Sitting of 11 May 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 18 May

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY

    Domestic Economy
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on prospects for improvement in the state of the domestic economy. [22225]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The outlook remains highly favourable. The economy grew by nearly 4 per cent. last year and inflation was at its lowest level for over 30 years.
    Mr. Gapes: If the outlook is really favourable, why did we have a £10.5 billion deficit on trade in 1994, why has the pound devalued by 35 per cent. since the Prime Minister took us into the exchange rate mechanism at DM2.95 and why is the weakness of our economy being reflected by a weakening of our currency, day by day?
    Mr. Clarke: First, our trade performance continues to improve. The hon. Gentleman will know that this morning's trade figures show exports up by 9 per cent. in volume compared with a year ago and he will also know that the current account last year was extremely favourable despite the strong recovery. We even showed a surplus in our dealings with Japan last year. The hon. Gentleman's sudden concern about the exchange rate is very reassuring. He will be glad to know that we are strengthening against the deutschmark today.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the unemployed, small business, the construction industry, many of the service industries and much of the retail trade are relieved and grateful that he did not put up interest rates? Will he confirm that the grounds for that decision were purely economic and based on factors such as low wage inflation, the flat housing market and the quarterly survey by the Forum of Private Business showing that for the past four quarters the rate of growth had gone down? Will he confirm that if inflationary pressures rise he would have no hesitation in putting up interest rates?
    Mr. Clarke: I confirm all those things. As my hon. Friend says, small businesses in particular want stability
    868
    and certainty in the Government's policy. We are pursuing steady recovery with low inflation and every policy action that I take is aimed at that conclusion. I congratulate my hon. Friend on expressing an opinion on the decision that I took on Friday. Nobody in the Labour party has yet seemed to have formed an opinion one way or the other as to whether the decision was welcome.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that no Government can allow the Governor of the Bank of England to determine economic policy in this country? The Government, of whatever party, must determine such matters, and they are judged right or wrong by the events as they unfold.
    Mr. Clarke: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should tell me that. His own shadow Chancellor needs to be told that. Everybody will discover in six weeks' time in the usual way the opinion of the Governor and myself at last week's meeting. Everyone can see from the Governor's speech this morning that the Governor of the Bank of England and I are entirely agreed on the object of policy and we believe that that policy has been delivered successfully.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the shadow Chancellor, has now got the monthly monetary report and the Governor's own inflation report; he has seen the judgment of the markets; he has heard every financial commentator give an opinion and he has heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) give an opinion, yet he has no opinion at all on the subject one way or the other. The shadow Chancellor does not even cast a shadow one way or the other. He would just wait to see what the Governor told him to do.
    Mr. Renton: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had time in his busy morning to read an article in today's edition of The Times headed
    "Three cheers for Clarke, the best post-Jenkins Chancellor"?
    Is he aware that Mr. Kaletsky, the author of the article, congratulates him on being his own man in standing up against the City and the Bank of England and their pressure for higher interest rates?
    Is my right hon. and learned Friend also aware that many of his hon. Friends would disagree with Mr. Kaletsky's conclusion that he should become President of the European Commission, but expect him to remain as an extremely successful Chancellor for many years, leading and guiding the improvement in the economy of the country?
    Mr. Clarke: I read the article and I am, of course, grateful to Mr. Kaletsky and to my right hon. Friend. I have no aspirations to be President of the European Commission.
    Mr. Budgen: Yet.
    Mr. Clarke: I am unlikely to be put forward for that post by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen).
    One thing with which all my critics have always agreed, as much as my supporters, is that I endeavour to be my own man. I take my own decisions. I am extremely candid

    869
    and clear about why I have taken those decisions. I am faced by an opponent who has no opinions and no decision-taking capacity on the subject.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor agree with the Governor of the Bank of England and the chief economist of the Bank of England that interest rates will have to rise sooner rather than later? Is he still serious about keeping inflation under 2.5 per cent. by the end of this Parliament?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall set interest rates, as I have always said I shall set them, after discussion with the Governor of the Bank of England, to pursue the objective upon which we are both agreed of keeping inflation between the 1 to 4 per cent. range and getting it under the lower half by the end of the Parliament. I shall continue to do that.
    If the hon. Gentleman wants to know the opinion of the Governor on that, he will know that he made a speech in Aberdeen this morning in which he said:
    "Notwithstanding the current excitements, I am convinced we remain in better economic shape than we have been for a very long time. The Chancellor has made it clear that the macro economic policies that have brought us to this point remain in place—and it is important, from my perspective, that they should."
    I agree with that. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with that, and I have not a clue whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East agrees.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Chancellor answer the question put to him just a minute ago? The Bank of England said this morning that under the present policies, the Government's last remaining target—an inflation target of 2.5 per cent. by the end of the Parliament—will not be met. [Interruption.] That is what the Bank of England said this morning. Will the Chancellor now reaffirm in clear words that the inflation target of 2.5 per cent. by the end of the Parliament will not be changed?
    Mr. Clarke: I have just said that it will not be changed. There has been no change of policy. What the Bank of England's inflation report this morning says is that it has revised its forecast up slightly because of recent changes in the exchange rate. It stresses that the certainties about inflation are vague—it does not give a spot figure. We will continue to set interest rates to achieve the target that I have given. That is a clear policy.
    If the hon. Gentleman believes that forecasts of inflation are cast in concrete, he is mistaken. If he wants a guide to policy, he should not just look at one forecast of inflation, but look at the commitment of the Government and the Governor to low inflation and the fact that, in the past 19 months, we have produced the best inflation record the country has seen since 1961.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his courage last week in not putting up interest rates? He knows my views about the importance to the country of the manufacturing and construction industries. Does he accept that a real guide to the true economic strength of the country is the strength of construction and manufacturing? If they are doing well, all the other indicators are, in my view, irrelevant. Would he comment on that?
    Mr. Clarke: Much as I would love to agree with every word of my hon. Friend, in the end he underestimates
    870
    the complexity of delivering sustained recovery with low inflation, which has eluded the country ever since the war. We now have the best prospects of achieving that. The present recovery is being led by manufacturing and our export performance with the outside world is particularly encouraging, because we are rebalancing the economy in a much healthier fashion.
    I am glad that my hon. Friend considers my decision courageous, because it is exactly the same type of decision as those I have taken for the past two years. We are pursuing a consistent policy to give manufacturers and others the stability that they require and the certainty they need about the way in which the Government intend to take economic policy.

    Mortgage Interest Relief at Source
    Mr. Fraser: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that an unmarried couple owning a house and who have jointly borrowed £60,000 or more are not penalised in terms of MIRAS. [22226]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young): Since 1 August 1988, mortgage interest relief has been restricted to a loan of £30,000 per residence, regardless of the number or marital status of the people buying together. That rule ensures that married and unmarried couples are treated in the same way. Unmarried people buying a house together before 1 August 1988 can keep any higher level of relief to which they were entitled, as long as their circumstances do not change. However, if they move, replace the loan, or marry, their limit for relief falls to £30,000 between them.
    Mr. Fraser: Does that mean that, if an unmarried couple who bought their house before 1988 get married, the Government put a tax on marriage and legitimacy? Surely that is not Government policy. Is it not about time that the law was changed, so that those cohabitees who do marry do not suffer a tax penalty?
    Sir George Young: The law was changed to remove exactly the injustice to which the hon. Gentleman refers, because, under the old rules, an unmarried couple could obtain as much as twice the amount of mortgage interest tax relief as a married couple. That was the injustice that we removed in 1988. We also gave transitional relief to those who had bought under the old rules, until such time as their circumstances changed.
    If we were to do what I believe that the hon. Gentleman wants us to do, we would simply continue to entrench an injustice that Conservative Members, at least, find unacceptable.
    Mr. Devlin: Surely it is right that married couples should be in no worse a position than unmarried couples, and therefore the restriction that took place in 1988 was perfectly just and well thought out. In fact, we should have done it earlier.
    Sir George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I find it perverse that a decision that we took in 1988, which I am not aware was criticised by Opposition Members at the time, has now come in for rather belated criticism from the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser).

    Privatisation
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the effect on the Exchequer in the last financial year of industries privatised since 1979; and what was their effect in 1979. [22227]
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In 1979, nationalised industries cost the taxpayer about £50 million each week. In 1994–95, privatised companies paid about £55 million each week into the Exchequer.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those figures demonstrate the outstanding success of our privatisation policy, which has been widely recognised throughout the world by such regimes as North Korea and Cuba? Does he not find it strange that the last bastion of socialism, the new Labour party, has yet to appreciate the effects of privatisation?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Labour party held a special conference to try to pretend that it no longer agreed with the North Korean communists, but only a week later, when the first privatisation proposition came before Parliament, it was opposing it again and backing the keeping of nuclear fuel in state-owned hands, in spite of the fact that privatisation will bring a dramatic fall in electricity prices in England, Scotland and, indeed, all parts of the United Kingdom.
    Ms Armstrong: Does the Chancellor recognise that the Treasury will make about £5 billion from the two privatisations that the Government are pursuing—£5 billion for tax cuts before the general election, which will have to be paid for by the British people to the tune of £10 billion in the costs of decommissioning power stations and subsidies to British Rail? What sort of bargain is that for the taxpayer?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Lady has at least worked out that the proposal to privatise the nuclear electricity industry has nothing to do with tax cuts. It has to do with putting in place commercial disciplines and private sector management, which those in the industry want, and reducing the costs of electricity to consumers throughout the country. That is the purpose of the privatisation.
    If it has become the policy of the Labour party to seek tax cuts—I have no knowledge of the direction in which it intends to go in that regard—tax cuts depend on tight control of public spending and the reduction of public borrowing. If the Labour party ever gets round to having an economic policy, perhaps Labour Members will give us the benefit of some of their opinions about some of those elements—tax, spending and borrowing.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the capacity of the privatised and other industries to invest and deliver wealth to the nation, jobs to our people and revenue to the Exchequer depends critically upon the level of interest rates? Does he agree that choking off investment every time we fear a tremor of inflation is a formula for the progressive debilitation of our economy?
    Mr. Clarke: That is right, but I am sure that my hon. Friend also agrees that inflation has killed off fast recovery and poses the biggest threat to the confidence that people must feel before they will invest in increasing industrial capacity. That is why we make the judgments
    872
    we do on the basis of a clear inflation target. That is why we look at the real economy, as well as the monetary aggregates and the exchange rate, when we make those decisions. I believe—judging from his speech today, the Governor believes it also—that we have been remarkably successful in getting the right balance over the past two or three years.

    Drugs
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what currently available figures he has for the quantities and value of drugs seized at United Kingdom airports over any conveniently available recent 12-month period. [22228]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): During 1994 Customs and Excise seized 47 tonnes of cannabis and four tonnes of cocaine, heroin and synthetic drugs, with a total street value of some £551 million. Some 10½ per cent. by value of these drugs were seized at airports.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I ask a question of which I have given Treasury officials notice? Could they put in the Library an account of what a senior Customs official, Mr. Philip Connolly—whom I do not criticise in any way—said to senior Pan American airways security officers Michael Jones and Jim Berwick about controlled drugs delivery? Will the Minister consider asking a senior Treasury official to watch carefully the two-hour film about Lockerbie which is to be screened tonight on Channel 4? The significance or otherwise of my question will then become apparent.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman did me the courtesy of giving me notice of his intention to raise the Lockerbie case. A British Customs officer did give information to an American court about the Lockerbie bombing, and confirmed that bag-switching is a technique used by drug smuggling organisations. However, there is no evidence that that was the way in which the bomb was put on the flight in question; nor were British Customs involved in any controlled delivery of drugs on that ill-fated flight. I shall ask my officials to watch the programme to be screened this evening, and I will supply any additional information to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend agree to look at the Treasury's policy relating to foreign rewards paid to British police forces for drugs seizures overseas? Is he aware that the Drug Enforcement Administration is prepared to pay very large sums in return for information that leads to drug seizures abroad? Under Treasury rules, all of that money must go directly to the Exchequer whereas, under DEA rules, the money must go directly to the drug squads involved. Therefore, Britain is denying itself large sums of money that would be available from the United States in the fight against drugs.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is quite correct in what he says. The proceeds of international drugs seizures can be recycled to drug enforcement agencies, including those in this country. I will obtain the details and write to my hon. Friend about the matter.

    Financial Supervision
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new proposals he is considering on banking and financial supervision. [22229]
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Banking and financial supervision is a large subject. Therefore, with respect, this is a rather wide question. At any one time a variety of issues will be under consideration. For example, my hon. Friend the Minister of State announced at the beginning of the year the outcome of our review of the Building Societies Act 1986 and, more recently, the Treasury released a consultation paper on open-ended investment companies with proposals for legislation to allow their formation in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Corbett: I thank the Chancellor for that answer. Does he accept that, following the rip-off of people on modest incomes who were persuaded to buy private pensions and mortgage-linked endowment policies, there is a need for more effective regulation of banking and financial services; or will those people simply become more casualties of the Government's indifference?
    Mr. Clarke: The response to the problems that have arisen with personal pensions shows how successful we are in having the right regulatory regime in place, and how responsive the authorities have been in making sure that individuals who might have suffered loss as a result of mis-selling are considered. We are going through a huge process of identifying any persons who may have experienced mis-selling of personal pensions and of making sure that those responsible put such people in the position in which they should be. Similarly, we already cover endowment-based mortgages under the Financial Services Act 1986.
    Strong arrangements are in place to provide consumer protection. It is not the right response to demand yet another quango and more Acts of Parliament—particularly when the present arrangements in this country work so much better than anything almost anywhere in the world.
    Mr. Budgen: As banking is affected by monetary policy, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on not having increased interest rates, for two reasons. At long last, he understands the advantages of floating exchange rates, and he demonstrates that, under our constitution, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be responsible for monetary policy and that it cannot be delegated to an independent Bank of England or, worst of all, to an independent central European bank.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend and I have always agreed on rather more of economic policy than he ever cares to concede. I do know that one has either a floating exchange rate or a fixed exchange rate, and that one should not have a target exchange rate when it is floating. The exchange rate is something that one takes into account when setting monetary policy. My hon. Friend gave an impeccable statement of the constitutional position when he said that the Chancellor is responsible for monetary policy in this country but acts on the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England. I have made matters more open than ever before, by allowing the Bank of England to publish an unedited inflation report and by publishing the minutes
    874
    of meetings after six weeks, to give it more credibility with people, such as my hon. Friend and myself, who want to see such decisions taken on economic grounds.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend on yet again giving an opinion one way or the other about last week's decision. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) had one chance to do so, but he went on about something that I have already forgotten. The hon. Gentleman failed absolutely to be the first member of the Labour party to say whether he would have increased interest rates, taken them down or done anything at all last Friday.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the Chancellor's statement that he does not want any more quangos, does he agree that it is time that the Treasury relaxed some restrictions on friendly societies, to allow them to give more benefits to their members, whom they have been looking after well for years?
    Mr. Clarke: That matter has been reviewed from time to time and we consider representations on the subject. We think that there is some scope for change.
    Mr. Brazier: Surely the most important purpose of banking supervision is to keep an eye on the overall level of lending and the money supply. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take it from me that many on this side of the House believe that when broad money is in the lower half of our range, 80 per cent. of bank lending to small businesses is secured on domestic property and there is still strong anecdotal evidence of tightness of credit in the economy, my right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to resist pressure to raise interest rates?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. Broad money as well as narrow money, which has remained above its target range for some time, are two of the items that one considers. I repeat my congratulations to my hon. Friend. He gave an opinion that may provoke a response, but the entire Labour party is sitting there like a stuffed duck because Labour Members do not know whether they are meant to get up and say that they agree or do not agree with last Friday, because the man in front of them has not yet made up his mind. He is incapable of making up his mind on any aspect of economic policy.
    Mr. Darling: I ask the Chancellor to return to the original question. Does he accept that pensions being mis-sold or people being given inappropriate advice about endowment mortgages is due in no small part to the fact that we live under a regime of self-regulation, where the public interest takes second place to the trade interest? Does he accept that public confidence in the industry will not be restored until the nonsense of self-regulation is brought to an end?
    Mr. Clarke: With the greatest respect, I do not agree that that case is made out at all. The statutory framework that we have is set under the Financial Service Act 1986. There is no evidence that making the whole regime statutory would improve a system in which the self-regulatory bodies contain a large number of people with detailed experience of how the industry works.
    Of course, we have to look at the serious problems that lie behind the mis-selling of so many personal pensions. I am confident that the new Personal Investment Authority will improve matters and exercise tighter

    875
    supervision. I am delighted that more than 5,000 firms have applied to join that authority, and I am sure they will strive to obtain higher standards in future.

    Public Borrowing
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the reduction in public borrowing (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other EU countries in the last year. [22230]
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The public sector borrowing requirement for 1994–95, was £10 billion lower than in the year before. Government borrowing is falling faster, here in the United Kingdom, than in any other major European economy.
    With permission Madam Speaker, I will publish the detailed information requested on other countries in the Official Report.
    Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that paying taxes is fundamental to keeping down the public sector borrowing requirement and to the financial well-being of everyone in the country? Will he therefore join me in deploring the fact that some of the newly elected Labour councillors on Castle Point borough council are facing committal proceedings—
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is hardly the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Much as I am devoted to Castle Point, I doubt whether the Chancellor has any responsibility for activities there.
    Dr. Spink: What would happen to the public sector borrowing requirement if, like the Labour councillors in Castle Point, the rest of us refused to pay our local taxes, as has Jim David of Canvey Island on Castle Point?
    Mr. Clarke: I believe that all citizens should pay the taxes to which they are legally liable, properly and on time. I also believe that taxation should be kept down to the lowest possible level consistent with the public spending required to provide good high-quality services.
    Mr. Enright: Will the Chancellor compare and contrast the differing definitions of public sector borrowing in different countries in the European Union?
    Mr. Clarke: It is a perfectly fair point, and it is done as part of monitoring the convergence criteria under present arrangements within the European Union. Attempts are made to compare like with like across the European Union. We follow international definitions. The conventions that we follow are recognised to be in line with the best of international practice, and the PSBR figures that we produce are trustworthy and reliable, and show what remarkably good progress we are making in getting our public sector borrowing under control, in contrast to the total failure of the last Labour Government to deal with the public sector borrowing problems following recession when the International Monetary Fund eventually had to sort them out.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the European Monetary Institute that continuous efforts towards reducing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am quoting. [Interruption.] I am paraphrasing. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that continuous efforts towards public sector borrowing are needed if we are to have a growing
    876
    economy and improve the supply side? Is it not the case that most European Governments are overspent and over-borrowed and that only the British Government have a clear programme for reducing spending and borrowing as a percentage of national income?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. There is a growing international consensus that in current circumstances a low level of fiscal deficits, low inflation and low debt to gross domestic product ratios are essential to keep an economy on course. That is wholly consistent with the policy of the Conservative party over the years. All the members of the European Union are committed to achieving those goals. As I have just said, Britain is reaching them rather faster than any of the major economies on the continent.
    Following is the table:

    Changes in general government financial deficit (GGFD) (as a percentage of GDP)

    1Year-on-year change in GGFD/GDP ratio

    Austria

    +0.3

    Belgium

    -1.1

    Denmark

    -0.1

    Finland

    -2.5

    France

    -0.2

    Germany

    -0.4

    Greece

    +0.8

    Ireland

    -0.1

    Italy

    +0.1

    Luxembourg

    -0.2

    Netherlands

    +0.5

    Portugal

    -1.0

    Spain

    -0.5

    Sweden

    -1.6

    United Kingdom

    -1.9

    1 1994–95 compared with 1993–94 for United Kingdom 1994 compared with 1993 for other EU.

    Sources: United Kingdom, 1 March 1995 excessive deficits return; other EU, European Commission forecasts, European Economy November 1994.

    Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement for the present Budget year; and if he will make a statement. [22231]
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his latest estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement. [22232]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): The Budget forecast of the PSBR for 1995–96 was £21½ billion.
    Mr. Connarty: Given that the Bank of England is now calling into doubt the Chancellor's inflation forecast, and that the PSBR outturn was £1.3 billion more in 1994–95 than predicted, how can the British people be asked to have confidence in the Chancellor's predictions for the economy when he is turning into the Michael Fish of Budget forecasting?
    Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of misrepresenting the views of the Governor, who clearly said today that we are

    877
    "in better economic shape than we have been for a very long time."
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least acknowledge that the public sector borrowing requirement has been on a good downward trend for some time. It fell by £10 billion last year and is forecast to fall by £14 billion this year.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister accept that the PSBR is being reduced only by imposing more Tory taxes? The latest—the transport tax, which is to take effect from 1 January next year and will add £10 each to some 12 million holidays—is the 21st Tory tax. Why does the Minister not listen to businesses and ensure that those proposals are withdrawn?
    Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that one of the main reasons why the PSBR is falling at a satisfactory rate is that my right hon. and learned Friend and I managed to reduce public spending over the survey period by no less than £29 billion. That is a major contribution to bringing down the PSBR.
    Mr. Nicholls: What representations has my right hon. Friend had from the Opposition about the need to reduce public expenditure—bearing in mind that their claim to be elected is now based on the fact that they can be safely elected because they are Tories as well?
    Mr. Aitken: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor referred a few moments ago to Opposition Front Benchers as a lot of silent stuffed ducks. That strange characteristic is repeated exactly in the case of my hon. Friend's point about public spending. The Opposition will not tell us whether they want lower public borrowing or what they intend to do about public spending. Away from the Dispatch Box, however, they are still the big-spending party: currently promising to spend more money on income support for 16 and 17-year-olds, on regional assemblies and development agencies, on an emergency employment programme, and on a defence conversion agency, more money from capital receipts, and more money on a growth strategy for Europe. All that adds up to much more borrowing and higher spending. It is about time that they stopped being stuffed ducks and admitted it.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that reductions in public borrowing create resources which can be made available for other purposes? As the Opposition have called repeatedly for increased spending on education and hospitals, can my right hon. Friend think of any recent occasion when they have offered support for creating the economic circumstances that will make that possible?
    Mr. Aitken: I can think of no such example. I have listened to wave after wave of sound bite waffle emanating from the Opposition, and I am longing to hear a single constructive fact or proposal from them. They have indeed been well named the stuffed duck Front Bench by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the Minister confirm that, in 1994, public borrowing as a percentage of gross domestic product was higher in the United Kingdom than in any other European Union country, with the exception of Italy, Greece and Spain? Will he further confirm that that imprudent situation was dealt with only by the Government imposing on the typical British family extra taxes of £800, in breach of the Government's election promises?
    Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman draws a one-sided and erroneous picture. In fact, the British Government's borrowing is falling faster than that of any other major European country. Among European Union countries, we have the lowest general Government debt-to-GDP ratio, with the exception of Luxembourg. So our record on public borrowing is good by European standards.

    Economic Performance
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the editor of the Financial Times about Britain's economic performance and that of the rest of Europe. [22233]
    Mr. Aitken: My right hon. and learned Friend and I are regular readers of the Financial Times.
    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to the latest Financial Times survey of Europe's 500 largest companies, the United Kingdom accounts for no fewer than 16 of the top 25 by profitability, and no fewer than 11 of that 25 by market capitalisation? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is yet another sign of the growing resilience and success of British business?
    Mr. Aitken: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to draw attention to that upbeat Financial Times survey, which showed that British companies are riding high in the European league table of successful businesses. In addition to the figures to which he has drawn attention in terms of profitability and market capitalisation, six British companies are in the Financial Times top 10, 21 in the top 50 and no fewer than 179 in the top 500. That is three times more than the German score and twice that of the French. The figures show that British companies are exporting more and growing faster round the world than most of our European Union competitors.
    Mr. Tony Banks: That is all very interesting, but why does Britain rank only ninth among the 15 European Union countries in terms of per capita gross domestic product? If there is such a great success story for Britain, why are Italy and France ranked above us in the per capita GDP league?
    Mr. Aitken: In fact, Britain is out-performing most European countries. We have the fastest growing economy in Europe right now. Last year, it grew two and half times faster than Germany's, one and a half times faster than the French, and eight times faster than the Japanese. Unemployment is falling by 1,000 a day. There is plenty of good news by any international comparison standard. Opposition Members should recognise that.

    Spare Capacity
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of spare capacity in the economy. [22215]
    Sir George Young: There is no unique measure of spare capacity in the economy. But recent data and evidence from business surveys all point to strong growth in business investment this year.
    The UK is experiencing a healthy well-balanced recovery, with falling unemployment and underlying inflation below 3 per cent. The Government's policies will ensure that economic growth is sustained with low inflation.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: With three quarters of the economy outside manufacturing, will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that inflationary pressures remain subdued? Is it not ludicrous, therefore, to be talking about a boom-bust cycle and an interest rate increase to counter the threat of overheating?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. The Confederation of British Industry survey of capacity covered about a quarter of the economy. As for the other three quarters, to which my hon. Friend has referred, there are sectors in which there is clearly spare capacity, such as housing, construction and retail. We must examine the entire picture when we come to decisions.
    Ms Primarolo: How does the Financial Secretary reconcile the Government's continued claim that the economy is in great shape with the Bank of England's view, as published today, that capacity constraints in manufacturing industry are prompting inflationary pressures? What do the Government intend to do about that conflict of interpretation?
    Sir George Young: As the hon. Lady will have heard, the Governor has said that the economy is in better shape than it has been for many years. I do not agree, therefore, with the analysis that she has outlined. Investors would like to know where the Labour party stands on taxing, spending and borrowing. We have had no responses from Opposition Members for three quarters of an hour on key economic questions.

    Retail Prices Index
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his estimates for the retail prices index one month, six months and one year hence; and if he will make a statement. [22236]
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The November Financial Statement and Budget Report forecast that underlying inflation would be 2½ per cent. both in the fourth quarter of 1995 and in the second quarter of 1996.
    Mr. Fabricant: Whatever the absolute rate of inflation, does my hon. Friend agree that the relative inflation rate—that is, our rate of inflation against those of competing nations—is of equal importance? Does my hon. Friend further agree that it is the relative rate of inflation which defines our competitiveness and our ability to create jobs? That being so, what was the relative rate of inflation under the Labour Government when the average rate was 15.9 per cent., and what in my hon. Friend's estimation would be our current rate of inflation if we had committed £13 billion more public expenditure this year, as the Labour party had promised in 1992?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The underlying inflation rate of 2.6 per cent. for the
    880
    year to April is lower than the comparable average for the EC as a whole. Between 1974 and 1979, the Labour party's inflation record was not only disastrous at home but extremely poor by international standards. All the clause IV waffle that we hear is less eloquent than the fact that Labour cannot be trusted on inflation. The real lesson that the British people have learnt is never to give it another opportunity.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May. [22255]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Prentice: Today, with the publication of the Nolan report, will the Prime Minister take full personal responsibility for the tide of sleaze that has engulfed his Government? Will he now admit that it is quite wrong for Ministers to move seamlessly from the Cabinet room to the boardroom, lining their pockets in the process?
    The Prime Minister: I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the report before he comments on it. He will then see what Lord Nolan has to say about the great majority of men and women in British public life, their standards and their ethics, and he may just regret the way in which he and some of his hon. Friends have attempted, time after time, to issue general smears about specific matters.
    Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May. [22256]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the size and scale of public rejoicing on Monday stoutly reaffirmed the love that the British people have for this country? They were waving Union Jacks, not tatty-looking red roses. Is it not appropriate to remind people that Labour's devolution policy would split this country more irrevocably and fundamentally than all Hitler's armies could possibly have done?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend makes clear, last week's celebrations were a remarkable occasion. They struck a perfect balance between commemoration and celebration, and I think that they brought a great deal of pleasure to the many men and women whom we were honouring for their service during the war so many years ago. I believe that they also showed that the sentiments that unite us as a nation are far stronger than those sometimes presented as though to disunite us. That is very healthy for the nation as a whole: it is an enormous strength for this country—a strength that should not be put at risk by misguided policy.
    Mr. Blair: People of all political persuasions enjoyed VE day, and I do not think that political capital should be made out of it. Now—is 2.5 per cent. still the Prime Minister's inflation target?
    The Prime Minister: We set out our inflation target some time ago. It is between 1 and 4 per cent., and in the lower half of that range by the end of this Parliament. It remains the same.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister then disagree with the Bank of England, which says that he will not meet that target?
    The Prime Minister: The Bank of England has made it perfectly clear that it supports the policy that we are carrying out. If the right hon. Gentleman had read the speech by the Governor this morning—I will quote it to him if he wishes, for clearly he has not—he would have seen that the Governor makes very clear the importance of maintaining a strong control of inflation, saying that in recent years we have been very successful in that.
    I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the nearest that the last Labour Government got to low inflation was 8.4 per cent. on rigged figures over one quarter. We have had inflation below 3 per cent. for more than a year.
    Mr. Blair: I do not think that the Government are in any position to talk of rigged figures—no, indeed. The Bank of England clearly does not agree that the Prime Minister will meet his target. How does a public rift between the Government and the Bank of England do anything other than damage the credibility of the economy? Does not the fact that rises in interest rates are even being contemplated at the moment, when for millions of people they have barely moved out of recession, show the fundamental weakness of the economy that the Government have never addressed?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the Governor of the Bank of England thinks that it is a weak economy, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he reads the Governor's speech. The reality is that, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are playing both sides of the same policy. They criticise when interest rates go up and they criticise when interest rates do not go up. They simply do not know what they wish to do, except, whatever happens, to criticise it and to make short-term party political capital out of it; they do not give a fig for the long-term health of the British economy.
    Mr. Churchill: Is it not clear that the French people—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard in the House.
    Mr. Churchill: Is it not clear that the French people have no greater love of socialism than the British? Will my right hon. Friend neglect no opportunity to expose the fact that, behind the innocent cherubic face that the Labour party seeks to present to the world, is a party which, every time it has been in government, has wrecked the economy, destroyed business confidence and boosted taxes to very high levels on ordinary working people?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right about that. There is one matter in which Labour Governments have always been consistent:
    882
    unemployment has always gone up, interest rates have gone up, taxes have gone up and prospects have gone down.
    Mr. Simpson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May. [22257]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Simpson: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, under the regulations governing the national lottery, the fingers crossed symbol is the property of the Secretary of State for National Heritage? Does he appreciate that it has come to represent the symbol of his party in that it is all that remains of his strategy for winning local government elections, his guarantee of emergency care beds for the people of London and his own prospects of leading the Conservative party towards its next electoral catastrophe?
    The Prime Minister: During the past four years we have taken decisions that are in the long-term economic and social interests of Britain. Many of them have been difficult and unpopular, but as a result we have inflation lower than we have seen for a long time, unemployment falling faster than anywhere else in Europe, investment showing that British industry is growing and exports which show that in eight or nine months out of the past 14 we broke new records. When did the Labour party ever preside over an economic circumstance remotely like that?
    Mr. Thurnham: When my right hon. Friend next meets Mr. Chirac, will he congratulate him on his presidential victory and remind him how much better it is to be outside the social charter, especially now that unemployment in France is 50 per cent. higher than in this country?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the problems of the social chapter. There is no doubt that right across the rest of the European Union the social chapter costs jobs. Here it does not cost jobs, because we are not part of it. I can reaffirm to the House that neither in the short term nor in the long term will we become part of it.
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May. [22258]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Prime Minister aware of the announcement within the last hour that the Asea Brown Boveri train building works at York is to close with the loss of 700 jobs? Does he recognise that that is a demonstration of the dreadful chaos of rail privatisation and that investment in the railway industry is grinding to a halt as a result? What chance is there that our rail system will have investment and that trains will he built in this country at all?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I know of the job losses at ABB, and I very much regret them. But privatisation is no more responsible for those job losses than it is for an outbreak of measles. The right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong to blame privatisation. It was the Government's private finance initiative which gave ABB the opportunity to hid for contracts such as the

    883
    Northern line, the Heathrow express rail link and the Jubilee line extension. Unfortunately, ABB did not win any of those contracts, and that is the problem.
    Sir Michael Neubert: As unemployment has come down by 632,000 since the last general election, is continuing to come down by an average of 1,000 per day and is below the European Union average, would it not be absolute folly to reverse that progress by adopting a national minimum wage? If such a policy is to be offered to the British people, do they not have an unchallengeable entitlement to know the level at which it will be set and how many hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost as a result?
    The Prime Minister: There seems to be some dispute among Opposition Members about whether they should proceed with the minimum wage and what its level would be. Certainly, despite their clarity that they wish to have a minimum wage, they are less clear about the level at which they would set it, and I find that rather odd. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is keen enough to tell us that he would enter a single currency in many years' time, which is a major decision, yet he cannot tell us, even perhaps two years ahead, were he to win the election, what he would do on a relatively minor decision such as the level of the minimum wage.
    The reality is that the Opposition know that a minimum wage would cost jobs and they know that if we knew its level we would be able to calculate that loss. On any reasonable assumption, more than 750,000 people would lose their jobs as a result of Labour dogma.
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May. [22260]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Prime Minister not shocked by the news that the number of children who were hit and killed by road vehicles increased last year by a staggering 28 per cent.? Is he aware that that was mainly because the fronts of some vehicles are designed for appearance and not safety, with the addition of rigid bull bars which concentrate and multiply the force of accidents at the level of a child's head? Does he agree with his Ministers that those bars are useless, macho fashion accessories, and will he move swiftly today to avoid future tragedies by banning these deadly bully bars from all public roads?
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the statistics that the hon. Gentleman mentions or the reason that he
    884
    ascribes to them. However, in view of what he says I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to examine the matter and, having done so, provide me with his advice. If the hon. Gentleman's statistics are right, it is of course regrettable. I am glad to say that, overall, the position on road accidents is improving, and I hope that that will continue.
    Mr. Hendry: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the positive reaction in my constituency and throughout the country to yesterday's White Paper, "Tackling Drugs Together", which contains the most comprehensive anti-drugs strategy of any Government? Does he agree that the key message to young people should be that all drugs are wrong? Does he also agree that any move by the House to legalise even soft drugs should be rejected because it would fundamentally undermine that message?
    The Prime Minister: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend on the question of drugs, and I take the view that the legalisation even of soft drugs would be a very substantial mistake, not least because soft drugs are so often the route towards people seeking to experiment with harder drugs. It is very unwise for people to experiment with any drugs and we have no intention of legalising them. The proposals that we set out yesterday on tackling drugs have been very widely welcomed. Many experts have commented not only on the comprehensive nature of our proposals, but on the fact that no country in western Europe now has such a comprehensive plan in hand to deal with the desperate problem of drugs.
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May. [22261]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Who is to blame for, and what is the cause of, all the negative equity that is blighting hundreds of thousands of households and families? What will be the consequences for the economy and for business if negative equity continues to grow, and what does the Prime Minister intend to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: Fortunately, the amount of negative equity is now half the level it was at its peak and it continues to fall. Clearly, while there is negative equity, it is acting as a drag on the housing market. The more the economy grows, the more unemployment falls, and the more confidence begins to return, the sooner we shall begin to see the complete elimination of negative equity. When that occurs, it will be a very welcome development.

