us hope, to some increase in overall receipts if the regime expands the amount of insurance business. We therefore support the Bill.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I too support the Bill and thank the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, for introducing it. I made the mistake of looking at the Bill too closely. I feel that I would be better off if I had preserved my original ignorance of the subject. However, having become involved in certain matters, I feel that I must continue.
I agree with the noble Earl regarding the importance of the UK insurance industry. It follows, a fortiori, that we must make sure that in a single market the industry can compete effectively with industries from other countries. However, I shall not follow the noble Earl—not out of any discourtesy—on the subject of the balance of payments. I agree as to the contribution that the industry makes to the balance of payments. If by chance the noble Earl should venture into your Lordships' Chamber on Wednesday afternoon, he may hear me offer a correct interpretation of the figures that the Government announced last week.
The purpose of the Bill is to deal with insurance companies' non-life business. It concerns the UK insurance industry. One of my puzzles, and perhaps either the Minister replying or the noble Earl himself may resolve it, relates to what constitutes the UK industry for this purpose. The philosophy behind the Bill would appear to mean the industry as owned and operated in this country. One of my difficulties is that, when reading the Bill, I wonder whether that is in fact the case, or whether it is the case that non-British businesses may gain from the provisions simply because of their location in London and their being subject to UK regulation.
Perhaps I can say in my usual acerbic way, en passant, that subsection (3) of the new Section 34A, to which the noble Earl referred, is completely incomprehensible to me. I am sure that it means exactly what he said it means, but if I were asked to say what it means, even having heard him, I would have to say that I do not have the faintest idea. Presumably it does have a purpose and means something.
The noble Earl referred to my attitude as regards the use of regulations. As I understand it—I believe he confirmed this—the philosophy of regulations introduced by the Minister goes back to the Act of 1982 and the negative procedure. I believe that the noble Earl is saying that the negative procedure would apply in this case and he believes that to be right. One of my objections is the usual pig-in-a-poke one; that is, that I have not the faintest idea of what will be in the Secretary of State's regulations when they occur. Since the essence of the Bill is in the regulations, we face our usual problem of approving the Bill and giving it a

1453
Second Reading without the faintest idea of what it is we are agreeing to. Also, your Lordships are not consulted in any sense when the negative procedure is invoked. We simply receive the regulations in due course and chat about them at that stage; but we would not dream of voting against them. That is the reason I find this sort of thing most unsatisfactory. But that is a general comment and has nothing specifically to do with the Bill. It will not cause me to say that we should stop the Bill proceeding.
Perhaps I may raise another matter which did not occur to me until the noble Earl spoke. He said that he had been assured by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the Bill would proceed on the assumption that it was fiscally neutral. I am afraid I became lost at that point. I believe he said that it would not represent a net claim on the Exchequer. What eludes me is that I assumed immediately that the whole point of the Bill was to make a tax concession to the insurance companies in order to encourage them to put it into practice. I cannot follow the logic of what the noble Earl said. For it to be an incentive, there must be a tax concession. The whole point is that the claims equalisation reserve should be tax deductible. That is the whole logic that lies behind the Bill. Therefore I do not see how it becomes fiscally neutral. What else will be raised in tax to offset it?
Speaking as someone who used to regard himself as an expert on the economics of taxation, I must say that it was at that point that I completely lost the basis of the Bill. Without wishing to prolong the proceedings, essentially if the total revenue is constant, if there is not a tax concession here, what else makes the whole thing add up? I do not know the answer.
My last comment on this matter relates to the taxation side and to how we proceed anyway. Of course I am delighted that the Bill is going forward. I am delighted that the noble Earl is taking a leading role. But, on reflection, where we are discussing matters of tax deductibility and of essentially a form of regulation—we are discussing a form of order-making power—I have to say that I am not all that happy that any of this should be taking place by means of a private Member's measure. Given the importance of the industry and given the importance of this reform, I at least would have been happier if the department itself had felt that this was government business and that it should therefore take the lead. I say this again with no disrespect to the noble Earl or to Mr. Oliver Heald MP, who carried the Bill forward in another place. But I am a little puzzled that legislation of this kind should come forward in this way.
What I have said sounds a little acerbic and churlish. I do not mean it to be that, because it merely results from my interest in the subject. Perhaps I may add that I am a little taken aback that we may have an amendment or two, but we shall look at those in due
1454
course. What I most hope is that we shall give the Bill a Second Reading and that it will become law in the very near future.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, on behalf of the Government I should like to start by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, on introducing the Bill to the House and on the skill with which he has described what is a very technical matter and, to the layman, a very arcane one. I should also like to thank the honourable Member for Hertfordshire, North who introduced the Bill in another place.
This is a worthwhile and welcome Bill and one which I believe enjoys wide-ranging support in general and certainly on the Floor of the House this afternoon. As we have already heard, the insurance industry has for some time sought the introduction of a scheme for establishing equalisation reserves. Industry leaders have made it clear that they regard this as of great importance to their future competitiveness. I also welcome the measure as an addition to the regulatory options available to us, since such reserves should assist insurance companies in settling exceptional levels of claims in bad years from funds put aside in good years. The Bill is an important step along the way to establishing such a scheme, which we believe will assist the British insurance industry as a whole as well as the consumer.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked what constitutes the UK insurance industry. It is best described in new Section 34A(2). That refers to those insurance companies which are controlled here in the United Kingdom, bearing in mind the workings of the European single market in insurance, where the underlying principle is that there is home country control tied in with host country rules of business: in other words, first, those whose head office is in this country; secondly, firms whose business is restricted to reinsurance, because reinsurance falls outside the scope of the single market in insurance; and, thirdly, those firms whose head office is not in this country or in another member state but outside the Community and which obviously do not fall within the scope of the single market either.
As the noble Earl has explained, the Bill is an enabling measure. It may be helpful if I say a little about the work that has been done and the Government's plans in this regard. While no final decisions have yet been taken on the details of the regulations which will be introduced following the passage of the Bill, officials in the DTI and the Inland Revenue have been involved with the working group led by the Association of British Insurers—the ABI—in carrying out considerable preparatory work on a proposed scheme. The working group has already made recommendations about the details of the scheme and a report has been sent to government and circulated to a wide cross-section of ABI members. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the ABI for the work it has done.
The insurance industry generally declared its support for the working group's recommendations and it is now the Government's intention to issue a second

1455
consultation paper this spring, giving details of a proposed scheme which I expect will incorporate many of the industry's recommendations. It is our intention to publish the actual regulations in draft form before they are laid before Parliament to enable the industry and other interested parties to have the opportunity to comment on them.
I should also like to say something on the matter of tax relief for such reserves and to turn briefly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. With regard to fiscal neutrality, the effect of putting money into reserve is essentially to pay a claim on account. Provided that the claims come out of the reserves in due course, the procedure will turn out to be tax neutral.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that it is tax neutral over time rather than at a point in time?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, that is my understanding of the matter. At the end of the day this is a matter for Treasury Ministers and any legislation would be included in a Finance Bill. I can say, however, that my right honourable friend the Member for Ealing Acton, the Financial Secretary, has indicated that they will be prepared to consider tax relief for an acceptable scheme, which is something on which officials in the DTI and Inland Revenue are working. Before any scheme is introduced we would be looking to ensure that it was acceptable to the industry, Treasury Ministers and the Secretary of State.
In closing, I should once again like to thank the noble Earl for his work on the Bill. The Government welcome the Bill and we intend to assist its safe passage.
6.14 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I wish to express my gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Inglewood for their support. I can but hope that it presages safe passage for the Bill through your Lordships' House.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, slightly misheard what I said with regard to tax treatment. The reality is that the Bill is only about regulatory requirements. Changes to the tax regime are specifically the province of my right honourable friend the Chancellor. It would be wholly inappropriate for me or the Bill to seek to address those. The inescapable reality is that unless the regulations are in place any judgment about the tax regime is wholly redundant. Without the chicken the egg cannot be laid.
In conclusion, the Bill is concerned primarily with imposing greater levels of prudence on the supervision of the insurance industry as well as putting it on a more equal footing with our European partners. That seems to be the consensus of all your Lordships. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
6.17 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill before us, when it was considered in another place on 16th March, was unopposed at every stage. That showed the support that exists in all parties for the CDC and for the Bill. I am sure that the chairman, board and staff of the CDC, who are fully behind the Bill, were heartened by the expressions of support that they received on that occasion, I hope that our debate this evening will be equally supportive of CDC and of the Bill.
Praise for the CDC is well deserved. It has been a remarkable success story over what is now nearly a 50-year history; and particularly so over the past five to 10 years. The main purpose of the Bill is to build on that success and to continue for the future. It will put CDC in a position to grow up to and beyond the turn of the century.
In speaking of the success of CDC, I should like to refer to the service of the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, who was chairman of the corporation from 1980 to 1989. I also want to pay tribute to the work of the current chairman, Sir Peter Leslie, and the board which directs CDC's activities and to the new chief executive, Dr. Roy Reynolds, and his predecessor, John Eccles.
As your Lordships will be aware, the corporation is charged under its Act with the task of assisting overseas countries—not exclusively Commonwealth countries—in the development of their economies. It provides equity and loan capital to private sector companies to enable them to develop profitable and efficient businesses which are environmentally and socially sound. It also promotes, controls and manages companies in certain sectors specified in the Act, and provides related services to them.
At the end of 1993 CDC had investments and commitments in 51 developing countries, 39 of them members of the Commonwealth. Total investments and commitments stood at more than £1.6 billion. Full details are in the annual report, which is available to the House.
Although the audited results for 1994 are not yet available the preliminary figures indicate a continuing strong performance. New investments were at record levels of £240 million. Some 80 per cent. of approvals were in the poorest countries; 90 per cent. were in the private sector, and 22 per cent. took the form of equity capital. The rate of return on investments over three years at 8.7 per cent. also exceeds the target set for CDC, of which the House was informed by my noble friend the Minister for Overseas Development on 3rd May last year, following the completion of a five-yearly review of the CDC.
CDC's task is to use the disciplines and practices of the private sector in order to promote sustainable development in third world countries. Its development report published in 1993 set out three key principles: to invest only when projects are expected to make a positive contribution to national development; to