Post Office
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: We now come to a statement by the President of the Board of Trade. [Interruption.] Will hon. Members who are leaving please do so quickly?
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Post Office and to set out a number of changes that I intend to introduce to the present arrangements.
In the case of Post Office Counters, we agreed last year that it should offer the services of the network of 20,000 post offices—19,000 of which are run as private businesses—to a wider range of clients. That policy has led to a number of new services being offered or trialled at post offices, such as bureaux de change services, travel insurance and the free payment of gas bills. Post offices are also the largest retailer of national lottery tickets. I welcome those developments, which should help strengthen the network of post offices, not least those in rural areas.
I intend a number of changes to the financial regime of the Post Office, notably the external financing limit, or EFL. Although no responsible Government could undertake to ring-fence the Post Office entirely from the pressures on public spending, I am prepared to agree that in future we shall aim to set the EFL at about half the Post Office's forecast post-tax profit. I hope to make progress in that direction this autumn.
I intend to adopt a more strategic corporate plan process and to remove the formal limit on the Post Office's capital expenditure, together with the associated detailed scrutiny of investment projects in its core business. Those measures should enable the Post Office to plough back the benefits of additional efficiency into improving services for customers.
I now turn to the board's wish that the Royal Mail should be able to extend its activities into adjacent markets. Although I am prepared to consider such requests, I have told the Post Office that in doing so, I would expect a considerable increase in the use of the private financing initiative, in respect of both activities in associated fields and increased opportunities for the private sector to participate in its existing activities.
There are certain provisos on my willingness to make those changes. First, there must be real pressure on the efficiency of the Post Office. I am about to appoint consultants to carry out a performance review of the Post Office's operations.
Secondly, the Post Office must generate the funds for any expansion from increased efficiency and not from increased prices. I therefore greatly welcome today's announcement by the Royal Mail that it intends to maintain its current domestic tariffs until at least March 1996. That means that there will have been only one domestic tariff increase in the first four years of this Parliament, a considerable achievement.
Finally, I have told the board that I would expect all new developments to be separately accounted and, where practical, to be developed through separately established Companies Act subsidiaries. As a first step towards that, I have agreed with the board that it will convert the main operating units of the Post Office into Companies Act companies.
886
Before concluding, I would like to thank the Trade and Industry Select Committee for its very helpful reports on these issues. My Department is replying in detail to its most recent report today.
The measures that I have announced today represent a pragmatic and balanced package for the Post Office and its customers. I commend them to the House.
Dr. John Cunningham: I have the pleasure of giving a general welcome to the statement, especially as it is a modest step. These are modest measures in the direction of policies for the Post Office for which we in the Opposition have argued for several years. The whole House should congratulate the management and all employees of the Post Office on the announcement today that it will hold steady prices for the Royal Mail. That is a significant achievement—an achievement in public ownership and in the public sector—by everyone engaged in the Post Office.
The President of the Board of Trade has just announced that, yet again, he is to appoint consultants to examine the Post Office. Is he aware that we know that he has already spent £2 million on engaging consultants to examine the Post Office? Even after that expenditure, funded by the taxpayer, he has come forward with only a very modest response to our requests, the requests of the management of the Post Office and the requests of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry for change.
What is new about the right hon. Gentleman's announcement that, in future, he will aim to set the external financing limit at about half the Post Office's forecast taxed profit? That is the status quo; it is not a change. It is recognition of the circumstances that exist in the Post Office and of its arrangements with the Government today. That is no change—no step forward.
Why has the right hon. Gentleman apparently abandoned his previous commitment, although he said that it was his lifetime ambition to set the rest of his political career in the track of privatising the Post Office? Is the reason that he knows that there is no majority in the House for the privatisation of the Post Office? Does he recognise that he is, again, admitting defeat on his principal personal objective?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, a year ago, he told the House, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and everyone in the Post Office that he was not in favour of the private financing initiative for Post Office operations? Why has it taken him a year to change his mind? Why, during that time, did the Government insist that the Post Office, which wanted to lease trains for the mail, should spend £50 million in cash to buy those trains when, using the initiative announced today, it could have saved that expenditure for other capital investment?
Is not the reality that the Government could now, without legislation, remove altogether the current capital expenditure limits on the Post Office, relax even further the scrutiny of specific projects, free altogether the Post Office management from the DTI's nit-picking interference, give new freedoms to Post Office Counters Ltd., end the closure of Crown post offices, and get off their backside and get on with the private financing initiative about which the right hon. Gentleman has prevaricated for so long?

887
Is not it also clear that the only way in which the public, who overwhelmingly oppose privatisation of the Post Office, can ensure the defeat of that privatisation is to ensure the defeat of this Government?
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman may not have read the Green Paper that we published a year ago as carefully as I would have hoped, because, far from rejecting the option of the PFI, I said on page 15, paragraph 9:
"The relaxations discussed in paragraph 6, together with use of joint ventures under the PH, would be of some value to Royal Mail."
That is not what one would call rejecting the option, then or now. It is quite clear that we looked at that option. It was not the best option, but it was an option and it was the one that, in the light of the circumstances, we have decided to pursue.
I cannot accept for one moment that there is an argument for halting the closure or conversion of Crown post offices into sub-post offices. The fact is that the record of achieving that has been considerable. The benefits and efficiency that have been achieved have followed as a consequence. It is a matter for a management decision of the Post Office. It is continuing to do that, because it believes that it is in the interests of its customers.
The right hon. Gentleman is also wrong about the issue of the EFL. The fact is that it is true today that it is closer to 50 per cent., but it has been moving in that direction from higher percentages. It is because we want to try to discuss arrangements with the management of the Post Office for a more stable relationship in the future that we have attempted to quantify, within the constraints that I have set out, what that EFL might look for in the future.
I was again amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should be surprised that in taking this step to help the Post Office, I should be appointing consultants to look at the books within the Post Office.
Dr. John Cunningham: Again.
Mr. Heseltine: It is not a question of again. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that business is a dynamic process? If I am going to have to look at a whole range of judgments on the efficiency of the Post Office, it is no use relying on evidence that was given to me a year or two years ago. I have to see facts as they are and as they will be in the future.
That is a classic example of why the right hon. Gentleman and his party have never understood the weaknesses and frailties of nationalisation. They rely on the advice of the managers, as interpreted by their officials. I want to make sure that I have got someone inside the Post Office who can see the books and advise me about what is actually happening.
The right hon. Gentleman accuses the Government of attempting to adopt the policies of the Labour party. That, if I may say so, is rich. The party that says that it has abandoned nationalisation, is trying to dissociate itself from the trade unions and trying to repeal clause IV now somehow suggests that we are pursuing its policies. Exactly the opposite is the case.
When the right hon. Gentleman says that I have abandoned a lifetime's ambition to privatise the Post Office, let me say that I recognise that I failed to persuade some 10 of my Conservative colleagues to move to a
888
privatisation process. I got a lot closer to persuading 100 per cent. of my party to back privatisation than the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) got in persuading his party to abandon clause IV.
What the right hon. Gentleman's opposition to our proposals revealed clearly is that he still hankers after a public sector solution. It is all very well to talk about getting rid of clause IV, but when the chips are down, that is where the Labour party's hearts and minds belong.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on his general relaxation of some of the rules relating to the Post Office? Could he say a little more about the future of sub-post offices? Already, some 19,000 post offices are in private ownership. There is a great feeling that they ought to be given far more commercial freedom to take on far more activities. The only way that rural post offices will survive is by giving them greater business opportunities. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more on that matter?
Mr. Heseltine: I am delighted to respond as positively as I can to my hon. Friend. Let me tell the House what I have said to the officials in my Department. I asked them whether we have turned down any requests for further freedoms. I am not aware of any requests from Post Office Counters that we have turned down. If any right hon. or hon. Member has some ideas that we should pursue to free up the rural and urban post offices, I shall be immensely sympathetic. To the best of my knowledge, they have the freedom to move in an increasingly wide area and I do not know of any additional freedoms for which we have been asked.
Mr. Nick Harvey: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement and his conversion to the policy that he has outlined, albeit a little belated and perhaps rather grudging. Will he go one step further and remove the uncertainty that might arise from his decision to change the operating companies into Companies Act companies? Will he confirm that it is not his intention to come back later to try to privatise any of those companies? Will he tell the House why he intends to continue to levy an EFL of 50 per cent. of post-tax profit, which is clearly a higher financial burden on the Post Office than on any of its rivals or on any other private sector companies?
The right hon. Gentleman said that he intends to appoint consultants. In a previous answer, he sounded as if he intended to keep them on virtually a permanent basis. Does not the Post Office's achievement, which he rightly applauded, of managing to keep mail prices down, provide some evidence of good performance? Is it really necessary to use consultants on a permanent basis and at further expense?
The post office network has been referred to. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Government will invest in smart card technology in the rural post office network?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that the automation of sub-post offices is now the subject of advanced negotiation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has negotiated an eight-year contract for the benefit arrangements. There will be a much more sophisticated facility available through a PFI arrangement to the sub-post offices, and I welcome that as one of the developments of their potential.

889
On the appointment of consultants, if I am to be expected to make judgments about how the business can expand, it is important that I have full access to the facts and figures. The hon. Gentleman made the assumption that keeping prices down has followed as a result of continued efficiencies. That is perfectly true. The question that has to be asked is how such large efficiencies were achieved after years in which the business had been a public corporation. That is a hard question, and there is only one answer: it had not been efficiently run in previous years. I am determined to do all that I reasonably can to change the climate. The 50 per cent. EFL is a matter of judgment and negotiation. I must have regard to the interests of the public Exchequer in securing a reasonable return by way of the dividend that the EFL represents.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. It appears that every time there is a ministerial statement I have to remind hon. Members to be brisk with their questions and to put only one question to the Secretary of State. As hon. Members know, at statement time I try to call every hon. Member who wants to intervene. That is unprecedented; my predecessors have not done so. I cannot go on doing that if hon. Members make statements and ask several questions. I shall have to look at statement time again if hon. Members do not co-operate with the Chair. One question each, please.
Mr. Jim Lester: As one of the 10—although I think that there were rather more than that—who opposed the privatisation of the Post Office, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a pragmatic and coherent policy statement that will carry with it many people, particularly the general public who were worried about potential changes. It gives the Post Office and Post Office Counters a way forward that we can all support.
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he was one of the small number of my colleagues who disagreed with my views. I do not believe that this is the ultimate and correct solution. It is the politically possible solution, and that is a step on from where we were. When I see what is happening across the world and the potential for the Royal Mail if we had turned it into a first-class international trading company, I must say that I do not bring this proposal to the House believing that we have ended the job.
Mr. Richard Caborn: I thank the President of the Board of Trade for his response to the Select Committee. I hope that we can get that into the public domain as quickly as possible, because there is a great deal of information there in which hon. Members will be interested. May I also thank him for at least agreeing that the status quo is unacceptable and that there should be some move towards commercialisation, even within the public sector borrowing requirement? How are the Royal Mail and Parcel Force to use the PFI if the private sector is not to be a major stakeholder?
Mr. Heseltine: The whole point of the PFI is to bring the private sector into partnership with the public sector. My announcement today merely indicates the ways in which we can move in that direction.
Sir Dudley Smith: While many of us have complained from time to time that a letter has been unexpectedly delayed by the postal services, is it not a fact that postal services in other advanced countries are a joke compared with our service, which is extremely efficient? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the postal service in this country has improved enormously in the past few years? Is he not wise and sensible to put the utmost pressure on it to keep that up?
Mr. Heseltine: I agree that the Royal Mail provides a very high quality of service. The standards have improved, and the returns that the Exchequer is achieving have improved. I take the view—this is where I disagree with some hon. Members—that I should build on a success where I see it and give it a wider opportunity. The Labour party, by and large, takes the view that it should be constrained and limited to ensure—[HON. MEMBERS: "We do not."] It is no use Labour Members saying that they do not. We all know what they did. Capital investment in the last five years of the previous Labour Government, in today's money terms, was less than half what it has been in the past five years of this Government.
In the last five years of the previous Labour Government, the Post Office lost £300 million. In the past five years, under this Conservative Government, it has made more than £1 billion. That is the real world. There is no point in Labour Members lecturing us about what they would or would not do. We know what they do when they get power and that is the best possible argument for keeping them where they are, without any power.
Ms Kate Hoey: The President will be aware that the public will—generally—be very supportive of the small measures that he has announced today. The public, and hon. Members, will, however, want to know why it has taken three years—it could have been agreed three years ago—and £2 million of consultants' fees to reach a general agreement. Why has it taken that long?
Mr. Heseltine: Because I was investigating ways in which to make what I thought was the right step. To do that was a time-consuming business. It certainly took a proper period of time, and I make no apologies for that. What matters is not whether it took time to make the decision, but whether it adversely affected the Post Office in the meantime. One need only look at the results—the rising profitability—to realise that it has not affected the opportunities of the Post Office.
In real terms, we are talking not about nit-picking details, but about where the future of this great company will be among the increasingly sophisticated multi-media operations and world-class competitors of tomorrow. What the House will not face and has not faced is why American multinational companies should be free to come and trade in this country and take the business from our Royal Mail while we deny our Royal Mail the opportunity to fight on its own terms.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is precisely the point? If Opposition Members had found that it was possible to commercialise the Post Office, they would have done it. Unless the shadow Chancellor allowed another Labour Government to pay absolutely no regard to the disciplines of public sector companies, we can now go only one way and free those companies as far as possible. The statement, welcome as it is, is inadequate in one essential

891
area. The companies should be totally free to raise the investment that they need when and how they need it in the private capital markets of the world. We should be privatising the Royal Mail. My right hon. Friend has not gone far enough.
Mr. Heseltine: I cannot in any way improve on what my hon. Friend has said. That is exactly my view. But from where we were, I have taken a step in the right direction.
Mr. Peter Hain: In welcoming the President's statement, may I ask him about its European implications? In considering adjacent markets, would he allow the Royal Mail and Parcel Force to engage in joint ventures with—possibly—private sector operators in Europe so that the British Post Office may conquer the European mail market, which is critical for the future? Will he also categorically resist any attempt which, as I understand, will be forthcoming from the European Commission, to impose VAT on postal services in view of Swedish entry? That seems to be absolutely vital for the future. Will he guarantee a minimum level of the national network for Post Office Counters?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are doing everything possible, and far more than any other Government have ever done, to enhance the potential for Post Office Counters and sub-post offices. I am extremely grateful to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which has widely praised what the Government are doing. There is absolutely no doubt about support for our policy.
Were we to inject a statutory minimum number of post offices, that would involve a degree of prescription that is economically unrealistic. Why should we stop at rural post offices? One could think of an endless stream of desirable features of an economic society that one could underpin with a state guarantee. 'That is an unrealistic suggestion, and it merely reveals the difference in approach between Opposition Members and those on the Conservative Benches.
As to how we deal with the European opportunities, it flows from my statement that I shall discuss them with the Royal Mail and the Post Office. The position there is changing a great deal. As the House knows, the Germans and the Dutch are moving to a private sector solution for their mail. I am prepared to look at a PH solution, but I shall take into account the two-way nature of such activity. There are significant operations within the Post Office that open themselves up to partnerships with the private sector. If I am expected to move in one direction by extending the opportunities, I shall expect the Royal Mail and the Post Office to do exactly the same with their activities.
Mr. Hain: What about VAT?
Mr. Heseltine: I have no reason to believe that there is any threat to the present status.
Sir Peter Emery: I thank my right hon. Friend for reinforcing support for sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses throughout the country. He has asked for suggestions to assist them. May I therefore suggest that, if all sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses were able to issue motor vehicle licences, which they have
892
wanted to do for a long time, that would be greatly welcomed by people living in country districts? That would be a great step forward.
Mr. Heseltine: That is a constructive suggestion from my right hon. Friend. I keep asking for advice as to whether there are any outstanding requests. I am not aware of any, but I shall certainly consider that made by my right hon. Friend and write to him.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that he is in a very odd constitutional position? Three times already this afternoon he has bemoaned the fact that he cannot get through the policy he really wanted—that is, to privatise the Post Office. He has then come along and attacked people because they have put forward alternatives, saying, "Well, it is not really my policy. It is second best." Why does he not do the decent constitutional thing, as he did over Westland, and resign and launch his counter-attack from the Back Benches?
Mr. Heseltine: Of all the hon. Members to ask that question. Am I now to understand that, within the Labour party, the hon. Gentleman is against trade unions and against nationalisation, and is now abandoning his support for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? If he is not, why has he not resigned from the Labour party?
Mr. Edward Leigh: Given the parliamentary arithmetic, most people would accept that my right hon. Friend's statement represents a sensible, pragmatic way forward. Can he explain whether there is any logic in the state owning a commercial organisation to which he has given full commercial freedom? There is no logic and no point in that.
Mr. Heseltine: There is no logic. My hon. Friend is entitled to great praise for the remarkable work that he did when he was with me at the Department of Trade and Industry to explore the very ideas under discussion. As he will know, logic is not always the controlling influence in politics.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman's blast to Bolsover will not quite do. Is the President aware that, in his candid, truthful, revealing and much-to-the-point answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), he said, "Look, I don't believe in this policy."? Is it old-fashioned to think that when he and I came to the House all those years ago, a Secretary of State in such a position would have asked the Prime Minister at least for transfer to other work? Is it not a serious matter when a Secretary of State quite obviously does not believe in the policies that he is putting forward?
Mr. Heseltine: If my blast at the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will not do, I am happy to have a blast at the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
I have made the position absolutely clear. The policy that I am putting forward today is better than the policy that is in place at the moment. It is not as good as the policy that I tried to persuade the House to adopt a year or so ago, but it will enhance the position of the Royal Mail in an acceptable way.

893
There is a better way, a better tomorrow, but if I am to be told that one must stay where one is unless one can reach the ultimate objective, I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, that none of us would ever move anywhere in politics if we did that.
Mr. Barry Porter: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's remarks in relation to the Trade and Industry Select Committee, but I would not want him to think that some of us who are members of that Committee believe that what we proposed was the ultimate objective. I think that he has made that clear. Nevertheless I would like him to reiterate that we are making the best of a job—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bad job."]—and it is a pragmatic solution as we stand, but I hope that that is not the end of it and that there may well be bluebirds over some cliffs of somewhere or other.
Madam Speaker: Order. I was waiting for a question in all that. In fact it was a comment, and there was not a question. This is the time for questions on the statement. Perhaps the Secretary of State will make a stab at responding to that non-question.
Mr. Heseltine: I was about to burst into,
"We'll meet again—don't know where, don't know when",
but I welcome another trimmer in the art of politics, my hon. Friend.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that some of the commercial activities to which post offices cannot return are the services that were provided by Girobank, which the Post Office lost when it sold Girobank to the Alliance and Leicester building society against its will, and to which post offices are banned by the conditions of sale from returning?
Mr. Heseltine: That is an important issue. I know that discussions are going on—I am not sure what stage they have reached—with clearing banks about what facilities might be made available through the post office network. I do not have a specific statement to make on that subject, but there are interesting potentials out there.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on realising that politics is the art of the possible, and may I welcome the statement that he made today—not least on the new arrangements for the Royal Mail? Does he agree that those arrangements will further enhance the service that is given to the customer? He has already announced that the price is to remain as it is, and all my constituents will welcome that.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. They will enhance, but they will not maximise. That is the difference between us.
Mr. Brian Wilson: It is great to be discussing a public sector success story, but it is odd that, although the statement has been generally welcomed by Opposition Members, the President of the Board of Trade does not agree with the statement that he is making.
Will the President of the Board of Trade at least accept our gratitude for enunciating the new doctrine of permanent consultancy, whereby consultants report and he and his Department take a year to consider the report, by which time it is time for consultants to report again? It is a very lucrative doctrine for the consultancy industry.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that article 100(a) of the treaty of Rome will remain the only legal basis for any policies adopted regarding Post Office liberalisation in future? It is a very important matter at present. Does he also recognise that the policy of closing down Crown post offices is despised in hundreds of communities throughout the country? If he does not recognise that after the local elections, he certainly missed something. Anyone who has visited places where the local post office has been shoved into the back of a supermarket knows that everyone resents what has been done and wants to retain a Crown post office in the town centre.
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that what we are discussing today, above all, is a defeat of his ambition to privatise the Post Office? The only way to ensure that that defeat is maintained is to defeat the Tories.
Mr. Heseltine: I am not aware of any changes in the relationships that we have with the European Union with regard to the Post Office. If that position changed, I would of course inform the House.
I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say about the continued unease of constituents in places where Crown post offices have been converted to public post offices. Such a conversion has taken place where I live. I cannot remember when I last heard anyone talk about it.
The service is perfectly satisfactory. There are 19,000 sub-post offices. I do not receive letters of complaint. Our proposals have been warmly welcomed by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. As usual, the only people who are completely out of touch are Labour Members who have listened to what the unions have said about the matter. They are so ignorant about the situation that they do not know that 19,000 out of 20,000 post offices are already privately owned.

Business of the House
4.4 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 MAY—Progress on remaining stages of the Gas Bill.
Motions on the conditional fee agreements order and the conditional fee agreements regulations.
TUESDAY 16 MAY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Gas Bill.
WEDNESDAY 17 MAY—After the usual Wednesday morning Adjournment debates, Opposition Day (12th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The Further Erosion of Rail Services due to Privatisation" followed by a debate entitled "The Costs to the Country of Privatising the Nuclear Power Industry". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 18 MAY—Debate on the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (the Nolan Committee) on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 19 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday 17 May at 10.30 am to consider European Community document No. 4523/95, Relating to Energy Policy.
MONDAY 22 MAY—Progress on remaining stages of the Child Support Bill, to be brought to a conclusion on either Tuesday or Wednesday.
[Wednesday 17 May:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: 4523/95 Energy Policy; Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports HC 70-ix (1994–95) and HC 70-xiv (1994–95).]
It may also be necessary to take some Government business on Thursday 25 May. The House may wish to be reminded that, subject to the progress of business, it is proposed that the House should rise for the spring Adjournment on Thursday 25 May until Tuesday 6 June.
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement, and I ask him to confirm that the Wednesday morning debate the week after next will take the form of a spring Adjournment debate.
As to next week's business, the House will be pleased that we are to have an early debate on the report of the Nolan committee. As the committee was set up by the Prime Minister, will the Prime Minister open that important debate? Will the Leader of the House confirm today that the Government will accept the main recommendations of the Nolan committee as a good starting point for rebuilding public confidence in our democratic system? Will the Leader of the House ensure that, following next week's debate, there will be an early opportunity to make the necessary changes so that we can implement the recommendations in the Nolan report within the time scale that the committee advised?
The House will have noted that next week the Opposition is again providing an opportunity to debate
896
some of the issues that greatly concern the public. Given the widespread and deep public unease about privatisation by the back door without any further reference to Parliament, what steps will the Government take to gain the approval of the House before there are any more sell-offs of public assets?
What time will the Government allocate to discussing the disaster that is unfolding at York, where the hiatus in railway investment is causing serious problems? Those problems should not be dismissed, as the Prime Minister dismissed them today, as simply the equivalent of an outbreak of measles. There will be dramatic job losses in York and another indigenous British industry will go to the wall as a direct result of privatisation. The Government should allow time to debate such an important issue.
Turning to another subject, does the Leader of the House recall that, when he was Minister for the Disabled, he praised the Labour Opposition for devoting half a Supply day to debating the 15th anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970? Will the right hon. Gentleman, in his present capacity, find time for a debate on the 25th anniversary of that legislation at the end of May, which is of great concern to many people throughout the country?
Finally, as the Government's economic policy has reached a new low in credibility, will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government expect to make their summer economic statement and when the House will have a chance to debate it?
Mr. Newton: I should have said that I expect the debate on Wednesday week to be of the kind that the hon. Lady has in mind, when I sit here for three hours and attempt to answer problems from all quarters.
I anticipate that the debate on Lord Nolan's report will be opened by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was responsible for much of the evidence that the Government submitted to the Nolan committee. That would seem appropriate. I was not absolutely clear whether the hon. Lady was referring to the proposals that are for the Government or those directed more at the House.
As to the recommendations concerning Ministers leaving office and appointments to what are known as quangos, the Government welcome and accept their broad thrust, but obviously they need careful and detailed examination. As to recommendations directed at the House, the report itself recognises that our rules and procedures are for the House to decide. However, the Government hope for wide agreement on a positive response to the report, which is in line with the hon. Lady's remarks.
On privatisation, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said in his statement earlier this week that there will be a debate, and obviously we will look at that again in the light of the Opposition debate scheduled for next Wednesday. There is not much that I can add to the remarks of my right hon. Friend in Prime Minister's questions today about the ABB closure at York. He made it clear that the problem is due to a number of factors including the completion of major contracts for Central line trains and some others and the firm's failure to win

897
contracts for the Jubilee line, Heathrow Express and Northern line. The hon. Lady might at least have acknowledged that.
The hon. Lady referred to something that I said about the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1972 when I was Minister for the Disabled. Substantial time has been provided this year for the Government Bill designed to build new rights for disabled people. That may be the most appropriate form in which the House will return to debate those matters in due course. At the specific request of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I have agreed to open the exhibition starting on Monday to mark the 25th anniversary of the 1972 Act, which I shall do with pleasure.
As to the hon. Lady's over-aggressive final question, I will consider the timing of the summer economic debate, but I would do that with more enthusiasm had the hon. Lady not made absurd remarks about the credibility of Government economic policy against a background of the Labour party having no economic policy whatever.
Dame Peggy Fenner: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the way in which the Nolan report was made available to right hon. and hon. Members today? Will he direct this question to whoever is responsible for passing information to right hon. and hon. Members? Instead of the report being handed out as usual by the Vote Office in a perfectly competent and efficient way, the small Corridor next to the Members Board is full of individual envelopes. Am I supposed to look through them all to find F for Fenner? Busy Members of Parliament do not have time to do that. I ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that such communications are delivered in a more efficient manner.
Mr. Newton: I hope that those words have fallen on the ears of those who will immediately check that there are copies in the Vote Office. I understand that Lord Nolan thought that it was a proper courtesy on his behalf to arrange for copies to be sent to all hon. Members.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the Leader of the House ensure that, when the Secretary of State for Transport takes part in the debate next Wednesday, whatever the precise terms of the motion, he takes the opportunity to range over all the damage that is being inflicted on the rail industry and the rail network by the continuing failure to invest when the threat of privatisation is hanging over the industry? I am not thinking only of ABB at York, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred during Prime Minister's Question Time: I am also concerned—as I hope are the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State—about the continuing failure to bring forward the programme for maintenance and safety on the rail network.
As the Leader of the House may be aware, there are fears within British Rail and Railtrack that the hiatus caused by the problem is creating real difficulties in terms of speed restrictions, weight restrictions and threats to safety. Will he give an explicit assurance that the Secretary of State for Transport will address that question during the debate?
Mr. Newton: I can give the hon. Gentleman an explicit assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
898
for Transport will cover all matters that he considers relevant to the debate and, no doubt, touch on points of interest to the hon. Gentleman. He may also make a number of points that the hon. Gentleman has not made, including reference to the fact that British Rail has invested £4,000 million in new rolling stock since 1979.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the Jopling reforms were introduced on a Sessional Order, and that, unless they are renewed or become Standing Orders, they fall at the end of the Parliament? At his request, the Procedure Committee is attempting to monitor their working and in order to obtain the opinion of all Members of Parliament, a short questionnaire will be circulated to all right hon. and hon. Members so that both sides completely understand whether Members of Parliament consider the reforms to be a success or a failure. It will be helpful if all right hon. and hon. Members respond to the questionnaire.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend is certainly right to remind the House that they are Sessional Orders, although he marginally slipped in saying that they will fall at the end of the Parliament. They will fall at the end of the Session. I am happy to be used as a verbal notice board for the advertisement of the questionnaire of the Procedure Committee.
Ms Angela Eagle: With respect to the debate on the Nolan report, which I welcome, the Leader of the House told us that it will be on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. As a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, I carefully examined the recommendations that relate specifically to the House, rather than the Executive and other Government appointments. I notice that Lord Nolan has made three types of recommendation: those that he wants implemented immediately or as soon as possible; those that he wants implemented by the end of the year or the start of the new Session; and those on which he wants progress by the following year.
As the report would abolish the Committee on which I serve, and that Committee is in a difficult position at the moment, it would be extremely helpful if the Leader of the House could let us know when we can make progress on the changes that Lord Nolan recommends to how the Register of Members' Interests is formed and policed, as they have a direct impact on some of the complaints with which we are wrestling. It would be enormously helpful if the Leader of the House could give us an early indication of when progress will be made on those recommendations.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady has given quite a good illustration of why I feel that a wide-ranging debate on the Adjournment is the first step. They are complex and varied recommendations. Many of them require much detailed work to translate from the recommendations of the committee into resolutions that the House could pass. The right first step is not for me to prejudge what the House will wish to say next week or any other discussions that might be necessary to provide an opportunity, as I am doing, for the hon. Lady to make any points she might wish to raise.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Now that the House has had 24 hours to digest the excellent White Paper "Tackling Drugs Together", will my right hon. Friend

899
give urgent consideration to a debate on it in Government time? There seems to be a fairly short period before the deadline, especially for local arrangements to be made, and it would be useful for local authorities to have some guidance from the House and for hon. Members to be able to discuss it. That would also provide the Liberal party with an opportunity to explain how it will come to terms with the rather strange decisions taken by its last conference—to legalise cannabis, for instance.
Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend will have heard yesterday, the Liberal Democrats who spoke then were also led into some rather curious contortions. As I said then, I do not particularly want to engage in their internecine warfare: I shall leave it to them to get on with it.
As for my hon. Friend's suggestion, nothing would please me more than to be able to arrange time for a debate on this well received and important report. I shall use my usual best endeavours to do that.
Mr. Jim Marshall: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1030?
[That this House, concerned at the anger felt amongst the British Sikh community about the impact on the employment prospects of Sikhs of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, introduced as a consequence of a European Directive, notes that British Sikhs have for many years been exempt from wearing hard hats in many areas, including service in the British Army and on construction sites; and urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce amending legislation urgently so that British Sikhs may continue to work in all non-construction employment whilst wearing turbans.]
That highlights the continuing concern among the Sikh community at legislation, introduced as a consequence of a European directive, which compels them to wear protective headgear in non-construction employment. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise this continuing concern? The Sikhs believe that it will lead to a loss of jobs for them. Will he raise this matter urgently with the Secretary of State for Employment, and if possible arrange for a debate on the topic in Government time?
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bring that question to my right hon. Friend's attention, but the United Kingdom was obliged to implement the directive, and granting a universal exemption could have run the risk of challenge.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Further to today's statement on the Post Office, can the Leader of the House confirm that we shall have a debate on that paper in the near future, and that it never was the Government's intention to privatise Post Office Counters? Deliberately misleading propaganda on that front frightened many small postmasters in rural constituencies—they are the lifeblood of villages. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these same sub-post offices should be given the chance to have vehicle licensing facilities if they want them?
Mr. Newton: I will of course consider the question of a debate, as it would be right for me to do. As for my hon. Friend's second two questions, I do not think that I can give off-the-cuff undertakings about particular aspects of future Post Office business; but I can certainly confirm what he said—that there was a widespread and perhaps
900
deliberately engineered misunderstanding about Post Office Counters. We should bear it in mind too that the overwhelming majority of their work has always been privatised because it is conducted in sub-post offices.
Mr. David Winnick: Now that we have had Nolan, would it be possible shortly to arrange for a statement on setting up a committee to give guidance to Members of Parliament—particularly Tories—on voting? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen tonight's Evening Standard, which carries photographs of 44 Tory Members who betrayed their constituents last night by their disgraceful voting behaviour? As we do not yet have such a committee, is it not useful that the newspapers at least can highlight the way Tory Members are willing to give far greater loyalty to the Whips than to their constituents?
Mr. Newton: It is pretty silly to suggest that Members of Parliament whose judgment is at least as good as that of the hon. Gentleman, looking at the interests of their constituents in the round and at the need to reshape London health services, not least to improve primary care, should not have come to the conclusion that they should vote for the Government's proposals.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I notice that the Opposition have called for debates next week, first against the privatisation of the rail services, and then against the privatisation of the nuclear industry. We have heard earlier today how they are against the privatisation of the Royal Mail. Does my right hon. Friend wonder why there has been such an enormous commotion over the abolition of clause IV when the Opposition continue to oppose privatisation serially, in case after case, as they always have done?
Mr. Newton: I shall indeed ponder that question, but without much expectation of either being able to provide an answer or getting one from anyone else. I am interested also in how the Labour party will explain what it would describe as the disadvantages of moving from a position in which nationalised industries used to cost £50 million a week to one in which privatised industries generate £50 million a week in tax revenue.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I preface my question by saying that the Table Office, as always, has behaved impeccably and has simply been doing its job. However, as six questions to the Crown Office on Lockerbie and one to the Prime Minister have been refused because of the artful way in which Ministers block questions, and as the Lord Advocate is not answerable to the House, could we have some form of Government statement to follow the two hours of television this evening on Channel 4 about Lockerbie?
Mr. Newton: I was not aware of the position that the hon. Gentleman describes about questions being refused so I shall not attempt an immediate comment. I shall, of course, consider the point that he has made when I read it in Hansard.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: May I remind my right hon. Friend that, in July 1994, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described Mr. Santer as being the right man in the right place at the right time? He no doubt then believed that that was the high point of Euro federalism. Will my right hon. Friend arrange an

901
early debate on the Commission's proposals for constitutional change in Europe so as to give the Government the opportunity of responding to the overwhelming will of the British people to reject all further moves towards federalism, and most of all to grasp the opportunity of using the issue to resuscitate the fortunes of the Tory party?
Mr. Newton: I have not had an opportunity to study the report in detail. There appear, however, to be some things in it with which we can agree—for example, that there should be no new powers granted to the Community, and the importance of subsidiarity. There are also quite a few things with which we, and no doubt my hon. Friend, disagree, such as the analyses of the scope of qualified majority voting, the powers of the European Parliament and the future of the intergovernmental pillars. Our views on those subjects, like my hon. Friend's, are well known.
Mr. Stephen Timms: The Leader of the House will be aware that we have just been through a period of exceptionally severe air pollution, the worst in Britain for 40 years. The committee that advises the Government on the medical aspects of pollution episodes has drawn attention to the serious health risks that arise from such episodes. Will the right hon. Gentleman offer us an early opportunity to debate the measures that need to be taken by government to deal with the problem of worsening air pollution?
Mr. Newton: I think that I was asked that question last week. I can only repeat—[Interruption.] That is an observation, not a complaint. The question leads me to repeat what I said last week: air quality is an environmental priority for the Government. That is precisely why we are bringing forward appropriate legislation in the Environment Bill, which will be enacted in the near future, to implement the widely welcomed proposals that we published in January.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that Mr. Santer's press conference yesterday was used to publish the Commission's submission to the reflections group? Would it not put flesh on the bones of the Government's determination to increase the role of national Parliaments in the European Union's affairs if we had a full debate on the Government's submission to the reflections group? Would not that give us the opportunity to expose the fact that the Labour party wants to give away more power to Europe, is irrevocably committed to a single currency and wants to increase qualified majority voting, which is deeply unpopular throughout the country and would be detrimental to our interests?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, as ever, gives an absolutely accurate account of the Labour party's position. I shall do everything that I can to help him, or anyone else, gain it wider publicity.
Mr. Max Madden: May I reinforce the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) about early-day motion 1030, which has been signed by 68 Members from all parties? May I ask the Leader of the House to press the Secretary of State for Employment not to hide behind the directive but to urge that there is an exemption—a derogation—
902
throughout the European Union to allow Sikhs, wherever they live within the EU, to be able to continue wearing their turbans and not to face what they consider to be blatant job discrimination?
Would it be best for me to seek the support of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who could add the matter to his list of demands for the forthcoming intergovernmental conference? Would that be the best way of resolving this objectionable issue, as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Newton: Leaving aside the hon. Gentleman's last comment, I note that he underlined what was said a while ago by his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). I cannot add to what I said on that occasion, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Before next week's debate on the subject, will my right hon. Friend draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport early-day motion 71?
[That this House welcomes the bid from GEC Alsthom for a 20-year service provision package, including new rolling stock, for London Underground's Northern Line and the job security which the award of this tender would bring to its factories in Birmingham and the North West; calls upon London Underground to make its tender decision strictly on the quality of the product and value for money; and commends the bid to London Underground on these criteria.]
In the motion, a number of leading Labour politicians called for the latest contract that should have been given to ABB to go to GEC. Today, they are standing up in the Chamber and complaining about what has happened.
Mr. Newton: I will certainly do as my hon. Friend requests. No doubt Opposition Members who pressed in that direction will communicate with their hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley).
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate about sport as soon as possible? I am particularly concerned that the activities of a minority of football supporters have led to the majority of supporters travelling abroad being treated as though they had no civil rights, or had left them on these shores when they went to see their team play in Europe. The behaviour of the Spanish, Italian and Belgian police has been despicable. These are important issues, and people outside who support football are concerned about them.
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's concern. There is currently a wide interest in a number of issues concerned with sport, and I shall bear his request in mind.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I support the calls for a debate next week on pollution of the atmosphere—particularly in London, where, paradoxically, the better the weather the more polluted the atmosphere seems to be? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that provisions in the Environment Bill will allow measures to be taken to control vehicle exhaust emissions, which seem to be the main culprit in producing dangerous and obnoxious pollution in London?
Mr. Newton: I cannot make the precise promise that my hon. Friend requests, but I have already referred to