1457
participate only when its involvement adds value; and to structure its investments according to commercial criteria. Its new management team is actively seeking to improve the links with British and other private sector overseas investors so that it can build on its traditional role as a catalyst for mobilising international finance alongside its own investment.
The new focus in developing countries on private sector-led development is opening up new opportunities for CDC, both in new and traditional areas. For example, in October last year CDC took a majority shareholding in Chilanga Cement Limited, the largest producer in Zambia and an essential component of the Zambian economy. CDC has management responsibility for a major programme of rehabilitating and enhancing the productive capacity of the company. Just as important, 30 per cent. of the company's shares are to be sold to local private investors, marking an important stage in the Zambian privatisation programme and the return of an active capital market in Lusaka. I could multiply examples. Noble Lords will no doubt add to them during the debate.
CDC thus continues to prove itself as an effective and essential arm of the British aid programme. We believe that in order to continue to carry out this role, it is right that CDC should remain in the public sector.
Unlike the Crown Agents, CDC is making long-term financial commitments in areas and activities which commercial lenders consider to be on the margin of acceptable risk. That is why my right honourable friend the Minister of State told the Foreign Affairs Committee of another place in April 1993 that the status of CDC should remain unchanged. It is this public sector status which enables CDC to focus its resources on the poorest countries and to work in the most effective manner.
CDC's capital has been provided through concessional loans from the British Government. The returns made on the proceeds of its investments, including equity realisations, are available to the corporation for further investment, subject to interest and the repayment of capital. Over the years this has produced an increasing level of internally-generated resources available for new investment.
Following the 1992 Public Expenditure Survey it was announced that CDC would no longer receive net new loans from government, but that it would also no longer be required to pay interest on new and existing loans. Although the interest rate was lowered to nominal levels in 1994, a full interest waiver requires an amendment to the existing Act. That is proposed as part of the Bill presently before the House.
The Bill also recognises that CDC will continue to draw on external borrowing. Last December it arranged borrowings for the first time from a source other than the British Government; in this case the European Investment Bank. A loan of £27 million will, we hope, be followed by further similar borrowings. CDC is also exploring potential borrowings from other lenders.
CDC total borrowings are already very close to the existing statutory limit of £850 million. The limit also covers the borrowings of CDC's overseas subsidiaries, which will increase roughly in line with the overall
1458
increase in its portfolio. An increase in the limit is essential to ensure the future financial health of the corporation. The level of increase which this Bill proposes is initially to £1,100 million, and then following the further agreement of Parliament through an affirmative resolution, to an overall ceiling of £1,500 million. This should be sufficient to provide a firm basis for CDC's future investment programmes for the next decade.
It is a reflection of CDC's success in managing its existing portfolio that the overwhelming majority of new investments will continue to be financed from the returns on existing investments. The year 1993 was exceptional, with equity realisations of £27 million allowing an overall increase of £48 million in CDC's net assets. It still remains the intention of CDC's management to unlock the very substantial value of some longstanding investments—particularly, but not only, in Asia—in order to secure resources for further expansion of the programme.
The challenge facing CDC in Africa is more difficult. Reflecting its economic and political problems, Africa's share of CDC's portfolio has declined in recent years. The CDC is now seeking to reverse that.
South Africa is obviously a key area and one which we very much have in mind following the very successful state visit by Her Majesty last week. During that visit, CDC announced an investment of £9 million in a new development capital fund which CDC will manage. It will act as a magnet for domestic and foreign private capital to finance small-scale business development in South Africa; precisely the kind of practical contribution to economic development which this Bill seeks to promote.
Last year in South Africa, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade signed an operating conditions agreement with the Government. This year CDC plans to open offices in Mozambique and Uganda. Identifying viable business which meets its investment criteria in Africa is still hard. But let me give two further examples of what is possible. CDC helped to establish in 1993 a venture capital fund in Tanzania, which it also manages. It provides risk capital for local businesses, and complements efforts to establish a local equity market. Total funds at 8 million United States dollars sound small, but this is breaking new and untilled ground.
We are ready to consider with CDC whether there are other areas of the world where it could deploy its unique skills. Noble Lords will no doubt have their own views on particular areas. It will be clear from what I have said that CDC has a very full agenda, particularly in those countries on which our bilateral aid programme is concentrated. It would have to look carefully at the resources available before contemplating new areas of activity, such as eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union where there are other existing channels for providing help. In the short and medium term I do not detect any great desire by CDC to move into those areas.
I should finally briefly outline the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 deals with the increase in borrowing limits which I have described. It also removes the separate limit on borrowing by CDC from government. We

1459
believe that a single limit for all borrowing is the most sensible way to proceed. Clause 2, allows for the full waiver of interest on past debt and provides for future interest free loans.
Clause 3 deals with the arrangements for board appointments. We have taken the opportunity of the Bill to align these more closely with those for other public corporations so as to allow key executives to join the board. This clause also places the responsibility for remuneration and similar matters wholly on the Secretary of State, thus removing the requirement for the Treasury to be involved in the detail of pay for individual members of the corporation. But the Secretary of State will, of course, take these decisions within the Government's approach to public sector pay as appropriate at the time. I hope the House will see this as a useful updating provision.
I hope that I have said enough to illustrate the valuable work which CDC is doing and should continue to do, for developing countries and for Britain. I hope that today this House, like the other place, will again agree to endorse the work of the corporation and to place it on a sound financial footing to carry it into the next century. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Inglewood.)
6.28 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the very helpful way in which he spoke to the Bill. Many of us on this side of the House enjoy his refreshing and friendly style. When he took up his Front Bench responsibilities we recognised that he was an inherently decent and thoughtful person and also incredibly hard working, as today's business has made clear. But, as with the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, with all his reasonableness we cannot help feeling that at times he must wonder whether he is on the right side of the House. I can assure him of a warm welcome whenever he wants to join us.
I must declare an interest. As a lover of Cumbria, where I am in the process of putting down roots, I cannot help relating to the noble Lord over his deep attachment to that glorious corner of the United Kingdom.
I assure the noble Lord that if the proceedings on this Bill in the other place are anything to go by, we shall have a thoroughly constructive and positive exchange. Reading the debate in the other place, I can hardly believe that it is the place that it seems to have become in recent years: it sounded quite civilised with Members positively splashing about in good will.
The noble Lord mentioned the Crown Agents. In that respect we cannot help but register the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, this evening. Is she being coy? Does her absence for whatever apparently good reason not indicate what we all know; that her heart was not in all that nonsense last Thursday when she unconvincingly endeavoured to defend the patently ideological privatisation of the Crown Agents? We can see that it would have been acutely embarrassing for the noble Baroness a mere four days later to stand in the
1460
same place and speak to this eminently sensible Bill which is designed to give the Commonwealth Development Corporation more scope for expansion within the public sector, a common sense and practical approach which is exactly the kind of model that we on this side of the House advocate for the Crown Agents and, indeed, for the Post Office.
I turn, first, to the good things about the Commonwealth Development Corporation. As the noble Lord said, it has an outstanding record of achievement. After a slightly sticky start, it has proved to be the robust, grown-up child of a far-sighted Labour government and one therefore of which we on these Benches are particularly proud. It was good to see the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1992 evaluating it as an especially valuable form of assistance to economies in developing countries. Its high standard of management and sound decision-making have enabled it to ensure that its investment funding has been largely self-generating, supplemented by long-term, low interest loans—all that with relatively low operating costs. It has been encouraging to see the way in which CDC has provided badly needed inward investment in challenging areas where the external private sector hesitates to tread. I refer to areas such as sub-Saharan Africa, to which the noble Lord referred, and in particular to Uganda, which is a telling example.
As was said in the other place, by its pump-priming the Commonwealth Development Corporation sends out positive signals to the rest of the world. It has been playing a vital role in stimulating the local private sector in third world countries and achieving the genuinely local capital which is essential for sustained, dynamic, self-generating development. Chilanga Cement Limited, to which the noble Lord referred, is a pillar of the Zambian economy. It is a good example, with, as the noble Lord explained—the point needs to be underlined—30 per cent. of the shares going to the local private sector. I note that last year, of the £240 million that was invested overall 80 per cent. of the approvals were in the poorest countries. That is something for which all concerned should take a bow.
I understand that the Commonwealth Development Corporation is involved in more than 340 businesses, creating several hundred thousand jobs in projects which tend to last between 10 and 20 years, representing long-term investments of which the world could do with far more—not least, I sometimes think, in the United Kingdom.
All that is a powerful story and one which shows what imaginative professionalism and inspired leadership in the public sector, driven by a sense of social purpose and public service, can achieve where it is patently obvious that the private sector would not have responded in the same way. It is a fascinating model for effective social and economic development. I just hope that unwittingly the removal of Treasury guidance over salaries, pensions and allowances will not spoil all that by ushering in a more crude market culture. Sometimes I fear that the ideologues and captains of the market feel threatened by examples of good public service and set out to seduce or bully those involved into adopting their own soulless materialism. They simply cannot bring

1461
themselves to accept that excellent results can be achieved with service as the motivation and that the best results do not invariably flow from those who are motivated primarily by acquisitive ambitions—far from it, as recent events have amply demonstrated.
I turn now to the questions. Most were raised during the proceedings in another place but, with respect, I do not see much evidence that they were fully answered. Let us first consider the title, the Commonwealth Development Corporation. What new research has been done to see whether keeping that title is a help or a hindrance in expanding the organisation's work increasingly widely as this Bill is intended to make possible? How does the concept of "Commonwealth" go down outside the Commonwealth? What about Latin America or, at some future date, perhaps China? Or is it that virtually nobody uses the word "Commonwealth" when speaking about the corporation and that almost everybody talks about the "CDC"? Would more be gained or lost by a change of name? It would be good to hear the noble Lord's thoughts.
If the Commonwealth Development Corporation is as successful as we all argue, why has the ceiling for increases in resources (made possible by the Bill) been pegged at the new level? What was the rationale behind that? Is it enough? Will it be adequate in the long term? Why has the opportunity not been taken, as recommended by both the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in the other place, to free CDC of corporation tax? If it were so freed, that would not only immediately make more funds available for CDC's programmes; it would also enhance CDC's ability to negotiate favourable tax status in host countries, thereby having a multiplier effect on investments by CDC.
After the Pergau Dam débâcle, the Government decided that the aid-trade provision would no longer be available for countries with a GNP of more than 700 US dollars. Will the same apply to CDC loans in future? If not, what is the rationale for a different approach? Is there a danger that repayments from poor developing countries could be used to finance loans to less poor countries in places such as east Europe?
That brings me to the question of CDC and east Europe. Are there to be safeguards for ensuring that Peter is not robbed to pay Paul; that CDC developments is east Europe are not at the expense of work in developing countries? What are the safeguards? That point, it seems to me, should be watched carefully at a time when the operating target for the percentage of CDC investments in the Commonwealth has been dropped.
By contrast, are there plans, as was asked in the other place, for CDC to move into poorer parts of the Middle East, including Gaza and the West Bank'? Following his reference to some of the tougher challenges, it was exciting to hear the noble Lord emphasise developments in South Africa. The key issue is that if CDC, with all its enviable experience and expertise, is to move increasingly into east Europe and perhaps Russia, can we be absolutely certain that it will be a matter of additionality and not at others' expense?
1462
Most importantly, there is the issue of preserving or enhancing human rights. Can the noble Lord tell us how CDC deals with that sensitive priority? What is happening, for example, in Nigeria? What does the CDC do about Indonesia in the light of the grim story of East Timor? I note that £13 million has recently gone into three new projects in Indonesia, a relatively high amount. Did CDC take human rights into account? What was the outcome of its deliberations if it did? How does CDC's human rights policy relate to the three new projects which it now envisages?
There is also the question of the composition of the board. That deserves some attention. Why so great a gender imbalance? Why is there no non-governmental organisation expertise? We keep hearing that the Government respect the operating effectiveness of non-governmental organisations. Would not their experience be relevant? How are the merchant banking representatives selected? I take it that Sir William Ryrie is there because of his distinguished Treasury, ODA and Bretton Woods service and experience rather than because of his role with Barings.
Finally, the Minister said that another place had deliberated upon other things CDC would like to do but could not do under the present statutory powers. He indicated that they were a matter for discussion between CDC and the Government. Whatever they are, they seem to have missed the Bill. Why? What exactly is going on? Our appetites are whetted. In the name of open government, we should like to know.
It would be helpful if in his reply the Minister could, in his usual cheerful, forthcoming and courteous way, deal with all those points. I am delighted to confirm that on the whole the Opposition are inclined to give a fair wind to this useful piece of legislation. If only the good sense and logic most of it enshrines were typical of the Government's legislative as a whole! Sadly they are not. The Bill stands like an oasis in an ideological desert. Long may CDC remain a development agency with social purpose, using appropriate market and business disciplines when necessary. May it never become primarily just another market-oriented business with an incidental economic and social development interest. Incidentally, pray God that the pass has not, in this context, already been sold on the Crown Agents.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I shall speak briefly, because the issue is not contentious. I also promised the Minister that I would not try to inveigle him onto the Liberal Democrat Benches.
One of the reasons why the Bill is not contentious is that the CDC's effectiveness is beyond dispute. It provides a service which few other agencies can provide at such a low cost. The service it provides does not meet with opposition. Promoting the private sector in third world countries is a laudable aim. It is only through the development of the private sector that jobs and wealth will be created in many third world countries. The importance to many countries of the private sector cannot be underestimated.