903
the importance that the Government attach to the matter, and have said that I expect a debate to be possible at an appropriate time.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we have a debate about the worrying trend for people to do jobs that are beyond their training or ability? In the past, we have heard of a hospital porter and a nurse acting as assistant surgeons; today, we hear of school dinner ladies acting as teachers during teaching time in a school in Bournemouth.
Did not the public express great concern about the matter last Thursday, when they sent the thunderous, deafening message that they consider one person to be doing a job way beyond his abilities or attributes? Should not the Prime Minister take on a job that is suitable to his character, becoming a bus conductor or perhaps a rose grower?
Mr. Newton: What can I say? I have never heard such a barmy question: that applies to all its ingredients.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1111?
[That this House deplores the deceit of the Labour Party in failing to declare a figure for the national minimum wage; notes the report in the Guardian of 10th May that the husband of the honourable Member for Peckham, Mr. Jack Dromey, and challenger to Mr. Morris for the TGWU leadership, said that the TUC should campaign to persuade Labour to adopt a minimum wage figure of between £4 and £5 per hour before the election. He said he was confident that the TUC's policy will be £4 per hour-'indeed, if you look ahead two years, it may be closer to f5 per hour … we should seek support for that from the Labour Party': further notes that studies by the OECD and IMF have stated that the policy of the minimum wage would cost jobs; recognises that a minimum wage in Britain of £4 per hour, with only a half restoration of differentials would cost 750,000 jobs; reminds the honourable Member for Peckham of the comment of the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party on LWT, 25th May 1992 that 'I knew the consequences (of the minimum wage) were that there'd be some shake out (in the jobs market), any silly fool knew that'; and calls on the Labour Party to come clean on the level of the minimum wage and end this gross deceit of the British people.]
The motion contains Labour's plans for a national minimum wage. Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the concept of the minimum wage? That might give us an opportunity to tease out of the Labour party the level of such a wage. If, as expected, it would be between £4 and £5, it has been estimated that three quarters of a million people would lose their jobs, at a time when more people are being employed: 632,000 have come off the unemployment register since the end of 1992. I believe that it would be catastrophic to introduce a minimum wage in this country.
Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is one of the best suggestions for a debate that I have had this afternoon. The only thing that my hon. Friend got wrong was the use of the phrase "tease out". It is increasingly clear that we shall only get anything out of the Labour party with forceps.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: May we have an early debate on the Government's policy on the
904
proliferation of large-scale weekend car boot sales in rural areas, which are causing great concern to the villagers of Marston and Furnace End in my constituency, and in other parts of north Warwickshire, who are having to put up with the inconvenience of large numbers of cars travelling to those car boot sales? I am sure that that is a problem in many rural areas in Britain.
Mr. Newton: I can certainly confirm that I persistently find myself caught in considerable quantities of traffic, usually on Sunday mornings in my constituency, as a result of car boot sales. On the other hand, it also has to be acknowledged that that means that the boot sales are attractive to large numbers of people.
Mr. Rupert Allason: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there was widespread concern following the collapse of the Matrix Churchill trial about the use of public interest immunity certificates, an issue which is being looked into by the Scott inquiry. Without prejudging Lord Justice Scott's recommendations, is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday a public interest immunity certificate was issued in the Taylor case by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Without prejudging the issues there, would it not be better for evidence which affects national security at least to be given in private rather than to have the evidence suppressed altogether, which is bound to cause allegations and recriminations? Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to come to the House next week and make a statement on precisely why that evidence could not be given at least in private if it cannot be given in public?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will understand that that is not a matter on which I would want to make any comment whatever from the Dispatch Box beyond undertaking to bring the question to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Leader of the House reconsider the request that has just been made for a debate about the minimum wage? Such a debate would allow us to explain that Members of Parliament have a national minimum wage. Every single one is on £33,000 a year and no one can starve on that. Another 200 are picking up money on the side by moonlighting. That could be explained in the debate. All those issues could be brought to the attention of the people outside. If a national minimum wage is good enough for Members of Parliament, it is good enough for everyone else. Coincidentally, is it not true that in the 30 years since my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) became a Member of Parliament, we have not lost Members of Parliament, but we have increased the number. It was 625 when my hon. Friend came into the House. Now it is 651.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: It will be 659 after the next election.
Mr. Skinner: Far from jobs being lost in this place, their number is being increased. Let everyone have a bit of the action.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman might like to ask his constituents whether they think that the sum of money

905
that he is paid is worth it for having him come here and advocate policies which would undoubtedly cost a number of them their jobs.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on two items raised in today's Financial Times? The first relates to activities by National Power. I know that the Government are reluctant to intervene to tackle poverty pay, but may we have a statement on the public interest and public acceptability of National Power's decision to pay a golden hello to its new chief executive, Mr. Keith Henry, of £100,000, to supplement his meagre salary of £280,000? It would be helpful if the House could understand the Government's position on such payments.
906
The second, which it would be useful to clarify before next Wednesday's debate on nuclear power privatisation, is the suggestion that City investors would contemplate acquiring such shares only if the Government guaranteed a heavy discount on prices. It would be helpful, before we have a debate, for hon. Members to know whether the Government will give the City that discount.
Mr. Newton: I shall give the President of the Board of Trade advance notice of a point that the hon. Gentleman may seek to put to him next Wednesday. With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, no doubt the point that he has raised, which is clearly one for National Power, also raises issues which might conceivably be felt appropriate for the Greenbury committee to consider.

ABB Carriage Works
4.39 pm
Mr. Hugh Bayley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement earlier this afternoon that the ABB carriage works in York are to close with the loss of all 750 jobs."
This afternoon, the Prime Minister claimed that the Government are no more responsible for that closure than they are for somebody catching measles. The man is suffering from amnesia. Did not his Government claim, when rail privatisation legislation was going through the House, that there would be no hiatus in rail investment? Is the Prime Minister not aware that last year, for the first time in British Rail's history, it did not place a single new order for rolling stock for London commuters? Has the Prime Minister forgotten the statement made a year ago by his own Minister of State, Department of Transport that an order would be placed by September 1994?
This closure is an unforgivable act of industrial sabotage. In this week when the country is commemorating the 50th anniversary of the victory in Europe, the Government have achieved what Hitler did not achieve in the war—the destruction of a fine British manufacturing industry. Ministers should come to the House to say, in debate, what they intend to do to provide alternative work for the 750 men who are to be made redundant.
Already this afternoon, I have had commitments from York city council and North Yorkshire training and enterprise council to provide £50,000 each to look for alternative work. Will the Government match that pound for pound from their single regeneration budget? The Government have caused this crisis. They have a responsibility to find solutions and a duty to answer in debate for that catastrophe.
Madam Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I have to give my decision without stating my reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
4.41 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Because you have been so indulgent to me this afternoon, I feel almost embarrassed about raising a point of order, but not quite, because it is a matter of some substance. May I ask you to call, from the expert Clerks of the Table Office, for an account of the circumstances of what actually took place during the rejection of six questions to the Crown Office and one question to the Prime Minister relating to why photographs of timers rather than the timers themselves were shown to the Scottish police in relation to Lockerbie?
There is the gravest doubt as to whether evidence held by the Crown Office is authentic. For two hours this evening, there will be a film and a long discussion—I hasten to say to my colleagues that I am not party to the discussion, and probably rightly so—among serious people about what is after all the biggest crime against western civilians since 1945.
Will you, Madam Speaker, ask the Table Office whether the artful way in which the Government are bypassing Parliament by cleverly wording answers to reject legitimate questions is bringing us all into disrepute? I hold that it is a matter for you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments about my indulgence. I do not often receive such compliments.
On behalf of the Table Office, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his earlier comments about the way that it handles his questions. The Table Office volunteered an explanation to me about why it was not able to accept the questions that the hon. Gentleman mentions. I know that he knows the answer. The Table Office is simply carrying out the rules and regulations of the House to see that our procedures and orders are upheld. The hon. Gentleman has raised such issues with me a number of times. I always look very carefully at the questions that he wishes to table and I know that he is helped enormously by the Table Office and, I hope, by my office as well.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to press your indulgence still further but you will remember that yesterday I raised with you the matter of the powers of Select Committees in relation to public interest immunity certificates. You were good enough to explain that the powers of Select Committees were not matters for you. Therefore, I have consulted the Clerks, and the guidance that I have been given is that, in their view, the powers of Select Committees to call for persons and papers includes the power to request Ministers who issue such certificates to attend a Committee to justify their action. From that, I assume that it is open to any Select Committee to exercise that power if it so wishes.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has understood the procedure perfectly accurately.

BILL PRESENTED
  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION
  Mr. Secretary Howard, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Mr. Attorney-General, Mrs. Secretary Bottomley, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Secretary Redwood and Mr. David Maclean, presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a scheme for compensation for criminal injuries: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 15 May, and to be printed. [Bill 121.]

Church of England Pensions
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
4.36 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I shall begin by thanking the Leader of the House for expeditiously finding time for this debate. I confess that when he said during last week's business statement that the debate would be this week, I thought for a moment that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, who is a clever political animal, had some difficult statement in store for us today and wished to clear the Opposition Benches to ensure that the Government had an easy ride. I say that only to dismiss that thought from my mind, because he clearly acted from far nobler motives.
Some people, sometimes following genuine inquiry and sometimes mischievously, ask why the Select Committee on Social Security carried out an inquiry into the activities of the Church Commissioners and specifically into the impact of recent events on the payment of clergy pensions. In answering that, I shall recall a statement by Aneurin Bevan. Unlike my Front-Bench colleague, I am old enough to know what Woolworth's was like in the old days. Its counters were neatly divided into little boxes and nothing was priced over sixpence. After listening to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, Aneurin Bevan said that the speech was like a trip round Woolworth's: everything was in place and nothing was priced over sixpence.
Perhaps those who question the right of the Select Committee on Social Security to inquire into these matters have the Woolworth's mentality that life should be in neat little boxes and nothing should cost more than sixpence. I hope that, as the debate evolves, it will be clear why the Committee was involved and was concerned about this issue, and why it is the right of any Committee of the House to set its own agenda.
Although the debate may dwell on the darker side of what has happened in the Church Commissioners lately, this is also a tale of heroes and heroic events. I shall touch on the heroes at the beginning of my speech. The press nowadays comes in for a fair amount of stick because of the way in which it is said to lower public standards. If there is one recent hero in the media, it is clearly John Plender, and perhaps it says something about the close-knit community of the media that he does not seem to have gained any awards for his investigative journalism, from his base in The Financial Times, on the Church Commissioners.
One tends to think that, like organisations everywhere else, the media are a closed little body that award prizes to their friends. I have nothing against awarding prizes to one's mates. Indeed, one day I hope to find some mates who will have won some prizes, but it is of note that John Plender's work has not been publicly rewarded by' his colleagues, as one might expect.
The Financial Times is somewhat remiss in the matter. The Archbishop of Canterbury told the Committee that he first found out the full extent of the nature of the crisis from reading the Financial Times, and I would have thought that it could have been a little faster off the blocks in placing advertisements so that business men could

911
realise that, if they wanted to know what was going on in their company, they should read the Financial Times, like the archbishop did. John Plender is certainly one hero.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that, if the matter related to some Government quango, the media's attention would have been much more engaged, but that, because it had nothing to do with the Government, the rest of the media chose to ignore it.
Mr. Field: That was the last thing in my mind. As I have already had to confess today to one evil thought about the Leader of the House, I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman's comments.
The second hero of the story is the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is difficult to think of anyone in public life who readily takes the blame when events go wrong, but it is exceptional for someone to take the blame for events when he is clearly blameless. During the period under consideration, the archbishop was a diocesan for short time, and archbishop for an even shorter time, yet he immediately said that he, among others, was responsible for the events under discussion.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I would certainly lead efforts to get awards to the hon. Gentleman for his good work on this and other matters. Does he agree that, as a result of the actions of the Church Commissioners, the archbishop will have a new and bigger responsibility than he has had so far? He will have to give real leadership to ensure that clergy pensions are paid and that clergy and other workers in the Church of England are not undermined in terms of their pay and how and where they live. He alone can do that. I hope that he will acknowledge that, because, so far as I can tell, his position has not changed. He has the same emoluments, the same pay and all the rest of it.
Mr. Field: In considering the matter, we should get away from debates about whether the whole financial problem can be solved by bishops living in two-up and two-downs. Such decisions are for them to make. The financial crisis is so serious that it will not be solved by such matters. I have no doubt that, given the type of leadership that the archbishop has shown, he will successfully see through the crisis into which the Church has been plunged because of events at the Church Commissioners.
Immediately after the archbishop read the Financial Times reports, he announced that an inquiry would take place. The commissioners like to conduct their affairs in secret. There is much less secrecy now, thanks to the advent of Sir Michael Colman, but clearly people there still wish to conduct their affairs with as much quietness as possible and would have pushed for the inquiry to be knocked into the long grass. The establishment of a Lambeth group and the publication of a report was the last thing that they would have wanted.
I do not want the debate to pass today without us paying a proper compliment to the archbishop for his leadership, for affirming his belief in openness, and for his resistance of the 150-year-old tradition in the Church Commissioners that such matters are best sorted out in private and that, at all cost, one should stop debate erupting into the public domain.
Mr. Greenway: I support what the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree that the Church of England will be in
912
the position somewhat of, say, the Church in Australia? Its members will have to raise the stipends of priests and others. Leadership and inspiration to achieve that will have to come from the archbishop. People will be looking to him for that.
Mr. Field: I agree with that. I shall touch on that point later, if I may, but I do not think that we shall find the archbishop wanting in that respect.
Sir Michael Colman is the third hero. It would not be amiss if I told the House that, when Sir Michael first came before Committee members, we asked him to introduce his team. He introduced with ease those who were sitting with him at the table, but he somehow thought that we meant that he should introduce the whole of the party from the commissioners, and he found some difficulty in doing so. I caught the eye of two of the Conservative members of the Committee. They were looking at one another and the expression on their faces said, "Oh dear, we are clearly going to have some difficulties here."
By the end of that meeting, however, the honesty with which Sir Michael had answered our questions was such that the whole Committee was won over to him and had a certain admiration for the qualities that he was bringing to his task. I give just one example. When one of the Committee members asked him about activities in the Church Commissioners, he said if they had gone on in his company, that would have been unlawful. There was no pulling of punches, no wish to disguise, no intention of hiding the seriousness of the events under consideration. It is good news that Sir Michael was chosen; the way in which he has gone about his business since then is also good news.
The last events that I shall describe as heroic—because they are events and not people—relate to the commissioners' pay and pensions record. They have been slightly defensive about, and critical of, the report in that they believe that it should have emphasised their record more. I am sure that other hon. Members will rightly do so, and I have no wish to steal their thunder, but it is important to understand that the reason why the Church Commissioners are there, and the reason why they have stewardship over national resources, is to pay pensions and to help supplement stipends. I am anxious to compliment them on their record, but they are in business to do that.
Let me turn to the main substance of the debate, to its seriousness and how it will impact on the established Church and the parish system. It is important to put on record the fact that, because of gambling with borrowed money and speculation in the property market, at least £800 million of the capital base has been wiped out. It does no one any credit when some in the Church Commissioners continue to pretend that that had something to do with the movement of markets.
In our report, we cite funds that, although not identical—no fund is identical to the moneys held by the Church Commissioners—are similar to the portfolios held by the commissioners. We showed that, in the period during which the capital base fell by £800 million, other funds were successful in increasing the real value of their capital base. Therefore, I hope that, from this day, we shall have no more of such talk and complacency, with some commissioners still peddling, in public debates, the idea that the markets are really accountable and responsible for what has gone on.

913
The charge against the commissioners is simple. By their actions, they have so undermined the capital base that the stream of income to the commissioners has been permanently curtailed. If there had been wiser stewardship, the capital base would not only have recovered to the extent that it has recovered in the past few years, but become much larger.
The second impact of the commissioners' actions—apart from up to £800 million being wiped off the value of the assets—is that, because the Church is now plunged into such a crisis over the payment of pensions, a sum will have to be transferred from the much-reduced capital base into a pension fund to meet past pension commitments. In a moment, I shall discuss the sums that the Select Committee recommended. At a minimum, one is talking about £700 million to £750 million. If we add together what will need to be transferred and what was needlessly lost from the capital base, we see that we are talking about a period of stewardship that has almost halved the size of the capital base that the Church Commissioners had not many years ago. That is a record of which most people would be ashamed.
A number of sores remain, to which the Select Committee drew attention in its report, and which will not go away. Some of my hon. Friends, if they manage to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will raise those issues, so I shall not dwell on them in detail, although I want to list them.
The first is the string of private companies that the Church Commissioners established so that they could undertake some of the property development work. The procedure was designed so that they could get round the legal limits on exempted charities. There are many private or joint property companies. Last night, the Church Commissioners kindly put on the board for me, and for other hon. Members, perhaps, a note that they had prepared on these bodies. The list was too large for me fully to digest before the debate today, so it is a matter to which we shall return.
I cite one paragraph of our report, which shows the activities in which the Church Commissioners were engaged. I refer to paragraph 3 of appendix 10, which is a letter from the National Audit Office to the commissioners. It says:
"The Commissioners have paid out £3.2 million ostensibly for professional services provided by CC Projects but for which no services have been provided. Indeed the company has no staff".
Those sums, which were moved around to overcome the restrictions placed on the commissioners to prevent them from eroding their capital base and converting it into income, are of continuing concern to many people. The role of those companies will not go away.
The second issue that will not go away is what is euphemistically called the Ashford great park development. I use the word "euphemistically" because, according to the pictures I have seen, the area is still farm land. No development has taken place and no planning permission has been gained, but £80 million has been spent on the site. The Select Committee's recommendation was that the archbishop should seriously consider establishing a further committee of inquiry to examine how £80 million could disappear from the
914
commissioners' assets into land that is not terribly good farming land and that remains without planning permission.
I am almost lost for words in trying to describe how £80 million could have been spent on that development. A careful investigation to try to trace those to whom that £80 million went from the commissioners might yield some interesting answers, and might even result in some people wishing to pay back some of the funds to the Church Commissioners.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is not the whole investment in Ashford symptomatic of what happened in the crisis? The Ashford development was not mentioned in the Church Commissioners' reports until 1991, by which time £72 million had been spent on it. It was valued then at between £10 million and £20 million, and today it is valued at £3 million. The problem was the secretive way in which the commissioners went about their work. They did not tell anyone who was closely involved with the Church what was going on under their investment policy.
Mr. Field: It is worse than that. From looking at the annual reports, one could be fooled into thinking that the Church Commissioners were being open. Property portfolios were listed by value, up to certain sums. None of the figures was incorrect, but some of them were misleading. For example, a huge shopping development in the north-east which cost £360 million could be put under the heading of developments of more than £20 million. Although it would not be wrong to say that that development cost more than £20 million, some might think that the information was there to mislead people rather than to help them to have an informed debate. I very much endorse the point about secretiveness made by the hon. Gentleman.
The third issue that will not go away—the Select Committee has recommended that we follow it up—is the role of the National Audit Office in this tale. We asked the commissioners to provide us with their correspondence with the National Audit Office, which had been established as their auditor. We shall want to know why, for example, over the years, when the National Audit Office expressed its disquiet at some of the activities of the commissioners, and particularly at the way in which they presented their accounts in public, so little attention was paid by the commissioners to that, and why the National Audit Office did not take matters further. The Select Committee has already decided that it will look at that issue in greater detail at a later stage.
I now focus on some of the issues about which I and my hon. Friends are concerned and which help to point the debate to the future. I had intended to bill the first issue as the question of openness, but the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) put the other side of the tale and referred to the commissioners' excessive secrecy. There is a need for the archbishop and Sir Michael Colman to break the culture of secrecy within which the commissioners have worked for more than a century. It will be hard for the commissioners, who have served long in the commission, to throw away this wretched habit—one can get hooked on such things—but it is necessary for them to do so.

915
I quote from a letter from Dean Webster which I received this morning and which illustrates the strength of the secrecy. He says:
"I was a Church Commissioner for fourteen years and served on the Board of Governors, the Assets Committee and the General Purposes Committee. The borrowings for property investment and the CC Projects were never revealed to the Commissioners."
That letter is from somebody who was at the very heart of the elected structure of the Church Commissioners. He was excluded from the key decisions, not only in the preparatory stage and in their execution, but for some time after the decisions had been executed. The first thing that the archbishop and Sir Michael Colman must do is break the culture of secrecy to which so many of the long-established commission staff are so addicted.
Secondly, the Government need to look at exempted status for the commissioners and for other charities. Not so long ago—in 1985—the House passed, almost with acclamation, the Charities Act. In our debates then, we were assured that the exempt charities would continue their status and we were told how well run they were. The commissioners are an exempted charity, which raises questions about who advised Ministers on how exempted charities were run. Those questions obviously centre on the Church Commissioners today but also go beyond them to the other exempted charities.
There are two other important matters: the pension fund and the reform of the commissioners. There are clearly those who are pushing, from among the commissioners and, no doubt, from within the Synod, the view that a very large sum of money should be taken from the remaining assets of the Church Commissioners and transferred to a pension fund. The Committee is anxious that a pension fund should be properly established. It is anxious that that will, in a sense, act as the outward, visible sign to those who are retired or have earned pension commitments that past pension commitments will be met. It seems to us the proper way to advance.
We are not mindful to advocate that the sort of the sums suggested by the chairman of the pension board should be transferred into that new fund. We went for the lower figure, which Sir Michael Colman put forward to the Committee, about £730 million. That may need to be topped up in the future, but it ought not to be so topped up now that the commissioners are crippled in doing any of their other work or so that we would need another Bill before Parliament to transfer any surplus funds back to the commissioners. We need to establish a fund and it needs to be properly, but not excessively, funded.
The second major reform that follows from what I have said and from the inquiry that the Bishop of Durham is conducting involves the changing structure of the commissioners. That great reforming Prime Minister Robert Peel, when he first established the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, created a tightly drawn body of people who worked hard, made the decisions and ensured that they were carried out.
It was only when the bishops felt left out, and the other clergy felt unrepresented, that Lord John Russell extended the Church Commissioners to their present scope. We believe that the body needs to return to being the tightly organised, effective group that Peel originally established. However, in considering how to effect that and the pension fund, the question arises as to whether they should be dealt with by a Measure or by a Bill. Some people have all too readily ascribed to some of us who
916
are pleading for a Bill motives that they would not wish to be ascribed to themselves. When I debate the issue, I try to put aside partial affections for the Church of England and view things as rationally as possible.
It seems to me, as I hope that it seems to other hon. Members, that if those two major reforms come to the House as Bills, the House will be able to debate them fully and amend and improve them if need be, before they become effective. I am told that there are some in the General Synod who will wish to move by a Measure. A Measure, put simply, will mean that we shall have an hour and a half of debate. We shall not be able to amend it in the way that we could amend a Bill. We shall be able only to approve or to reject it.
Before those siren voices in the Synod try to gather support for that campaign, let me again detail the difficulties that the House had when considering the Measures dealing with women's ordination and compensation. We were told that those Measures were linked, and that we could not debate them separately. Perhaps we should have probed whether that advice was correct. My view is that the House would have approved women's ordination by something like 500 votes to 10 votes and disallowed by not quite such a wide margin the Measure that dealt with compensation. Those of us who wanted women's ordination felt trapped because we had to support a compensation Measure that put us in the position of paying people to exercise their consciences.
Many of us pleaded that the Church should be as tolerant as possible of those who did not agree with the reform introducing women's ordination—after all, before the vote, they were in the majority. However, if those people decided that it was so abhorrent to them, they should have left as non-jurors, and gone without the money. Our views were not heeded. Not only is compensation costing about £3 million a year—it might eventually cost the Church £50 million—but it is clear that some unscrupulous clergy are using the Measure as an early retirement deal rather than in connection with their objections to women priests. Had we had the chance, the Church would have had its Measure on women's ordination, and that on compensation would have been rejected.
We need a Bill, because the necessary legislation will be immensely complicated. Any complicated piece of legislation can be improved by open debate. There is nothing to lose by having such a debate. The House does not want to overturn the 1919 enabling legislation. That is accepted. We argue that the issues of the pension fund and changes to the Church Commissioners' constitution go beyond what was envisaged in the 1919 legislation, which delegated to the Church the authority to act on legislative matters within its day-to-day running and to bring more significant changes in the canons over to the House to be approved. We now want to change a structure which had been approved before 1919 and, therefore, I hope that wiser counsels will prevail in the Synod when it debates whether Measures or Bills will come to the House.
We take an interest in this matter not only because of pensions and the need to safeguard the pensions of people who are already pretty poorly paid but because we know that parish priests everywhere carry out an important role in our constituencies. However, we are also interested and involved in the debate because the Church of England predates the state. It is impossible to think about English

917
history without thinking about the Church of England. When the modern state was invented, the Church was coterminous with it. It is only much more recently, with growing secularisation, that there has been a clear division between the two.
It is as an English person that I speak today. I am grateful for the role that the English Church has played in our national life and much concerned about the future of that role, given what has happened to its historic resources, the gambling with borrowed funds in the property market and the need to create a pension fund with some of the remaining capital.
It is because I am concerned to try and get the right decisions for the Church of England that I have approached this debate, and the Committee's report, in this way. I hope that it will find favour on both sides of the House.
5.18 pm
Mr. Michael Alison: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), in his distinguished capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, on having taken the initiative in including the Church Commissioners in his Committee's comprehensive study of pension funds. I congratulate him and our other parliamentary colleagues who have served on the Committee on its examination and for the thorough-going and assiduous study that they have made of the Church Commissioners' fortunes in the widest, and also in the narrowest, sense. The resulting report, whatever else one may think of it, is a veritable encyclopaedia of useful and essential facts about the commissioners and their responsibilities.
As the Church Commissioners are directly and specifically accountable to Parliament, as well as to the Church of England, today's debate and the report that we are debating are both timely and relevant. Many of our constituents have a direct or indirect stake in the issues raised in the Committee's examination.
In his eloquent and intriguing speech, the hon. Member for Birkenhead produced his tripod of heroes—the journalist, the archbishop and the First Church Estates Commissioner. I endorse entirely his designation of those heroic figures. I only wish that I could label as heroes all the members of the Social Security Committee, including its Chairman. The trouble is, there are no heroes in Parliament. If one is a hero on one side of the House, one is an anti-hero on the other. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have done a splendid job.
Paragraph 17 of the report, a seminal paragraph, refers to the significance of losses. It mentions the £800 million loss, putting the word "loss" in inverted commas, thereby slightly pulling the punch. In a verbal presentation, which the hon. Member for Birkenhead has just given, it is beyond the wit of man to include inverted commas.
Nevertheless, the famous paragraph 17 about the losses could be set as an examination piece for candidates aspiring to be journalists, archbishops or Church Commissioners. It could examine the way in which losses can be presented as grotesque and unbelievable or as not nearly as bad as they appear. There are many different ways of looking at the figures. The hon. Member for Birkenhead produced a slightly gloomier version in his
918
speech than he did in his report. I make no complaint about that, because his report has laid bare many important and significant figures.
My inescapable role today is to speak on behalf of the Church Commissioners. I shall focus on the Select Committee's main recommendation which is that a separate, contributory pension fund should be established for future clergy pensions. The need for that was spelt out in the hon. Member for Birkenhead's speech and is mentioned fully in the report. It is vividly illustrated by the figures in table 1 of paragraph 15, again a seminal paragraph and set of figures.
The commissioners are 100 per cent. responsible for clergy pensions, and the larger the growth in the burden of pensions, the smaller is the contribution by way of subsidy that the commissioners can make in other directions such as the day-to-day costs of the clergy and the parishes. I am glad to be able to tell the House that, having worked intensively on a package of pension reforms since last autumn, the Church of England has been able to reach broad agreement on the establishment of a new contributory pension fund for future service.
At a national conference held a fortnight ago, the Church Commissioners, together with the Church of England pensions board, representatives from the 43 dioceses in England and the central board of finance—the General Synod's financial agency—agreed the principles and guidelines for setting up the new fund. It will probably be in place from the beginning of 1998. The little list that I have given of all those involved in the consultation and agreement is a vivid illustration of the complex intermeshing of interests and representative groups, organisations and administrative and executive bodies which make up the differential which drives the axle in the Church of England. It is difficult to escape from that clumsy and, in some ways, easily overheated piece of administrative machinery.
From the beginning of 1998, the Church Commissioners' pension liabilities will become limited and calculable because of the proposed cut-off point of liability, and the new contributory fund will start on its era of future liability. It will be the dioceses—ultimately, the parishes and their individual supporters—that will be the contributors, not the pensioner beneficiaries.
I shall list the recently agreed guidelines which will be presented to the Church of England General Synod for discussion and ratification in July this year. The first is a recognition that the present financial subsidy from the Church Commissioners to the ministry of the Church of England cannot keep up with the growth in its current and prospective costs and that the laity will have to contribute more. Sir Michael Colman—I am delighted that he made such a splendid impression on the Select Committee when it took evidence from him—in a heartfelt aside when being examined by one of the hon. Members present today, asked:
"Do you realise that pensions in payment in the Church of England have increased from £18 million in 1981 to £70 million today?"
That was in December 1993. It is an illustration of the gigantic growth in pension liability and of the unavoidable necessity of getting extra lay support.
Secondly, extra contributions from the laity will have to be forthcoming, via parochial and diocesan contributions, to the new separate fund to provide support, particularly for the cost of future pensions. In effect

919
active parishioners will have to recognise for the first time that the cost of a future pension for a serving clergyman is part and parcel of the current cost of maintaining him in his daily work as an incumbent. They are already quite used to supporting and sustaining him in that daily work.
Thirdly, the commissioners have confirmed their continuing ability to meet their existing liability for past service, including pension increments. Fourthly, transitional measures will have to be put in place to help poorer dioceses and parishes to work up their pension contributions. Finally—the hon. Member for Birkenhead touched on this in an important passage in his speech—legislation will be needed to give the Church Commissioners the power that is at present denied them to use their capital for pension purposes. I shall talk more about legislation in a moment.
I hope that the House and the hon. Member for Birkenhead will feel that considerable progress has already been made in the essential dimension of pension security, which has, in many ways, been the Select Committee's overriding concern. The report's recommendations in that area are, in some ways, an endorsement of what is proposed as much as a trigger for change. They are none the less welcome for that.
The Select Committee in its report and the hon. Member for Birkenhead in his speech have been trenchant and unsparing in their criticism of the stewardship of the Church Commissioners in the recent past. I am glad that they have also been positive and constructive. It might help if I summarise briefly how the commissioners have sought to respond to constructive criticism. I do not believe that they can be accused of complacency. After all, in July 1992 the Financial Times article—the manifestation of the first new hero of the hon. Member for Birkenhead—picked up and blazoned in a headline story the serious implications of financial malaise that the 1992 Church Commissioners' annual report had somewhat over-technically and guardedly laid bare.
The Select Committee's report reasonably and fairly states in paragraph 3:
"The Archbishop of Canterbury responded immediately to this news by establishing an inquiry (known as the Lambeth Group), whose report was published in July 1993."
That is the first appearance of the second hero, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman gave the archbishop credit so early in his report for a response to that article. Much had already been studied, scrutinised, suggested and set in train by the time that we had reached today's debate. Incidentally, members of the Lambeth group represented a majority of non-commissioners over commissioners.
The group's 1993 recommendations have been acted on vigorously and promptly. On receiving the Lambeth group report, the Church Commissioners' board of governors immediately put in hand the pension fund reforms to which I have just referred. To assess long-term liabilities, an eminent actuarial firm, Watson, was appointed to give independent actuarial advice on our expenditure commitments, particularly clergy pensions. Its findings echoed those of Bacon and Woodrow, another leading actuarial fund which had provided similar advice to the Lambeth group two years ago. The Watson report provided the actuarial basis for the on-going work of the funding of clergy pensions.
The board tightened its regulation and oversight of the Church Commissioners' Assets Committee, which is effectively the investment engine room of the Church
920
Commissioners. The board established an independently chaired audit committee in 1993 to scrutinise matters relating to, among other things, the appointment of an external auditor, the presentation of the commissioners' accounts and internal financial controls, and to consider any representations made to it by any person. On the matter of the appointment of an external auditor, we have consulted the Treasury, as we are required to do in the 1947 Measure governing the commissioners, and have been given the go-ahead to embark on a selection process.
An independent firm of surveyors were appointed in the spring to scrutinise the commissioners' property portfolio and to give strategic advice on it. The commissioners' new property group is working with the benefit of that advice. It is worth noting that the report by the surveyors found that, with few exceptions and taking into account certain admitted imbalances, the commissioners have a prime UK property portfolio.
The commissioners have long acknowledged, however, that we are too heavily weighted toward property in our investment portfolio and that re-balancing needs to take place. That is happening. For example, the House will probably know that the Metro centre in Gateshead is up for sale. That highly successful shopping centre, owned by the commissioners, is expected to fetch a sale price well above cost.
To strengthen internal management—
Mr. Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Alison: Certainly.
Mr. Jenkin: I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me, but I hear in his comments an echo of some of those made when the Select Committee was taking evidence. The Church Commissioners may well have a prime portfolio, but the Committee's assessment, from the evidence that it took, of the internal rates of return on the money invested simply does not match what the commissioners should have been able to generate. It is most important to emphasise that point. The Church Commissioners may well have some prime properties, but the prices that the commissioners paid for the development or purchase of them has never been justified by the returns.
Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend has to bear in mind the fact that the property portfolio taken in the round includes the agricultural estate. That estate is inherited and we have no control over the assets contained in it. The returns from each farm vary considerably and significantly and are themselves subject very often to rent controls, over which we have no real power or authority. Taking the property portfolio in the round and discounting the fact that we have very little control over the agricultural sector and very little ability to change the assets or get out of a particular farm, because of the tenancy restrictions, and isolating the property assessment purely to, let us say, commercial or retail shopping premises, the returns could be seen to be somewhat better, given manifestly failed enterprise investments such as Ashford great park, than my hon. Friend suggests. Certainly, for the most part, such investments were the result not of wild speculation but of considered advice from reputable agents such as Chesterton.
Mr. Jenkin: There may well be a residual agricultural property holding with the commissioners, but that does

921
not explain why, for example, as table 3 in paragraph 35 shows, UK retail property rose from 7 per cent. of the portfolio to 32 per cent. of the portfolio by 1993. The Committee also demonstrated in the report where the quality of advice and analysis of those retail developments was substantially lacking.
I return to my main point. The money invested by the commissioners in retail property as a portfolio is not justified by the holdings of the Church Commissioners. It is incumbent on all the commissioners to be realistic—I am not questioning my right hon. Friend's motives in any way at all—about the fact that the performance of their property portfolio has been very disappointing indeed.
Mr. Alison: With the indulgence of the House, I shall repeat the point that I was making when I initially gave way to my hon. Friend. The commissioners have long acknowledged that they are too heavily weighted towards property in their investment portfolio and that re-balancing needs to take place. I make no bones about that. I do not dispute that, within that over-extended investment, there have been some disastrous investments.
I am reasonably arguing, however, that, within an over-extensive cornucopia, there are some good, solid assets which have been bought and in which we have invested on the advice of reputable, competent professionals in the field. I am trying to explain ways in which we are seeking to improve the advice and control that are to be put in place increasingly under Sir Michael Colman's leadership. That will mean that more and more highly competent professional advice will help us to isolate and pin down assets within a much smaller property portfolio, which will produce the kind of returns which my hon. Friend is correctly seeking and postulating.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: An examination of each section of a commercial pension fund against an index of performance of other pensions funds is undertaken every quarter at least. In his capacity as a Church Commissioner, would my right hon. Friend tell us whether that happens in the Church Commissioners' fund? In his opinion, is the re-balancing happening—quickly enough? The Lambeth report recommended that the property section of the fund should be reduced. I note from the Social Security Select Committee report that a normal commercial pension fund would have a property portfolio of no more than 16 per cent. whereas, even today, the Church Commissioners' property portfolio is 32 per cent.—double the amount.
Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend is slightly misconceiving the nature of the Church Commissioners' assets and investments portfolio, because it cannot properly be described as a pension fund or even he considered analogous to a pension fund. It is not a closed pension fund with regular income flowing into it. It is quite a different kind of investment portfolio for which no new money comes in.
In relation to its income, it is possibly over-capitalised. The problem is not too much capital but too little income flowing from it. To attempt to regulate and assess it, and measure it by reference to a proper pension fund is misleading and precisely one of the difficulties which has arisen in focusing the management of a fund which was
922
not originally a pension fund. It had no new money coming into it, but it began to manifest vast new pension-oriented obligations, which, not being a pension fund, it was not properly equipped to dispose of or to handle.
In reply to my hon. Friend's intervention, may I say that I do not think that Sir Michael Colman, his advisers and, probably, the Church of England's pension boards look at the assets of the Church Commissioners, now and in the future, in precisely the same way as those responsible for a closed pension fund of, for example, a trade union, would assess and evaluate it. They are two different creatures.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I fear that my right hon. Friend has slightly missed my point. Any investment fund can be measured on its performance against a basket of other funds. Therefore, it is quite possible to measure whether the Church Commissioners' fund in agriculture measures up to other pension funds in agriculture. It is quite possible to measure whether the Church Commissioners' equity fund matches the equity performance of other funds. Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether the Assets Committee or the commissioners regularly review their own performance against an index of other funds?
Mr. Alison: Indeed they do. They do not necessarily always compare the fund with other pension funds, but they compare it with other comparable investment holdings and investment trusts. The assets of the fund are regularly measured, and we in the Assets Committee get regular sight of comparable movements. The fund is not assessed and evaluated in terms of its performance precisely as though it is a pension fund. It is reasonable that it should not be so assessed.
I should like to elaborate on the attempted responses that the Church Commissioners have made to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Birkenhead and those of the Lambeth group. We have sought to strengthen internal management by creating two new professional posts on the Church Commissioners' staff. One is a deputy secretary responsible for finance, Mr. Christopher Daws, who wrote to the hon. Member for Birkenhead, who, in turn, mentioned that letter today. The other post, that of chief surveyor, is now held by Mr. Andrew Brown, who is in charge of the property portfolio.
They are both highly professional officers. Mr. Brown has been working in particular on long-range financial planning. It can therefore be said that we have acknowledged past mistakes, heeded criticism relating to them and acted on them in every area. I hope that the House will agree that such swift and comprehensive action for reform is not evidence of complacency.
Mr. Simon Hughes: In advance of the Turnbull report, have the processes followed by the commissioners been relaxed, so that meetings are open rather than closed, to enable members of the General Synod and others to attend? Has any attempt been made to make the organisation far less hierarchical? The only representatives of the ordinary members of the Church appear to be deans, who are hardly at the bottom of the hierarchical pile when it comes to representing the person in the pew. It does not look as

923
though the organisation has been subject to much democratic scrutiny so far. Has that failing been noted and has it been, or is it about to be, corrected?
Mr. Alison: I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman that, in advance of the Turnbull report and the recommendations of the Select Committee on Social Security, apart from a fresh breath of stimulating air and ozone that has come through the arrival of Sir Michael Colman and the appointment of the two important new officers, whose names I have just given—after all, "the spirit giveth life", not the body necessarily—no fundamental structural changes have yet been made. The proceedings of the committees are governed as heretofore by the same regularity, membership and attendance.
There is no point in tinkering with that aspect of the machinery, which is under the intense scrutiny of the Select Committee and Turnbull, in advance of what those experts will deliver to us. Nothing fundamental has changed in the mechanics and nuts and bolts, but a new spirit is abroad in the commission as a result of the appointment of the new First Estates Commissioner and the new leadership.
Mr. Frank Field: I talked in general terms about complacency, which was unfair on the commissioners' staff. The right hon. Gentleman has been clear about how matters have changed, but, on 24 April, the first, leading letter published in The Times came from Mr. E. G. Nugee QC. Much of that letter revealed such complacency. In the House we are expected, even pre-Nolan, to declare interests. That gentleman could have well declared his interest because, if I am right, he was the commissioner to whom other commissioners went for a legal opinion on whether the commissioners could borrow. They did so to pursue the wretched policy that has led to the events that we are debating today.
Mr. Nugee gave a legal opinion on what the commissioners' position would be on borrowing. That was a highly contentious opinion. The Select Committee asked for that opinion, but we were given only part of it. We did not press our powers to ask for all of it. Mr. Nugee then had the nerve to write to The Times and referred to "loss", suggesting that, somehow, the market brought about the paper losses. I had in mind people like Mr. Nugee when I spoke about complacency. I did not have in mind the good members of staff who serve the commission well, the new breed of staff who are coming in or the first three Church Estates Commissioners currently in post. A group of commissioners, however, are still unbelievably complacent about their stewardship.
Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has introduced a non-hero to offset the three heroes whom he presented to us earlier. I am not responsible for that non-hero—alas, I wish that I could be responsible for the three heroes who were presented to us earlier. I am responsible for neither.
Mr. Nugee's letter was not stimulated by me and I doubt that it was stimulated by Sir Michael Colman or his staff. Mr. Nugee expressed his own views, but, to do him justice, he mentioned the £800 million "loss", as does the Select Committee in the famous paragraph 17 of its report. Mr. Nugee has done nothing more significant than to quote a relevant passage from the report of the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
As I have said, there are various ways of presenting a fascinating assemblage of figures—paragraph 17 of the hon. Gentleman's report has produced such a fascinating
924
assemblage of figures. Mr. Nugee, our new anti-hero, has produced an interpretation of those figures with which I know the hon. Gentleman disagrees. I am not responsible for Mr. Nugee, but I take note of what he has said. It is reasonable for someone like Mr. Nugee to demonstrate that there are different ways at looking at sets of figures. Statistics are notoriously malleable and elusive when one tries to pin them down to reveal the reality and their ultimate truth.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead referred to legislation. Let me focus at once on the Select Committee's recommendation that legislation to set up a separate pensions fund and to reform the Church Commissioners should be enacted by a parliamentary Bill rather than a Measure passed by the General Synod and subsequently considered by Parliament. Although there is likely to be much common ground between the Church of England and the Select Committee on other recommendations contained in its report, I fear that there will not be quite such ready agreement on that recommendation.
There is likely to be a strong objection to the proposal for several compelling reasons, as the Church of England sees it. The Select Committee bases its argument for a Bill on three grounds. First, it argues that the historic resources of the Church of England were contributed to directly by the monarch and that they belong not to the Church but to the nation as a whole. Of course the resources of the Church of England are at the service of the nation as a whole, and it intends that they should remain so, but, as the Church would argue, they derive mainly from Church, not state, sources.
When the assets of Queen Anne's bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were combined in 1948, 32 per cent. came from Queen Anne's bounty, but 68 per cent. from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whose assets derive from Church sources. Those are resources, in short, in which the state and the nation both have a proper interest, but the Church of England has a proportionately greater one, according to those figures.
Secondly, the Social Security Select Committee argues that a Bill would maximise the opportunities for debate on the future of the Church Commissioners. However, although a Bill would undoubtedly maximise the opportunities for the opinions of the House and of another place to be taken into account, there remains as a result an acute dilemma. It would necessarily deprive, to that extent, the Church of England of an opportunity to have, through the elected members of its General Synod, a parallel and proper voice—at least in terms of the constitutional understanding dating from 1919.
The matters that we would debate in a Bill in the House are crucial to the future of the Church of England. A Measure, it can be argued, first debated in Synod and then in this and another place, would give an opportunity for all the interested voices to be heard.
Mr. Frank Field: No one disputes that we could hold a debate on it, but we could not amend it. Surely there is nothing to prevent Synod from debating the Bill before it came to this place and another place, so that it goes through all the stages that we would go through.
Mr. Alison: Later I shall suggest a way in which one might proceed roughly along those lines.

925
Thirdly, the Social Security Select Committee argues that there is an urgent task in deciding to whom the commissioners should be responsible and that an Act of Parliament would appear the least contentious way of resolving that. Alas, I am advised that a Bill would be very contentious—at least, in Church of England eyes.
In 1919, Parliament decided to delegate a significant, although not a final, say in ecclesiastical legislation to the Church of England through the Church Assembly and its successor, the General Synod. In the past 75 years, Church and state have held to that understanding, including at the time the Church Commissioners, who were brought into existence, by Measure, in 1947. If a Measure were the right course then, it is arguably the right course now.
The arrangements for legislation on Church of England matters in the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 embody a partnership between Church and Parliament. It is a balanced partnership, in which both parties have a voice. As a member, like the hon. Member for Birkenhead and others, of the Ecclesiastical Committee, I am, however, well aware of the frustration that several of my colleagues and I feel at their inability to influence the details of legislation on Church matters. It is a take-it-or-leave-it position.
I can tell the House that the Church of England authorities are ready to consider ways in which Members of the House and of another place might be enabled to express their opinions in connection with the details of legislation on the important matters covered by the report, and likely to be contained in any prospective legislation. In other words, my heart is with what the hon. Member for Birkenhead seeks to secure. I believe, from comments made by Sir Michael Colman in the evidence that he gave to the Social Security Committee, that he would be only too happy for Parliament to have an important say in all that.
Mr. Alun Michael: I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would explain what he proposes. I intend to mention that issue in my remarks. I felt that there was a certain circumlocution in what the right hon. Gentleman said. What precisely is he suggesting?
Mr. Alison: To be honest, we have not worked through the ways in which there might be variations on the existing machinery of the General Synod, through its Legislative Committee, sending across a Measure to our Ecclesiastical Committee, but it might be possible to turn the Ecclesiastical Committee into a type of Standing Committee to consider a Measure before it is crystallised in final Measure form, so to speak.
I shall attempt to elaborate what might happen. A tentative Measure might be informally passed to the Ecclesiastical Committee, so that we had the chance to consider it, make suggested amendments, take evidence about it and send it back, before the whole thing was crystallised and came across as an unamendable Measure.
It is not beyond the wit of man to think of a way in which that might be considered. However, we are seeking to discover whether an experimental innovation would be
926
feasible, to satisfy the aspiration that we have in the House to get into the text and detail of a legislative proposal on a subject that is very important to Parliament.
Mr. Michael: If I understand him correctly, the right hon. Gentleman continues to suggest that the Measure would come before the House in a means that was not open to full debate, amendment and the type of consideration that the members of the Select Committee considered appropriate.
Mr. Alison: It would not come before the House to the Chamber of the House, sitting as a Committee of the whole House. However, it might come to the Ecclesiastical Committee in a form in which that committee was asked what amendments it might want to make if the Measure were to come before it in a full-bodied Bill form and, in that tentative way, return to the Legislative Committee of the General Synod with our suggested amendments before the full original panoply of unamendable Measures came before the Ecclesiastical Committee and the House.
I think that the hon. Gentleman has agreed that in that respect there might be some scope for innovation, but that is a tentative, uncharted area, so I do not pretend that it is definitive.
Mr. William Powell: I wonder whether that can be right, because the Ecclesiastical Committee is not a Committee of Parliament. It is a statutory committee, set up by Act of Parliament in 1919, and the only things that it can do are those matters that are laid down in the statute itself. Therefore, if my right hon. Friend suggests that the Ecclesiastical Committee should proceed in a way that is not laid down in the statute of 1919, there will need to be a prior Act of Parliament to enable it to do that.
As it would be absurd to pass a prior Act of Parliament to enable the Ecclesiastical Committee to proceed in the manner that my right hon. Friend suggests, I am afraid that the solution that he now proposes is inappropriate and impossible to achieve. Will my right hon. Friend and his advisers seriously consider the impossible roadblock that that will create?
Mr. Alison: I take note what my hon. Friend has said. He has sat on the Ecclesiastical Committee for as long as I have and as frequently as I have, and he knows the extraordinary flexibility that it can deploy when it wants to discuss an issue. We witnessed some of those unusual, original and surprising forms of consideration when we considered the Measure regarding the ordination of women.
I am not attempting to lay down or to expose or propose anything final and definitive. The hon. Member for Birkenhead—he strikes a sympathetic note with me in this—wants Parliament to have the powers that it has in considering a Bill, to be able to make amendments and consider the matter in its full analytical role, as is usual for us here. That would be extremely difficult for the Church of England to think of—an irresistible force and an immovable object.
If it is possible to find a compromise that will enable the House of Commons to have some say in the details of a legislative proposal before it is finally crystallised, it might be, in some informal way, along the lines that I have suggested. If that proves to be impossible, I suspect that we shall not be able to have a Bill and that it will

927
have to be a Measure. However, I would like to discover whether it is possible to find some way in which the circle might be squared, or vice versa.
Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
Mr. Jenkin rose—
Mr. Alison: I must proceed; my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) may be able to make his argument in a speech.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead referred to subsidiary companies. For the sake of brevity, I shall, with the hon. Gentleman's permission, skip the passage that I was going to offer the House about subsidiary companies, because he has received a rather more definitive answer in a letter than I can offer in a short paragraph this afternoon. He is at liberty to pursue the matter further if he wishes.
The hon. Gentleman was quite emphatic about the Ashford great park project. There is no evidence to suggest that we need a new, full-blown and inevitably expensive inquiry into the project along the lines that the Select Committee report recommends. However, we are anxious to be responsive and helpful to the Committee in that respect. Therefore, the Archbishop of Canterbury has agreed that the new Audit Committee, with additional independent and external expert assistance, is an appropriate body to carry out an independent investigation that will be set in train forthwith. The Archbishop of Canterbury will take a strong personal interest in the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that that is a positive and constructive response to the anxieties that he and his colleagues have expressed in the report.
Many of the issues raised by the Committee are very much at the heart of the work of the so-called Turnbull commission which is reviewing the Church's central structures under the chairmanship of Michael Turnbull, the Bishop of Durham. The Select Committee report contains a particularly felicitous and intriguing historical passage. There are some real nuggets in paragraphs 9 and 10—I suspect the direct imprimatur of the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
Thomas Arnold said that no human hand could save the Church of England, and that phrase rings out quite early in the report. Echoing Thomas Arnold's gloomy prophecy, the hon. Gentleman may also have been tempted to think that no human hand, not even the Turnbull commission, could save the Church of England. As part of its functions, the commission will consider the Select Committee's various recommendations in the next few months. If no known human hands can save the Church, I think that we may find that we are getting close to salvation in the shape of the hero of the day, the hon. Member for Birkenhead, and his team from the Social Security Select Committee. Those human hands have done a lot of valuable work in this area; the Committee has made some constructive suggestions, which the Turnbull commission is taking into account.
We hope that Thomas Arnold's gloomy prophecy will be laid to rest by the new body that will emerge in the spring. We hope that new growth and new prospects will arise from the hon. Gentleman's studies and criticisms and from the Turnbull commission—our new deployment of heroes. The prospects are very good. I reiterate the commissioners' thanks to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Select Committee for their work in producing the report.
6.2 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I would like to pay my tribute to the work of the Social Security Select Committee, whose report we are debating today. I have listened with interest to the arguments put forward by the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison).
It may be helpful if I intervene at this stage to explain the Government's position. I shall comment briefly on some of the points in the report rather than try to provide an answer to the matters raised in the report or in the debate—that is not my function today.
The Coopers and Lybrand report and the report of the Lambeth group, together known as the Lambeth report, have allowed the Church of England to examine in depth the performance of the Church Commissioners and to consider the way forward. The Lambeth report made several specific criticisms of the management of the Church Commissioners' assets, and went on to address a number of long-term financial questions, including the mounting cost of clergy pensions. The report contained recommendations designed to prevent any recurrence of the events and my right hon. Friend has told us how the Church of England is now acting on those recommendations and I believe that the House will be impressed by its spirited and speedy action.
The review conducted by the Turnbull commission included an examination of the relationships between the executive functions of the General Synod, the Church Commissioners, the Church of England pensions board and the staff of the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York. The commission is due to report later this year.
The Social Security Committee report looks ahead to what may emerge from the Turnbull commission. It argues strongly for greater parliamentary intervention in the process by which the Church of England chooses to organise itself to face the future and urges that the legislative mechanism used to give effect to any proposed changes should take the form of a public Bill. I shall briefly address that issue.
Since 1919, when the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act was passed, Parliament has delegated to the Church of England—first to the Church Assembly and now to the General Synod—considerable powers of initiative over its own affairs. Ultimate control, however, has always remained with Parliament which can debate Synod Measures and accept or reject them.
All Synod Measures are scrutinised in detail at several stages within the Synod and there is opportunity for debate and revision, just as there is in this House and in another place. It seems entirely right that the way forward for the Church of England should be led by the community of that Church. Of course, Parliament continues to play an important role in scrutinising each Measure—for example, ensuring that there is nothing in it that adversely affects the interests of the nation in any wider sense—and, in exercising its final dispensing power, may accept the measure or reject it.
One of the reasons why the 1919 Act was passed was that the vast increase in parliamentary business in the 19th century meant that very little time was available for ecclesiastical legislation. Time and again, ecclesiastical

929
business failed to proceed. It is evident that the position is, in principle, no different today. Indeed, we all know that the pressure on parliamentary time is even greater.
I am afraid that I cannot accept the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Birkenhead because of the House's limited time and capacity to deal with the details of Church Measures. I draw comfort—as I hope the hon. Gentleman will—from the clear endeavours to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby referred to find ways in which there may be greater input, even if there may be difficulties with his suggestion.
It is also an established convention nowadays that the Government should remain neutral on all Church matters. We do not yet know what the findings of the Turnbull commission will be. If, when the commission has reported and its findings have been considered, the Church of England decides that it wishes to proceed by means of a Measure, I cannot foresee any grounds that would be likely to impel the Government to object.
Another point raised by the Select Committee Chairman was that the Government should satisfy themselves on the exempt status of each of the other charities that maintain their status in the legislation that follows the Government's White Paper "Charities—A Framework for the Future".
Mr. Jenkin: There is some difficulty with my hon. Friend's earlier point that there is an established convention that the Government should remain impartial in these matters, as several Ministers are also Church Commissioners. The system of accountability among Church Commissioners has broken down, and to that extent they have, as a body, rather forfeited Parliament's trust. That was not just the argument of the hon. Member for Birkenhead; the proposal was also adopted unanimously by members of the Social Security Select Committee. I urge my hon. Friend to consider the matter more carefully.
Mr. Baker: I take my hon. Friend's point seriously. The constitution of the commission not only was considered by the Select Committee but is an aspect on which we may hear more from the Turnbull commission. I imagine that the commission will want to address my hon. Friend's point, and we will have to examine it as well—for the reasons that he gave.
The Government do not accept that what has happened to the Church Commissioners gives grounds for instigating a review of the status of all exempted charities—those listed in schedule 2 to the Charities Act 1993. They include many universities, grant-maintained schools and certain museums and galleries. It is evident that the Church of England has recognised that mistakes were made in the past and that it is working to develop systems and structures that will prevent them from being repeated.
The Church Commissioners may give advice to exempt charities if it is sought. I understand that they are most willing to discuss with any exempt charities ways in which links providing access to that advice can be strengthened to the benefit of exempt charities. That is certainly a welcome offer.
The issue of pensions is certainly important and one on which the Lambeth report and the Select Committee made recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Member for
930
Selby described action by the commissioners, with which I am sure we are all impressed. Any new scheme for Church of England and clergy pensions will have to comply with pensions legislation, including the requirements of the Pensions Bill now before Parliament. One aim of that Bill is to establish a clear framework of statutory obligations for employers, trustees, scheme professionals and others associated with pensions schemes.
It is clear that the Church of England is facing a formidable challenge as it seeks to address complex financial and organisational issues. The Government wish the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues well as they begin to identify solutions that will permit the Church of England to learn from the mistakes of the past and to tackle the issues that it faces. The Select Committee report makes an important contribution to that process.
6.11 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and to the members of his Committee, who have done a great service to the long-term interests of the Church of England and the House. The report was undertaken with two clear objectives. One was to find out what went wrong and what lessons could be drawn for the future operation of pension funds. The other was to establish how Parliament could ensure that structures imposed by law on the Church of England are efficient and appropriate to contemporary conditions. In exploring the second area, the Committee has given us much food for thought in respect of the operation and accountability of exempt charities—an aspect that the Minister rather dismissed.
My hon. Friend looked for heroes in describing what is in many ways a sad and sorry tale. I join his tribute to the Archbishop of Canterbury and welcome the many positive responses made to some events. The Committee concentrated on ensuring that the events in question will never be repeated and on protecting the interests of the clergy and the public, which must be right.
The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), responding on behalf of the Church Commission, rightly acknowledged the report's importance as a source document. He referred to it as an encyclopaedia. He acknowledged also the accountability of the Church Commissioners to Parliament as well as to the Church. The right hon. Gentleman put on record the Church Commission's current position and the responses made to a variety of events. That was welcome, as were the right hon. Gentleman's assurances on a number of points.
The right hon. Member for Selby suggested that figures and statistics are elusive and difficult to pin down, but that is no excuse for not trying, and why it is important to deal with figures professionally and with integrity. The right hon. Gentleman's description of the historic sources of the Church's finance is not a ground for seeking to diminish public interest in the events that occurred.
The right hon. Member for Selby was right to stress the importance of having the right people in place who will operate with integrity. On a recent visit to the Clerk

931
office I saw on the notice board a quotation from Gibbon's "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire":
"The operation of the wisest laws is imperfect and precarious. They seldom inspire virtue, they cannot always restrain vice, their power is insufficient to prohibit all that they condemn, nor can they always punish the actions that they prohibit."
Nevertheless, the House has a responsibility to try to form laws which prevent the triumph of evil and encourage virtue. That is what structures for accountability are all about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead outlined points of detail from the report which must be dealt with, but I will concentrate on issues of wider public interest and the Government's duties in responding to them. I was disappointed by the Minister's response, which was lightweight and dismissive of Government responsibility. Is that really the Government's considered response to a catastrophe—as it has been described—threatening not only the Church of England's parish work but the health of communities in which the Church works throughout the country? The Minister missed the public interest issue which led the Home Office to despatch a Minister to the Chamber to answer the report.
The Minister responded as though this were just ecclesiastical business, but public interest goes beyond merely ecclesiastical issues. This is not a party political issue in any sense, but the Opposition have a right to demand evidence that Ministers have understood their responsibilities, considered the evidence and findings of the Select Committee, and identified actions which the Government must take to resolve the matter. The Minister's response was lacking in each of those areas.
The House may consider that I approach the subject with the right balance of concern and objectivity, having been born and nurtured in the Welsh Presbyterian Church and being a regular communicant of the Church in Wales. I therefore observe the situation in England as an Anglican, but from the healthy perspective of disestablishment.
As a youth and community worker in my own city of Cardiff and in my constituency, I have seen at first hand—as in other parts of the country—the work of the Church and the leadership offered by fine priests in deprived areas, in which the priest and the minister are sometimes the last professionals to live in the communities they serve. At its best, and with the best leadership, the Church is often a beacon of hope in communities worst hit by economic and social decay.
I do not say that the Church and its leaders have been perfect. Neither do I limit my remarks to the Anglican Church. Members of the clergy in the United Reformed Church, Methodist Church and Roman Catholic Church also stand out in my experience—not least when they work together ecumenically, yn cytyn, across boundaries of Church organisation. My experience confirms the Select Committee's point that the loss of clergy from inner cities and housing estates would he a tragic impoverishment of communities already buffeted by poverty and despair. That is not to discount the spiritual gifts that the Churches bring to their work, but public interest issues should be of great concern to the House.
Today's debate is an occasion not just for looking inward at the interests of the churchgoing community but
932
for considering the wider public interest. The Government have a clear responsibility to ensure proper regulation of those responsible for charitable funds. As the Minister acknowledged, the Church Commission is an exempt charity. That concept is often confused in the public mind, and it may have become confused in the minds of some commissioners during the events which led to the tragedy.
The Church Commission is therefore exempt from the requirements to register as a charity and the Church Commissioners are not subject to regulation by the Charity Commission. Let us be absolutely clear that they are not exempt from all responsibilities under charity law, nor should their moral and legal responsibilities of duty and care be taken any more lightly than those which apply to the trustees of charities that are registered and regulated.
It is clear that the culture of our times has led to a lowering of standards and the suspicion that the Church Commission is not the only exempt charity to have fallen below the highest standards. I do not accept the Minister's view that there is no need to look again at the way in which the law operates in respect of other exempt charities as issues arising from the events involving the Church Commission read across into concern about how charity law applies to exempt charities in general.
We may debate on another occasion whether the system of registration and regulation is satisfactory. I feel that in some cases the Government interfere when they should keep their nose out, while in others they fail to ensure a proper degree of public accountability. That was well illustrated in the debate in Committee on 29 March on the Charities (Trustee Investments Act 1961) Order, but it is not the point today.
The Church Commissioners are subject to charity law and all the legal and moral responsibilities which apply to trustees. The Minister said that there is nothing to stop them making use of the expertise of the Charity Commission, particularly in respect of trusteeship and investment policy. To be sure of my ground, I spoke to the Chief Charity Commissioner yesterday. He felt that it would be not be right for him to discuss any specific charitable bodies, but he confirmed that many exempt charities make use of the services of the Charity Commission and maintain a close working relationship with his office. The Charity Commission's guidance and advice and publications are also readily available.
It is right that the Chief Charity Commissioner, Mr. Richard Fries, should observe the courtesies of confidentiality while confirming the general picture, but the Minister has a more specific role. In preparing for today's debate I expected him to have investigated with the Church Commissioners how they carried out their functions and the relationship that they enjoy with the Charity Commission, as the body established by Parliament and the instrument of Government in regulating charities.

933
I am more than willing to give way to the Minister if he wishes to respond to that or other issues that I have raised. I expected him to cover such issues in his own speech, but I am happy to let him remedy that fault in an intervention.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the category of exempt charities should be withdrawn or abolished?
Mr. Michael: No. I am suggesting that the category of exempt charity needs to be considered in the light of what happened in respect of that particular exempt charity and the findings of the Select Committee report.
The Minister has not responded to the Select Committee report, which raises important issues. Nor does he appear to have discovered the relationship between the Church Commissioners and the Charity Commission. He made no comment about that, except to refer to the potential for a relationship between an exempt charity and the Charity Commission.
Is it the business of Parliament? Yes, it certainly is. As Parliament grants the Church Commissioners freedom of operation and the protection of their charitable status, they are accountable to Parliament, which has an important role in scrutinising the way in which they discharge their duties. The Select Committee report needs the most careful study and a detailed response because it is the instrument by which the House is enabled to carry out its obligations. If the Select Committee had not undertaken an investigation, we would not be debating the issues and there would have been no accountability in matters of great public interest. The Government also owe us a specific explanation, as it is an issue on which Home Office Ministers have pontificated in the past. Proper regulation of the Church Commissioners was a subject for concern before the Government's last major foray into legislation on charitable law.
I shall not repeat the comments of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, the Chairman of the Select Committee, but the House must accept that the debate has massive implications. The Daily Telegraph described it as a metaphor for our times. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to refer to it as a parable for our times. It was clearly a matter of careful and considered judgment which led the Select Committee to attribute £800 million Church losses to "unbelievable naivety" and to describe past speculation by the Church Commission as "foolish and reckless". The Government are accountable to the House for their failure to put protections in place for the Church, the clergy and the public.
In the 1989 White Paper, "Charities—A Framework for the Future", the then Home Secretary referred specifically to the Church Commission, saying:
"Their constitution and arrangements, approved in the past by Parliament, already contain satisfactory measures for ensuring that the objects of the trust are carried out and that their property is safeguarded, rendering Charity Commission involvement superfluous."
The Minister has, in effect, admitted that the then Home Secretary got it wrong and that the analysis was a poor excuse for exemption from the Charities Act.
Given that Ministers failed to protect the public in that regard, will the Minister give a firm undertaking that there will be a review of all other charities which have exempt
934
status and that consideration will be given to whether the requirements of that status need to be changed. Is there not the strongest possible case for ensuring that the writ of the Charity Commission should operate in respect of exempt charities, at least in requiring evidence that accountability and standards are being maintained?
The Minister also owes the House an explanation of the double standards with which the Government appear to approach trusteeship and charitable involvement. The Minister will remember our debate in Committee on 29 March, when he failed to explain why the Government insist on maintaining the limit of a 75:25 split between broad-range and narrow-range investment for those charities that fall under the relevant provisions of the Trustee Investments Act 1961.
The Charity Commission considers an 85:15 split more appropriate for those charities which change their constitution and regulations. Where charities are free of those restrictions, the pattern dictated by prudence, as the duty of care still exists, generally leads to a 90:10 split. It has been estimated that the earlier 50:50 split was losing £450 million a year to charities and money continues to be lost to charitable causes by that regulation. Yet the Government maintain their tight regulatory stance despite the advice of their own deregulation task force that the requirement
"interferes unwarrantedly in trustees' exercise of their discretion, and prevents them from maintaining the real value of their assets and investment income".
The point of referring back to that debate is that it illustrates the muddle at the heart of Government thinking. In the case of the Church Commissioners, where massive investments have enormous importance for communities in every part of England and involve wider public interest, the Home Secretary in 1989 was guilty of massive complacency. In the case of some of the smaller trusts whose functions are important but touch more lightly on the general public interest, the Home Secretary hangs on to his right to meddle and interfere.
The House has a right to demand an explanation of Government thinking and for Ministers to account for their stewardship. If the Minister cannot explain Government thinking, it will become all the more urgent to debate wider issues in the near future. Where is the coherence of thinking in the Government? That question demands an answer.
Does the Minister accept the need to look again at the position of exempt charities? Yesterday in another place, his colleague Lady Blatch acknowledged the considerable powers given to the Charity Commissioners in sections 8, 9 and 11 of the Charities Act 1993. Those powers enable the Charity Commission to undertake inquiries, require information and use sanctions in regard to a charity or charities and to suspend trustees and even to appoint a receiver. The problem is that the key paragraph of section 8 contains the words:
"but no such inquiry shall extend to any exempt charity."
In view of the experience with the Church Commission, does the Minister now accept that the situation needs to change?
As exempt charities—I am deliberately referring to the class of which the Church Commission is a member—receive their status, their mandate and a significant element of their income as a result of decisions by the House, is there not a need for public accountability, including the publication of information and accounts and

935
a power for the Charity Commission to undertake inquiries in certain circumstances? There is a need for large, rich charities to act properly and to be subject to appropriate regulation. But will the Minister also concede that it is invariably the poorest groups and communities who suffer most when charities are improperly regulated or overseen? Surely the Government have a vested interest in the health and sensible regulation of the voluntary sector, particularly in relation to its financial management, so as to avoid pressure to pick up the tab for any failings.
The Minister referred to the effect of the Pensions Bill [Lords], but I would say that the relationship between Government and charities in this context is not especially clear—surely it, too, needs reviewing?
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: How do I explain to my constituents the fact that charities such as Barnardo's and Age Concern, which have good reputations for helping the needy, are quite properly regulated by the Charity Commission and have to publish financial accounts, while so-called charities such as Eton and Winchester, which serve the privileged, are secret societies which do not have to account to the Charity Commissioners or publish their financial accounts?
Mr. Michael: My advice is that my hon. Friend would have great difficulty in explaining that with any conviction. It is also clear that there is a major difference between some exempt charities, such as the Church Commission, and a number of bodies such as those that my hon. Friend mentioned. They, too, are related to the churches and have their roots in the Christian community. There are certainly some serious anomalies.
I am the first to accept that one needs to be very careful about changing charity law in a way that may have unforeseen consequences. I simply say that in 1989 the Home Secretary claimed that there was no need to consider the position of the Church Commission as an exempt charity. It is clear that that was massively complacent and wrong, and that there is a need to review the situation now. I regret that the Minister does not seem willing to agree to instigate such a review.
Coming next to the position of retired clergy and the pensions of clergy who are still in office, I had hoped to hear that the Minister had gone into the matter in some detail and was able to give us a considerable amount of information about it. The remarks of the right hon. Member for Selby in this context were to some extent helpful, but I am not clear about the Government's response to the proposals emanating from the Church Commission. I am not sure whether the Government are satisfied that all concerned will be fully protected and well served by the new arrangements. There is considerable anxiety among the clergy and their parishioners about the situation described in the Select Committee report.
The Minister should also be aware of concerns for the welfare of the former wives of divorced clergy. I do not know whether that matter has received any attention, but I know that some hon. Members have been approached about it. No doubt the Minister and the right hon. Member for Selby are aware of the organisation Broken Rights, which is campaigning on behalf of the women concerned following the break-up of their marriages. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has given personal support to, and taken an interest in, the work of that group. What has the Minister done to satisfy himself
936
that the rights and interests of these women have been protected? Many of them gave up their own careers and employment-related rights to support clergymen in their work, and have been left at a considerable personal disadvantage after working for many years as additional, unpaid curates.
Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have contacted me to express their concerns about issues that we are covering in this debate. I refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). They and others have been contacted by clergy with worries to express, and by members of the Church Commission—all of them anxious that this debate should look forward as well as looking closely at the lessons that need to be learnt from the past.
The Bishop of Bradford has acknowledged to colleagues in his area that the House could spend all its time on what he described as "justified but repetitious criticism", and on seeking scapegoats. If he reads Hansard he will find that our debate has not been like that—although it was a fair point to make.
The Select Committee has underlined the seriousness of some of the lapses that have occurred. Paragraph 114 of the report, for instance, states:
"The growth of subsidiary companies and the choice of partners in such activities, which were designed to circumvent the restrictions placed on the Commissioners by their charitable status—a development which began in earnest under the late Sir Ronald Harris as First Estates Commissioner in the late 1970s—needs further investigation."
The right hon. Member for Selby said that there had been some examination of these issues following the Select Committee report, and I welcome that. I repeat that the public and this House have an interest in the fact that the way exempt charities operate generally needs to be re-examined in terms of the requirement for legislation. The Minister should undertake to look into this.
The investigation called for by the Select Committee should not be undertaken to find scapegoats; it should be done to learn from mistakes and to ensure that arrangements are put in place to prevent these disasters from ever being repeated. Assurances are not enough, in view of past complacency—but I shall not repeat what I have said about that.
The bishop made the point that a committee under his chairmanship has had the duty of bringing about the implementation of the recommendations of the Lambeth group. That important point was covered in more detail by the right hon. Member for Selby. Many recognise the need to establish a separate pension fund; indeed, the Select Committee report makes specific recommendations on that point. It was also acknowledged by the right hon. Member for Selby when discussing the agreement to establish a contributory fund. That is most welcome.
It is perhaps not unfair to remind the Minister that this leaves the police and fire services as the two great areas of difficulty with unfunded pension requirements, which in turn are creating enormous problems in the public service.
I am sure that the House will concur with the view that the pension fund so established should be independent of the commissioners. There is concern in some quarters to the effect that Parliament may set specifications which are too onerous when defining the assets required for such a fund, but the experience of recent years shows the dangers