1463
I turn to the subject of Africa. The Minister said that in future a great deal of money will be spent on South Africa. I cannot object to that, because I lived in South Africa for some time. There are many areas in which money spent by the CDC would be well spent. But I hope that will not be to the detriment of other African countries. There seems to be an idea that money spent in Africa is often money thrown away. My experience in Africa is that that is wrong. The profitable business that British banks such as Standard Chartered provide in Africa shows that there is money to be made through the private sector.
I was especially encouraged to hear that the CDC will be moving into Mozambique, a country that has suffered a devastating civil war. I spoke last week to Mr. Dhlakama who said that the only hope of moving away from the threat of war is by creating jobs. Obviously, one way of doing that is by promoting the private sector in Mozambique.
One question which should be addressed, which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned, is the CDC's area of operation. I have no penchant for removing the word "Commonwealth". I am proud of that word. It is a word which is used with great pride in Africa. Those countries which are now members of the Commonwealth are proud to be so. Although Mozambique does not qualify, it would very much like to be a Commonwealth member.
There are areas of operation into which the CDC could move. I am thinking of areas such as the West Bank and Gaza. I have to declare an interest in respect of eastern Europe as I am on the advisory board of the Know-How Fund. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that money will not be diverted from Africa, which has the majority of least developed countries, to eastern Europe.
I should like to finish on the subject of the Crown Agents versus the CDC. The Minister will have an ingenious reason for why the CDC is remaining in the public sector whereas the Crown Agents are being jettisoned into the private sector. I look forward to hearing his reply. I reiterate the invitation to the Minister to go to South Africa in May to play for the parliamentary rugby team. He would then see at first hand some of the issues involved in Africa.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for his clear exposition of the scope of the Bill. As he explained, it is narrow in scope, but, so far as it goes, all sides of the House have welcomed its provisions. We are especially glad that the ceiling on the CDC's operations is being expanded. I understand that the new ceiling will be set no lower than the CDC itself would wish.
We are glad to have, as other noble Lords have said, the opportunity to pay the warmest possible tribute to this extraordinary organisation. I have had the privilege
1464
of seeing it at work for nearly 50 years. The Minister in another place used what can be regarded as pretty extraordinary phraseology when he said:
"I know of no CDC scheme that has been the subject of public criticism, either in the country concerned or in this country".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/95; col. 1042.]
That is an extraordinary record, especially having regard to its scale of operations.
I have experienced the strictness with which the corporation sticks to commercial principles. I have tried to obtain money from the CDC for good causes in Commonwealth countries and been shot down because it could not be sufficiently indicated that there was a prospect of enough profit being made. That is right and proper. I accept its refusal, but it illustrates that although the corporation is in the public sector it has successfully combined the principles of private sector work with its public sector status.
I shall refer to the problem that has been mentioned of whether the corporation has the powers to do what it wants to do. The Minister in the other place reaffirmed that the Government are anxious that it should have such powers. Discussions are going on because the corporation does not feel easy about the present legislative framework and the rules. If the result of that discussion should be that a change to the legislative framework is necessary, I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that time will be found within the reasonably foreseeable future for such necessary brief legislation.
Perhaps what is necessary can be achieved by rules and without legislation. However, if legislation proves to be necessary it would be a pity if the opportunity provided by this Bill were not taken. I do not believe that any of your Lordships would advocate amendment of the Bill to extend its scope by, for instance, redefining in the Long Title, or whatever. That would mean going back to the other place and we know the problems of the timetable. Nevertheless, we would like an assurance that whatever action is necessary to remove the uncertainties of the corporation it will be taken and facilitated by Ministers.
I wish to refer to the basis of the funding of the CDC. Under the announcement that the Government made last year, there are to be no new net loans from them. Such notional public funding as will continue will come from the recycling and ploughing back. Given the fact that in future the corporation will not get more new money from the Government, is it not a little disingenuous for the expenditure of the CDC to be recorded in ODA reports as part of our overseas aid contribution?
That is not merely a matter of semantics. We all know the pressures on overseas aid funds, but by introducing what appears to be a slight misrepresentations of the future nature of the corporation's funding the figures quoted publicly for our overseas aid, bilateral and multilateral, are inflated.
Finally, I turn to the semantics of whether it is right and proper to retain the title "Commonwealth". As all your Lordships know, the corporation's overseas work is referred to in common parlance always under its initials of CDC. I cannot believe that any additional foreign countries that may come within the scope of its

1465
good work will be inclined to question whether it is proper for the help that they receive to come in the name of the Commonwealth.
I conclude by repeating my warm tribute to the CDC for its work in the past and my admiration of its present staff. I express my good wishes that it will go from strength to strength and thereby enable taxpayers in this country to continue to take great satisfaction from the high rate of gearing under which, during the past 50 years, a relatively small amount of public money has resulted in four or five times as much assistance to valuable development projects.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I know that at one time it was thought that we might take more than the Second Reading stage of the Bill today. I and perhaps other noble Lords indicated that we would prefer to have a slightly more formal timetable. Thus it is that we shall take the remaining stages after Easter. If, by causing that delay, I have inconvenienced any noble Lord, and in particular my noble friend, I apologise.
The Commonwealth Development Corporation is the very crown jewel of our overseas development policy, the Rolls-Royce vehicle by which so much of our overseas development funds are dispersed. It has performed in an admirable way since the day it was set up. I have a certain connection. My late father was the first chairman of the corporation. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said that he had never heard of a single project being criticised. I am afraid that I must correct the noble Lord. In the early days one or two attracted a certain amount of attention. Modesty forbids that I mention them now.
Be that as it may, I strongly support the Bill as far as it goes. However, I am disappointed, as are the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow, Lord Judd and Lord Redesdale, that the Bill does not do more for the powers of the corporation, in particular by defining more widely the nature of the projects in which it is authorised to invest. Undeterred by the difficulties referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I inquired of the authorities in this House about the possibility of introducing amendments to deal with them. The amendments would not have been long or difficult to draft but I was firmly and properly told that they would be outside the scope of the Long Title. As your Lordships recognise, the House is always most reluctant to amend the Long Title. Indeed, I am told that our Procedure Committee has recently decided on a yet more stringent line. I concluded that amendments which did more than tinker with the problem were impracticable.
That is not to say that nothing can be done. It would be possible—and it may be the right course of action—to introduce a Private Member's Bill in this House or in the other place to deal with the issues that have been raised. I am attracted to that course of action. However, one must recognise that, although it would be perfectly practicable in a comparatively short time to persuade your Lordships of the merits of such a Bill, at this stage
1466
in the parliamentary year it would reach the statute book only if the Government were able to offer encouragement for it in the other place.
I noted with interest the words of my noble friend Lord Inglewood on the previous Bill with which we dealt tonight. He said that the Government would provide support for the measure in the other place. Therefore, I ask my noble friend in plain terms whether, if a Private Member's Bill is brought forward in this House which meets with your Lordships' approval, the Government will find time for it in the other place in order that the widening of the powers—which everyone, including Ministers, accept to be appropriate and desirable—can be achieved. I believe that that is the only course of action now open to us to deal with the difficulty. I hope that the Government will be persuaded of the merit of my proposal.
Perhaps I may just say again that I warmly support the Bill so far as it goes. I would have wished it to go further; sadly, it cannot. However, I hope that the Government can give me some encouragement along the lines I have proposed. I certainly hope that the Bill swiftly reaches the statute book.
7 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, from conception in 1948 to the completion of the strategic review in 1994 the Commonwealth Development Corporation can be rightly proud of its achievements. In broadly welcoming the Bill, I take the opportunity to draw attention to a number of points which have arisen during its passage to date.
However, before commenting on specifics, I should say that my interest in the corporation stems from CDC's commitment to the developing world, investing and managing in areas where there are many less fortunate than ourselves. Target areas stretch from South-East Asia at 21 per cent. of its portfolio to West Africa, with 9 per cent., and Central and South America at 8 per cent., and so on around the globe. It is hoped to stimulate other investments in sub-Saharan Africa as a result of a recently started operation in South Africa. There is also the possibility of ancillary offices, as has been mentioned, being opened in Uganda and Vietnam, in addition to the 21 already operating.
CDC, at 31st December last, had invested or committed £1.7 billion to projects ranging from primary production and processing and finance of commercial and industrial projects in areas such as hotels and tourism to general infrastructure projects in the power, water and telecommunications fields.
Current initiatives include developing a role in privatisation projects. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and other speakers mentioned, an example is the Chilanga cement factory in Zambia. Indeed, the shadow overseas development spokesperson in another place is visiting that project today. I look forward to hearing her observations.
In addition to promoting venture capital businesses, CDC is pro-active in infrastructure, food and beverages, forestry and general industry. Specifically, in South Africa, CDC has just announced two funds aimed at