937
inherent in failing to ring-fence pension funds and to ensure that they are adequate to meet all the claims that may be made on them. In view of the real dilemma facing the Church, it is important to face up to financial problems and not to cut corners when establishing the pension fund in a way which might cause pain in future. The right hon. Member for Selby sought to assure us on that point, and it is reassuring to know that it will be taken seriously.
Next, I come to the important point of difference between the views of the Select Committee and those of some leading figures in the Church Commission. The Select Committee notes at paragraph 115:
"The Church has two options concerning the nature of the proposed legislation… It can attempt to legislate by Measure, or it can propose a Bill."
Views expressed on behalf of the diocese of Sheffield to Members representing the area, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth, urged us to encourage the processes recommended by the Lambeth group and expressed concern that a statutory pension fund containing every known safeguard in the interests of retired clergy might prove less flexible and more expensive than the commission's current proposals. It is important to understand that fear. It is certainly reasonable to ask Parliament not to be unreasonable, but it is also right for Parliament to make sure that adequate safeguards are in place and that the details of the new scheme, including its independence and accountability, are sound.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said that it was important not to cripple the Church Commissioners in their other work. I hope that similar observations from both sides of the House will act as some reassurance to the commissioners that there is no intention to be unreasonably onerous. But it is also important for them to realise that there is keen interest in these issues in this House, and that Members will need to be reassured on various points. That is why I concur with the Select Committee's view that change should be brought about by means of a Bill, not a Measure.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I remind him that he did not answer my question about exempt charities and their registration. It is clear from everything that he has said that he intends that that category of charity should be removed. I ask him to bear in mind that that approach will apply not only to the schools that have been mentioned but to the National Curriculum Council, the Curriculum Council for Wales, the School Examinations and Assessment Council, all universities, according to my understanding, further education councils and trustees of museums throughout the land. Enormous changes in bureaucratic requirements will be placed on them all. In the requirements that he envisages, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that mistakes made by the commissioners, whose activities we are discussing, should lead to burdens being placed on great bodies which have not made similar mistakes.
Mr. Michael: That is without doubt the most foolish and incompetent intervention by a Minister that I have heard. It had nothing to do with the passage of my speech that I had reached and was clearly inspired by an adviser
938
from Conservative central office rather than by professional advice. It arose from a total and deliberate misinterpretation of every comment that I have made.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Stupid.
Mr. Michael: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It was a stupid intervention.
The Minister will not gain anything by deliberate misinterpretation. He must not seek to recount words that I have not said. I simply ask him to accept that events that have taken place, as chronicled in the Select Committee's report, reveal failings on the part of an exempt charity and should give Ministers cause for concern. They should give Ministers reason to reconsider the Home Secretary's remarks at the time of the White Paper, when it was claimed that everything was so perfect in the regulation of the commissioners and of exempt charities that there was no need for change.
The Minister has fabricated the purport of my speech. That is disgraceful. It is an example of the way in which he and others, including the Prime Minister, have sought to invent things that have not been said by Opposition Members. Having made their inventions, they have gone around the country misrepresenting us. The Minister made a disgraceful intervention. I trust that I have answered it satisfactorily.
I return to the serious point to which the Minister seems not to wish to respond. It has nothing to do with his intervention. It is an important issue which was properly engaged in by the right hon. Member for Selby—namely, whether the issues that we are debating should be dealt with through a Measure or a Bill.
The right hon. Member for Selby suggested that there should be a debate in the Church. He appeared to take the view that the introduction of a Bill would inhibit debate in the Church about the provisions to be contained in whatever legislative Measure needed to be passed. It is clear from our exchanges that there should be consideration within the Church before a Bill comes to the House and that consideration in this place of that Bill should not be inhibited by our procedures.
The problem—I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Selby took it on board—is that we are dealing with something which goes beyond an ecclesiastical issue to embrace wider public interest issues. That is why it should come before the House in a form which allows full debate, including amendments. It should not be confined to a debate of one and a half hours. It should not be knocked on the head, as it were, at that stage. There must be real consideration of the issues. A debate of one and a half hours would not allow for proper accountability. We should not be satisfied with such a procedure when the issues are so serious.
Mr. Jenkin: May we take it that the hon. Gentleman's remarks constitute an undertaking on the part of his party that in the event of an accident of history which leads to his party, by some curious happenstance, forming a majority in the House in future, it would give time for legislation of the sort that he has in mind? May we take it that such a House would provide time for such a Bill, and that the hon. Gentleman is giving an undertaking on behalf of his party?
Mr. Michael: I am trying to respond to the serious issues raised by the Select Committee and by the remarks

939
of the right hon. Member for Selby. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I take the Select Committee's report and the right hon. Gentleman's remarks rather more seriously than his own intervention. The right hon. Member for Selby has outlined the issues, including the question of what form of Measure should come before the House. It is—[Interruption.]
I said earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would not be appropriate to respond to the issues before us by conducting a party political debate. It is regrettable that one or two Conservative Members seem to want to indulge in a bit of knockabout. The issues are serious. How do we—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. It is time that we cooled it and got on with the debate.
Mr. Michael: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The real issue is whether we should proceed through a Measure which allows us to have only a short debate. We would not be able to seek to make changes through the tabling of amendments. The alternative is a Bill.
The right hon. Member for Selby sought to find a way of proceeding by means of a Measure without running into the difficulties that private Bills often face. Given the seven years during which I was involved in the private Bill that provided for the Cardiff bay barrage scheme, I have come to understand some of the obstacles that can stand in the way of private legislation.
I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was tentative in his remarks. In effect, he would be asking the House through the Ecclesiastical Committee to pre-clear or pre-vet a piece of legislation before it came before the House to he debated for an hour and a half. I have some reservations about that. Accountability to the House and by the House would be severely limited. The right hon. Gentleman might need to suggest to his commissioner colleagues that such a course might not be acceptable to the House. That applies not only to the Government and the Opposition but to ordinary Members and the protection of their interests.
I am trying to respond to the wish of the right hon. Member for Selby that we should be creative rather than offering immediate solutions or giving undertakings. Indeed, I am not in a position to give undertakings. We should be creative, perhaps, in trying to find a way round the difficulties. It might be more appropriate to consider the ways in which we might deal with a private Bill and allow it to pass efficiently through the House by means of agreement on the necessary procedures. That might be the appropriate approach.
The right hon. Member for Selby has accepted that there is a problem. He recognises that there is a need to deal with legislation and at the same time to provide for accountability and full discussion. That might be a more creative approach. There have been suggestions in some quarters that a Bill should be brought forward by the Government, as a Government Bill or a hybrid Bill. That might be one way round the difficulty, but I suspect that it would raise more difficulties. It would certainly be appropriate for the Government to provide drafting assistance and other help to the commissioners in the introduction of a Bill given the public interest issues that are involved. It would be right for both sides of the House
940
to deal with it expeditiously. The independence that is inherent in terms of charitable status surely means that the Measure should be a private Bill.
As I have said, we are dealing with important issues that need careful consideration. It is helpful that the right hon. Member for Selby has spoken his mind and encouraged an atmosphere of full debate. I hope that Ministers will respond positively. I am certain that we, the Opposition, would be willing to listen to concerns and to respond in a helpful way to means of reaching the conclusion that we all desire.
It is clear from the history of the subject that parliamentary scrutiny is needed to provide confidence and security for the future. That cannot be achieved through a Measure that is not open to amendment, and will receive only cursory scrutiny. At some point, the Minister should tell us what discussion he has had with the Church Commissioners about that.
Many of the required changes highlighted in the report are complex. The idea of a new relationship between the Charity Commission and exempt charities needs careful thought, and might appropriately be considered, on an urgent basis, by the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
The Minister appears to want to subject suggestions that we should consider the position to various interpretations. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I believe in "hastening slowly" in relation to change as it affects charities: if change is undertaken without proper discussion and thought, we may unintentionally disturb arrangements that have come into being over many years, and harm good practice in seeking to root out bad. We must be very careful before initiating legislative change. None the less, examining the position and the evidence, and asking questions, is an important element of the process. That is all that I have suggested, and I am disappointed that the Minister did not respond positively.
If the Minister sought to suggest earlier that I was proposing any action that would lead to a change in the status of any organisation as an exempt charity, he would be propagating a lie. I am sure that he would not wish to mislead either the House or the public; I hope that that makes the position as clear as it can be.
In relation to the Church Commission, there is a need to pursue the streamlining of procedures, the improvement of public accountability and other issues that have been given close attention in the Church. The House has a responsibility to ensure that changes brought about in practice and statute are adequate to restore confidence for the future. It is clear, however, that the events described in the Select Committee report are extremely serious—indeed, potentially devastating—and should remove for ever the temptation for the Church Commissioners or the Home Secretary to be complacent. The complacency shown by the Home Secretary in 1989 was seriously misplaced, and demonstrated once again the House's responsibility to scrutinise the Executive.
I hope that the Minister will take that clear message away with him, and that we shall soon debate substantive changes in a new Bill that will deal with all the important issues that have been raised today. I also hope that, in due course, the Minister will respond positively to wider issues relating to exempt charities.
6.52 pm
Mr. William Powell: The House owes a great debt to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and his Committee. I am delighted that we have a full opportunity to discuss the Committee's report this evening.
Time was when Parliament used to discuss matters relating to the Church of England rather more regularly and fully. It is often forgotten that when Lord Beaconsfield—Benjamin Disraeli—won his great general election victory in 1874, he had no legislative programme to hand for his first Queen's Speech; he did not come to office pledged to change all the existing laws, as modern Governments do. Because the parliamentary Session required some legislation to occupy hon. Members' time, he suggested to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Archbishop Tait—who was very concerned about matters relating to ritual and so forth—that it might be appropriate for the first Session to be taken up largely with ecclesiastical legislation.
Of course, there was chaos in the House for months. It was then decided that it would be very bad for the House to devote too much time to discussing legislation relating to the Church of England. Nevertheless, we should welcome a modest opportunity—extending beyond an hour and half—to reflect on what is a great scandal for the Church of England, and its consequences. The Church, too, owes a great debt to the hon. Member for Birkenhead and his Committee, not least for the moderate and considered way in which he introduced the debate.
The House also owes a debt to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). He has occupied his present office for some years, with the highest distinction but also with perfect parliamentary manners. It would be easy for someone occupying such a position to inflame the minds of a number of hon. Members, and for Church issues to spin out of control; my right hon. Friend's capacity—near-genius, indeed—to keep matters in perspective has been a marvellous parliamentary sight over the years. Although he will receive few plaudits in the House for his conduct, he deserves a considerable tribute. I am happy to tell him now how much I appreciate not only his speech this afternoon—which was very helpful in explaining what is now under way—but the general conduct of his office over a long period.
As I have said before, I am the son of a clergyman who was, for a time, a pensioner of the Church of England. I therefore have some personal knowledge of the way in which payment of both stipend and pension to the clergy has worked in practice. I am also vice-chairman of a body involving Members of both Houses, called "Church in Danger". Hon. Members who take an interest in such matters know that I am nothing if not a high Tory, and a high Tory always believes that the Church is in danger.
The great sermon preached before the Lord Mayor by Dr. Henry Sacheverell established the phrase "Church in danger". He so enraged the weak Government of the day that they decided to impeach him. A great impeachment trial took place in Westminster Hall, and the London crowds were much exercised by the good divine's sermon. In due course he was convicted, and his sentence was that the sermon should be burnt. Accordingly, the hangman—
942
on Tower hill, I believe—burnt the good doctor's sermon. Of course, it subsequently became the best-selling sermon of all time, as it richly deserved to: those who preach that the Church is in danger not only tug at the consciences of high Tories such as me, but underline one of the most profound truths about the Church of England.
Only two or three years ago, a diocesan bishop told me that the Church today faced three great dangers. The first was the secularisation of society; we would all agree with that. The second was the danger of schism, which was sharply focused at the time by the ordination of women. The most profound danger, however, lay in the financial consequences of the scandal that the Select Committee has brought to the House's attention so effectively—although I see some truth in the claim that the Committee merely brought all the evidence together, and highlighted it for the benefit of a wider public audience than readers of the ecclesiastical newspapers and press releases. But it is certainly the case that the generous tribute which has been paid to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury for the speed with which he acted when the scandal first came out was entirely appropriate.
There are those who say, and one still sees it in the columns of certain newspapers, that the Church Commissioners should apologise for what has happened, so I was delighted earlier this week to see the Bishop of Chelmsford, who for a short time was in the Gallery, reiterate in The Times that he had indeed, on behalf of the Church Commissioners, made a handsome apology to the Synod on a number of occasions. There is absolutely no question but that the Church Commissioners generally have admitted, and admitted handsomely, that serious errors of judgment were made. It is on the consequences of those serious errors of judgment that I want to make a few remarks this evening.
I would say, in parentheses, that the Church Commissioner who was most responsible for the scandal, Sir Douglas Lovelock—we have, alas, heard too little from him about his own personal responsibility in this—was a distinguished public servant. But his undoubted distinction as a public servant came as a tax collector, not as an investor of public funds. I hope that those who are responsible for the selection of appropriate people to act as commissioners and trustees of Church funds look to those with relevant experience in the handling of these matters, not merely to whether they have had a distinguished public career which has been brought to a conclusion by the compulsory age of retirement for our civil servants.
One of the main issues that has arisen here this evening concerns the question whether there should be legislation to deal with the consequences or whether, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby said, speaking on behalf of the Church Commissioners and, I think, on behalf of the Church of England at this stage, it should be by way of Measure.
I entirely support the remarks made by the hon. Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). There are wider public issues in the reforms that must now be made than exclusively ecclesiastical ones, and the Church Commissioners and the Synod must understand that the legislation is bound to involve wider public issues than lie strictly speaking in their remit. Therefore, the agreement whereby Parliament would stay out of Church matters has to be read in the light of the fact that there will be Church

943
matters that legitimately and genuinely involve wider considerations. At that point, Parliament is the appropriate body to handle it, not the Church.
Secondly, the machinery by which any kind of consultation could exist for what my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby suggested is, alas, pitifully inadequate. The Ecclesiastical Committee is not a committee of Parliament. It is a statutory committee established by Act of Parliament, and it can carry out only those functions laid down in the 1919 statute. Most of us who serve on the Ecclesiastical Committee—a number of us are here present this evening—think that that statute is in need of urgent revision, and I would be the first to make that point.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, in talking to those with whom he is involved, will say that the time has now come for a committee to be established between Parliament and the Synod which would revise the functions that are carried out by the Ecclesiastical Committee. The only duty we have on the Ecclesiastical Committee is to decide whether legislation is expedient. In the best legislative tradition, the word "expedient" is simply not defined, and not one of us really has any sensible idea of what it might mean.
Leaving that aside, the Ecclesiastical Committee cannot amend and, if it recommends amendments, and those amendments are subsequently accepted by the Synod, the Synod has to begin the whole legislative process again because the Measure that it has sent to the Ecclesiastical Committee, and ultimately to Parliament, is incapable of amendment when it has completed its entire passage in the Synod. Therefore, the Ecclesiastical Committee can make only recommendations and, in due course, both Houses have to decide what they make of it, if they do so at all.
In order for the Ecclesiastical Committee to play a more meaningful role, it would be necessary to revise the legislation under which the Ecclesiastical Committee sits, and that would require a fresh Act of Parliament. It must be obvious to the House, as I outline these procedures, that that is not a way forward.
Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not only reflect on what has been said—I am sure that he will—but that he will be quite firm with those with whom he works in the Church Commissioners and in the Synod and say that they must really pull themselves together and recognise that this is a matter pre-eminently involving the Church today which must be dealt with properly by a Bill before Parliament because the issues themselves are wider than ecclesiastical issues. That surely is conclusive.
Having said that, I want to move on to some of the consequences of the scandal. Whatever the sum of money that has been forgone may be at the end of the day, there is no doubt whatever that there is a financial hole which is of considerable importance for the future. There are now more clergy pensioners than there are clergy. That is an entirely new situation, but it shows the financial burden which now has to be met in order to deal with pensioners. The truih of the matter is that that balance is likely to move more in favour of pensioners in the future.
We are already experiencing the consequences of that. I called upon the incumbent of one parish in my constituency the other day and he told me that, before he came to the parish, there was a four-and-a-half-year interregnum—four and a half years without a resident clergyman. There were, of course, plenty of retired clergy
944
prepared to conduct divine worship, but that is only part of a clergyman's duty. A clergyman's duty extends way beyond the duty to be in church on Sundays and to conduct divine worship. There is the pastoral work, work to be done in Church schools, and much else besides, and none of that was done because of the long interregnum. It is not surprising that the congregation fell apart.
Another parish in my constituency has a large population of rising 9,000. It may be that there are parishes in our big cities which have a larger nominal population than that, but in Northamptonshire that is a large parish. That parish has been without a clergyman since August last year and, as I understand it, there is no imminent prospect of one arriving. Of course, there are clergyman to conduct divine worship on Sundays, but in a parish of 9,000 the pastoral work needs to continue. The reason why there is no clergyman at the moment is that there is no money to pay him. The phasing through of appointments, lengthening those interregnums all the time, is one of the most serious consequences which is already being experienced.
There are those—my father was one of them—who thought that after world war two the most pressing problem that the Church faced was a re-endowment and that there should have been a major effort to boost the overall funds of the Church. A brilliant administrator such as Archbishop Fisher may have been the right person to carry out such a reform. Unfortunately, Archbishop Fisher allowed himself to be drawn into the cul de sac of canon law reform, and most of his time at Lambeth spent on administrative matters was taken up with matters that would now be regarded as being of comparatively little importance. It would have been a great help if the urgency of financial reform, which the projection of pensions had made plain would be a major charge on the Church, had been recognised. That opportunity was missed and today we face the consequences.
The Bishop of Durham is conducting a major inquiry into the Church's future needs. The bishop is not the person that most people think of as the Bishop of Durham but rather his successor Bishop Turnbull. The report of that inquiry is eagerly awaited, and I have no doubt that it will contain important provisions for the future.
I should like to make a plea on behalf of the rural parish which is an important part of the Church of England. My father was a rural clergyman all his life. Nowadays one village is being added to another, until up to six villages may be joined. That happens because of financial difficulties.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, one of the glories of the Church of England has been the resident clergyman. But in far too many places the clergy are no longer resident: they frequently live 10 or more miles from their parishes. That is not healthy, and I hope to see it reversed, not least because so much of the strength of the Church was in the rural areas. I do not exclude the importance of urban areas, but the Church's strength in the countryside has been of the upmost importance in terms of the loyalty and affection of the people of England.
Not only are there many parishes with no resident clergymen but I have found, as may have other hon. Members, that the vicarage, in so far as it is used, is sometimes merely an office. Married female clergy tend to live with their husbands somewhere else. More than one parish in my constituency have active vicarages, but

945
they are merely offices, because the woman priests may live 16 to 20 miles away and come over for the day if that is appropriate. I am talking about weekday work and not about conducting divine worship on Sundays. The clergy are no longer the residents that they used to be.
Some savings can and must be made in Church finances. I shall start at the top. The Church of England has far too many bishops. Suffragan bishops were instigated to carry out confirmations, of which there were many in those days. Of course the diocesan bishop had other functions. I find the world of Parson Woodford and Trollope much more agreeable than many aspects of today's Church. It was the function of the diocesan bishop to attend the House of Lords and support the Government there. He had to make improving sermons before Parliament on occasions of national importance, such as our deliverance from the gunpowder plot. They conducted large confirmations. Archbishop Wake used to sit the whole day and confirm perhaps 10,000 people one after another.
In more modern times suffragan bishops did that and frequently combined that office with the office of archdeacon. The income came from the archdeaconry and not as a special income to the suffragan. Every diocesan bishop seems to think that he needs a suffragan. In the dear old diocese of Peterborough, of which I am obviously so fond, our last diocesan bishop had an assistant bishop. Our present bishop, splendid man that he is as we both know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, felt that he needed to be the last diocesan to get a suffragan. But he did not need one.
When I tell suffragans that they are unnecessary, they are very offended and say that their jobs now are to chair committees and visit clergymen in distress and so on. I have no doubt that there are more clergymen in distress than there used to be, but archdeacons and rural deans could visit them. Perhaps there are now more archdeacons and rural deans in distress. There is a plethora, an ever-expanding number, of committees, as we see in the Synod, which is producing more and more legislation.
A miscellaneous provisions measure came to the House a few days ago. It contained some tidying-up provisions to which nobody took any great exception and there seemed to be no great urgency about them. However, one provision was unnecessary and undesirable. It was that the regius professor of ecclesiastical history at Oxford university should no longer be a clergyman. But the clergy need to have ecclesiastical historians among them, and there must be an incentive for Church historians to become ordained. If there is a regius professorship at Oxford, so much the better. It would be a great misfortune if the Bench of Bishops contained people who knew nothing about Church history or the history of the Church of England.
We expect bishops to have many admirable qualities. We expect them to be godly and saintly men, to say their prayers and mean them, to understand something of pastoral life, and be able to teach the scriptures. Those are important matters. I do not regard the management of money and the Church's finances as among the most important qualities that are needed by bishops. That is why the Church Commissioners must be reformed. This vast body of people all trying to get in on the act and all of them spawning committees here, there and everywhere
946
has become inappropriate to our age. Let us leave the management of money not to bishops and archdeacons, but to people who have experience in those areas and are able to carry out their functions, which must be tightly drawn in law, in a proper and appropriate way.
There are also too many dioceses in this country. Some of them are enormous and the strain upon the diocesan bishop may be sufficient to require him to have one suffragan. The bishopric of London has an enormous number of parishes and, alas, a great many problems. The diocese of Chelmsford is a huge burden on its diocesan bishop. My father was a canon of Chelmsford and at least two of the four bishops of Chelmsford I knew suffered broken health as a consequence of having a diocese which runs from Dagenham and East Ham all the way to the Suffolk border and contains a huge variety of circumstances.
Some dioceses have three counties, but the diocese of Portsmouth seems to be just the Isle of Wight and the city of Portsmouth and not much else. That is far too small in this age. We need to look hard to see whether the structure of the dioceses that we have inherited is appropriate for the age in which we live and whether substantial savings could be made from reorganisation. Some hon. Members have said that every reorganisation leads to increased costs. That factor will have to be considered.
The upkeep of our cathedrals, many of which are among the finest buildings in the world, is of considerable national interest, but I suspect that one or two of them need not be cathedrals at all. That is certainly the case with the cathedral church of Chelmsford. I am sorry to identify it as such—I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is present—but it was the parish church of Chelmsford before the decision was taken to upgrade it into a cathedral, and it does look more like a distinguished parish church than one of the glories of European architecture and heritage.
The consequences of the scandal will be felt throughout the Church for decades to come; there is no escaping from that fact. The people in. the pews—the people who matter—are of course appalled by what they have discovered. Serious errors have been made. I have been delighted to learn from my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby about what has been and is being done to put matters right, but I urge him not only to reflect on what he has said tonight, but to do what he can, at his persuasive best, to convince his colleagues in the Church Commissioners and in the Synod to pay serious attention to this evening's discussions.
The only way to proceed which will command the confidence of the public generally and the Church of England public in particular is to introduce an Act of Parliament, however inconvenient that may be to people who would like to put the matter away in a little corner and not let too much light be thrown on what is going on.
7.21 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: During the speech of the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), I was beginning to think that I was a student attending a lecture about the management of the modern Church and its historical perspectives. As those of us who have been in the House and served on the Ecclesiastical Committee with the hon. Gentleman know, he speaks from great experience, knowledge and commitment.

947
It think that this is a unique occasion. I do not remember an occasion in the House when a whole day was set aside, from the end of questions and statements until the Adjournment debate, to discuss Church matters. Suddenly, we have been able to focus our attention on that. Even when we debated the ordination of women, we started later in the day and did not have so much time allocated.
Mr. Frank Field: We had one and a half hours.
Mr. Hughes: Indeed.
Normally, we discuss the matter only when a bit of Church or Ecclesiastical Committee business comes to this place for approval or disapproval and, conventionally, one and a half hours is allocated. For no other reason, therefore, we should pay tribute to the fact that the Select Committee on Social Security, chaired by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), decided, I suspect at his suggestion originally, to consider this matter of wide general concern. That consideration happens to be within the context of the management of the Church of England, and principles that the House has been concerned about in relation to a range of issues have been applied.
The fact that the Committee has considered an aspect of the management of an important institution's finances, that the matter is considered here, and that we have time to debate it, is important. The debate is specifically about the management of the finances of the national Church, the Church of England, but it relates to many other parallel concerns and debates that we are having. It is timely because a debate is taking place in Committee on the management and provision of pensions in the context of Government pensions legislation. That Bill, which has been through the other place, deals with some of the same issues: whether providers of pensions provide adequately for their employees and how pension fund assets are managed.
Two recent examples have brought those matters into the open and into public debate. They are not parallel, but they have similarities. The first was in the private sector and relates to the way in which Maxwell employees, to put it directly, were ripped off by their employer and placed in huge difficulty. All hon. Members have received representations from their constituents who have found themselves in difficulty. As someone who represents many print workers, I had many such representations.
The second example involves pensioners of the Church of England, that is, the retired clergy. They found, not that their employers—members of the Church—had directly ripped them off, but that those to whom they entrusted the management of finances ripped them off. They did not do so directly; they did so through incompetent, poorly advised, mistaken, foolish investments. The debate centres on that.
Mr. Field: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the same Select Committee recommended to the Government that the Goode committee should be established to recommend a Pensions Bill, and that, when the Government came to it, it was such a complicated matter that we now have one of the biggest Bills to be introduced in this Parliament? The Government are trying to debate the Bill openly, and are not getting it through in one and a half hours.
Mr. Hughes: I remember that. That is another tribute to the hon. Gentleman's Committee. That matter slightly
948
predates the present debate. I have considered the Pensions Bill. I had a briefing with my noble Friend Baroness Seear, who dealt with the matter in the other place the other day. That Bill is hugely important; such matters are complex but important.
One of the things that most affects people's sense of security throughout their lives is what the state of their pension will be and how secure that is. People have a great interest in knowing how their pension managers are doing. They are big players in the national corporate financial scene. Many of us have experience of the fact that many of the matters that concern our constituents are determined by the decisions of pension funds and trustees, who are now large players and investors.
I should like to make some brief, passing references to the speech of the hon. Member for Corby. He got into a fairly extended consideration of how the Church could reorganise its affairs. It caused me to think of two things. First, there is a danger in the Church, as in the rest of society, that we shall start thinking that administration is all, and that we shall require the people at the top of the professional tree in the Church to have the same skills as those required of the people at the top of the professional tree in other sectors of life, that is, managers, accountants and financiers. But those at the top in the Church may not have those skills. Secondly, one complaint that is made all the time is that the best-paid people in the health service are the administrators, financiers and accountants, not the health professionals. The same is true in the Church.
This is a much smaller matter but, as someone whose sister-in-law—the hon. Member for Corby may not like this—is an ordained priest in the diocese of Chelmsford, may I say that my brother had to follow her to her house, which is in the parish. He had to live where she is living, as it were, on the job. She does not live away from the place. It does not necessarily follow that women clergy or women priests will, by necessity, live further away; it depends on the family's choice. My sister-in-law lives in the middle of her community, which very much welcomes that.
I welcome the report and all its recommendations. I welcome the recommendation that the Church Commissioners should be a smaller, businesslike body. It is nonsense that the Church Commissioners are a huge body of people who, in many respects, are only nominal members. In his earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) asked questions that related to the fact that more than one hon. Member serves on that body. The Prime Minister is one of its members. All the diocesan bishops are members. It is complete management nonsense that that huge body of people should be responsible, in any serious sense, for the management of these finances. As the Select Committee recommends, the Church Commissioners should be a small body of people who can get on with that, and who see it as their particular contribution to the management of the Church.
Clearly, it is proper—I hope that this will be picked up in Bishop Turnbull's commission—that a pension fund should be established and that it should take in money and pay out Church pensions. There is a management proposal that there should be a single board dealing with paying in and paying out; that is sensible. The people who know what the revenue is should decide what the outgoings are; that is logical. The important point has been made—this

949
was touched on by the hon. Member for Corby—that this whole business is not only about learning the lessons for the future, but about restoring the confidence of the contributors—the people in the pews. They need to be confident that when they pay their money in, it will not be thrown away. There is no incentive for people to give generously if they do not have confidence in those who are managing their money.
There is also the question of how the matter should be addressed in terms of legislation. There is the debate about the procedures that take place in the Synod and here and about the interrelationship between the decision-making processes of the Church and the decision-making process of Parliament.
It is self-evident that the Church misuses, misspends or misinvests its inherited wealth at its peril. There are likely to be dire consequences in rural and in urban areas if the assets of the Church are wasted by bad investment. The Church has a lot of updating to do to get its investment policy right and to get the accountability of its investment policy and processes correct.
The Church Commission was set up so that there could be a pooling of resources by which the poor parts of the Church could be assisted by the affluent parts of the Church. In those days, the system was intended to benefit urban, inner-city missions because the wealth lay in the rural parishes or in the slightly less urban parishes. It will be a tragedy if the consequence of this lack of investment is that there are not only not enough funds with which to pay the pensions, but few funds to go to support the Church in other places. The Church needs to be very conscious of the calamitous results of such a significant waste of its money.
It is always difficult to know how best to invest. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has made it clear that one needs people with appropriate skills to ensure that the best financial and investment decisions are made. The hon. Member for Corby made the similar point that one should appoint not only people from the list of the great and the good, but people who know exactly how to deal with the matters in question.
As everyone has admitted responsibility, it is not now appropriate to go over in large measure whose fault it was. The archbishop has accepted responsibility, technically quite properly, and has tried to ensure that the matter is dealt with fairly. I intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) to make the point about openness. I believe that, when the Turnbull commission reports and when we look at the structure again, we shall realise that there needs to be a more efficient, small, compact managerial organisation dealing with those matters and one that is much more open and accountable to the body of the Church. Although secret decision-making and a secret investment policy may be fine for private financial deals and in competing against other people, the subscribers and beneficiaries must, in their own interests, be allowed to see what is going on and must be convinced that the Church is making proper decisions.
An issue lies underneath all this. The Church must face up to the fact that it is running out of historical assets with which to support not just its present ministry, but its retired clergy. The position is changing from having the
950
money available, with some to spare, to having insufficient money to meet all the pension bills. That is why the whole issue is being addressed. I welcome what the right hon. Member for Selby said about the fact that the Church has been working out the problem, and that it has just come to an initial formulation for the way in which it will raise the money for pensions in future. The state faces the same issue. The welfare state will not have enough available from historical, accumulated moneys to pay state pensions indefinitely. The move towards occupational pension schemes is entirely right because it is necessary and because that is the only way in which we shall raise the money. The Church must do the same.
The Church of England needs to face up to the conclusion that most of the rest of the Churches have faced up to. In the free Churches and, to a large extent, in the Roman Catholic Church, congregations pay their ministers. I do not make my next point in the belief that I am any better than anyone else. The old tradition of the Church was that one tithed to pay for a variety of things in the Church, thus furthering the ministry of the Church. The money raised from congregations—I am talking not about the widow with her mite, but about people with considerably more money—is minuscule. My diocese of Southwark has the best level of giving of any according to the most recent records, but still it is minuscule.
If people really want the Church's ministry to work, they must covenant and give, and they must give in proportion to their salaries and incomes. Many people who go to church have large salaries and incomes, but the Church does not, in many cases, see much of that money. The churches have to make a contribution towards the diocese; they begrudge it and they think that it is too big. I am never sure whether they boost their Easter electoral roll or reduce it to affect their levy.
If the Church here is to face up to its responsibilities, as much as the Church in the rest of the world has, it must raise the resources to pay for its clergy parish by parish and community by community. There will, of course, have to be cross-subsidy, and the rich places should take responsibility for paying for the Church in poorer places. None the less, there must be much more self-sufficiency in the Church, not least because the historical assets of the Church will not be sufficient to keep up with rising bills, including the rising pensions bill. The Church needs to face up to that fact soon; it is a real challenge, especially in times of financial difficulty.
There needs to be more democratic accountability of the management of the Church and of the Church financiers. We also need to address the question of parliamentary and state accountability. One can go one of two ways. One can say that it is entirely inappropriate for the state to have any responsibility and that the Church should be allowed to get on with its own affairs. At the moment, the Church puts things to us on a take-it-or-leave-it basis—the phrase used by the right hon. Member for Selby.
Alternatively—this was the burden of the case put forward by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—one can say that there is no reason why the Church should be any less open to scrutiny than any other organisation. I take that view, and I take the view that we should be as willing and ready to scrutinise the interests of our constituents who are pensioners of the Church, as opposed to pensioners of

951
Robert Maxwell, as we are to scrutinise the interests of any other group in society. We must therefore have procedures for doing that.
Outside, it may seem that we are discussing semantics when we debate whether the Church should propose Measures that we take or leave and negotiate beforehand. The hon. Member for Corby was right to say that, even, with the flexibility that the Ecclesiastical Committee has shown in the past, it is inappropriate for us to debate a draft Measure. The conclusion is, therefore, that, if we have the power to scrutinise the structure of the Church Commissioners—whatever structure the Church decides to adopt—as we should scrutinise all other charities, whether exempt or not, we should use that power by means of primary legislation.
I support those who, like the Select Committee, argued that we should have Bills. The Church could have its debates and then send legislation to us. It is a matter of ensuring not only that we listen to what the Church says, but that the Church pays heed to what is regarded as good practice for every pension fund and for every citizen. The Turnbull commission should take that into account.
I guess that what will happen after the debate is that we shall await the outcome of the Turnbull commission. The two debates will coincide, as it were, in terms of looking at the structures of the Church. That is the right way forward.
Many of us hope that the Turnbull commission will be bold, not timid. In the commission's last weeks, as it nears drafting its final report, I hope that the new Bishop of Durham and his colleagues will address the need for the Church to be seen to be organised in a way that minimises bureaucracy, maximises democracy and accountability, but, above all, releases people to get on with the job of the Church. That is a mission not to the people in the pews—if they are in the pews, we are nine tenths of the way there—but to the people who are not in the pews at all and who ought to be much nearer to the Church than they are.
The history of the investments that prompted today's debate has not done the Church any good. I hope that the Church has learned the lesson of that mistake and put that sad saga behind it. Once it has done that, the Church needs to be much less defensive.
I was with two friends—one a Christian, one not—in Rochester cathedral on a Sunday afternoon. They pointed out to me a notice on a board in the cathedral that started by saying that Church of England attendance was not declining. That is hardly a bullish, confident start to a statement about the current state of the Church of England.
The Church must be much more confident about itself, much less defensive, and much more concerned to be the missionary Church that, in many parts of world, it still is, but that the good old Church of England often does not appear to be in Britain. That is why I favour the disestablishment of the Church; that would release us to be a more missionary Church and less careful about being defensive.
Irrespective of whether hon. Members agree with that, I hope that the Church learns its lesson, puts its house in order, modernises its structures and gets on with its real job. That is not to defend the institutional old Church, but to manage itself so that it can deliver the unchangeable and eternal new message, which is about reaching
952
individuals so that Christ can change their lives. That is the principal concern of the Church, and the sooner we can be sure that it is not spoiling that message by bad internal management and that it has its house in order, the better the Church will do.
7.44 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I take part in this debate with a sense of sadness. At a time when the congregations of the Church of England are at their historic low point and when some of us, at any rate, who are members of the Church of England, feel that the Church is not giving a sufficient moral and spiritual lead, to heap this financial crisis—as, inevitably, it is—on to that dilemma is a cruel double blow.
I must pay a great tribute to the Social Security Committee; I pay one, too, to its Chairman for the measured way that he introduced his excellent report without which, undoubtedly, we would not be debating this extremely serious issue.
I should like to start where my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), in a sense, left off. I hasten to add that I shall not speak at such great length. My remarks will be extremely brief. Let us think about the consequences of this financial crisis, as I should like to call it. A substantial sum—mention has already been made of over £700 million—will have to be set aside for a properly funded pension scheme. That will leave the general fund in the Church Commissioners' hands severely depleted for all their other activities.
Those other activities, of course, include the day-to-day stipends of existing clergy. They also include the upkeep of a considerable number of churches. Their upkeep has to be met by smaller and smaller congregations, which are therefore contributing less and less, not only to the upkeep of the churches but to the Church's giving to other worthy causes, in this country and throughout the world.
The inevitable consequence is that there will be less money to fund the stipends. of individual clergymen. That means that congregations will be asked to pay more and, because they are declining, the number of clergy will decline. As that declines, so will the number of congregations. It is an ever-decreasing circle that, somehow, we must find a way of breaking.
The consequence of the declining number of clergy will be that the number of parishes administered by each clergyman will grow. In my group of parishes in Gloucestershire, we have an extremely dedicated parson who looks after five parishes with four parish churches and manages to hold a service in each every Sunday. I do not know how he manages to drive between them in the time that he has available. He is extremely ably assisted by his lay reader wife. The consequence of that crisis will be that his and other tasks will become ever-more fraught. If he is being threatened with at least another three parishes to add to his existing ones, he will certainly not be able to hold a service in every church in every parish, every week. That will be an extremely sad day for the parishes involved.
Almost every mistake in the book was made in the financial management that we are discussing. Unfortunately, one or two of the chief executives are still in place, notably the chief executive of the pension side in the Church. The Select Committee report makes it clear

953
that it was he who did, to use the report's words, a back-of-an-envelope calculation of the change in pensions policy to give clergymen and the widows of clergymen a pension increase to two thirds of final salary. That gave rise, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) has said, to a threefold increase in the cost of pension contributions between 1981 and 1991. Over that same period, the benefits of that pension scheme increased 17 per cent. above the retail price index. The intent is laudable but it is somewhat foolish if it cannot be afforded.
Mr. Jenkin: It is important to emphasise that the gentleman in question was not responsible for taking that decision. We spent some time in Committee questioning the source of that decision. What is most disturbing about what we discovered is that decisions of that magnitude simply emerged from a consensus, perhaps driven a bit by the Synod, perhaps driven a bit by some of the commissioners. Those momentous decisions became policy without anybody formulating a paper to consider all the consequences and going through a proper process of decision making. It is wrong to cast blame on individuals in the way that my hon. Friend's comment might be interpreted.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for that clarification. Nevertheless, the individual concerned has had professional financial training and is involved in a firm that gives pensions advice. He is therefore expected to know something about such matters.
The lesson that must be learnt from the whole debacle is that we need a proper accountable, open, democratic system. As I said to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), part of what has gone wrong in the past is that too many of the sort of decisions that we are discussing have been made in secret by very few people. If the House is to remain the scrutiny body for Church affairs, we need a system whereby the House can obtain all the information necessary in order properly to scrutinise the decisions. That is what has gone wrong in the past.
I am not a Johnny-come-lately to the subject: I have been asking questions on Church affairs since I first entered the House in 1992. Up until then, I do not believe that the House had the necessary information to know what was going wrong. It was not until the 1991 report that we even knew about the disastrous investment in Kent.
I hope that lessons will be learned. We must have a proper, democratically accountable system and proper accounts. After all, the National Audit Office had been asking for properly consolidated accounts for six years prior to 1991 before it eventually got hold of them. Had those accounts been available, it is conceivable that some of the mistakes would have been spotted earlier.
Mr. Jenkin: That is certainly true.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that guidance, because he was a member of the Committee that produced the excellent 1991 report.
Undoubtedly, wrong decisions were made. We need a proper financial structure. I should like to see the results of the quarterly meetings at least summarised in the annual report. I should like to see proper accounts
954
showing the performance of each section of the Church Commissioners' fund. We owe it to past clergymen to make a decision as soon as possible to set up a proper actuarially funded pension scheme. There can be nothing more important than the obligation to assure retired members of the clergy that their pensions will be honoured in full. We owe it to them to make sure that we get a decision as soon as possible.
It is now two years since the Lambeth group identified the fact that pensions were not properly funded and pointed out that no fund was earmarked for pensions within the overall Church Commissioners' funds. I do not believe that the Church Commissioners even knew fully what the pension obligations were each year. We owe it to those clergy to set up an independent actuarially funded scheme for past pensions as well as to provide for the pension liabilities of present clergymen. That is where it may be prudent not to fund in full, because nobody knows what those liabilities will be. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead has already said, it may be prudent to set aside a fund with the obligation on Church Commissioners that if there is a shortfall in the fund, it can be made up at a later date. If that is not done, there may be overfunding now and the other obligations of the Church may suffer.
Lessons have to be learned. We need proper systems and proper professionals in place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) has never said whether proper pensions management advice has been sought. I shall be pursuing that in questions. I am not talking about property advisers, to whom I have talked and who I know do an excellent job, and I am not talking about actuarial advice on how much money needs to be set aside. I am talking about pension fund management, which I mentioned in my intervention to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby. We need to know how well each section of the fund is doing.
When I was involved in property fund management as a chartered surveyor, the portfolios of all our clients were measured against an index. We could tell any of our pension fund managers how their fund was doing compared to a basket of other funds. We could probably find a fund similar to that of the Church, where some 50 per cent. or so of its investment was in property and we would be able to say how well the Church fund was doing compared to that similar fund.
It is essential that, before long, we have a proper annual report with accounts from the Church Commissioners so that we can see how the fund is doing. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said, it is essential that trust in the people who will manage the Church finances in the future is built up. That is vital if we are to encourage people to give more. I have no doubt that Bishop Turnbull's commission will be urging all of us who are members of the Church Commission to give more. If we are to give more, as our ancestors have done throughout history, we must not be suspicious about the way the funds will be managed. That is one of the most important things for the Church Commissioners to achieve. They must convince all of us in the Church who might be thinking of giving money that it will be properly managed.
I am delighted to have been able to take part in the debate. This is a difficult moment for the Church but, historically, all institutions have their ups and downs and I have no doubt that, given proper leadership and participation from its members—it has had that in the

955
past—the Church can again rebuild the moral and spiritual lead that the nation desperately needs. Our spiritual stock is going downhill. If we are to stem the increased rate of divorce and the break-up of families, we must have that proper spiritual and moral leadership. I look to our leaders in the Church to remedy all the things that I have mentioned.
7.56 pm
Ms Kate Hoey: I welcome the report and its recommendations. I was a member of the Select Committee but I joined only in the latter part of the inquiry. I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) for the way in which he chairs that Committee and for the way in which he handles it generally. In spite of the party political differences, the debates that take place in that Committee are conducted in a way that uses those differences in the best interests of all our constituents. My hon. Friend's speech was interesting and made clear the way forward following the report. Much of the excellent report is due to my hon. Friend's consistent and dedicated interest in this subject.
I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have mentioned opening up the processes in the Church and making it more accountable. There is a great deal of mystique around the Church of England and the Church Commissioners and that must be got rid of. If the report does anything to open up the debate within the congregations across England, it will be extremely useful.
The report refers to Parliament's somewhat laissez-faire attitude to the Church of England and to the way in which it deals with it in the House. If we are to have an established Church—there is a great deal of debate about that—it is important that Parliament takes its involvement more seriously. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, there is a public interest and it must take into account the relevance and importance of the Church in England, particularly in the inner-city areas. Just as the numbers who attend some of our debates in Parliament do not reflect the importance of the work of Parliament, so the size of the congregations on Sundays does not reflect the importance of the work of the Church. It is important that we do not measure what the Church is doing by the number of people who go to churches on a Sunday.
It is necessary to have a Bill rather than a Measure, because we must have this important debate. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth could not commit the next Labour Government to introducing a Bill and could not give a timetable. However, I am confident that we shall find a way to allow much greater debate than just one and a half hours on a Measure.
I should like to pay tribute to one of my constituents—the Archbishop of Canterbury—who acted in a way that showed clear leadership once the results of the inquiries by John Plender in the Financial Times were published in July 1992. Once that "loss" of £800 million on property speculation was revealed, the Archbishop of Canterbury acted promptly. I very much welcome, as the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) did, the fact that independent auditors will be looking at the Ashford development. The Committee found it most disturbing
956
that the Church could even think of getting involved in such a development. It is crucial that independent auditing is introduced.
The subject has not been mentioned tonight, but the Church must consider the whole question of morality and ethics; whether the Church should be involved, and to what extent it should be involved, in property development, speculative developments and in developments which may be perfectly acceptable in other areas of life, but which may not be the ways that the average churchgoing member of the public thinks that the Church should invest. I hope that the archbishop will identify his role in that matter and offer some leadership. We should consider not only that matter when the Church makes a bad investment, but whether the ends generally justify the means.
When Sir Douglas Lovelock gave evidence to the Committee, he asked a question about the end justifying the means and whether the Church took anything to do with ethics into account. It was interesting that he said that the Commissioners were
"there to support the parochial ministry of the Church of England and they should strain every nerve to do it, and that is what we were doing … in pursuit of that, we did things which subsequently have seemed to be imprudent".
It is not good enough to question afterwards reasons for involvement in investments which may not be ethical. The Church should draw up criteria after a debate among its congregation. I also believe that there was complacency about the losses, as some hon. Members have said. Other—albeit slightly different—pension funds did much better and were much more capable of dealing with the recession than the Church.
I want to comment on the consequence of that debacle and on what has happened in inner-city areas. In my own inner-city area of Lambeth, there are many churches, but each church does a great deal more than providing a service on a Sunday. One cannot underestimate the work done in areas of high deprivation, poverty and very bad housing, where there are high numbers of young, single mums, few play spaces for' children and all sorts of other problems that result from living in the inner city. The work done by the churches and the clergy in such areas is greatly appreciated. The appreciation may not always be shown by more people attending church, but, like many other things, if it were not there, it would be greatly missed.
Some churches in particular have to deal with homelessness. St. John's at Waterloo spends a great deal of time helping people who sleep right next to the church in the bullring. Indeed, every night the church steps are covered with people sleeping rough. St. John's is also involved in youth projects and works in a multiracial community. All those activities are vital in a poorer area where people are not able to contribute as much as they might in other areas, although of course some people contribute greatly.
I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Selby talk about the transitional arrangements for poorer dioceses. It is absolutely crucial that areas such as the one that I represent are treated differently. Some hon. Members may have received a letter today from the Rev. Richard Thomas, the communications officer for the diocese of Oxford. It is interesting that the Church now has communications officers as well. Perhaps he is on e-mail. He pointed out that Oxford was one of the first

957
dioceses to call for an independent inquiry following the report on the commissioners' losses in the Financial Times, which is very welcome. He went on, however, to criticise part of the Select Committee report. He said that, since the diocese of Oxford finds 92.4 per cent. of its costs from its own resources, it rejects the view expressed in the Select Committee report that the parochial system is under threat in his diocese.
That sounds a little smug. The book "The Historic Resources of the Church of England" shows on a beautifully coloured map those areas of the country which pay more and have high income and high potential. It just happens that Oxford is in the area of highest income and highest potential, yet the inner-city areas to which I have referred are a very different colour; they have low income and low potential. It is not good enough for one diocese, which is especially well off, simply to ignore what happens in areas such as the inner city that I represent.
Mr. Frank Field: If some dioceses are doing so well, does my hon. Friend hope, as I do, that the commissioners would expect such dioceses to cover the whole of their future pension commitments much more quickly than the poorer dioceses which she and I represent?
Ms Hoey: I hope that that will be taken into account. It would not be possible for areas such as the one that I represent to meet their pension commitments in the same length of time as it would take the richer dioceses.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Selby will take seriously not only the views of the Select Committee, but those which have been expressed tonight. It is clear that the majority of hon. Members present feel that there needs to be further debate and more accountability. If the Church is to win back confidence after this debacle, it is important that the recommendations of the Select Committee report are considered.
Indeed, I hope that the Church returns to looking sincerely at what it said in the report "Faith in the Cities". That report gave people a lot of hope for the future of the Church. It is crucial that that is not lost and that we learn from our mistakes. The Select Committee report has a wide remit. Indeed, it would be a real eye-opener to the average member of a congregation, and it is very important that we learn its lessons.
8.6 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I rise rather at the fag end of the debate; nevertheless, I hope that my speech will be worth while. I declare my interest as an adviser to Legal and General Group plc. It is of tangential interest to this debate, but I declare it as a formality, as it is a major provider of pensions.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) referred to a letter that she had received from the Oxford diocese. I recently received a letter from my own diocese of Chelmsford, which was similar in tone. It described the report of the Select Committee on Social Security as
"not news to those with responsibility for ministry in the Church of England",
and it explained how the consequences of the Church's decision were all in hand and that everything would be all right. There is no reference in that letter, for example, to the possible necessity of providing additional
958
contributions to pension funds. I do not think that the full impact of what has happened has been absorbed and I thoroughly endorse the comments of the hon. Lady.
This debate has been very much characterised by one tribute after another to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). One is reminded of the second line of the hymn, if it is not idolatrous to quote from it, that says:
"To his feet thy tribute bring".
I share those sentiments. Being involved with the report as a Member of the Committee was an interesting exercise and very worth while.
I want to cover three points, one of which has already been discussed quite extensively—avoiding complacency. Behind the tabloid headlines, of which one can understand Church Commissioners becoming a little tired, there is a genuinely horrific story. Perhaps we have understated some of it and, on re-reading the report, I wonder whether we have. I should like to put those features on the record, talk briefly about the apportionment of blame and, finally, about the role of Parliament.
I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) about the problem of the property portfolio in the context of what he referred to as the "loss" of the Church Commissioners. He quietly admonished the Committee for putting the word "loss" in inverted commas in paragraph 17. We often hear that £800 million has not really been lost. It is worth studying that paragraph and the pension funds with which the Church Commissioners' fund has been compared. Between 1989 and 1992, the Church Commissioners' funds peaked at £3 billion, but at the end of that period stood at just over £2.1 million. That loss is the source of the £800 million figure.
During that period, however, comparable pension funds increased by between 10 and 15 per cent. One could argue that the loss is far greater than £800 million, especially in terms of the on-going loss of income to the Church of England as a result of that lost money. Once losses have been sustained, one cannot get the money back. One starts with the number of talents in one's hand, that is the lesson. That income has been irrevocably lost to the Church, with the consequences that flow from it.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that the secrecy surrounding the loss might be acceptable in a private business, but not in a business handling public funds. He has got it wrong, because a publicly quoted company, or indeed, any company is required to file a consolidated report and accounts at Companies House on a regular basis. That was not done by the Church Commissioners; moreover, even the information that was provided was thoroughly misleading and did not reveal the proper state of the Ashford project.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On the financial management, does my hon. Friend agree that as the capital value of the fund decreased, it was inevitable that the income decreased? The commissioners moved to make up the shortfall by buying high-interest coupons, therefore exacerbating the future capital growth of the capital fund.
Mr. Jenkin: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says.
By any standards, the Metro centre would be a prime asset in any property portfolio. No one would dispute that. When the Select Committee took evidence, it was pointed out that the approved budget for the project was originally £130 million. Coopers and Lybrand gave the final cost at

959
£272 million, yet we were constantly rained upon with words to the effect that it was an extremely successful investment. The Chairman of the Select Committee finally pointed out:
"You keep maintaining this is the most brilliant development, and I am now beginning to appreciate Sir John's skills."
Sir John was the original partner, who managed to sell his half of the development to the Church of England at the absolute top of the market. The Committee thought that, somehow, he had managed to dump the project on the Church of England, but, no, the Church had bought it voluntarily.
I used to work for 3i, which is based in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, and I was trained in the arts and technicalities of venture capital. We would not touch property projects, because that is a specialised market, and the development of retail property is an even more specialised market. The Church of England found itself in those specialised markets and went into partnership with the real sharp-toothed experts. It is no surprise that when deals were offered, the Church, given its inexpert experience and inexpert advice, offered a higher price for them than any other group. That is why the Church Commissioners were dumped with the Metro centre.
The commissioners have not denied that the returns to the Church of England's investors on the Metro centre was negative, but we were constantly told that it had been a fantastically successful investment. That demonstrates the scale of the amateurism with which such projects were approached by the Church Commissioners.
Special measures were taken to increase the income of the Church Commissioners. Capital was spent and capitalised in their accounts, but was then taken as revenue through subsidiary companies and distributed to the Church of England. Sir Michael Colman specifically said that that practice would be illegal in any ordinary company. That again demonstrates the lack of judgment that was used in making such decisions.
Should we allocate blame? I do not think that we should allocate it to specific individuals, because the commissioners arrived at the beginning of the 1980s without having engaged in any serious reform of their procedures for perhaps 100 years. Some minor reforms had been introduced, but their culture of behaviour was deeply rooted in the past. The way in which they arrived at decisions had not caught up with modern practice.
As I said earlier in an intervention, the decision to increase the pensions simply emerged. It is impossible to find anyone who took responsibility, because no one was responsible. The structure does not identify individuals who are responsible. That explains to a great extent why the bishops have been so apologetic. His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Chelmsford have acted swiftly to ensure an adequate response to the crisis, but they have quite rightly not sought to find scapegoats because they feel that everyone is responsible. This House is also responsible because, ultimately, the affairs in question have been conducted through an institution that is responsible to the House and Parliament. We share in that responsibility. I say that even though I have only recently been elected to the House.
That brings me to my final point about the role of Parliament. We could continue to leave the Church Commissioners to sort out their own problems. We could
960
spend about one sixth of the time spent on today's debate nodding things through when they present us with a Measure. That would be profoundly wrong.
Mr. Michael: Hear, hear.
Mr. Jenkin: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, the Opposition spokesman, agrees. I asked him earlier, in all sincerity, whether he would be willing to make a commitment on behalf of his party that time would be found for debates of this nature. I was a little disappointed when he failed to offer that commitment.
Mr. Michael: Since the hon. Gentleman has provoked me, let me respond in a friendly way. If he asked the same question of the Leader of the House about next week's business, he would not get a clear assurance. It is not for a Front-Bench spokesman to commit either the Government or the Opposition to find time for such a debate; that matter is dealt with through the usual channels. My reply, which was constructive, was that I am sure that the Opposition would be willing to respond constructively to the comments of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) about reaching the right balance to ensure not only the swift passage of a Measure but time for debate and amendment.
Mr. Jenkin: I believe that we all share that worry. I expect that the anxiety of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby is that, being a private Bill, unable to take a guillotine, it would be subject to all the delays, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, like the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. It might take years to pass through the House, and obviously we want a swifter process than that if possible. However, we must have a measure that we can properly scrutinise and amend. That requires the Government, of whatever party, to provide time and to ensure that there is a Bill that we can amend.
I sent a summary of the conclusions of the Select Committee's report to every one of the serving clergy in my constituency. Some of them wrote back and asked for a full copy of the report. Many of them wrote back with their comments. That has opened the door on the scale of the problem, of which I do not think many of them had previously been aware.
I quote one letter—in fact, from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale). The writer actually says:
"I thoroughly approve of your plans, particularly legislation through proposing a Bill."
The House must respond to the many churchgoers and clergy in our constituencies, and shoulder its responsibilities, otherwise we simply go down the track advertised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. People will ask, "Why have an established Church at all? Why are the Prime Minister and other Ministers Church Commissioners if we simply put through Measures on the nod?"
I shall perhaps embarrass my hon. Friend the Minister. No doubt the Measure would be nodded through with an element of approval from the Government. The payroll vote might even be whipped to ensure a speedy process. That is not the way that the matter should be dealt with, and I very much hope that Front Benchers on both sides of the House will consider it important enough for the House to consider it properly.
8.21 pm
Mr. Frank Field: With permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I conclude by thanking hon. Members who have given up a Thursday evening when they need not have been here. It shows again the interest that the House takes in these matters.
I wish also to emphasise the three aspects that emerged most strongly for me from the debate. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the policy implications of the behaviour of one exempt charity. No one has asked for the whole elaborate structure to be brought down, but we all believed, when we passed the Charities Act 1985, that exempted charities were working rather well. My experience, having been in the House for 16 years, is that, whenever the House agrees on a measure and nods it through, whether it is the Charities Act or the Child Support Act 1991, one can almost guarantee that there will be trouble shortly afterwards. One of the reasons for having a ding-dong in this place is to try to probe matters carefully.
The other two issues are directed at the Second Church Estates Commissioner. I am sure that everyone will be pleased with the statement that he made today about the inquiry that the Church will undertake into the developments in Kent. None of us wants the Church to spend more money than necessary in considering those issues; enough has already been spent. We are not in the business of giving additional fees to solicitors, to other lawyers, or to specialists in that subject.
I hope that the most important message that the Second Church Estates Commissioner will take away is the feeling on both sides of the House about the way in which future legislation—in that respect only—should be approached. None of us wants to overturn the 1919 enabling Measure. Those of us who have spoken cannot, as a group, be classified as fanatics who have some hidden or other agenda that they wish to inflict on the Church.
It is obvious, from our debate, that there is genuine anxiety about the way in which one of the great institutions of the country will approach the next stage of its existence. When two Bills, or two Measures, do come to the House on the pension front and on restructuring the Church Commissioners, we should like to help the Church, in a humble manner, to get those measures as right as humans can get them right—not to put our sticky fingers into affairs that are not our affairs but merely to emphasise, as so many people have emphasised, that that is not just an ecclesiastical matter.
The Church of England is an institution that belongs to the nation and is, in some ways, inseparable from it, and the Church cannot maintain that position and claim a sect-like status when it comes to legislation.
Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bingo
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
8.24 pm
Mr. John Whittingdale: I am grateful to have the opportunity to mention a matter that affects millions of people throughout the country.
I admit that a year ago I would not have guessed that I would be speaking in a debate about bingo, let alone initiating one. My interest in that subject arose only after I was invited, earlier this year, to visit the Gala bingo club in Colchester. The club is in fact in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), whom I am pleased to see in his place tonight.
I had never been to a bingo club before, but I thought that it would be slightly fading and a bit dingy and that it might be attended by perhaps 50 of my more elderly female constituents. It had also been suggested to me that I might enjoy calling a game, so I had been practising beforehand with such phrases as "66—clickety-click" and, indulging in a fit of nostalgia, "Maggie's den—No. 10".
My first surprise was that bingo clubs of the 1990s have changed a great deal since the smoke-filled halls that were associated with the industry in the 1960s. The Gala club in Colchester is modern, spacious and comfortable, and in addition to bingo it offers a range of other entertainment, such as cabaret acts, a restaurant and bars. It is typical of the new breed of bingo clubs, costing as much as £4 million each, which employ more than 35,000 people throughout the country.
My second surprise of the night was the number of people who were present. Instead of 50, I found close on 1,000 people in that club, both male and female, of all different ages and of many different social backgrounds. A bingo club now is not only a gambling hall; it is a leisure centre where people can meet, talk, enjoy a drink, have a meal and generally have a fun and sociable afternoon or evening of activity.
In addition, clubs often fulfil a more general social role as places where elderly people can go during the day to enjoy a cheap meal, have a bit of fun and chat with friends in a warm, safe environment. It is for those reasons, perhaps, that more than 3 million people regularly play bingo in this country.
The stakes are comparatively small; they often work out at less than 30p a go, and as much as 90 per cent. of that sum can be returned in the form of prizes. It is gambling in its softest form. Unlike casinos, horse racing and the dogs, one cannot lose one's life savings, however hard one tries, by playing bingo, the main reason being that it is literally impossible to chase losses. On a really bad night, if one played every game with the maximum number of cards and one did not win a penny, one might be down by about £30 at the end of the evening. Participation in the game is also limited by the physical limits on how many cards can be played at one time.
On Tuesday night, I took advantage of the generosity of the Government Whips Office to visit the Gala club in Clapham, of which I am now a member.
It was my first attempt at playing the game, and I was told that seasoned players of bingo usually play with six cards in a single game. I soon discovered that I was unable

963
to keep up with the numbers being called, and I found myself trying to remember more and more numbers as I fell further and further behind. Happily, I was next to a lady who was managed to mark her own card and keep an eye on mine at the same time, and to tell me when I had missed a number.
I must pay tribute to the mental agility and skill of experienced players of bingo. I do not believe that Einstein could play more than perhaps two sets of six cards at a time, even if he were permitted to do so by the present law.
Despite those safeguards and the physical limitations, the bingo industry is governed by draconian rules and regulations ostensibly to protect the consumer. The Gaming Act 1968 introduced strict controls on hard gambling and was designed to prevent organised crime and the Mafia gaining control of casinos. However, by some curious accident of history, the Act was passed by Parliament in a form that restricted the bingo industry within the same framework. As a result, the bingo industry, which was described by the Royal Commission on gambling as
"a pastime where people, mostly women and often the lonely or the elderly, can meet in a neighbourly way to enjoy an agreeable flutter"
through the introduction of the 1968 Act, became a threat to the nation's moral and financial well-being which had to be contained within stringent and bureaucratic controls.
Having studied the restrictions, I am amazed that we still have a bingo industry in the United Kingdom. I shall give a few examples of the rules. If one decides that one would like to participate in a game of bingo—a decision which, under the terms of the 1968 Act, must be entirely unstimulated—one's first port of call may be the local or national newspapers. A bingo club can advertise in a local paper—but not a national one—and it can say that people may play bingo at that club. The advertisement can say how much it will cost to play bingo and the times at which people can play. However, the Gaming Act specifically prohibits any advertisement from telling people what they may win at the bingo club—a far cry from the national lottery.
If, as with a national game, an advertisement is placed in a national paper which says how much people can win, the Gaming Act states that the advertisement must not contain any information about where people can play the game. The Government's recent action to raise the limit on the maximum prize in the national game from £75,000 to £250,000 is extremely welcome. However, my hon. Friend the Minister will understand that its effect is blunted somewhat if the clubs cannot tell anyone where that prize may be won.
Perhaps the most ludicrous example of the restrictions on advertising that I have encountered so far involved a ruling that the Gaming Board told me about, whereby a club circulated information to its members telling them about prizes that were available in the club. That is permissible if the information is restricted only to the members of the club and it is not circulated more widely to non-members.
However, the club made the mistake of sending out the circular in a transparent wrapping. As a result, the name and location of the club and the amount of money that could be won there was visible through the wrapping. The Gaming Board ruled that that was a clear breach of the
964
rules and that the circular should be withdrawn because there was a real danger that the postman might be corrupted by reading it.
The strong competition for the population's limited amount of disposable income is ever increasing. The national lottery has had a severe impact. I support the national lottery, but we must recognise that it is having an effect on other forms of gambling. Attendance figures at bingo clubs on Saturday nights, especially during the rollover week, are ncticeably lower. The pools and premium bond companies—both of which, like the national lottery but not bingo, are open to 16-year-olds—also compete for people's leisure time and money. However, the national lottery, the pools and premium bonds—the chief competitors of the bingo industry—have been permitted to break away from the policy of satisfying unstimulated demand.
During the passage of the legislation which provided for the national lottery, it was recognised that its success would depend upon access to advertising. That has, in turn, led to the lifting of the pools advertising ban—a move that I support strongly. However, it is indefensible that bingo—the last remaining form of soft gambling that is governed by the restrictions—should not be able to benefit also from free access to advertising in all the available media.
Should one overcome the advertising problems and manage to find a suitable bingo club—perhaps on the recommendation of one's friends or by simply stumbling across it on the street—one will encounter a second problem. When I first visited the Colchesier Gala club, I expressed a wish to play a game. I was told that it was illegal for me to do so; it was quite all right for me to call out the numbers from the stage, but I would need to become a member if I wanted to play. That did not seem an insuperable obstacle; I said that I would be happy to become a member—particularly when I was told that it was free. However, I was then informed that, by law, my membership could not be granted for at least 24 hours. Apparently that is a cooling-off period during which people have time to reconsider their momentous decision to play a game of bingo.
That restriction has a severe impact in tourist resorts, as many people who visit bingo clubs may be staying in the area for only one or two days. As a result, large numbers of potential customers may be turned away. Some of the larger bingo clubs are able to reduce the impact of the rule, at least partially, by running a system whereby membership of one club within the group entitles a member to play at any of the other clubs within that group. However, that is a benefit which the smaller operator is unable to offer.
I find it difficult to understand why that period of reflection was thought necessary in 1968; in 1995 there can be no justification for it. With the exception of casinos, any member of the public has open access—subject to an age requirement—to all other forms of gaming, most of which have unlimited stakes. I invite the House to consider the impact on national lottery ticket sales if one had to give 24 hours notice of the intention to play.
Even if one manages to overcome all of the obstacles which Parliament has put in the way of people who wish to play bingo, one will still not be free of Government interference and regulation. Having found a bingo club, become a member and waited the all-important 24 hours

965
to reflect upon the morality of one's intentions, under the Gaming Act a person may still spend only £6.80 in any one session, including the entry fee. By law, the club must ensure that it does not take more than that permitted maximum from any one player.
Despite the fact that, in every other form of gaming in the United Kingdom, players can determine how much they wish to invest, if one is playing bingo the decision is not the individual's but that of the Gaming Board and of the Home Office. The clubs are even limited as to the amount to which they can boost the jackpot over and above the stake which the players have invested.
At any time those regulations would be regarded by all sensible people as archaic, unnecessary and anachronistic. With the advent of the national lottery, they pose a real danger to the survival of the bingo industry. I bring these matters to the attention of the House tonight in the interests of competition and justice. I have no interest to declare in the bingo industry, other than wishing to see an industry that now has to compete with the national lottery and the enhanced advertising capabilities of the pools given a fair chance.
The time for lengthy consultation has passed. The industry is falling into decline, which can be halted only by deregulation that will allow it to compete on a basis equal to that of its main competitors while it is still in good enough shape to take advantage of a level playing field. The Government have rightly championed competition and deregulation. No industry is more deserving of the chance to enjoy the benefits of those policies than the bingo industry. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give it that chance tonight by announcing his intention to deregulate the bingo industry.
8.38 pm
Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: I rise to speak briefly in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), who is to be commended for drawing a problem to the attention of the House and for clearly explaining in detail and with care the restrictions placed on a successful and so far profitable industry, which provides a public service to many people in different communities.
I imagine that all seaside towns have some form of bingo facility and that Plymouth is no exception, although I do not know of any bingo clubs there. I speak on behalf of the Gala bingo club in my constituency, which is an admirable organisation. I have visited it several times—most recently last year, when I was deeply impressed by the range and extent of its facilities. That bingo club comprises a large hall with capacity for up to 1,000 people. It is extremely well furnished, well lit and well decorated in the modern idiom. It has a pleasant bar and good food and dining refreshment facilities, and a dance floor. It offers all that one would expect for an evening's entertainment, including a cabaret and dancing.
That establishment is not a gambling den or primarily for gambling. It is primarily for social activities which include a flutter, as my hon. Friend so aptly put it. From information supplied by Bass, which owns the Gala chain, I understand that 65 per cent. of all bingo players, who number 3 million, play for pleasure rather to gamble. How
966
Bass defines that might be examined, but it makes the legitimate point that bingo is a social and not a gambling activity.
The Government last legislated to change the bingo industry regime in 1992, with the Bingo Bill. That introduced measures of a liberalising kind, to remove some of the regulatory burden on the industry, but by no means enough. As my hon. Friend said, much of that burden remains on the industry's shoulders. Remarkably, that modest lifting of the oppressive regime was considered sufficient when, only two years later, we were all talking about a national lottery—which we have now, with a vengeance. That shows how quickly social attitudes towards the morality of gambling change. As my hon. Friend said, it is absurd that bingo was left behind and not put on an equal footing with the industries with which it competes.
My hon. Friend used nearly every argument, but he omitted to mention that—as I was reliably informed—the odds in bingo of winning a modest prize are infinitely higher than the odds of winning a modest prize, let alone a jackpot prize, in the national lottery. I advocate bingo as a much more sensible form of flutter than the national lottery.
Bingo clubs are utterly respectable places of entertainment where one may find a coach party of middle-aged or elderly people, sometimes single lonely people and sometimes married couples who are there for social activity and human contact. Bingo provides a worthwhile social benefit as well as being a profitable industry for the 35,000 people whom it employs.
It is extraordinary that the Gala bingo club in my constituency cannot advertise saying, "Come to Gala on Saturday night for a dance, dinner and an evening out with a little bingo." But using the so-called inducement of an evening out, dancing, a cabaret and a meal to persuade the public to indulge in gambling is unlawful. That form of puritanism is absurd and bizarre in the current mores of our country. As my hon. Friend rightly said, it was probably absurd and bizarre even before the national lottery, but that has now exposed the folly of maintaining such restrictions.
I invite my hon. Friend the Minister and his Home Office colleagues urgently to examine that area of the law and to make changes as rapidly as possible. The national lottery, premium bonds, pools organisations and bingo should enjoy the same unrestricted ability to advertise. If I were in my hon. Friend's position, I would consider the bingo industry as part of the entertainment industry. It should be judged in that light: the gambling element—which of course is present—is incidental to bingo's major element of providing entertainment, and a legitimate and safe leisure activity for millions of people.
8.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) in introducing this timely debate. His personal interest in deregulation is well known and he and my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) undertook personal researches that qualified them to speak authoritatively in the way that they did.