1467
assisting black entrepreneurs. That is to be encouraged. It is easy to be impressed with the work of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I note that it has been investing outside the Commonwealth since 1969.
I turn to the Bill itself. I thank the noble Lord for rendering a detailed account of it. However, the measure seemingly fails to act out in full the recommendations contained in the quinquennial review. I understood that the Government had endorsed its conclusions. Indeed, the Minister confirmed that in a reply on 3rd May 1994 in response to a Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, who is not in his place today. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also seems to have understood that during the Committee stage of the Crown Agents Bill.
I am bound to say that I have difficulty in seeing where all the recommendations have been included. For example, the review recommended that CDC's powers should he expanded so that it could play an even greater role in the development of emerging economies. Recommendation 10 clearly stated:
"In any future legislation agreed by Ministers to increase borrowing limits some changes could usefully be made to the CDC Acts to clarify CDC's powers, and extend these in ways consistent with its contribution to aid objectives".
I am bound to say that we owe it to CDC to organise its future in as unfettered a manner as possible.
I have two questions for the Minister, of which I have given advance notice. First, why does the Bill not clarify and extend CDC's powers? Secondly, how will the Government ensure that those issues are properly addressed'? I also look forward to hearing the noble Lord's comments on the merits of the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, regarding any future passage of a Private Member's Bill. I am concerned that legislation could not be enhanced through lack of parliamentary time or that it falls outside the scope of what is known in parliamentary parlance as "The Long Title".
7.5 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I should, first, apologise for not putting down my name to speak. However, I have a very brief intervention to make. My purpose is to press the noble Lord further on one or two points made by my noble friend, by other speakers and, indeed, by Members of another place.
The overriding question from our point of view is to ask why the Commonwealth Development Corporation is so suited to being a public sector body whereas the Crown Agents are not. In fact, as the role of the CDC is very largely with the private sector—to launch and support viable and profitable enterprises—on the face of it it would seem to be more suitable for privatisation than the Crown Agents who, more often than not, work on behalf of governments. To me it is really a revealing comment on how skin deep the Government's belief is in the reliability of a market economy that they believe that a publicly owned enterprise is necessary in order to get profitable enterprises off the ground in a developing world.
1468
If an enterprise is thought to be viable, it should be worth putting risk capital into it. But, of course, private finance is not available for the long-term projects which the CDC has so successfully initiated and run in many countries throughout the developing world, and, indeed, continues to do so. As the noble Lord put it, the capital required is on the margins of acceptable risk. I thought that a rather nice way of putting it. In fact, those who have money to invest want to gain profits much more quickly and reliably. That is why the Commonwealth Development Corporation is needed. The private sector is not really interested in development when quick profits are not available.
I mentioned that we are not talking just of the Commonwealth; indeed, the noble Lord said that 13 out of the 51 countries involved are outside of the Commonwealth. That fact was mentioned in another place as a reason perhaps for questioning whether the name "Commonwealth" is still appropriate. Of course, we all know what the CDC is, and it would probably be difficult to call it the BDC or the IDC instead. However, perhaps the Minister can answer the point and also amplify what he said about other countries being suitable places for investment of projects by the CDC, especially in eastern Europe. I hope that he will answer the point made by my noble friend as to whether that would be additional to the current capital projects being entered into or whether it would be subtracted from what is already available.
In conclusion, I believe that it is good that the Government are increasing the borrowing capacity of the CDC. But, like other noble Lords, I feel that the opportunity could have been used to do more for the CDC. I was most interested in the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. Indeed, I look forward with interest to the introduction of his Private Member's Bill. I hope that we shall be able to support it on this side of the House. We support the Bill as far as it goes; it is useful. However, as my noble friend said, we are a little worried about the removal of Treasury guidance regarding staffing, salaries and pensions. Nevertheless, we feel that it is a useful little Bill. We certainly do not oppose it. We wish it well.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House longer than is necessary, but perhaps I may answer some of the points that have been raised by noble Lords in debate. I must begin, after the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, by emphasising that the reason I am here rather than Lynda Chalker—I am less visually attractive—on the Front Bench is not that she does not feel inclined or cannot answer the point that he put but that she just happens to be unavailable. Even though the noble Lord suggested that I might come across onto his Benches, I was delighted that on the principle of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em", he has come to Cumbria.
A number of speakers referred to the title of the CDC. As I think is generally known, the Commonwealth Development Corporation is invariably known as the CDC where it operates. There seems no good reason to change the name. It is the name with which it has grown

1469
up and by which it is well known, and there is much good will attached to it. I was also asked by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, why we should not free the CDC from corporation tax. If one looks at it in the round, it seems to us that there are no special grounds for treating the CDC differently on taxation to other corporations in the public sector which are taxed on the same basis as private companies. We do not feel that the nature of the CDC's activities are such that they justify special tax treatment in themselves because, if one did that, there would then be all sorts of problems as regards distinguishing it from other bodies doing equally worthwhile work in the developing world.
A point was raised about the application of the aid and trade provision in respect of CDC investment. That is quite a separate part of the aid programme not connected with the CDC. A number of noble Lords have asked about investment in parts of the world where the CDC is not currently investing. The position is that if the CDC wishes to invest in a new country it must seek authorisation from the Government. As a general policy, we do not think it is appropriate for the CDC to develop in places where there are other organisations which may be doing the same kind of thing. That is not necessarily an invariable rule but it is the general approach we adopt. For example, if one looks at the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe, there are a number of agencies already at work there. We feel that if resources were to be devoted to that part of the world, to use those agencies would be the right way to do it rather than for the CDC to spread its empire. At the end of the day the reality is that the CDC has a finite budget. We must contain the amount of investment it undertakes within the scope of the resources at its disposal.
Mention was made about the composition of the board and, associated with that, whether the change in the way in which its remuneration was to be decided might have a deleterious effect on the operations of the CDC. I do not think that that will be the case. The reason for doing this is to free up the procedures to ensure that it attracts the best people for the job and that the packages that may be offered—whether they are full-time or part-time people—are appropriate in the wider world so that one can obtain the people one wants. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made the point—
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. This is an important point. Could he possibly explain in the context of all the positive comments being made about the record of the CDC what it is that has not been achieved with management and leadership based on the principle of public service rather than what normally motivates the private sector?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. That was the point I was going to come on to when talking to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. There is not necessarily any dichotomy between public service and the private sector in this regard. Clearly, those who work for the CDC are working in the best traditions of British public service. But just as that is not a grasping thing to do, neither should the employer be mean in the way in which he
1470
approaches them. What we are trying to do is to give flexibility to the system rather than to make any particular criticisms of what has occurred in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, talked about making money in Africa. Of course the private sector is the means for making money, but at the same time it is now deemed an essential tool for development since private sector investment is an appropriate—perhaps the best—way of stimulating economic development. It is for that reason, rather than the primary reason of maximising return, that the CDC is operating in this area.
I now come to the question that perhaps everyone in the Chamber has sought an answer to; namely, why is it that we wish to privatise the Crown Agents while we wish to retain the Commonwealth Development Corporation in the public sector? The answer is that the Crown Agents as a body do business for other people. In short, they might be described as a procurement agency. The Crown Agents can be operated most flexibly and most effectively in the private sector, while the Commonwealth Development Corporation, as I hope I made clear in my opening remarks, is about investment on the margins of acceptable risk. There are difficulties in doing that outside the public sector. Because of the security that the public sector provides, we felt on balance that that was the appropriate way of dealing with the matter.
A number of noble Lords have raised the question, in slightly different ways, of whether the powers that the CDC has are appropriate to enable it to do what it ought to be doing. As noble Lords may be aware, a statutory instrument was made in December 1993 to allow the CDC to invest in new areas of business. However, that does not deal with the slightly wider problem of the vires under the CDC Act which concerns the circumstances in which it can invest and carry out the activities it is permitted to undertake.
I listened with great interest to the proposal from my noble friend Lord Trefgarne about the possibility of a Private Member's Bill. Suffice it to say that we will undertake to look at this matter most carefully. We give no undertakings, but we thought it was important to proceed swiftly with this Bill because, as noble Lords may have noticed, the thresholds over which the CDC will want to borrow will shortly be exceeded. That is an important consideration bearing in mind that there is an overriding requirement from the CDC's perspective to get the extra borrowings permitted.
That covers the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and others on why the Bill does not go further. We decided on balance that the right thing to do in the circumstances was to proceed with the Bill as it is. As I have already described in responding to the comments of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, we can consider further steps later if we conclude it is necessary. Finally, there was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow—
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend was saying that he would consider further steps if they were thought to be necessary. As I understand it, the

1471
Government have already said that they accept the need for wider powers for the Commonwealth Development Corporation; it is just a question of how we get there.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is right to pick me up. I was perhaps slightly too lax in my phraseology. We will certainly look at the best way forward for the CDC in the way I described. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, made an important point about why the money of the CDC is included in the ODA' s budget and is contained in that part of the public sector accounts. The reason is that, while interest is not now being repaid to the Exchequer in respect of the loans, it is nonetheless public money which is being used by the CDC, even though it is allowed to retain the profits generated by it. Of course, that capital which is invested in the CDC is part of the overall Exchequer debt on which interest is paid in the wider context. I hope that I have covered all the main points that noble Lords have made. As there is widespread support for the CDC and for the Bill, I very much hope that the House will grant it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Motorail and Sleeper Service to West Highlands
7.19 p.m.
Lord Gray Lord Gray rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will advise the Director of Rail Franchising to maintain the West Highland Sleeper and Motorail Service and to instruct British Rail to retain that service at least until the consultation process is completed.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, had the Fort William sleeper not run last night I would not have been here to ask this Question. However, it is not self-interest that leads me to do so, rather it is the potentially serious consequences for the social and economic welfare of the West Highlands that the possible withdrawal of the services threatens.
Ironically, 100 years ago there was an almighty political wrangle over whether the Mallaig line should be built because of the need for a subsidy, which the Tories favoured. The economy of the West Highlands is subsidised. It has to be, and considerable sums are involved. I dislike Euro-jargon, but it is an "objective one" area. A comprehensive transport infrastructure is essential. The railway is a key component, and the sleeper/motorail service is a key element.
This is not a privatisation debate, but the proposed axing of the services has aroused passions and the public debate thus far has at times engendered more heat than light. I hope that this evening we shall turn down the heat and turn up the light and will be able to persuade the Government to look afresh at the problem.
Not only is withdrawal of the sleeper and motorail service threatened, but ScotRail has announced that additional seasonal trains will not run on either the Oban or Fort William lines this summer—all this at the beginning of the tourist season upon which Lochaber,
1472
Argyll and the islands rely so heavily. It is also relevant that there is a proposal to de-trunk the A.828, which we had hoped to see improved.
Furthermore, all these cutback proposals coincide with the announcement that 19 oil companies want to go ahead now with developments off the west coast. Service cuts now do not auger well for Oban, Mallaig or the islands benefiting from any oil-related boost. Lost business is often nigh impossible to recover and opportunities missed seldom return. Surely it is time for investment, not cutbacks.
An aspect which unites those campaigning for the retention of these services is a disbelief in a variety of official statements, particularly on the cost of services and the level of subsidy. They are frustrated at BR's refusal to give details. In the face of that coyness the only way I can challenge those figures is to advance rival ones.
Individuals and campaigning groups have painstakingly researched detailed costings. I am indebted to three sources for the calculations which I am confident are realistic: London Friends of the West Highland Line, Professor Bill Bradshaw of Oxford (an adviser to Her Majesty's Government on rail privatisation) and Mr. Jack Shaw-Stewart. They have produced assessments of the direct costs of providing the services, including Rai1track charges.
Before taking into account any revenue, their assessments are £2 million, £2.3 million and £1.8 million respectively for running the Fort William Sleeper and Motorail Service as at present. The figure of £2 million is more precisely £2,003,466 per annum, or £3,042 per train.
The same sources assess revenue at £1.28 million. That is based on 16,000 passenger journeys with fare variations. Current improved performance and uncertainty concerning strike days last year suggest that 17,500 journeys and £1.4 million revenue might be nearer the mark. The figure of 16,000 passenger journeys had to be estimated because of last year's strike.
Those figures assess operating deficits at £740,000 or £604,000. Whichever one takes, it is a far cry from the officially quoted figure of £3 million. It is important to remember that the contribution to Railtrack which is included would not represent a saving on withdrawal of the services.
Perhaps a better way of looking at the matter is to examine what would be saved by axing the services. My sources assess avoidable costs at £1,094,000 a year. That is £186,000 less than the estimated revenue from 16,000 passenger journeys. There is therefore no net saving to the taxpayer from axing the services. Surely that points to the adverse effect that taking off the sleeper and Motorail services would have on other services on the line.
The scenario against which the matter has been aired is unsatisfactory. We were told that franchising would be based on the 1994 timetable. Consultation has been provided for and repeatedly promised. However, while we await consultation Mr. Salmon, Director of Passenger Rail Franchising, has announced that he will