967
Commercial bingo, as played in bingo clubs throughout Britain, is a popular form of entertainment. There are more than 900 licensed bingo clubs in England, Wales and Scotland, and figures from the bingo industry suggest that every day, on average, about 500,000 people go to bingo clubs. Those players staked a total of £811 million in the year to August 1994. The industry's turnover is growing, and the money staked has increased by 31 per cent. since 1990.
Before the 1960s, commercial bingo—which used to be known as housey-housey in the Army and as lotto in homes throughout the country—and other forms of gaming were prohibited in law. The Betting and Gaming Act 1960 permitted gaming to be carried on as an activity of a club, and in so doing inadvertently allowed the introduction of commercial gaming. Large numbers of clubs sprang up offering bingo and casino gaming on a commercial basis. The new law was unclear and proved difficult to enforce; there was evidence that gamblers were being exploited, and there was criminal involvement in gaming.
The Gaming Act 1968 introduced the present system for the control and supervision of gaming. That legislation established the Gaming Board, which has wide powers to supervise commercial gaming and a general responsibility to keep the extent, character and location of gaming facilities under review. The 1968 Act applies a similar, although less rigorous, package of controls to bingo as to casino gaming. That regulatory system has been successful in ensuring that the bingo industry is stable and well run. The industry is generally free from criminal involvement and exploitation. Abuses are rare.
The system is also self-financing. The costs of regulation are offset by fees that the industry must pay for certificates from the Gaming Board and licences from the licensing justices.
That success, however, should not engender complacency. As my hon. Friends pointed out, the basic legislation governing bingo is now more than 25 years old. We must continue to ensure that the present controls are necessary, up to date and as effective as possible.
Hon. Members will be aware that we have been reviewing a number of restrictions on gambling as part of the Government's deregulation initiative. Some changes have already been made or are in hand. They include changes to the law on betting shops, lotteries, football pools and gaming machines. Bingo is not exempt from the review process. We have already made a number of changes to the law on bingo, and we have set out our plans for others. I should like briefly to outline some of them.
In 1992, we partially relaxed the ban on advertising bingo to allow some print advertising. Previously, the Gaming Act 1968 provided a general prohibition on the advertisement of any gaming premises or facilities. Earlier this year, we increased the maximum prize in the national bingo game from £75,000 to £250,000. The national game was introduced by the Gaming (Bingo) Act 1985 which the Government supported. It allows bingo clubs in Britain to join together to play multiple bingo.
968
In March this year, we published a consultation paper on gaming machines which has important implications for bingo clubs. At present, bingo clubs may offer either a number of £6 amusement-with-prizes machines, which pay out a maximum of £3 in cash or £6 in tokens, or two £200 jackpot machines. Under our proposals, bingo clubs would be allowed to offer a £10 all-cash amusement-with-prizes machine or up to four £200 jackpot machines.
We take the general view that traditional commercial bingo is towards the soft end of the gambling spectrum. It is a controlled form of gaming conducted in a social environment, and it was described aptly by my hon. Friend. Players' takes are low, the pace of proceedings is fairly contained and there are limited opportunities for participants to reinvest their winnings or chase their losses. The amount of money that operators may retain is strictly controlled. We believe that commercial bingo, as it is currently played, carries a low social risk. That is not to imply, however, that controls are unnecessary.
Like other forms of gambling, bingo is a cash-generating business. As such, it is particularly vulnerable to abuse by operators. Without effective regulation, there would be opportunities for unscrupulous operators to cream off money from participants which should be returned in winnings. We believe, therefore, that there will continue to be a need for controls to keep bingo free from criminal involvement and to protect participants from exploitation.
We are currently considering other aspects of the controls on bingo. They include the remaining restrictions on the advertising of bingo to which my hon. Friend referred. The partial relaxation of the ban on advertising bingo in 1992 did not allow the advertising of prize money or inducements to be linked to particular premises. There is a question of whether the remaining restrictions are necessary for the protection of the public. We hope to consult fairly soon on that and on broadcast advertising.
Another issue is the requirement that bingo halls must be run as clubs, with a 24-hour waiting period before new members are entitled to play. The 24-hour rule and club status are basic features of the system of regulation introduced by the Gaming Act 1968. We are considering whether commercial bingo requires that level of protection.
A further question is the duration of bingo gaming licences. At present, bingo operators must apply for a renewal of their bingo licences every year. We are considering whether such frequent renewal is necessary.
Those are just some of the issues that we are considering on bingo. The comments of my hon. Friends are particularly welcome and timely, and I can assure them that we shall take them most seriously in our considerations. Our thinking on those and other issues will emerge in due course.
I conclude by making it clear that important safeguards for players must be preserved. Nevertheless, there is a case for reviewing some of the present restrictions to ensure that the law does not place unnecessary restrictions on the many people who play bingo or on the industry which provides the facilities that so many people enjoy.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Nine o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions during the last five years(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers in his Department or its agencies have declared conflicts of interest; and how many instructions have been issued about their retention, disposal or management. [21385]

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: Any conflict of interest involving civil servants and special advisers would have been dealt with in accordance with the established guidance. Records of the number of cases are not held centrally.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date he sought assurances from the Government of Indonesia that the AR325 three-dimensional radar sensors with data display and handling systems supplied by Plessey Radar would not be deployed in East Timor. [23250]

  Mr. Goodlad
  We received general assurances from the Indonesian Government on 8 June 1994 that British defence equipment would not be used for internal repression in East Timor.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates he sought assurances from the Government of Indonesia that British-supplied defence equipment would not be used against(a) the GAM (Aceh), (b) the OPM—West Papua, Irian Jaya—and (c) FRETELIN—East Timor. [23238]

  Mr. Goodlad
  We received assurances from the Indonesian Government on 8 June 1994 that British-supplied defence equipment would not be used against civilians in East Timor or in Indonesia.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Indonesian military personnel have been funded by his Department to attend courses in the United Kingdom through the United Kingdom military training assistance scheme in each year since 1 January 1990. [23246]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Details of military training between ourselves and individual countries are confidential between Governments.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date he sought an assurance from the Indonesian Government that Hawk aircraft would not be used for internal security purposes. [23254]

  Mr. Goodlad
  On 24 June 1993.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which date he sought an 536
  assurance from the Indonesian Government that British-supplied defence equipment would not be used for internal security purposes. [23236]

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have on several occasions, most recently on 2 February 1995, sought the assurance of the Indonesian Government that British-supplied defence equipment would not be used for internal repression in Indonesia and East Timor.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many official visitors to the United Kingdom from Indonesia were funded by his Department in 1994; and if he will list the dates of their stay in the United Kingdom. [23252]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Two; on 8 to 11 July.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which date he last sought assurance from the Government of Indonesia that British-supplied defence equipment would not be deployed in East Timor. [23240]

  Mr. Goodlad
  On 2 February 1995.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which date he was made aware that British-supplied Hawk aircraft were in service with one of the Indonesian air force's two counterinsurgency squadrons. [23248]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The British-supplied Hawk aircraft is in use with the Indonesian air force as a jet trainer.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which date he asked for assurances from the Government of Indonesia that the former Royal Navy supply ship, the Green Rover, would not be deployed in the territorial waters of East Timor. [23239]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Specific assurances on the use of this equipment were not sought.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the phrase "internal security purposes", used in his answer of 9 February 1994 to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke),Official Report, column 283, includes activities by the Indonesian armed forces in East Timor. [23255]

  Mr. Goodlad
  As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 9 February 1994, column 283, the Indonesian Government have given us assurances that Hawk aircraft will not be used for internal security purposes. By their own definition, this includes activities by the Indonesian armed forces in the territory of East Timor.

  We have never recognised Indonesia's annexation of East Timor.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary- of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the phrase "civilian population", as used in his answer of 9 February 1994 to the hon. Member for Monklands, West, (Mr. Clarke),Official Report, column 283, in terms of its application to the populations in Indonesia and East Timor. [23253]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The use of the term "civilian population" was intended to demonstrate our policy of not licensing for export to Indonesia any equipment which we
  537
  consider likely to be used for internal repression in East Timor or Indonesia.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates he sought assurances from the Government of Indonesia that British-supplied defence equipment would not be deployed in East Timor(a) on land, (b) in its territorial waters and (c) in its airspace. [23237]

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have received assurances from the Indonesian Government, on a number of occasions, that British-supplied defence equipment would not be used for internal repression in East Timor. In the case of the Scorpion armoured vehicles, announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 2 March 1995, column 716, the Indonesian Government assured us on 2 February 1995 that these vehicles would not be deployed in East Timor.

  Staff numbers not employed in entry clearance work—1992–93

  Head of Post

  Minister

  Counsellor

  First Secretary

  Second Secretary

  Third Secretary

  Support

  LE

  Total

  Abuja

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  1

  2

  33.5

  41.5

  Accra

  1

  —

  2

  3

  3

  8

  4

  80.5

  101.5

  Bombay

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  1

  62

  69

  Calcutta

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  46

  47

  Colombo

  1

  —

  1

  1

  3

  6

  5

  71.5

  88.5

  Dhaka

  1

  —

  2

  5

  4

  15

  5

  82.5

  114.5

  Islamabad

  1

  —

  4

  10

  6

  14

  12

  123

  170

  Karachi

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  52

  55

  Lagos'

  1

  —

  2

  3

  7

  12

  6

  161

  192

  Madras

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  15.5

  17.5

  Moscow

  1

  1

  8

  10

  17

  19

  23

  79

  158

  New Delhi

  1

  1

  7

  21

  15

  8

  14

  267

  334

  New York

  2

  0

  4

  8

  5

  8

  2

  107

  136

  St. Petersburg

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  10

  14

  Staff numbers not employed in entry clearance work—1993–94

  Head of Post

  Minister

  Counsellor

  First Secretary

  Second Secretary

  Third Secretary

  Support

  LE

  Total

  Abuja

  1

  —

  —

  3

  2

  2

  4

  33.5

  45.5

  Accra

  1

  —

  2

  3

  3

  7

  4

  81.5

  101.5

  Bombay

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  1

  63

  70

  Calcutta

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  46

  48

  Colombo

  1

  —

  1

  1

  3

  6

  5

  71.5

  88.5

  Dhaka

  1

  —

  2

  5

  4

  15

  5

  94.5

  126.5

  Islamabad

  1

  —

  4

  10

  6

  14

  12

  123

  170

  Karachi

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  2

  52

  59

  Lagos

  1

  —

  2

  3

  7

  13

  6

  169

  201

  Madras

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  15.5

  17.5

  Moscow

  1

  1

  8

  10.5

  17

  20

  23

  91

  171.5

  New Delhi

  1

  1

  6

  20

  15

  7

  14

  267

  331

  New York

  2

  —

  4

  7

  8

  10

  2

  105

  138

  St. Petersburg

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  10

  14

  Staff numbers not employed in entry clearance work—1994–95

  Head of Post

  Minister

  Counsellor

  First Secretary

  Second Secretary

  Third Secretary

  Support

  LE

  Total

  Abuja

  1

  —

  —

  1

  3

  1

  2

  33.5

  41.5

  Accra

  1

  —

  2

  3

  3

  7

  4

  72.25

  92.25

  Bombay

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  1

  60

  67

  Calcutta

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  40

  43

  Colombo

  1

  —

  1

  1

  3

  6

  5

  69.5

  86.5

  Dhaka

  1

  —

  2

  5

  4

  16

  5

  70.7

  103.7

  Islamabad

  1

  —

  4

  8

  7

  10

  12

  127

  169

  Karachi

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2

  2

  53

  61

  Overseas Missions (Staff)
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff, and at what grades, who were not employed in entry clearance work were in post in(a) New York, (b) Moscow, (c) St. Petersburg, (d) Accra, (e) Lagos, (f) Abuja, (g) New Delhi, (h) Bombay, (j) Calcutta, (k) Madras, (1) Dhaka, (m) Islamabad, (n) Karachi and (o) Colombo in the financial years (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94 and (iii) 1994–95 to the latest convenient date. [22647]

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer of 9 May 1995]: Details of the staff at the 14 overseas missions listed who are not employed in entry clearance work are given in the table. These figures include some service attachés and staff from other Government Departments and agencies for whom the FCO is not financially responsible. Separate tables are provided for the financial years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95.
  539

  Staff numbers not employed in entry clearance work—1994–95

  Head of Post

  Minister

  Counsellor

  First Secretary

  Second Secretary

  Third Secretary

  Support

  LE

  Total

  Lagos

  1

  —

  1

  3

  6

  12

  5

  164

  192

  Madras

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  20.35

  22.35

  Moscow

  1

  1

  8

  12

  19

  18

  17

  113

  189

  New Delhi

  1

  1

  6

  10

  10

  3

  13

  286

  330

  New York

  2

  —

  4

  7

  8

  9

  2

  102.5

  134.5

  St. Petersburg

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  11

  14

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what use his Department makes of hand-held and car-based mobile telephones; what were the costs for each financial year of these services since mobile telephones were first introduced to his Department; and how many mobile telephones are currently in use. [23451]

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer of 9 May 1995]: We supply mobile phones to individuals and departments where this enhances the effectiveness of their work. We cannot provide a breakdown of costs prior to 1993 without incurring disproportionate cost. Costs for the financial years since are:

  11993–94

  11994–95

  £

  £

  80,415

  116,302.36

  1 Aid wing figures not available.

  There are 195 hand-portable sets and 11 car phones in use within the diplomatic and aid wings of the FCO.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the need for legislation to prevent the cloning of mobile telephones. [23470]

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer of 9 May 1995]: Neither the FCO nor the ODA has made representations to the DTI regarding the need for legislation to prevent the cloning of mobile telephones.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department has taken to prevent the cloning of telephones being utilised by his Department; and if his Department has discussed this matter with any official agencies. [23456]

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 9 may 1995]: The FCO understands there are no commercially available means to prevent cloning. For its part, the Department has initiated thorough checks of itemised billing to ensure unusual call patterns and excessive costs are highlighted and investigated. Additionally, international calls are barred wherever possible.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many mobile telephones being utilised by his Department have been cloned during the last 12 months. [23425]

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: This Department has had 10 mobile telephones cloned between November 1994 and April 1995. The ODA has had none.
  540
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what costs his Department has incurred during the last 12 months as a result of cloning of mobile telephones being utilised by his Department, with particular reference to the making of unauthorised calls. [23491]

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: This Department has not incurred any costs for the unauthorised use or reprogramming of cloned telephones. All identified costs—approximately £4,000—have been absorbed by the cellular telephone companies.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to China in respect of arms sales to Rwanda in breach of the United Nations Security Council resolutions. [23616]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  The UN sanctions committee has received no evidence of any arms sales by China to Rwanda in breach of the UN arms embargo.

  Central Africa
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the proposed conference on regional problems in central Africa, as proposed by the UK at the United Nations Council, will take place. [23614]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We recognise the important role of the countries of the region in the search for solutions to this problem in central Africa. The UN Secretary-General is pursuing proposals for a regional conference on peace and security in the Great Lakes region, but no date has yet been set.

  GCHQ Wartime Archive
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to authorise the transfer of all GCHQ's remaining wartime archive to Bletchley park. [23414]

  Mr. Hurd
  None. Bletchley park is not an authorised repository for public records. GCHQ will continue to review its holdings of the wartime archives of the Government code and cypher school, for possible release through the Public Record Office.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Historical Documents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what special training is given to persons who have responsibility for assessing the historical significance of documents held by his Department.

  Mr. Newton
  Training in assessing the historical significance of departmental records is carried out under the guidance of the Keeper of Public Records. It is provided in a number of different ways, including courses on the appraisal of records and through conferences and seminars arranged by the Public Record Office.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  AIDS-HIV Research
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the research sponsored by his Department through the Medical Research Council, and the amount spent on each project for(a) AIDS-HIV prevention and (b) AIDS-HIV treatment for the last five years for which figures are available and if he will make a statement. [22668]

  Mr. Horam
  The overall expenditure figures on AIDS research over the last five years are:

  F/Y

  £k

  1989–90

  6,200

  1990–91

  13,300

  1991–92

  15,900

  1992–93

  15,300

  1993–94

  16,200

  The nature of the research is such that a split between prevention and treatment is artificial, as many of the research projects cover both aspects. The overall figures do not therefore draw a distinction between the two.

  I have today placed copies of lists of the HIV and AIDS research projects supported by the MRC in the Libraries of both Houses. These lists show the titles of the projects, by whom they were carried out and the resources allocated. The list indicates both current projects and projects already completed, indicated by -.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Discretionary Social Fund
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he intends to make to the discretionary social fund, in the light of the changes to the funeral payments regulations announced on 9 May, and if he will make a statement. [24173]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We are introducing minor improvements to the Secretary of State's directions and guidance to clarify the help available for funeral expenses from the discretionary fund. The revised directions clarify 542
  those circumstances where applicants will have access to loans for funeral expenses.

  Details of the amendments and a revised copy of the Secretary of State's directions and guidance to take effect from 5 June will be placed in the Library.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department has taken to prevent the cloning of telephones being utilised by his Department; and if his Department has discussed this matter with any official agencies. [23463]

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Cloning is a general problem associated with the use of analogue cellphones. Minimising the risk of cloning would be achieved by moving from analogue to digital cellphones, using the global system for mobile communications, which has wide coverage within the UK and Europe.

  The Department at this stage has not taken any positive steps to prevent cloning and before we do, the cost of the conversion from analogue to digital cellphones must be weighed against an assessment of the cloning exposure.

  The Department has not at this stage discussed this matter with any official agencies.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EU Standards, Testing and Certification
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to publish the results of his Department's study on standards, testing and certification barriers in the non-harmonised areas of the single market. [24172]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The generic study on standards, testing and certification barriers in non-harmonised areas of the single market is one of a number of studies which arose from my Department's single market compliance unit business plan. Two hundred and fifty businesses and around 100 trade associations were asked whether they had experienced problems in this area and the results of the survey were analysed to discover the nature of the problems and how they would best be tackled.

  Our investigations show that many companies are successfully exporting to other member states, but they confirm that problems are faced by some companies and suggest that these problems may be more significant in certain sectors. Specific problems in exporting to six member states were identified and as might be expected from the size of their markets Germany, in particular, and France specified much more often than other member states, although the numbers of problems identified were still low in absolute terms. Analysis of the problems identified supports the twin approach to resolving conflicts—bilaterally and through direct approaches to the European Commission—as indeed is my Department's usual practice. There is also a need to encourage industry to utilise the benefits of possible agreements under the auspices of the European Organisation for Testing and Certification and to stimulate the work of the European Co-operation for Accreditation of Laboratories and European Accreditation of Certification.

  Our investigations have confirmed that there are gaps in mutual recognition which are detracting from the

  543
  benefits of the single market. I have, therefore, written to the European Commission with the results of the study and I will be raising the study with fellow European Ministers in the Internal Market Council.

  My Department's single market compliance unit will try to resolve, with firms, specific problems identified by the study and my Department's standards policy unit will help to publicise the ways in which mutual recognition may be achieved.

  I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of the report of the study which has been issued.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he supports the European Commission's proposals to allow cable television companies within the European Community to offer telecommunications services; and if he will support action to allow other telecommunications operators to provide entertainment services. [24171]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government welcome the Commission proposals to allow cable TV companies to offer telecommunication services, which would bring other member states into line with existing UK practice. The Commission proposals, which are currently subject to public consultation, would not affect member states' existing rules on the provision of entertainment services, nor is there any sign that the Commission would be willing to extend its proposals in this way. The Government would strongly oppose any such action. UK Government policy remains as set out in Command Paper 2734, published in November 1994.

  Insurance Companies
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that insurance company orphan funds accrue to policy holders. [23265]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  One of the Department's priorities is to ensure that the balance between policyholders' and shareholders' interests is not affected, as I explained in my answer to the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) on 24 February 1995,Official Report, column 362.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if children aged under 16 years will still be prohibited from purchasing fireworks which do not contain gunpowder after the coming into force of the Firework (Safety) Revocation Regulations 1995. [23030]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: The supply of fireworks to children apparently under the age of 16 will continue to be prohibited with the coming into force of the Fireworks (Safety) (Revocation) Regulations 1995, by virtue of section 31 of the Explosives Act 1875 as amended, irrespective of whether fireworks contain gunpowder or other explosive substances.

  Inward Investment
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to encourage inward investment to the United Kingdom. [22252]
  544
  Mr. Eggar
  My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau runs a comprehensive programme for promoting the UK overseas, including company visits, advertising, mail shots, seminars and missions. Within the UK, the IBB will be working with Govnerment offices, regional agencies and others to encourage more systematic cultivation of opportunities for securing new investment by existing companies. The resources of the IBB have also been strengthened with the appointment of a new chief executive from the private sector and a regional director for the far east.

PRIME MINISTER

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and if he will make a statement. [24306]

  The Prime Minister
  The first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, under the chairmanship of Lord Nolan, is being published today as Command Paper 2850. I should like to express my thanks to Lord Nolan and his colleagues for the way in which they have discharged the initial part of the remit which I announced to the House in October. It is welcome that they have reached unanimous recommendations based on open proceedings, and having taken oral and written evidence from a wide cross-section of opinion. The oral evidence they have taken is included in volume II of the report, and written submissions are to be made available at the Public Record Office.

  Lord Nolan has arranged to send a copy of his Committee's report to every Member of the House.

  I believe it is important to maintain the highest possible standards and confidence in public life. I therefore welcome the work the committee has done.

  I accept the broad thrust of the committee's recommendations in so far as they are addressed to the Government. We shall give the report the close study it deserves and then make a detailed response.

  The recommendations which are addressed to this House are, of course, a matter for the House itself to consider, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will arrange an early opportunity for debate.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May. [22391]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 May. [22393]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Pay Review Bodies
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the current membership of the public sector pay review bodies. [24307]
  545
  The Prime Minister
  The current membership, with effect from 1 April 1995, is listed:

  Senior Salaries Review Body

  Sir Michael Perry CBE (Chairman)

  Professor George Bain

  Mr. Gordon Hourston

  Sir Anthony Wilson

  Sir Sydney Lipworth QC

  Mrs. Rosemary Day

  Miss Patricia Mann

  Mrs. Yve Newbold

  Mr. Mark Sheldon

  Mrs. Beverley Bernard

  Armed Forces Pay Review Body

  Mr. Gordon Hourston (Chairman)

  Mr. Michael Bolton

  Mrs. Dorothy Venables

  Mr. John Cox CBE

  Mr. John Crosby

  Air Chief Marshal Sir Roger Palin KCB OBE

  Mr. Guy Neely

  Sir Gavin Laird CBE (from 1 July 1995)

  Review Body on Nursing Staff Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine

  Mr. Michael Bett CBE (Chairman)1

  Miss Annie Mackie OBE

  Professor Gillian RaabMs Ruth Lea

  Mrs. Sheila Gleig

  Mrs. Anne Dean

  Mr. Lyndon Hadden

  Mr. Gareth Griffiths

  1 Following his appointment as First Civil Service Commissioner, Mr. Bett has indicated that he will be stepping down as chairman of the review body once a successor has been appointed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many deaths were attributed to epilepsy in Northern Ireland in each year since 1990 in each health board area for which information is available. [22841]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of deaths registered from, or related to, epilepsy in Northern Ireland for each year from 1990 in each health board area are as follows. Deaths are recorded by date of registration and not by date of occurrence.

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Epilepsy as underlying cause of death

  Eastern health and social services board

  4

  3

  6

  9

  Northern health and social services board

  7

  6

  2

  4

  Southern health and social services board

  4

  3

  6

  3

  546

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Western health and social services board

  4

  2

  1

  3

  Northern Ireland

  19

  14

  15

  19

  Epilepsy as an associated cause of death

  Eastern health and social services board

  16

  13

  13

  17

  Northern health and social services board

  17

  6

  13

  11

  Southern health and social services board

  3

  8

  10

  7

  Western health and social services board

  5

  3

  12

  7

  Northern Ireland

  41

  30

  48

  42

  Note:

  1994 figures will not be available until June.

  Belfast
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the aims and objectives of the Belfast urban area plan 2001; and how these objectives fit into the aims of the strategy for making Belfast work published in March. [23105]

  Mr. Moss
  The aims and objectives of the Belfast urban area plan 2001 are set out on pages 7 and 16 of the plan, a copy of which is available in the Library. The main focus of the making Belfast work strategy is to increase opportunities for residents of MBW areas to secure employment and to improve their quality of life. These aims complement those set out in the Belfast urban area plan 2001.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how relevant the Belfast urban area plan 2001 now is; if the Department of the Environment proposes to undertake a review of the plan; and if the public will be invited to put forward their views. [23106]

  Mr. Moss
  The Belfast urban area plan 2001 remains the statutory plan for Belfast. The Department is currently carrying out a reassessment of development land to ascertain the anticipated requirement for a further release of land reserved for housing in the second phase of the plan. When the draft proposals are published, this will afford the public the opportunity to make representations and a public local inquiry may be held for the purposes of hearing those representations which cannot be resolved.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the Department of the Environment is co-ordinating the overall improvement process in Belfast and the different elements of that process; and how elected representatives are involved in these matters. [23107]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of the Environment co-ordinates the overall improvement process in Belfast through the Belfast development office and the making Belfast work initiative. The Belfast development office has responsibility for physical development in close consultation with the Department's planning service. The making Belfast work initiative acts as a catalyst in providing funding to the public, private and voluntary sectors for social and economic programmes in disadvantaged areas.
  547
  Elected representatives are involved in these matters through direct contact and correspondence with officials and Ministers and through the Department's statutory obligations to consult Belfast city council on planning matters.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for Driver and Vehicle Licensing (Northern Ireland) in 1995–96. [24048]

  Mr. Moss
  For 1995–96 the following key performance targets have been set for the agency:

  To meet an overall efficiency gain of 2 per cent.

  To reduce the unit cost per vehicle excise enforcement case by 0.5 per cent. in real terms compared to 1994–95.

  To dispatch 94 per cent. of registration books for new vehicles in 16 working days from receipt.

  To dispatch 91 per cent. of refunds of vehicle excise duty in 11 working days from receipt.

  To dispatch 93 per cent. of vehicle excise licences in five working days from receipt of postal applications.

  To dispatch 93 per cent. of duplicate vehicle registration books in six working days from receipt of applications.

  To dispatch 93 per cent. of ordinary driving licences in 11 working days of receipt of applications.

  To dispatch 96 per cent. of vocational driving licences in 10 working days from receipt of applications.

  To dispatch 94 per cent. of provisional driving licences in nine working days from receipt of applications.

  To dispatch substantive replies to 95 per cent. of written enquiries for information from the drivers and vehicles registers in four working days from receipt.

  To limit maximum waiting time at local vehicle licensing offices to 25 minutes during peak periods—the first eight and last two working days of each month—and 10 minutes at other periods.

  To limit the error rate—errors on any item sent out by the agency—to a maximum of 0.5 per cent. of total agency output.

  Agricultural Occupancy Conditions
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to review the position regarding agricultural occupancy conditions. [24049]

  Mr. Moss
  Following a review of procedures it has been agreed that the "four-year rule", which requires that enforcement proceedings can be initiated only within four years of a breach, should apply to agricultural occupancy conditions. I have also decided to appoint a consultant to advise on alternatives to the use of occupancy conditions. It is expected that the consultants' report will lead to a further review of policy.

DEFENCE

  Queen's Birthday Parade
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated total cost of this year's Queen's birthday parade. [22938]

  Mr. Soames
  No additional costs are incurred for the men and horses taking part in the parade as they are already funded. Costs will be incurred for hired road 548
  transport, and these are estimated at £12,000. There are other additional costs such as drycleaning of ceremonial uniforms and accommodation services, including facilities, rations and communications. Full details are not recorded separately, however, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Army Deployment
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the strength of the British Army in Northern Ireland at the time of the IRA ceasefire; what reductions in manpower strength have taken place since then; and what is the current strength of the British Army in Northern Ireland. [23042]

  Mr. Soames
  In August 1994, there were some 17,000 soldiers deployed in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. This figure included 12 major units deployed to the Province in the infantry role and six battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment. Since the IRA ceasefire, a sub-unit of some 140 personnel has been withdrawn and its task reassigned to other units already in the Province, and two major units have been relocated to their home bases outside Northern Ireland but remain available to the General Officer Commanding and can return at short notice if required. These adjustments have brought the number of soldiers deployed to the Province to some 16,000.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 28 April,Official Report, column 772, what is the basis upon which the figure of a 14 per cent. reduction in the total stockpile of United Kingdom nuclear weapons is determined; if the stockpile of United Kingdom nuclear weapons is equivalent to the number of warheads actually deployed; and if he will make a statement; [23108]

  (2) pursuant to his oral answer of 28 March to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) Official Report, column 817, if the figure referred to of a 21 per cent. reduction in nuclear warheads is based on a comparison of the total number of nuclear warheads in the United Kingdom's stockpile. [23109]

  Mr. Soames
  The basis of the figures for reductions in our nuclear deterrent is explained in the footnotes to figure 6 on page 39 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995".

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the four Trident submarines will be deployed with nuclear weapons at any one time. [23110]

  Mr. Soames
  It is our policy to maintain at least one submarine at sea on deterrent patrol at any time.

  Arms Sales Teams (Indonesia)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the dates when Army sales teams have been deployed in Indonesia since 1 January 1990. [23244]

  Mr. Freeman
  Army sales teams were deployed in Indonesia in July and August 1990 and again in February and March 1992.

  Arms Sales (Indonesia)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), of 24 April,Official Report, column 394, what defence equipment whose sale to Nigeria was agreed before June 1993 was delivered after that time. [23256]

  Mr. Freeman
  It is our general policy not to reveal details of individual exports of defence equipment. However, the 1994 UK return to the UN register of conventional arms, now in the House of Commons Library, provides information on transfers of defence equipment within seven broad categories.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which date he approved exports of Hawk 200 series aircraft to Indonesia. [23249]

  Mr. Freeman
  The approval of export licences is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. It is not the practice to give details of approvals or denials of specific export licence applications, but I can assure the hon. Member that such export licence applications would be considered against the background of an assurance from the Indonesian authorities that Hawk aircraft will not be used against the civilian population or for repressive purposes.

  UK Military Training and Assistance Scheme
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the annual cost to his Department of the UK military training and assistance scheme in each of the last five financial years. [23243]

  Mr. Soames
  The UK military training and assistance scheme is controlled by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which has primary responsibility for funding military assistance. The MOD does not bear any of the costs of UKMTAS. On occasion, however, and where the aims serve defence interests, the MOD agrees to waive the costs of training provided to foreign Governments. The total of these waivers in the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1990–91

  4.6

  1991–92

  4.6

  1992–93

  5.9

  1993–94

  5.1

  1994–95

  15.6

  1 Forecast outturn.

  In addition, some £70,000 was spent in 1993–94 and a further £173,000 in 1994–95 in support of the United Kingdom's programme of bilateral defence contact with central and eastern Europe.

  Details of the assistance provided are confidential between Governments.

  British Defence Advisory Team
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the dates when elements of the British defence advisory team have been deployed in Indonesia since 1 January 1990. [23245]

  Mr. Freeman
  The British defence advisory team visited Indonesia in October 1992.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who was the Head of Defence Export Services Organisation in 1991; what was the duration of their contract and their annual salary including bonuses; and from which organisation they were seconded. [23233]

  Mr. Freeman
  Sir Alan Thomas was the Head of Defence Export Services Organisation in 1991. The duration of his contract on secondment from Raytheon Europe Ltd. was five years and his annual salary in 1994, the year he left the Department, was £131,674 plus a performance bonus of up to an annual maximum of £30,000.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the net and gross cost of the Defence Export Services Organisation in 1991–92. [23257]

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 20 April 1995,Official Report, column 228.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a revised list of the criteria he uses for classifying land mines by type. [23067]

  Mr. Freeman
  The NATO standard definition of a mine is"an explosive or material, normally encased, designed to destroy or damage ground vehicles, boats or aircraft, or designed to wound, kill or otherwise incapacitate personnel. It may he detonated by the action of its victim, by the passage of time, or by controlled means".
  There is no NATO standard definition of an anti-tank or anti-personnel land mine: my Department considers an anti-tank land mine to be one which is designed specifically to target tanks or other vehicles; and an anti-personnel land mine to be one designed specifically to target people.

  Defence Equipment Exports
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff in his Department and companies owned by his Department work on assisting with the export of defence equipment; and how many of these staff have served in the armed forces. [23359]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Defence Export Services Organisation, which includes the Disposal Sales Agency, exists to help British manufacturers market and sell their products abroad, complementing the wider range of services offered by the DTI. There are 691 staff in the DESO, of whom 233 are serving military personnel, and a further five are retired officers. Records of previous military service, including national service, are not held centrally. IMS Ltd. is wholly owned by the Secretary of State for Defence, but has ceased trading.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many, and what proportion of, vacancies advertised by his Department, and by each of his Department's agencies, in the last three years have listed the attainment of NVQs as an acceptable entry requirement; and, of those, how many have required (i) level 1 NVQs, (ii) level 2 NVQs, (iii) level 3 NVQs and (iv) other level NVQs. [22976]
  551
  Mr. Freeman
  Since 1991, levels 1 and 2 NVQs in business administration have been recognised qualifications for entry to some junior non-managerial grades in my Department. Recruitment of more junior grades is undertaken by a large number of personnel management authorities throughout the country. Their individual recruitment activities are not co-ordinated centrally, and no central records are maintained of vacancies advertised. Information on the number and percentage of vacancies listing the NVQs as an acceptable criterion of these grades could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Level 3 and 4 NVQs in information technology have been accepted as an entry criterion for recruitment to recently advertised specialist IT executive officer posts. The scope for recognising a wider range of NVQs for recruitment to industrial and non-industrial posts is under review.

  Recruitment of executive officers is undertaken centrally. The current executive officer (IT) recruitment campaign aims to fill 90 posts which equate to 100 per cent. of the total E0(IT) posts advertised by the Department this year.

  VE Day and VJ Day
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made for the funding within the defence budget for the national commemorations of the 50th anniversary of both VE day and VJ day. [24051]

  Mr. Soames
  Parliamentary approval for this new service is being sought in the 1995–96 supply estimates for defence: operational and support costs—class I, vote 1. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure of £5,800,000 will be met by a repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund.

  Defence Analytical Services Agency
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Analytical Services Agency for 1995–96. [24052]

  Mr. Soames
  Key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency for this financial year and beyond. The targets build on the progress already made by the agency since it formed in July 1992 and are as follows:

  Delivery of customer services
  About three quarters of the agency's business is now covered by service level agreements with customers, which set out the targets and standards for the level of service, timeliness and quality of work. For the remaining parts of the business, for which service level agreements are not appropriate, project agreements are in place. Key targets are:

  (a) To meet at least 95 per cent. of the timeliness and quality targets in the service level agreements and project agreements.

  (b) For all parts of the business, to achieve in the annual customer satisfaction survey at least 90 per cent. of customers expressing themselves satisfied or better with the timeliness, quality of work and helpfulness of staff.

  (c) To improve the quality of published output and to devise a methodology to demonstrate the improvement.

  Efficiency and use of resources
  The agency will be expected to find efficiency savings of 2.5 per cent. to meet the targets laid down in the departmental efficiency plan. The agency will also be required to develop a robust system
  552
  for the Department to produce location statistics for service and civilian personnel.

  Sunken Ship Montgomerie (Explosives)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what contracts or tenders have been considered in relation to clearing, removing or otherwise dealing with explosives on the ship Montgomerie sunk off Canvey island; with what results; and if he will make a statement; [22619]

  (2) when the explosives on the ship Montgomerie sunk off Canvey island were last inspected; what were the results of that inspection; and how often inspections are undertaken; [22618]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the risk posed to nearby residents, shipping or fishermen, by the explosives on the ship Montgomerie, sunk off Canvey island; and if he will make a statement. [22620]

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  These are operational matters for the Coastguard agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Dr. Robert Spink, dated 11 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions as these deal with operational matters, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.
  PQ 1660/94/95. The last survey was completed in September 1993. The Viscount Goschen, Minister for Aviation and Shipping, sent you and other interested MPs copies of the survey report on 26 October 1994 and copies were also placed in the Library of the House of Commons. I am arranging for a further copy to be sent to you.
  The survey found no evidence of any major change to the condition of the wreck and concluded that there was no reason to change the policy of not disturbing it.
  The wreck is surveyed biennially. Another contracted survey will take place this summer supervised by the Ministry of Defence, with the agreement of the Port of Sheerness. When the details are finalised I will write to you, to other local MPs and local authorities in the area to explain what is happening.
  PQ 1661/94/95. Expert opinion, based on the information available about the types of explosives on board, is that the risk of an explosion is remote, and that the best way to keep the risk to an absolute minimum is to leave the wreck undisturbed. The site of the wreck is designated a prohibited area under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973.
  PQ 1673/94/94. No contracts have been considered in relation to disturbing the munitions. Expert opinion is that the risk of an explosion would significantly increase if the wreck were to be disturbed by moving its contents or otherwise dealing with the explosives.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Witness Support Schemes
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects there to be witness support schemes in every magistrates court. [22838]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 10 May 1995]: There are no plans to set up witness support schemes in magistrates courts. Our priority is to implement the royal commission recommendation to establish witness support schemes at all Crown courts. Some 40 schemes are

  553
  already in operation, and additional Home Office funding last year and this will enable victim support to complete the witness service at all 78 Crown court centres by the end of 1995.

  Police Patrol Vehicles (Accidents)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 April,Official Report, column 1019, about road traffic accidents involving police vehicles, how many of the accidents which resulted in civilian injuries in each year involved basic drivers. [23331]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 4 April,Official Report, column 1019.

  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the number of accidents involving basic drivers which resulted in civilian injuries is as follows:

  Year

  Accidents involving civilian injuries (total)

  Advanced drivers

  Basic drivers

  Others

  1991

  303

  123

  44

  136

  1992

  294

  121

  52

  121

  1993

  327

  136

  51

  140

  1994

  289

  113

  29

  147

  These figures do not include accidents in which a police vehicle was in the vicinity but not directly involved.

  Patients with hospital order for manslaughter, by years to release

  England and Wales

  Number of patients

  Sentence year

  Less than one year

  1 up to 2 years

  2 up to 3 years

  3 up to 4 years

  4 up to 5 years

  5 up to 6 years

  6 up to 7 years

  7 up to 8 years

  8 up to 9 years

  Remains on population

  Total

  1985

  —

  1

  3

  2

  1

  2

  2

  3

  1

  13

  28

  1986

  —

  2

  3

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  —

  14

  24

  1987

  2

  1

  3

  3

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  19

  33

  1988

  2

  2

  3

  4

  1

  2

  2

  —

  —

  14

  31

  1989

  1

  6

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23

  34

  1990

  1

  2

  2

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  32

  1991

  1

  1

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26

  33

  1992

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  29

  31

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  30

  1994—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  241

  241

  1 Provisional.

  Note:

  In 1988 the total includes one person for whom details are not available.