1473
exclude the Fort William Sleeper and Motorail Service. Then BR announced that they will axe the services on 28th May. That is why my Question has to be double-barrelled. One might be forgiven for feeling as if one had gone to play a crucial match and found that someone had nicked the goal posts and dug up the pitch and the referee had lost his whistle. I do not accuse the Government of interfering with posts or pitch—that was done by Mr. Salmon and British Rail—but the Government do appear to have lost their whistle.
We have been given assurances that no final decision has been made. My noble friend the Minister said as much at Question Time on 28th February, and he explained why Mr. Salmon had made his announcement. But that explanation did not excuse Mr. Salmon pre-empting consultation. I see that Mr. Swift, the rail regulator, says that BR is out of order. I hope that he is right.
It is reported that the Scottish Office has refused BR a subsidy. I hope that it will note that on the basis of my figures a three-month operating subsidy would require only about £200,000. It is reported that Mr. Salmon has withdrawn subsidy. How does he withdraw what is presumably already in place and was not in his gift? Surely when so much is at stake for a heavily subsidised economy the decision whether to subsidise an important aspect of infrastructure for an area of special need should be a hands-on political decision taken from a wider viewpoint. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether there has been a thorough review of the wider implications for the economy of the West Highlands of the withdrawal of these services?
One might have hoped that privatisation would afford an opportunity for entrepreneurial improvements rather than a death sentence. Once the service has gone, trying to win back business would be daunting.
It has been irksome when trying to discuss this matter to be rebuffed with repetitions of the figures of £543 per passenger and a subsidy of £6.6 million per annum. If British Rail's operating subsidy is £3 million that puts access to the Railtrack system at more than £3.5 million, although a leaked letter now suggests that it is less, and it has already been admitted that Railtrack costs will not reduce with withdrawal of the services. Without knowing the construction of the Railtrack access charge how can we judge its relevance to this debate and to the threatened services? I remain suspicious.
Since the Fort William sleeper service was moved from Kings Cross to Euston, BR has done it few favours. There seems to be a corporate lack of will to maximise business, as current experience with freight is proving. Freight is not on the agenda tonight, but I am told authoritatively that £1 million worth of freight traffic is currently going begging on the Fort William line.
In order that before consultation starts everyone is briefed to discuss the subject on the same basis, I ask my noble friend that British Rail and rival costings should be independently analysed, or that British Rail should release its calculations for study in exchange for those I have mentioned this evening.
I have come to the end of my speaking time. There is much else that I should like to have said. I have a great affection for the line for which I once travelled as stand-in for a sleeping car attendant. However, it is not my relationship with that line which is at stake; it is the relationship of that line with the area about which I have spoken.
I hope that those noble Lords who have so kindly put their names down to speak tonight, together with my efforts, will be able to persuade the Minister to have another look at the problem and to give us some encouragement.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gray, on introducing this useful debate. I should declare some interests. I am a member of a frequent flyer programme with both British Midland and British Airways and in receipt of a car park pass from the British Airports Authority. Having got that out of the way, I can tell the House that I have been a railway enthusiast since I was aged 14. Also, and more cogently, my brother is catching the night sleeper from Fort William to London tonight and will join the train at two minutes past 10 in Crianlarich. Therefore, although I live in Clackmannan, which is distinctly not in the West Highlands, I feel that I have some connection with the area.
I deplore the planned withdrawal of the West Highland Sleeper and Motorail Service during, or almost before, the consultation period with possible franchisees has begun. Does that mean that the carriages must rot and the staff be dispersed? I do not understand how the service could be taken on as it will not be a going concern unless the discussions with potential franchisees take place extremely swiftly. I am, too, worried about rumours that business is being turned away by British Rail in order in some way cynically to prove that the service is not working.
In a small way, the proposal gives an economic kiss of death to the fragile economy of Lochaber and the North Argyll area. All this is happening in the country which invented railways. As regards public transport in Scotland, there is a choice of rail or air transport from North, East and Central Scotland. There are airports in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness, Wick and Campbeltown, not to mention most of the islands. In the East of Scotland, Dundee and Perth do not have a significant airport, but they have motorway connections with airports. Therefore from the East Coast, North and Central Scotland, it is possible to travel either by air or by rail. However, there is no air service out of the West Highlands despite there being a small airfield at North Connel. A person wishing to travel from that area by rail after the withdrawal of the sleeper motorail service would have to drive through to Kingussie to catch the sleeper from Inverness, no doubt at some awkward time, having travelled the road through Laggan—a route which I should hardly recommend in winter.

1475
The West Highlander who wishes to travel by air has to go by Glasgow or Inverness, again on awkward roads which quite distinctly are not motorways and which have to cross mountain ranges at such passes as Rest and Be Thankful.
The withdrawal of the sleeper motorail service creates a black hole in public transport in the West Highlands. But what are we really considering? We are looking at a Government of 16 years with what must be considered an anti-rail policy. Scotland needs a more positive government attitude towards railways in remote areas. When in 1880 the Callender and Oban railway was being built, when the North British Railway Co. was constructing the West Highland line in the 1890s, and when the Mallaig extension had to be built with public funds, it was recognised that it would not be easy to run a rail service in that area, but that a rail link was definitely needed if there were to be any possibility of economic development.
I believe that the Minister has to face up to the fact that his department is throwing away Scottish rail services. I fear that that enhances what I like to call "Britosceptic" thinking. I sum that up in this way. What is the point of two nations having a united Parliament if Scotland gains policies that it does not want? I believe that a Scots Parliament would have a more positive attitude towards railways in remote areas. It would recognise that social subsidies are involved.
I conclude by urging the noble Viscount to retain the service in order to allow the fullest and most realistic discussion with potential franchisees.
7.36 p.m.
The Earl of Buchan: My Lords, I wish to address the House for six minutes and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gray, on his tenacious efforts to keep the West Highland line open, in particular for the throwing of light on tendentious figures issued by British Rail and other interested parties. This noble House, incidentally, has to listen to Erskines speaking for 12 minutes—I refer to my noble kinsman Lord Mar and Kellie, and myself.
Perhaps I may address the Minister on a matter not directly connected with the issue. Since Cross-Bench Peers were falsely accused of being "whipped" during the debate on the Pensions Bill, this Cross-Bench Peer has no inhibitions about offering advice to the Government. Would it not be kinder and shrewder to adjust the length of the debates in accordance with the likelihood of Her Majesty's Government being able to do something about the issue in question? Indisputably, the Government have the power to close or to keep open the West Highland line; they could do something about it. Thus, the next time that an occasion arises where time is asked for a debate on an issue such as a United Nations conference on the imperfection of Western man with particular reference to the vileness of the developed world, could not the answer be roughly along the lines of, "Very sorry, Her Majesty's Government can do nothing about the imperfections of Western man: You can have 15 minutes maximum in which to speak"?
1476
In encouraging the Minister to maintain the sleeper and Motorail services on the West Highland line, perhaps I may make a plea on behalf of those living in remoter parts of Western Scotland such as Ardnamurchan and Morven, where a great many people seek to make a living through holiday camps, fishing, fish farms, forestry, the retail trade, the holiday trade and fanning. It cannot be right that those people's connections with the remainder of the United Kingdom should be changed at the whim of a secretive franchise director. It is now assumed in that part of the world that once Baghdad bazaar standards are applied to the railways the next argument will be, "Now that them is no night service on this line, let us take away the day service because the costs cannot be shared". It cannot be right that remote places such as Acharacle can be cut off from the remainder of the United Kingdom, resulting in it being more difficult to get from there to London than from Brussels to London.
Perhaps I may seek to soften the Minister's heart and draw his attention to a most unfortunate coincidence of dates. The year 1995 is the 250th anniversary of the landing of the Young Pretender. That event will be commemorated loyally at Glenfinnan and will draw a great many visitors from literally all over the world: America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other similar places—even France and Italy. It must appear to the organisers of the commemoration a snub that almost to the month Motorail and the sleepers to Fort William are being taken off. Perhaps noble Lords would consider how the event could be commemorated and what could be done with a little marketing and publicity. One could have an announcement along the lines of:
"Join the Motorail sleeper in Rome, after visiting Henry IX's tomb in St. Peter's, and be at Bonnie Prince Charlie's memorial via the Channel Tunnel the next day!"
A little imagination and a little hard work marketing the service should make it prosperous.
The noble Lord, Lord Gray, touched on the history of the line. As he said, it has been running for 101 years. However, what he did not mention is that the Treasury gave a subsidy of £260,000 towards the cost of the building of the line at that time. It was never a question of the line being profitable. Noble Lords might be interested in the comment by the chairman of the North British Railway in 1899, that company having guaranteed the capital for the West Highland railway. He said:
"I would not venture to prophesy it will ever pay an adequate return."
It has never paid, but it represents a hundred miles of well-maintained, single track line between Helensburgh and Fort William. It could be made more prosperous.
Perhaps I may make a point on press comment on the issue. The Times newspaper has covered the issue fully and fairly in my view, and I hope that it will continue to do so until the cause is won or the proprietor runs out of newsprint. The Economist, on the other hand, produced a rather facetious article on the West Highland line and I do not commend it to noble Lords.

1477
Finally, I implore the Minister to reconsider the issue and request the railway authorities to keep open the line for both the sleepers and Motorail.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Rankeillour: My Lords, I intend to leave the statistics and business data of this sad and sorry tale to those noble Lords best versed in such matters. My own contribution is merely intended to bring the attention of this House and the kingdom to other curious things that are said to lie behind British Rail's dismembering of the West Highland line.
This is not the "Deerstalkers' Express": it is used by people in every walk of life, even more so since the huge ski complex was built in the high hills outside Fort William, which attracts tourists in great numbers, winter and summer, from all over the world. I wonder why BR—which apparently claims that its sleepers and Motorail carriages are so empty—has not lowered its charges (I emphasise "lowered") to attract the army of skiers and tourists, as well as their motor cars, for the haul of hundreds of miles from the South to Fort William. Indeed, how well has BR tried to advertise the line with the new honeypot at its northernmost end, one wonders?
Imagine, if you will, that BR suddenly announced that it was to rip out all the seats from a few carriages in all its commuter trains between, say, London and Manchester or Birmingham, for the given reason that they are too expensive to maintain; and, anyway, what is wrong with making the passengers uncomfortable throughout the entire journey! What is wrong goes far deeper than just bad marketing and a poor sense of the needs of the travelling public. In the case of the Fort William to London Euston trains, the matter becomes a lot more serious, for not only would the removal of the sleeper service and Motorail be a giant step backwards for BR, but also the people of the Highlands and Islands would at once lose their only safe, all-weather, year-round, fast means of restful transport. Our lifeline would be snuffed out like a candle's flame: there a moment before, but suddenly stone dead.
We are not like somewhere in the Home Counties with an airport and a choice of good fast roads between London and front doors elsewhere. We in the Highlands and Islands are an ever-increasing population trying to live, as the noble Earl, Lord Buchan, said, a peaceful, constructive life in a territory that by nature requires greater consideration from such people as British Rail than almost anywhere else south of the Border.
In short, this is our railway too. My ancestor, Lord Annandale, did not form his Caledonian Railway Company during the Industrial Revolution to survey a route from Glasgow to Fort William just for us now to see the West Highland line dismantled, stone by stone, apparently in the name of cost. Does not BR know the word "amenity"? Does it not care? No, he had a dream; and in time a railway was built along that surveyed route but, alas, not by his company, as history shows for all to see. But at least that selfsame track is still in use—so far.
1478
But for how much longer? If BR is to care so little for its travelling public, how does it view the metals themselves? Will they be torn up too? We in the West Highlands remember all too well what Beeching did to our way of life all those years ago. Are we now to have the coup de grâce?
Our West Highland line is not just a statistic in BR's company books, it is our lifeline: a living legend, an old scenic marvel, admired throughout the world, a fast vital means of transport between calm and chaos. Yet, despite all that, BR has for years been gnawing away at its foundations instead of gently improving them. Why?
In The Times leader of 20th March this year came the charge that,
"booking clerks discourage passengers in order to support claims that the sleeper runs almost empty on most nights".
That is said to be,
"all too believable in the light of earlier tactics by railway bureaucrats".
So perhaps the time is ripe to ask the Minister whether there is any truth in that report and whether the bureaucrats are indeed accountable.
Even now, some sleeper attendants at Fort William have been summoned to the severance pay desk, one girl near her marriage day. What a wedding present to start out on life's hard road, having just been fired by a company set, she thought, to see her through to retirement.
Is it really beyond the wit of man to improve our beloved railway to the point where it can flourish as well as, or even better than, in its Victorian heyday? Is there no chairman available or capable of pulling it up by its bootstraps, to give the staff their pride back; to reintroduce observation cars, the better to see the gorgeous scenery en passant; to put attendants in uniforms that look correct and are not ragbags; to use some imagination in the matter of the present unmanned stations and to keep the entire length of track free of rubbish?
The train goes through my West Highland village. I am an ardent passenger on it and have been since a boy, when the station was the hub of our universe and the corrals held our livestock for transport to the lowland markets. Nowadays only a hut and a platform remain of that boyhood memory.
In those days of BB (before Beeching) British Railways very much cared for its stations and passengers. Why does it not still? After all, the whole north west of the Highlands and Islands survives. Those areas still need the attentions of the Belford Hospital consultants, fast transport for businessmen and freight, and tourism. Now that the ski complex is blossoming, British Rail announces its closure of the sleeper and Motorail. In company with everyone who is concerned with the Highland line, I am appalled.
BR must be told in no uncertain way that it simply cannot cut off the Highlands and Islands sleeper/Motorail services just because, as yet, the line does not balance its books. Railtrack might consider running it all on its own from the vast sums that it charges other operators. Amenity can bring its just rewards sometimes, if given a push. The alternative is

1479
bleak for the north west of Scotland, if we are to be deprived of services which in most other parts of this kingdom people regard as their common right. Let us just look at a road map of Scotland and ponder on the dire alternatives and consequences for the future.
What benefits will this privatisation bring to railway passengers north of the Border? Apparently none. It is a clear indication that British Rail and the Royal Mail would be a lot safer in the hands of nationalisation (one of the few exceptions to the rule now surging through this kingdom). Keeping the railways and the Royal Mail under government eyes would make me feel a lot safer than just throwing them to the avaricious wolves.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gray for asking this Question tonight. As ever on railway matters, I declare an interest. It will come as no surprise to noble Lords that I have some sympathy with the British Rail decision. I also have to say that I have some sympathy with the speech of my noble friend Lord Rankeillour. He has probably travelled that railway more times than have the rest of us put together.
The noble Lord is a lover of the West Highland railway, and so am I. I am sad to see the sleeper threatened with withdrawal. But I have to say that I find annual subsidies of £2.6 million for the operation of the train and £4 million for infrastructure quite unacceptable in my capacity as a taxpayer. In terms of costs per passenger, these figures become £180 per single journey and £450 respectively. They are all 1993–94 figures from an Oral Answer in another place; and they relate to the 14,600 passengers carried by the West Highlander in that year: 284 passengers per week spread over 12 trains, six each way. With six trains each way, you get an average load of 23 passengers per train. I shall return to that point later.
If the press comments, some of which have already been prayed in aid this evening, repeating that shibboleth "Beeching", or talking about "withering on the vine" or about lack of investment and lack of marketing, were true, I should have a great deal more sympathy with those who spoke passionately tonight for the train. But, sadly, they are not totally true.
To quote Beeching would involve closure of the route, touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Buchan, and mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rankeillour. But we are not talking about closure of the route. In this case we are talking about the withdrawal of one train.
Turning to the idea of withering on the vine and to investment, the West Highland has received a disproportionate amount of investment in the past decade. I wish that my railway from Waterloo to the New Forest had received similar levels in terms of the passengers that it carries. Millions are spent on radio electronic tokenless block signalling and on new day-time trains. The sleeping cars themselves are much more modem than those on many of the trains on which I travel down to the New Forest. Indeed, they are much
1480
more modem than the high-speed train fleet, which is a means of communication for many Members of this House.
With other investment over the decades, the journey time from London has come down by some two-and-a-half hours since I first travelled on the route, and indeed on the night sleeper, in 1962. There is one monster difference, which nobody has mentioned, between 1962 and today; namely, the presence of the motor car.
Is lack of marketing to blame? That was also touched on by noble Lords. I hardly feel so. Last year saw the centenary of the West Highland line. It was celebrated with additional steam services. There was a new video—the second film in effect in recent years; I can remember paying, in my British Tourist Authority days, for the early 1980s film. There are cassette tapes, a new history of the line and a very attractive description of the sights on the route which make the journey by daylight very appealing indeed. My noble friend Lord Lindsay was at Fort William for the centenary celebrations with the West Highland line steam locomotive that was rescued by his late father. The West Highland line and the West Highlander have scarcely ever had that much publicity before.
What about the more specific appeal to the customer's pocket? My noble friend Lord Rankeillour mentioned lack of marketing. But he will recall that in the past two or three years I told him of certain opportunities and he has indeed used them. There has been a very great deal of marketing in an effort to keep this sleeper going. There has been advertising at both ends of the route. With the Apex tickets, similar to the airline ones, one saves money by booking some time in advance. There have been discounted berths for family Railcard holders, including the offer of two berths for the price of one. There have been offers of sole occupancy of twin berth compartments for second-class ticket holders; special packages for couples; and off-peak first-class offers—to say nothing of Motorail offers, which I believe I specifically mentioned to my noble friend. There have been four special Motorail offers, Let us not forget the work that was done by the Scottish Tourist Board and my erstwhile friends in HIDB, which in those days had tourist cars covering the line, as well as my erstwhile colleagues in the British Tourist Authority.
I am always delighted when tourism is prayed in aid, as it has been tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, and the noble Earl, Lord Buchan, among others. But all this promotional and marketing activity suggests to me that the train does not meet tourism needs which cannot be met by other services on the route.
Where does all this activity leave us? On my last journey on the West Highlander, last October, there were 10 passengers, of whom five were my colleagues—British Rail's "best kept station" judges—and five were revenue fare paying customers. Those five in no way cover the staffing costs: seven people are required to run the train, actually on the train between Fort William and Glasgow. They do not cover the staffing costs, the rolling stock costs or the traction costs; and them is no way that they could cover the infrastructure costs, no matter how we calculate those.

1481
You could have given some away for free and the train would still have been losing a fortune. To put it another way, the £180 per passenger subsidy figure that is mentioned is four-and-a-half times that payable for a passenger who uses the Inverness sleeper and 11 times that of using the Edinburgh sleeper.
The West Highlander has, sadly, run its course. I sympathise with BR's decision to withdraw it. In the light of the franchising director's decision to withdraw subsidy—it was the franchising director who took that decision—given the numbers, I would be reluctant to look for subsidy from any other source. Rather, we should hope that the Inverness service, with its ongoing subsidy and its prospects, is given a fair crack of the whip.
This is an emotional issue, and I share that emotion. But emotion does not pay the bills. Let us celebrate the West Highland line and the West Highlander. But let the latter go, and let us concentrate on the much greater problems facing British Rail as a whole nationwide. The battle is really for the railways. The West Highlander seems to me to be but a smokescreen.
8 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, for reasons which have already been given and which I shall attempt to support, I do not go the whole way with my noble friend Lord Mountevans. Fortunately, my noble friend Lord Gray has already deployed in great detail and with great accuracy the financial implications involved. I am glad that he did so. It saves us all a bit of time.
I have no interest to declare in this matter. I used the West Highland line quite often until about 40 years ago. Since then I have not used it very much and certainly not in recent years. I remember the West Highlands for some of the most wonderful scenery in the world, and wonderful wildlife too. It is a great potential tourist attraction, not merely for people from the southern half of England but from the rest of the world. Fortunately, there is a growing tendency to treat the world as one place. Air travel has made that possible.
The noble Earl, Lord Buchan, mentioned Rome. It so happens that I was there yesterday concluding a three-day visit—not, alas, on holiday. I was working rather hard, unpaid I hasten to add. I was astonished at the number of Japanese people in Rome. That is just a symptom of the ever increasing travel between various parts of the world involving people from all over the world.
Most long distance travel is done by air. But, as the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said, in the West Highlands the air services are somewhat limited. They are limited for the tourist trade. Some of the landing fields are so small that they can take only very light aircraft and might not meet the needs of tourist traffic if it increases, as I believe it will, in the years to come.
For that reason the West Highland line to Fort William is truly essential. The question that remains is whether the night sleeper service is also essential. I believe that it is and will become more so as the international tourist trade expands, as it undoubtedly
1482
will if those in this country who are responsible for developing what is a great money earner for this country—it helps the balance of payments—do as well as they should. If so, the tourist trade to the West Highlands will undoubtedly expand over the years. That goes beyond the valid reasons for the West Highland line stated by my noble friends Lord Gray and Lord Rankeillour.
I must say a word about the cost of the sleeper service and attempt to answer some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Mountevans. I voted for privatisation. But during the discussions on the Bill I never understood—I do not think I was given to understand—that services such as these would be closed down. The railways, even though privatised, are a public service. It would go against principle if only those services were operated which made a good profit. Within a few years only suburban services, inter-city services, football specials, summer seaside services and a few profitable freight services would be running. I was very interested to hear my noble friend Lord Gray mention the potential for freight services on the West Highland line.
Surely, it is unbelievable that privatisation could result in the loss of all other services, some of them somewhat marginal and some losing small sums of money, which are necessary to the life of the people in the country. If that were to happen, our roads would become even more congested than they are already. Therefore, I believe that some traffic which does not pay or does not pay well enough should be subsidised. If the West Highland night sleeper services were better advertised, as has been suggested, they would be subsidised less.
But even if they have to be subsidised, they should be kept going as a public service. I agree that it is a question of the amount of the subsidy. Obviously, that must not get out of hand. But it is a matter for those who will have the responsibility of running the services to see that they are well advertised and that the public are persuaded to make the fullest use of them.
It would be absurd to discontinue this service in early May without further thought being given to what has been said in this evening's debate, without further thought for the future, and indeed ignoring the 250th anniversary of the landing by Prince Charles Edward, as the noble Earl, Lord Buchan, mentioned. Alas, this debate is not about Motorail on which, as an octogenarian widower, I have become rather dependent in travelling between Euston and Carlisle and which, I dare to hope, may too be given an extended lease of life.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, it is a pleasure to support my noble friend Lord Gray and other noble Lords who have spoken on this matter. My personal interest is indirect. I used the line and its sleeper services quite a lot when living in Argyll. I still have family there including a brother who recently moved to Roybridge and is a close neighbour of my noble friend Lord Rankeillour. He has told me about the anxiety of local people.

1483
It is not just those who live close to the line who are concerned. The railway has, expressed in geographic terms, a vast catchment area. The West Highlands depends on the line for both trade and tourism. And tourism is not just a summer matter. Skiing has made it an all-year-round industry. I am told that at New Year, when a vast number of skiers headed for Fort William, there was a desperate call for additional coaches on the trains, both sleepers and ordinary coaches. For some reason, British Rail was not able to supply them. I merely repeat what I have been told. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can look into the matter and write to me. If I have been misinformed, I am most sorry.
The feeling of the local people can be illustrated by a page from the Fort William newspaper Press and Journal. I have shown it to my noble friend and he has taken a copy of it. There are three main headlines. One says, "Appeal to Premier to save North rail lines". It tells how the regional council convenor, Duncan McPherson, is attempting to save the Motorail's sleeper service and how a number of honourable Members in another place representing the Highlands are trying to interview the Prime Minister about it. Two further headlines are "Timetable of broken promise" and "A feeling of betrayal".
There is another matter to be considered. The railway line is extremely famous. It is featured in a book which I received at Christmas called, Train Journeys of the World. It describes 30 journeys throughout the world: among them is Glasgow to Fort William on to Mallaig. It contains descriptions of the wonderfully scenic journey that can be experienced. If British Rail insists on withdrawing sleeper and Motorail services, the West Highlands will begin to consider what other services can be cut. As was pointed out, there is no airport near Fort William and therefore the railway line is vital. Will British Rail eventually cut the lifeline?
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I can say that the Press and Journal is a north Scotland newspaper printed in Aberdeen.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady for that information. The cutting was sent to me by my brother who lives near Fort William. I thought therefore that it was from that district. I am grateful for the correction.
8.11 p.m.
The Earl of Dundonald: My Lords, I too add my support to that of other noble Lords in the Chamber. Many of us feel strongly about this matter. I wish to start by looking at the other side of the coin to the one presented by my noble friend Lord Mountevans.
The Government clearly have a duty to deal in the best possible way with the assets owned by British Rail. I should like to point out to the Minister and to others that the principal asset of the West Highland line is that of the track. Any businessman will say that one should make the maximum use of any fixed asset if one is paying for it day in and day out regardless of whether or not it is being used. I suggest, therefore, that if we
1484
were realistically looking at the business we would be trying to run services on the line 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Clearly that is not possible—hut we should try to move towards that.
The other aspect is that the rolling stock is bought and paid for. I know that it is going into a separate leasing company, but if there is to be an excess of rolling stock once this service, and perhaps others, are cut, then there will be a lot of secondhand rolling stock lying around the country and it will not have the same value as its original cost. The break-even point on this service, therefore, is the cost of the variable costs of the business, not that of the fixed or rolling costs. The variable costs do not amount to much; they incorporate things like wages, fuels and everyday repairs and renewals. The Government really should take note of that.
Coming back to the point relating to the track, if the Government are saying that we should preclude ourselves at this moment in time from using half of that asset—that is, the night time part of it—then it will be that much more difficult to see any form of realistic payback on it. Hotels, golf courses, or any other assets that deal with services and people, do not take that view.
The next point is a follow-on and one to which other noble Lords alluded. If we take away half the available time to make money to recover those costs, it makes it that much more expensive to run the other part of those services. It means that the Government will have to subsidise the other services more than they do at present. It may be possible to take the view that it would make closure of the line in its entirety that much easier at some time in the future. I should like to think that that is not the case, but it may be possible to draw that conclusion.
I should perhaps draw my noble friend's attention to a letter received by his friend in another place, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, from Arjo Wiggins, a major employer in the area. It made the point that the company transports 55,000 tonnes of freight annually. In the event of the line being closed—I know that that is not what we are discussing tonight, but it may be possible to suggest that—it would cost an additional £160,000 per annum. That makes it extremely difficult to run those sorts of businesses.
To turn to the effect on local businesses in the area, it seems strange that we should be discussing the closing of an opportunity tonight when recently there was talk of through sleeper services from both Glasgow and Edinburgh to Paris, Milan and other European capitals. I do not understand the logic and perhaps my noble friend the Minister will explain that to me in his response. There are 16,000 passengers who use the sleeper service on an annual basis. That is a lot of people.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to say, that amounts to 14 people per train. The figure of 16,000 sounds a lot, but it is only 14 people per train.
The Earl of Dundonald: My Lords, perhaps I can continue and expound the point in relation to local businesses. Assuming those passengers spend £100 a

1485
head, to withdraw the services may produce a fallout of as much as 50 per cent. The effect on the local economy, therefore, could be as much as £1 million per year. That is a significant part of the tourist income in an area such as Fort William and Lochaber. Again, I do not understand the logic of that. When we are trying to encourage tourism in those areas, that does not seem logical.
We have the opportunity to make British Rail in the west of Scotland work properly, and that opportunity is being taken away. I draw the attention of my noble friend the Minister to the Scottish Association of Public Transport which wrote, as he may or may not be aware, to the Prime Minister on this matter promoting its North Star proposals where the franchise director may be encouraged to incorporate services other than the ones he is at present considering into the ScotRail franchise. They would include the opportunity to expand and develop the sleeper services on the West Highland line. What better way of arriving in Fort William or the west of Scotland than having had a good night's sleep and breakfast on a sleeper car, passing over Rannoch Moor.
In conclusion, it seems illogical, just as the Government are trying to encourage new franchisees into the system, to close down what is a wonderful opportunity for those businesses.
8.18 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gray, for introducing this debate. In particular, he not only asked two important questions which query the Government's willingness to exercise their remaining powers in regard to privatisation, but in doing so he provided, as several other noble Lords pointed out, a valuable series of figures and advice drawn from known experts in the field as to the real cost of maintaining this service. I hope that the Minister, in responding to the debate, will clarify how those costs compare with the figures given by Ministers in another place. It may be that those figures were given here. If so, I apologise for the error. It seemed to me that there was a considerable discrepancy between the two which needs to be clarified.
In addition, the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, made some extremely good points about the importance of not ascribing the whole cost of any particular part of the railway to one service and about the difference between total cost and marginal cost. I hope that the Minister will respond to those points.
Many noble Lords have spoken about the local situation. I have nothing to say on that subject. I claim no knowledge whatever of the West Highlands. But when one hears people who have lived there all their lives speak of those needs, we all have to pay attention. My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie, who has not claimed to live there all his life, and the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, expressed those local needs very vividly indeed. Those needs should be taken into consideration, as in particular should the lack of alternative direct links with the capital of what is still
1486
supposed to be a united kingdom—however much I may agree with some of the points which my noble friend made, this is perhaps not the place to have that debate—and the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, said, the service is a lifeline to the outside world which is still required today. That is a good reason for maintaining it.
Other noble Lords have spoken of the opportunities that are available to advertise and to gain more users of the service. I should like to endorse what the noble Earl, Lord Buchan, said about the importance of these long-distance services now that we have a direct rail link to the rest of continental Europe. It is ridiculous to be destroying this kind of service at the very moment when it becomes more relevant, if anything, than it has been before. Now is not the time to be carrying out such destruction.
In a way, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, summed up these views when he spoke of the need to regard rail services as part of a public service approach to transport. I endorse that and add a point which essentially many noble Lords made, although not directly. Transport is not just one thing taken in isolation. The Government approach it in that way. It is very difficult to perceive any integrated transport policy in their attitude to such matters as the destruction of this or that part of a given service. I see that the Minister shakes his head—not his hands: he might be wringing his hands perhaps, but not visibly. Perhaps he can explain to me how the withdrawal of subsidy for these services satisfies some overall public transport good. I must say that it is invisible to me, as it is to many other noble Lords present today.
I should like to add one or two points which have not been mentioned by other speakers, at least not directly. The first concerns the relationship between what is happening here and rail privatisation. There is no doubt in my mind that the two matters are intimately connected, if only because it is the franchising director's decision not to include these services in the public service requirement for franchisees—not to subsidise the services—that has brought them to a point of crisis. The situation has been worsened by the fact that ScotRail, presumably a potential franchisee which would want to run this part of the rail service, is apparently threatening to cut the services in advance of the completion of the consultation process set in motion by the franchising director. It is that aspect of the matter which is the most shameful because it is not a suitable way to go about public business. As has been said, it is rather like closing a school and then consulting on the future of that school. That is not the kind of thing that local authorities on the whole do; and if they do, it does not reflect any credit upon them.
We believe that at least a golden share should be retained in Railtrack. That would remove one of the causes of this whole problem—the separation between Railtrack and the train operating companies. That is precisely why it is so difficult, as the noble Lord, Lord Gray, said, to distinguish between the costs of Railtrack and the costs of train operating when one is dealing with , this or any other part of the growing and emerging so-called rail system in this country. We believe that we

1487
should retain at least a golden share in Railtrack so that the public interest and the public transport policy aspects of government can be encouraged through that share ownership.
Finally, I plead with the Minister to use his residual power to prevent the closure of this service before the public consultation has been completed. That public consultation should be used to bring all the concerns which noble Lords have expressed today into the public arena. I very much hope that he will be able to reassure us on that very important point.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gray, for initiating this important debate. It is a story that has been marked by an extraordinary amalgam of confusion, evasion, contradiction and non-answers, and also tonight by a number of admissions on the part of noble Lords opposite that perhaps they were wrong about support for privatisation—at least they have expressed some doubts about that.
It was last December that the franchising director, Mr. Roger Salmon, announced that he would not include Motorail trains on the Fort William/Carlisle and Carlisle/London, Plymouth/Edinburgh/Glasgow sleepers in his passenger service requirements. The Minister categorised that as a preliminary announcement—some preliminary announcement! But evidently the franchising director expected that the trains would keep running in the meantime. On the other hand, British Rail interpreted his announcement to the effect that the services should be withdrawn and in fact decided to do that as from 28th May this year. What is offensive about what has happened is that there was apparently no consultation about the effect on Scottish tourism. There was no consultation about the employment effects. But we were still informed that the formal consultation would take place. What did happen, according to British Rail—this was not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans—is that it consulted the Scottish Office and the Department of Transport and gained the approval of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising before deciding to withdraw the service. I put it to the Minister: is that version correct?
A number of strange answers appeared in Hansard in both Houses about all this. But, as the noble Baroness just said, to imagine that in the light of what the franchising director had said, and furthermore in the light of what had been said by a colleague of his, Mr. James Watson, on behalf of the franchising director, that they were not intending to review the decision which was announced before Christmas but that they were intending to consult on that decision as part of the ScotRail PSR, who can believe in any genuine consultation? He has made up his mind. What will really happen now is simply that the franchising director will go through the exercise and say, "I have undertaken my statutory obligation", and that is that. The result is wholly predictable. I know that the Minister disputes that, but I really do not believe that he can say that with any conviction in his voice or in his thoughts.
1488
On 6th March the franchising director said that he expects "consultation" (so called) to begin in May and to last not less than eight weeks. Yet on 15th March, Mr. John Swift, the rail regulator, said that it is not up to British Rail to withdraw the trains. The decision should be made by the Government and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising. That is precisely what happened. They have both colluded in that.
I want the Minister to answer this question: can the Secretary of State force BR to maintain the service until the so-called "consultation" has taken place? Do Ministers have any role? If they do not, why were they consulted by British Rail and why does British Rail pray in aid their support? Can Ministers interfere with the rulings of the regulator?
What about the users' committee? We know that Major General Lennox Napier, the chairman, declared roundly that Mr. Salmon should not have made the announcement that he did last December. He said that he should have waited for consultation to have taken place. That is patently obvious, as the noble Baroness put it in her contribution a moment ago. Evidently his pleas fell on deaf ears, as we have heard from Mr. James Watson, speaking on behalf of the franchising director.
So what is to happen? Having consulted the Scottish Office, the Department of Transport and OPRAF, British Rail proposes to keep the locomotives and coaches mothballed. What they should be doing, of course, is keeping the trains running pending consultation. The Government should take immediate steps to safeguard the services until proper consultation has taken place, although obviously that is now very difficult. They should undertake a proper, independent survey on the implications for employment and tourism.
Mr. Ian Grant, the chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board, has expressed deep concern regarding the implications for Scottish tourism, which brings in no less than £800 million to Scotland each year. So how is that likely to be affected by this decision?
Can the service be reinstated after it has been mothballed? The Minister must answer these questions. What about redundancy legislation and how that affects re-employment of redundant sleeper staff if the trains are reinstated after consultation? Would it not be necessary to have new recruits brought in who would have to be hired and trained?
Perhaps the most telling indictment in all this comes from Mr. Alex Lynch, the acting director-general of ScotRail for another few days. He is a most powerful witness. He said that BR and the franchising director have colluded in an unholy alliance to ensure the demise of the service before privatisation begins to take effect, undercutting the whole concept of consultation. The Minister must answer that accusation.
I shall not say anything about the cost because we know that the figures are clearly disparate and have been interpreted in a very different way. We have heard tonight the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, say one thing and the noble Lord, Lord Gray, say another. What the House is entitled to demand from the Minister is a proper, independent investigation into the calculations. But whatever those calculations may be it is chicken feed compared with the amount that has been

1489
squandered on privatisation so far, which amounts to many hundreds of millions of pounds including £4 million for those advising on rail privatisation.
I believe that this is really about reducing the rail network over a period to a core of lines requiring no subsidy. It is a story of no effective consultation. It sets an appalling precedent. It is not fair, it is not reasonable, it is not democratic and all concerned should think again.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to my noble friend Lord Gray for introducing the question of the West Highland sleeper this evening. As we have heard—especially from at least one of my noble friends whom I have not had the pleasure of hearing before—this is an issue which arouses strong feelings. I begin by acknowledging the strength of that feeling. I undertake to convey the feelings of the House to the franchising director. However, I believe that a little balance is required. I take the opportunity to clear up some of the misconceptions which have been aired.
I have not heard much defence of the level of subsidy this evening but a questioning of the figures. I shall go into the level of subsidy later on. But I feel that that is vitally important in considering the future of this service. I have also not heard a great deal about the levels of occupancy of the service. We have heard a great deal from noble Lords who feel that a case has been made for the retention of the service, but I do not feel that the issue of the very low levels of occupancy of the service has been fully addressed this evening.
In addition, this matter is not about the closure of a line, as some noble Lords have suggested. Indeed, a noble friend of mine said that he was not talking about the closure of the line, but then went on to talk about that. I would also strongly contest the conspiracy—
The Earl of Dundonald: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend will give way. I did not actually speak about the closure of the line but about the possible closure at some future date and this simply being a first stage.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am very well aware that my noble friend is himself fully aware of the statutory closure process that the closure of any line has to go through. I do not see that the closure of the West Highland sleeper line is related to that issue at all. I would strongly contest the conspiracy theory put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Buchan, and the, shall I call it, "anti-Scottish theory" put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie.
To these ends I believe it might be helpful if I give a little background to the situation which might help clarify some of the issues that we have discussed this evening. I believe that a good starting point would be a discussion of the role of the franchising director. He has been given the task of securing that passenger railway services are franchised as soon as reasonably practicable. He has statutory powers and duties which are set out in the Railways Act. Under Section 5 of that
1490
Act the Secretary of State has powers to set him objectives and to give him instructions and guidance. He is required to encourage efficiency and economy and to promote the use and cost-effective development of the rail network. I believe that that is an extremely important point.
In franchising rail services the franchising director has to secure value for money for the funds which he has available and to allocate them in the best interests of passengers. My noble friend Lord Renton went into this issue. I was very pleased to hear him acknowledge that the levels of subsidy must be taken into account in the context of the levels of occupancy. I am sure that my noble friend did say, and would say again, that he would not want to see levels of subsidy not examined and that they are of great importance in considering the issue.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. He should also bear in mind that I said that the level of subsidy can be considerably reduced, as has been mentioned by some of my noble friends.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the only hard evidence that we have to go on is the actual levels of subsidy at the moment and the services offered by British Rail. As my noble friend acknowledged, the whole purpose of rail privatisation is to encourage a more efficient railway. We believe that the franchisees, in taking up the franchises, will be able to create great efficiencies and make more efficient use of the network.
It is important at this point to say that, should the successful franchisee wish to take forward a service, there is nothing to prevent him from doing that. The question under consideration is the passenger service requirement or the guarantee.
The question of the efficient allocation of funds will inevitably require the franchising director to take difficult decisions. One such decision is the level of the provision of sleeper services to Scotland. The franchising process is already well under way. The franchising director issued a pre-qualification document last December inviting organisations to apply for consideration as bidders for eight franchises, including ScotRail. Last week Roger Salmon announced the results of that exercise. Thirty-seven organisations have applied to pre-qualify. Many are interested in more than one franchise, with the result that the total number of applications for the eight franchises is over 160. So there is clearly healthy private sector interest in running passenger services.
Each franchise will be built around a passenger service requirement. The so-called PSR will specify the contractually guaranteed level of service which each franchisee will be required to operate. Among other things, it will specify frequency, journey times, first and last trains and weekend and off-peak services. Passenger service requirements will protect services to every station and on every route on the network. I hope that that guarantee will reassure my noble friend Lord Gainford about his concerns, which ranged beyond the question of the West Highland sleeper.

1491
Draft passenger service requirements for four of the first franchises were announced by the franchising director and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport last month. They cover the Great Western, London Tilbury & Southend, Gatwick Express, and South West Trains franchises. The proposed passenger service requirement for ScotRail will be announced in early summer. This will include proposals for those Anglo-Scottish sleeper services which the franchising director believes should be protected by the PSR.
There has been some discussion this evening, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about consultation and the early preliminary announcement by the franchising director. As has been said, the franchising director has already given an indication of the sleeper services which he is minded to include in the passenger service requirement. He announced on 14th December that he was minded to include sleepers to four of the five existing Scottish destinations—Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness. At the same time, he made it clear that he was minded not to include the Fort William sleeper or any Motorail services in the PSR.
As we have heard, some people have taken the view that the franchising director's announcement has pre-empted the consultation exercise on the future of those services. I vigorously deny that. It is not the case. At the time of his announcement, there was considerable speculation about the future of sleeper services generally and worries that the franchising process would see the end of all Anglo-Scottish sleeper services. It was to calm this speculation that the franchising director made his intentions known.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for giving way, but will he indicate whether or not the charge that was made by the deputy or acting director general of ScotRail was right—that the Government had colluded and had agreed to the closure of the service as from 28th May?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not think that there are any accusations of collusion to be made at all. I shall set out what has happened; the reason for the franchising director's early announcement to quell speculation; the role of the franchising director; the role of the Government; the role of BR and the interaction between BR and Ministers.
As I have said, the ScotRail passenger service requirement will be subject to consultation in early summer. All the issues that have been raised this evening concerning tourism and other important questions will be fully aired.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but is it not the case that an announcement that the service will be ended was made before the end of the consultation process which the franchising director instituted? That is the question to which we are all awaiting a reply. If that is not the case, why does the Minister think that that impression has
1492
been so widely received by most noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Gray, as he mentioned in the opening speech?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that there has been some misunderstanding. If the noble Baroness will allow me to say so, I think that perhaps she has perpetuated some of that misunderstanding—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I was asking a question.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is confusing the role of the franchising director, who is involved in setting the passenger service requirements for guarantees of future service levels after privatisation, and the question of BR announcing that it would no longer run the service. That is not the passenger service requirement. That is not the role of the director of rail passenger franchising. This is a question for British Rail—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords—
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will remain in her seat for a moment longer, she will hear me fully explain the situation.
Perhaps I may return to the issue of consultation. The draft passenger service requirement will be sent to all the interested local authorities and to the relevant rail users' consultative committees. The Office of Passenger Rail Franchising will have detailed discussions on the services to be included and the franchising director has made it clear that he will consider any representations he receives about the inclusion in the PSR of the Fort William service.
I turn now to the reasons why the franchising director reached the preliminary view that the Fort William service should not be included in the PSR. Essentially he was concerned that the very high cost to the taxpayer of these services and their low usage suggested that they represented very poor value for money indeed. In respect of the Fort William sleeper, the cost in subsidy to the taxpayer of keeping that service running is £450 per passenger journey including infrastructure costs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, challenged me to explain the difference between my figures and those given by my noble friend. I do not believe that I can do that at the Dispatch Box. Our figures come from British Rail. After all, it is British Rail which operates the service. The figure that I have quoted is not far short of the average subsidy which travellers in the south east receive for a full year's commuting. Whatever strong arguments or otherwise have been put forward this evening, I believe that it is vital that that context is taken into account.
I believe that levels of usage are critical in analysing the case that has been made by noble Lords. On average, the Fort William sleeper is only 60 per cent. full in summer—about 36 passengers per train—and 50 per cent. full in winter when the number of carriages per train is reduced. Average occupancy in the winter, therefore, is about 18 people. In addition, demand is

1493
falling and could be expected to continue to do so in future. On Motorail, 17,600 cars were carried in 1993–94, representing 48 per cent. of capacity.
Faced with those figures it is perhaps not surprising that the franchising director reached the preliminary view that he did. Nevertheless, he is certainly well aware of the importance which is attached to these services locally, which has been ably expressed in the House this evening. He will also have noted the campaign which has been mounted to save the services. I have given the undertaking that he will take fully into account the report of this evening's debate. The franchising director's mind is not closed and if the consultation process leads him to conclude that the services should be preserved, they will be included in the PSR and the franchisee will be contractually required to operate them.
It is for the franchising director to use his judgment to decide what services to include in franchises in the light of the consultation. The objectives, instructions and guidance which have been issued to him give him general guidance but leave specific decisions to him. The Secretary of State has therefore instructed the franchising director to ensure that for the initial letting of franchises, the passenger service requirements are based on the service level being provided by BR immediately prior to franchising. This does not mean that he has to include every service provided by BR. It would be wrong to try to fossilise the existing pattern of services in this way.
1494
The second half of my noble friend's Question deals with British Rail's decision to withdraw the Fort William sleeper and Motorail services from the summer timetable, which effectively means that the services will stop operating on 28th May. This is the point about which the noble Baroness was talking. Until franchises are let, decisions about individual services are a commercial matter for British Rail. It is for BR to judge the market and to allocate its resources in response to the needs of passengers. Ministers have no powers to direct it on matters relating to the provision of individual services. On this occasion, BR has taken the view that it cannot justify continuing the services into the summer timetable.
I regret that I have run against the buffers of the time limit. My right honourable friend has asked BR to ensure that all the assets needed to run the Fort William sleeper and Motorail services will be kept available at least until the end of the consultation process on the ScotRail franchise.
I hope that the House will accept that Ministers and the franchising director are in no doubt about the strength of feeling expressed by noble Lords this evening.

Jobseekers Bill
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order 48; read a first time.
House adjourned at nine minutes before nine o'clock.

  Inhumane Weapons Convention
  Inhumane Weapons Convention
  Protection of National Minorities Convention
  Protection of National Minorities Convention
  Turkey: Measures to Enhance Democratic Freedom
  Turkey: Measures to Enhance Democratic Freedom
  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
  Pit Bull Terrier Control Schemes
  Pit Bull Terrier Control Schemes
  Car Crime: Control Initiatives
  Car Crime: Control Initiatives
  Hazardous Waste: Special Waste Regulations
  Hazardous Waste: Special Waste Regulations