  Civil Defence
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) existing civil defence facilities currently in operation, (b) the final cost of construction in each case, (c) the numbers employed at each facility and (d) the numbers entitled to use each facility in the event of war. [23170]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  There are no existing civil defence facilities currently in operation. The remaining former regional government headquarters, United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation monitoring posts, and United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation group controls, are awaiting disposal, most by sale on the open market. Prior to

  Passport Applications
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the time it takes to process applications for a British passport; and if he will make a statement. [23658]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 10 May 1995]: On Wednesday 26 April the turnround times for processing properly completed, straightforward applications were:

  Belfast 6 days

  Glasgow 7 days

  Liverpool 7 days

  London 2 days

  Newport 6 days

  Peterborough 5 days

  All the Passport Agency's key targets for 1994–95 were met. This resulted in a reduction in the overall average turnround time from just under eight days to just under seven days.

  Secure Mental Hospitals (Manslaughter Detainees)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many defendants who pleaded guilty to manslaughter were sentenced to detention in a secure mental hospital in each of the last 10 years: and for how long each of them was detained. [23525]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 May 1995]: Information on the plea entered by defendants is not available centrally for those sentenced to detention in a secure mental hospital. The following information is based on those restricted patients with a hospital order who were sentenced for manslaughter.

  commencement of the disposal programme there were 17 RGHQs, 26 UKWMO group controls and 874 UKWMO monitoring posts.

  The cost of construction of Chilmark and Ashdown Forest RGHQs, the only two purpose-built establishments, was approximately £2.1 million, in 1986, and £3 million, in 1989, respectively. Information relating to the cost of construction of all the other facilities either is not available or could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The numbers designated to operate these facilities in the event of war would have ranged from two to three at the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation posts to the 60 at the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation group controls and 150 at the larger RGHQs.
  555
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further assessment he has made of the implications on civil defence in the United Kingdom arising from the peace dividend; and if he will make a statement. [23169]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Civil defence arrangements are made in the light of assessments of the risks faced by the United Kingdom. There has been no significant change in that assessment of risk since November 1992, when the present arrangements were set in place.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what appointments he has made recently to the Animal Procedures Committee. [24310]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I have appointed the following persons to be members of the Animal Procedures Committee for four years with effect from 1 May:

  (i) Miss Cindy Millburn, special projects director, World Society for the Protection of Animals.

  (ii) Dr. Jacqueline Southee, manager, In-vitro Toxicology, Microbiological Associates Ltd.

  (iii) Mr. Les Ward, director, Advocates for Animals.

  Cycling (Footpaths)
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been for cycling on footpaths in(a) the London borough of Newham, and (b) London, in each of the past five years for which records are available. [23154]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given in the table. 1994 data will not be available until autumn 1995.

  Number of defendants prosecuted for cycling on footpaths1 within the Metropolitan police,City of Londonand Newham areas and England and Wales 1989–1993

  Area

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Police Force Area

  Metropolitan Police District

  5

  8

  31

  12

  35

  City of London

  —

  —

  3

  4

  3

  Newham Area

  Stratford Petty Sessional Division

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Ham Petty Sessional Division

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  453

  483

  333

  313

  291

  1 An offence under the Highway Act 1985, section 72, and the Metropolitan Police Act 1939, section 54(7) and byelaws.

  Police Training
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his estimates for the cost of training needed to enable the police in England and Wales to be fully aware of the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; and what funding has been made available to police authorities for such training. [23050]

  Mr. Maclean
  The extent to which police officers need to be trained in relation to the provisions of this Act is a matter for individual chief officers to determine. Centrally 556
  produced training material has been made available, free of charge, to all forces; the costs of delivering any training considered necessary will be met from existing police budgets.

  Driving without Insurance
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of those convicted of driving without insurance were immediately disqualified in each of the last three years; [23268]

  (2) how many of those convicted of driving without insurance received an endorsement of six or more penalty points in each of the last three years. [23267]

  Mr. Maclean
  The following table gives the available information which relates to the number of convictions for "using a motor vehicle uninsured against third-party risks" in England and Wales for the years 1991 to 1993. Figures for 1994 are not available.

  Convictions for using a motor vehicle uninsured against third—party risks

  Total disqualifications imposed

  Endorsements-without disqualification—with six or more penalty points

  1991

  19,387

  108,638

  1992

  20,762

  125,771

  1993

  25,570

  143,818

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the application made to the United Kingdom post in Islamabad by Mr. Mohammad Rashid and Mrs. Anwar Jahn Rashid—ref: V95/000618—to visit the United Kingdom was referred to him; when it was received; if a recommendation has now been made; and if he will make a statement. [23052]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  This application was not referred to the Home Office for decision or recommendation, but for information to assist the entry clearance officer to reach a decision. The request was received by telex on 24 January, and information was dispatched on 6 March.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of how frequently identity cards with photographs would need to be replaced. [23068]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We shall be publishing a consultation document about identity cards soon which, among other things, will address this issue.

  Liquor Licensing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) public houses and (b) other licensed properties in (i) 1980, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1990 and (iv) 1994. [23269]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The available information on licensed premises is published in table 1 of the Home Office "Statistical Bulletin", issue 4/93, "Liquor Licensing Statistics, England and Wales, July 1991-June 1992", a copy of which is in the Library. Information on
  557
  liquor licensing is collected only once every three years on the licences in force in the year of collection and in the previous year.

  Police Deaths
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list names of persons convicted of killing police officers since 1960(a) who are still serving imprisonment together with the date when they are next considered for release on licence and (b) who have been released, with the date of that release; and if he will state for each offender the identity of the officer killed and the dates of the crime and of the sentence. [22896]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Community Service Orders
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders have served more than two community service orders; and what plans he has to set a maximum on the number of such orders that can be served before a custodial sentence must be imposed. [22520]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  A sample of offenders convicted in 1993 suggests that about 3,700 who receive a community service order had been sentenced to community service on at least two previous occasions. It is for the sentencing court to decide whether or not a custodial sentence is justified in the light of all the circumstances before it, having regard to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 as amended. Those provisions enable the court to take account of the offender's failure to respond to previous sentences.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to improve community service orders and to ensure that breaches of such orders are properly punished. [22521]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  On 9 March, my right hon. and learned Friend published revised national standards for the supervision of offenders in the community, which tighten up the way in which community service orders must be run and enforced. A copy of the 1995 standards is in the Library.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation dealing with criminal injuries compensation. [24309]

  Mr. Howard
  I have today introduced the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill.

  The Bill provides a power to establish a new criminal injuries compensation scheme. It also repeals the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which, if implemented, would have put the old, common law damages scheme on to a statutory footing.

  Following the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, which was delivered on 5 April, I have been giving very careful thought to the arrangements which should be made for compensating those who have the misfortune to be injured as a result of a crime of violence.

  The judgment related to the method of introduction of the tariff scheme, not its merits. The effect of the
  558
  judgment was to require the 1990 common law damages scheme to be reinstated in place of the tariff based approach introduced on 1 April 1994. The costs of the common law damages scheme have risen very substantially since the scheme was first introduced in 1964 and more than doubled in real terms between 1987–88 and 1993–94. Although improvements have been made in administration of the scheme, we believe that a tariff-based approach offers greater scope for further improvement and the speedier settlement of cases. I remain of the view, therefore, that steps need to be taken to constrain future expenditure and to ensure that a quicker service is provided. This cannot be achieved within the framework of a system based entirely upon common law principles. I remain therefore of the view that the 1990 common law damages scheme should be replaced by a new tariff-based approach.

  I have, however, considered very carefully the concerns which have been expressed about the effect which such an approach may have on those who are most seriously injured. We all have immense sympathy for such victims and the Government are anxious to do all that they can to safeguard the position of victims. I have therefore come to the view that the tariff-based approach should be enhanced to provide payment for loss of earnings and special care for those who are incapacitated for more than 28 weeks—the period during which statutory sick pay is payable. I also propose that there should be provision for loss of dependency/support in fatal cases. In addition, I propose that structured settlements should be available: these will greatly help those receiving the higher awards by providing a guaranteed, index-linked, tax-free income for life, thus considerably increasing the net benefit of the award for many victims.

  I believe that a scheme of this sort will he fair while at the same time providing a mechanism for controlling future expenditure. Further details of the proposed scheme are set out in a paper entitled "Criminal Injuries Compensation: proposals for a Tariff Based Scheme" which has been placed in the Library and the Vote Office.

  Ours is the most generous compensation scheme in the world. We pay out more compensation than all other European countries added together. That will remain the case under our new proposals.

TRANSPORT

  Aircraft (Electronic Interference)
  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ask the Civil Aviation Authority to undertake an urgent investigation into the interference in aircraft navigation and other systems in flight caused by(a) laptop computer and (b) other electrical devices. [23143]

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority participates, with the Defence Research Agency and representatives of the airline and aerospace manufacturing industry, in the Electro Magnetic Compatibility Club. The assistance and advice of the club has been sought on the subject of passengers' portable electronic equipment. The CAA's research programme currently includes a project to extend this work to include passengers' mobile telephones.

  Illegal Operations Working Group
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what initiatives the illegal operations working group has taken forward over the last 12 months; and what recommendations it has published. [24050]

  Mr. Norris
  Initiatives which the group has been taking forward are detailed in an annual report which has today been circulated to those organisations with an interest in goods vehicle enforcement. A copy of the group's 1994 report has been placed in the Library of the House.

ENVIRONMENT

  Conservation Sites
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the consequences of farm land being designated as a special area of conservation under the EU habitats directive. [22139]

  Mr. Atkins
  The regulations implementing the habitats directive are based in the existing provisions applying to sites of special scientific interest. In the vast majority of cases, the nature conservation interests for which sites on land will be selected as special areas of conservation will be very similar to those for which these sites will already be protected as SSSIs. In most cases, management measures which have conserved these sites in the past as SSSIs will continue to be appropriate when they become SACs.

  The Conservation (Natural Habitats, & Regulations 1994 introduce the following measures for European sites, including SACs:
  a duty on the statutory nature conservation agencies not to give consent to potentially damaging operations which will adversely affect the integrity of the site, and to offer a management agreement;
  powers to review existing consents for potentially damaging operations;
  powers for the statutory nature conservation agencies to make byelaws to control the activities of third parties;
  powers for the Secretary of State to make special nature conservation orders, to prevent damage, which are not time limited;
  changes to planning law to give effect to the directive's requirements in terms of the consideration and approval of plans and projects likely to affect sites.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the requirements and benefits of designation as(a) a site of special scientific interest; (b) a special protection area; (c) a Ramsar site; (d) a national nature reserve and (e) a special area of conservation. [22138]

  Mr. Atkins
  The various designations indicate a site's national or international importance for nature conservation and the level of protection to be given to its wildlife and natural features under both wildlife and planning legislation. Each of the designations referred to by my hon. Friend plays its part in meeting th Government's commitment to sustainable development,560
  and in particular to conserving the natural heritage for the benefit of this and future generations:

  (a) sites of special scientific interest are notified by English Nature under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for their special interest by reason of their flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features. SSSIs are protected from damaging operations and the notification is a material factor in the consideration of any development proposal that might affect the site;

  (b) special protection areas are classified by my right hon. Friend under the EC wild birds directive to safeguard the habitats of bird species listed in annexe 1 to the directive and of regularly occurring migratory species;

  (c) Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance, which are designated by my right hon. Friend in fulfilment of the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention on wetlands of international importance, the Ramsar convention, to conserve wetlands and foster their wise use;

  (d) national nature reserves are declared by English Nature under section 35 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Their essential characteristic is that their primary use is for nature conservation;

  (e) no special areas of conservation have yet been designated. A list of possible SACs is currently the subject of public consultation. SACs are to be sites hosting the natural habitat types and habitats of the species listed in the EC habitats and species directive. Member states are required to establish the necessary conservation measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the site.

  These designations are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, it is the Government's policy that SPAs, Ramsar sites, NNRs and SACs shall first be notified as SSSIs. Further details on these designations are given in planning policy guidance note 9, issued in October 1994, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion, by local authority in the west midlands, of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1995–96 will be used by housing associations for rehabilitating existing properties(a) for rent and (b) for shared ownership; how many units of accommodation this will cover; and how this compares with his Department's original ADP funding intentions for 1995–96, as set out in the 1992 "Autumn Statement". [22720]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: The table shows the proportion, by local authority in the west midlands, of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1995–96 which will be used by housing associations for rehabilitating existing properties (a) for rent and (b) for shared ownership; and the related units of accommodation. No regional allocation was made of the 1995–96 ADP as set out in the 1992 "Autumn Statement".
  561

  West Midlands allocations 1995–96

  Rental Accommodation

  Shared Ownership1

  Local Authority

  Total allocation (£000)

  Related units

  Rehab allocation (£'000)

  Related units

  Per cent. Rehab allocation

  Total allocation (£'000)

  Related units

  Rehab allocation (£'000)

  Related units

  Per cent, rehab allocation

  Birmingham

  1,182

  631

  489

  268

  41

  1,324

  96

  286

  19

  22

  Bridgnorth

  183

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bromsgrove

  209

  10

  0

  0

  0

  54

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Cannock Chase

  320

  12

  320

  12

  100

  57

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Coventry

  1,587

  86

  644

  30

  41

  181

  15

  44

  5

  24

  Dudley

  1,030

  45

  991

  44

  96

  44

  5

  44

  5

  100

  East Staffordshire

  416

  24

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hereford

  463

  25

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leominster

  189

  10

  189

  10

  100

  50

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Lichfield

  450

  32

  0

  0

  0

  9

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Malvern Hills

  355

  16

  0

  0

  0

  52

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  579

  19

  579

  19

  100

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Shropshire

  233

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Warwickshire

  401

  27

  79

  4

  20

  85

  7

  0

  0

  0

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  485

  21

  155

  7

  32

  36

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Oswestry

  205

  18

  0

  0

  0

  22

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Redditch

  191

  16

  39

  2

  21

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rugby

  273

  27

  120

  14

  44

  23

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Sandwell

  1,771

  83

  763

  38

  43

  189

  14

  18

  2

  9

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  450

  32

  0

  0

  0

  189

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Solihull

  721

  39

  200

  10

  28

  111

  11

  0

  0

  0

  South Herefordshire

  239

  13

  0

  0

  0

  76

  6

  0

  0

  0

  South Shropshire

  220

  24

  220

  24

  100

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Staffordshire

  363

  16

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stafford

  402

  20

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  342

  18

  0

  0

  0

  81

  5

  81

  5

  100

  Stoke-on-Trent

  2,044

  130

  650

  44

  32

  53

  6

  53

  6

  100

  Stratford-on-Avon

  269

  12

  172

  7

  64

  35

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Tamworth

  203

  11

  38

  2

  19

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  The Wrekin

  448

  38

  0

  0

  0

  66

  5

  66

  5

  100

  Walsall

  2,128

  107

  60

  4

  3

  251

  20

  0

  0

  0

  Warwick

  565

  27

  260

  12

  46

  81

  6

  0

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton

  1,692

  105

  610

  34

  36

  367

  30

  171

  15

  47

  Worcester

  432

  21

  0

  0

  0

  63

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Wychavon

  349

  14

  0

  0

  0

  34

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Wyre Forest

  800

  90

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 Associations' development for shared ownership sale. Excludes do-it-yourself shared ownership.

  Deyntes Cottage, Northolt
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call in the current planning application to Ealing council concerning Deyntes cottage, Northolt; and if he will make a statement. [23137]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I am considering the case and will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Surcharged Councillors
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many councillors in England have been surcharged or prosecuted as a consequence of taking decisions in relation to the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980; [23341]

  (2) how many councillors in England have been surcharged or prosecuted as a consequence of taking decisions in relation to the Local Government Act 1988. [23342]

  Mr. Curry
  My Department does not keep records of such actions.

  Local Authority Contracts
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list by authority and service area the number of full-time equivalent job losses experienced by local authority direct labour/service organisations in England operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988 for the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94; [23333]
  562
  (2) if he will list by authority and service area the number of full-time equivalent job losses experienced by local authority direct labour/service organisations in England operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 for the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94. [23334]

  Mr. Curry
  My Department does not keep this information.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by service area the local authorities in England that have been challenged by his Department under regulations issued under section 9 of the Local Government Act 1992 in relation to their internal arrangements for establishing client/contractor splits. [23335]

  Mr. Curry
  Although we have received allegations of anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities about the arrangements for establishing a client/contractor split, none has proceeded to statutory action. Records are not available by service area of the allegations which have been received.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many local authority direct labour/service organisations in England, operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 have achieved the required rate of return for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94;
  563
  (2) how many local authority direct labour/service organisations in England, operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988, have achieved the required rate of return for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94. [23338]

  Mr. Curry
  For the financial year 1992–93, my Department recorded 2,409 accounts for direct service/labour organisations under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and Local Government Act 1988. Some 2,060 of these accounts—85.5 per cent.—recorded that the DLO or DSO had met the statutory financial objective.

  For 1993–94, 2,381 accounts were received of which 2,057–86.4 per cent.—recorded that the financial objectives had been met.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by authority and service area the recorded deficits made by local authority direct labour/service organisations in England that have failed to meet the rate of return requirements operating contracts under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988, for the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 expressed in both absolute and percentage terms. [23336]

  Mr. Curry
  Three hundred and twenty-four—13.6 per cent.—of the 2,381 local authority direct labour/service organisation accounts for 1993–94 received by my Department recorded a failure to meet the rate of return requirements.

  For 1992–93, 2,409 accounts were received of which 349—14.5 per cent.—recorded a failure to meet the rate of return requirements.

  For 1991–92, 2,260 accounts were received of which 320—14.2 per cent.—recorded a failure to meet the rate of return requirements.

  For 1990–91, just over 2,000 accounts were received of which 330—14.8 per cent.—recorded a failure to meet the rate of return requirements.

  Detailed lists for the years 1991–92 to 1993–94 have been placed in the Library of the House. A list for 1990–91 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list, by authority, the surplus achieved on trading accounts for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94 for(a) general highways work, (b) construction and maintenance of sewers, (c) works of new construction and (d) maintenance work, delivered by local authorities' direct labour/service organisations in England under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980; [23320]

  (2) if he will list, by authority, the surplus achieved on trading accounts for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94 for (a) refuse collection, (b) street cleaning, (c) building cleaning, (d) school and welfare catering, (e) other catering, (f) vehicle maintenance, (g) ground maintenance and (h) sports and leisure maintenance, delivered by local authorities' direct labour/service organisations in England under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988; [23321]

  (3) if he will list, by authority and service area, as defined by the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980, surpluses achieved by local authority direct labour/service organisations in England for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94;
  564
  (4) if he will list, by authority and service area, as defined by the Local Government Act 1988, surpluses achieved by local authority direct labour/service organisations in England for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94. [23323]

  Mr. Curry
  Some 2,074—87.1 per cent.—of the 2,381 local authority direct service/labour organisation accounts for 1993–94 received by my Department recorded surpluses. A detailed list has been placed in the Library of the House. Lists for 1992–93 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sulphur Emissions
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is in a position to issue new sulphur emissions allocations under the national plan to large combustion plant in the other industry sector. [24262]

  Mr. Atkins
  The EC large combustion plant directive requires member states to draw up programmes for the progressive reduction of total annual emissions from existing plants of sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen with the aim of complying with the ceilings and percentage reductions laid down in the directive. The UK national plan for meeting these commitments was made in 1990. Existing large combustion plant are, under the plan, grouped into three sectors: electricity supply, refineries, and the remaining plant grouped together as "other industry".

  In the other industry sector it was expected that the replacement of existing plant with new plant would over time lead to a reduction in the sector allocations for permitted levels of SO2 emissions. This reduction has taken place more slowly than anticipated. As a result, forward allocations for 1996 exceeded the sector total in the national plan. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which has responsibility for allocating the sector total between sites, therefore consulted last year on a revised method of allocation. Following that consultation, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has today issued revised allocations to sites in England and Wales for 1996, 1997 and 1998.

  The existing national plan is likely to be superseded in due course by a wider national strategy aimed at delivering the UK's commitment under the second United Nations Economic Commission for Europe sulphur protocol. The targets under the protocol for an 80 per cent. reduction over 1980 levels in SO2 emissions from all sources by 2010 are likely to require some reduction in the existing national plan targets for total emissions in 1999 and subsequent years. We hope to consult later in the year on proposals for the new national strategy.

  Climate Change Programme
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to enhance the climate change programme following the recent announcement concerning the fossil fuel levy. [24305]

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has announced that he proposes to privatise parts of Nuclear Electric during 1996, and at the same time to end payments from the fossil fuel levy to the company, ahead of the original schedule. Our climate change programme and recently published forecasts
  565
  assumed the original schedule for the termination of these payments.

  Early termination will mean that electricity prices will fall sooner than anticipated, which may result in some corresponding increase in the output of carbon dioxide in the short term. I am determined to ensure that we sustain momentum for increased energy efficiency, and continue to give the strong lead we have established internationally on climate change, most recently at the first conference of parties to the climate change convention in Berlin. I am therefore pleased to announce that I shall make available to the Energy Saving Trust an additional £25 million a year to promote energy efficiency measures, from 1996 until the gas and electricity markets are fully liberalised.

  Following my earlier announcement of support for its running costs, the Energy Saving Trust is currently drawing up new plans. I intend to invite the trust to use the coming year to prepare a number of cost-effective proposals for my consideration. I will make money available for the best ones within the £25 million ceiling.

  I shall be looking for innovative pump-priming schemes involving all fuels, which require funding to get started and which are designed to take advantage of and enhance the effectiveness of the developing competitive markets for energy and energy services. I shall be looking for a positive emphasis on demand-side management measures and on the development of energy services companies.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Historical Documents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what advice he gives to Departments concerning the training of persons with responsibility for assessing the historical significance of documents held in those Departments. [23180]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Guidance is issued by the Keeper of Public Records. Section 3(2) of the Public Records Act 1958 prescribes that every person responsible for public records shall perform his duties under such guidance, which is detailed in the Public Record Office's "Manual of Records Administration".

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what special training is given to persons who have responsibility for assessing the historical significance of documents held by his Department. [23283]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Training in assessing the historical significance of departmental records is carried out under the guidance of the Keeper of Public Records. It is provided in a number of different ways, including courses on the appraisal of records and through conferences and seminars arranged by the Public Record Office.

  Female Poll Tax and Fine Defaulters
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases of women being gaoled for poll tax and fine default have had those convictions ruled unlawful in the High Court since 1989. [23151]
  566
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. Huebner to Ms Janet Anderson, dated 10 May 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your question about the number of convictions which have been ruled unlawful by the High Court involving women gaoled for poll tax and fine default.
  I am sorry to have to tell you that this information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  State Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the official definition of a state paper. [22935]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I understand the expression "State Papers" to signify those papers which are created or acquired by Ministers, officials or other Crown servants by virtue of the office they hold under, or their service to, the Crown. Whether or not the Crown can claim ownership of any wider class of papers will depend on the circumstances of the case.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in what circumstances state papers are permitted to be held in private hands. [22936]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  State papers are normally held by the Crown. In very rare circumstances, they may be held in private hands, normally when permission has exceptionally been given to a former Minister or public servant to retain possession of them. Examples of such circumstances are given in part 1 of the report of the Committee of Privy Counsellors on Ministerial Memoirs, Cmnd 6386, also known as the Radcliffe committee.

  Solicitors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he plans to take in respect of solicitors who persuade criminals to take civil cases against the police. [22732]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Solicitors are duty bound to act in the best interests of and on the instructions of their clients and, subject to means and eligibility tests, will apply for legal aid to take or defend actions where appropriate on behalf of their clients.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will take urgent action to limit legal aid in fraud cases to a maximum of £10,000. [22742]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has recently announced the proposals he intends to take forward following the consultation paper on legal aid for the apparently wealthy. The Lord Chancellor will issue a Green Paper on the future of legal aid very soon. That will address the provision of legal aid in both civil and criminal cases.

  Leasehold
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what effect the recent leasehold valuation tribunal decision on the Westminster Grosvenor estate will have on recent legislation providing for leasehold enfranchisement; and if he will make a statement. [23345]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 enables leasehold valuation tribunals to approve estate management schemes, if the tribunal is satisfied that this is in the general interest having regard to the matters specified in the Act. The Grosvenor estate, Mayfair, applied for a scheme, and following a hearing the tribunal approved it. I understand that this decision is being appealed to the Lands Tribunal.

HEALTH

  Mental Health Care
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the amount spent per head of the population on NHS mental health care in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and Newcastle in each year since 1991. [21916]

  Mr. Bowis
  Figures are shown in the table. Comparable figures are not available prior to 1991–92.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £

  £

  £

  London

  60.05

  65.00

  63.46

  Newcastle

  88.64

  70.00

  71.74

  Birmingham

  47.11

  51.95

  52.10

  Manchester

  61.84

  72.92

  51.93

  Liverpool

  33.51

  41.03

  47.37

  Sources:

  1. Annual financial returns of health authorities.

  2. Mid-year population estimates.

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1993–94 are provisional.

  2. Figures are for services purchased by district health authorities and do not include expenditure by general practitioner fundholders.

  3. Figures do not include expenditure on services for people with learning disabilities.

  In addition, of course, local authorities in these cities would also incur expenditure as a result of their responsibilities for the care of mentally ill people.

  Serious Bowel Disease
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what date Ministers were first informed of the research project recently reported in The Lancet, into possible links between immunisation for measles and serious bowel disease; [22624]

  (2) on what date Ministers were first informed of the findings of the research project recently reported in The Lancet, into possible links between immunisation for measles and serious bowel disease. [22625]

  Mr. Sackville
  The chief medical officer was first informed of the scope of the Royal Free hospital school of medicine work which was reported in The Lancet recently in September 1994. At that point, he sought
  568
  advice from national and international experts. In January 1995, the Department of Health convened a meeting at which the preliminary results of the Royal Free work were discussed. At that meeting, attended by independent experts, work was also presented on other possible factors in the causation of serious bowel disease including other infectious agents.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide tables showing for each 5p between 5p and £1, her estimate of the effect on consumption of an increase in the purchase price of an average(a) packet of 20 cigarettes, (b) 250 g of hand-rolling tobacco, (c) packet of five cigars and (d) 250 g of pipe tobacco. [22991]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department does not hold figures on the effect of price on the consumption of specific tobacco products holding a minor share of the market, such as hand-rolling tobacco, cigars or pipe tobacco. However, studies have shown that a 10 per cent. increase in the price of tobacco products can be expected to lead to a drop of between 3 per cent. and 6 per cent. in consumption. Working on the basis of this relationship the effect of price increases on a packet of cigarettes costing £2.70 would be as follows:

  Increase in price

  Percentage decrease in consumption Per cent.

  5p

  0.6–1.1

  10p

  1.1–2.2

  15p

  1.6–3.2

  20p

  2.1–4.2

  25p

  2.6–5.2

  30p

  3.1–6.1

  35p

  3.6–7.1

  40p

  4.1–8.0

  45p

  4.5–8.8

  50p

  5.0–9.7

  55p

  5.4–10.6

  60p

  5.8–11.3

  65p

  6.3–12.1

  70p

  6.7–12.9

  75p

  7.1–13.7

  80p

  7.5–14.4

  85p

  7.9–15.1

  90p

  8.3–15.9

  95p

  8.7–16.6

  100p

  9.0–17.2

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her most recent assessment of the relationship between cigarette advertising and the level of smoking-related illness. [22672]

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1992, the Department of Health reviewed all the available evidence on the effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption. The findings were published as a discussion document, "Effect of Tobacco Advertising on Tobacco Consumption", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's assessment of the relationship of the price of tobacco products to health. [23002]

  Mr. Sackville
  Studies show that a 10 per cent. increase in the price of tobacco products would be expected to lead to a reduction in consumption of between
  569
  3 per cent. and 6 per cent. Since tobacco consumption is harmful to health, increases in price can therefore be expected to have a beneficial effect on health.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last discussed, and when she next plans to discuss, tobacco pricing with a(a) European Union health ministers and (b) Group of Seven member country Health Ministers; and if she will make a statement. [22954]

  Mr. Sackville
  The European Community Health Council last discussed smoking at its meeting on 22 December 1994, including the importance of price in reducing tobacco consumption. There is no specific date for the next discussion, although this issue is regularly raised at meetings between Ministers and other European Health Ministers. Indirect taxation issues are of course a matter for Finance Ministers.

  There have been no meeting of the Group of Seven member country Health Ministers, nor are any planned.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the percentage of the population by(a) age, (b) sex and (c) socio-economic grouping consuming each different type of tobacco product for each year since 1965; and if she will give her estimate of levels of consumption for the current year among each of these groups. [22992]

  Mr. Sackville
  The available data will be placed in the Library.

  The tables give the percentage of adults estimated to smoke cigarettes, cigars and pipes and of under-16s estimated to smoke cigarettes. Data on other types of tobacco products are not available.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received in the last year concerning the effect of the price of tobacco products on levels of consumption; how many have been in favour of (a) an increase and(b) a decrease in price; and if she will list the representations received. [22953]

  Mr. Sackville
  Tobacco taxation policy is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  The available records show that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health received 12 letters on this subject in the last year. Six of the correspondents were in favour of price increases, four wished to see no further rise, while the remaining two suggested that price rises would not achieve any reduction in consumption.

  NHS Staff Retirement
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total of NHS staff(a) retiring on pension and (b) taking early retirements on pension for each of the last 10 years; and what was the annual cost of early retirements in each of the last 10 years. [22739]

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the NHS Pensions Agency under its chief executive, Mr. A. F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. F. Cowan to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 11 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as it falls within my area of responsibility.
  A breakdown of the figures in the format requested is not available. We are however able to provide the following information:
  Age retirements over the last 4 years:
  570

  Age Retirements

  Year

  Number

  1991–92

  11,734

  1992–93

  12,774

  1993–94

  9,635

  1994–95

  11,364

  Ill-health retirements over the last 4 years:

  Ill-health Retirements

  Year

  Number

  1991–92

  7,387

  1992–93

  8,381

  1993–94

  8,613

  1994–95

  8,484

  Early retirements over the last 4 years:

  Early retirements

  Year

  Number

  1991–92

  3,108

  1992–93

  4,033

  1993–94

  6,318

  1994–95

  5,564

  The value of early retirements including ill-health retirements to the scheme over the last 3 years is:

  Year

  £ million

  1992–93

  137.291

  1993–94

  158.827

  1994–95

  211.383

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines she has issued to general practitioner fundholders regarding the assessment of a patient's needs as medical or social; [22693]

  (2) what guidelines she has issued to general practitioner fundholding practices regarding the maintenance of respite care provided by general practitioners. [22695]

  Mr. Malone
  The explanatory booklet "General Practitioners and Caring for People", issued in October 1992, provided guidance for general practitioners on the implications of the community care reforms. In addition, HSG(95)8 sets out NHS responsibilities, including those of fundholding GPs for meeting continuing health care needs. Fundholding GPs do not purchase respite care other than through the total purchasing pilot projects, where fundholding GPs work in partnership with health authorities to purchase the full range of health care for their patients.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many general practitioner fundholders employed community psychiatric nurses in each of the last five years; [22845]

  (2) how many general practitioner fundholders employed health visitors in each of the last five years; [22846]

  (3) how many health visitors were employed by general practitioner fundholding practices in each of the last five years. [22847]
  571
  Mr. Malone
  None. Fundholding general practitioners do not directly employ nurses providing these services. Fundholding general practitioners may contract for these services with an established national health service provider of community nursing services or with a provider of community mental health services.

  Liver Complaints
  Mr. Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase the number of specialist intensive care units for liver complaints. [23077]

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Specialist units for treating liver failure are provided under the supra-regional arrangements. They are funded centrally to meet the level and quality of service required.

  Newham General Hospital
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will request the East London and City health authority, or other appropriate body, to conduct an inquiry related to the relevant parts of the Medical Act 1983, into the participation by a theatre assistant in an operation at Newham general hospital conducted earlier this year. [23119]

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for Newham Healthcare national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. Rosemary Walters, chairman of the trust, for details.

  Children in Care
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many cases the children of women serving custodial sentences for fine defaulting have been taken into care since 1989. [23152]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Junior Doctors' Hours
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctors and dentists, by region, remain outside the current new deal limits for contracted hours in on-call posts; and if she will make a statement. [24261]

  Mr. Malone
  The new deal on junior doctors' hours, a copy of which is in the Library, currently requires that no junior doctor or dentist should be contracted for an average of more than 72 hours a week in a hard-pressed post. At 8 February 1995, the returns from the eight regions in England were as follows:

  Hard-pressed on-call posts contracted for more than 72 hours a week

  Region

  March 1994

  September 1994

  February 1995

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1,433

  878

  162

  Trent

  342

  175

  60

  Anglia and Oxford

  517

  306

  189

  North Thames

  1,094

  773

  178

  South Thames

  879

  411

  95

  South and West

  452

  148

  20

  West Midlands

  529

  293

  67

  North West

  1,291

  801

  0

  Total

  6,537

  3,785

  771

  572
  Since March 1994 there has been a fall of over 88 per cent., from 6,537 to 771, in the number of hard-pressed on-call posts contracted for more than 72 hours a week. Over 96 per cent. of the present total of 27,669 junior doctors and dentists now comply with the current new deal contracted hours targets.

  This is excellent progress, showing that the rate at which we are eliminating these posts more than doubled in the four months to February this year. Hospitals, supported by our task forces, have made enormous strides in confronting the problem of long hours and I am very grateful to them.

  While we must remain firmly focused on tackling the hard-core of problem posts remaining, I believe we have now succeeded in establishing a ceiling on contracted hours which will help us to press on with further improvements.

  The progress we are making is most encouraging, but there is no room for complacency. We know that more work is still needed to crack the problem and there are still too many juniors who are under pressure to work too long. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that juniors get real and lasting benefits from the new deal.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations she has had regarding National Epilepsy Week; what financial support her Department has given and will be giving to National Epilepsy Week; and if she will make a statement; [22844]

  (2) pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) of 17 January, Official Report, column 576, what progress her Department is making with any new initiatives for people with epilepsy; and if she will make a statement. [22920]

  Mr. Bowis
  Since January of this year, the Department of Health has been working with the voluntary sector on an epilepsy initiative which includes National Epilepsy Week. We will officially launch the week on 15 May and we have commissioned a series of posters to publicise the Week and to raise awareness of epilepsy generally. During the week we are sponsoring a large multidisciplinary conference, on epilepsy in London.

  These events are only part of the Government's current initiative. We have so far provided £144,000 for voluntary organisation projects over the next three years and £95,000 for two innovative epilepsy service development projects. The Joint Epilepsy Council is producing a booklet for young people with epilepsy and the Royal College of General Practitioners is working on new guidelines, on epilepsy, for general practitioners.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 320, how many of the 96 products licensed for the treatment of epilepsy between 1991 and 1995 were (a) new chemical entity products, (b) variations on existing products and (c) products that received a product licence, parallel import; and if she will place the names of the 96 products in the Library. [22921]

  Mr. Sackville
  Records from the Medicines Control Agency show that of the 96 products licensed for the treatment of epilepsy between 1991 and 1995, eight were new chemical entities, 69 were variations, through
  573
  abridged licences, on existing products and 19 were products that received a product licence, parallel import.

  A list of the information requested will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 320, how many of the 90 products licensed for the treatment of epilepsy between 1985 and 1990 were (a) new chemical entity products, (b) variations on existing products and (c) products that received a product licence, parallel import; and if she will place the names of the 90 products in the Library. [22922]

  Mr. Sackville
  Records from the Medicines Control Agency show that, of the 90 products licensed for the treatment of epilepsy between 1985 and 1990, one was a new chemical entity product, 30 were variations, through abridged licences, on existing products and 59 were products that received a product licence, parallel import.

  A list of the information requested will be placed in the Library.

  Child Protection
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on child protection training for general practitioners in each of the last five years(a) by health authority and (b) as a percentage of the overall training budget. [22848]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who represents general practitioner fundholders on area child protection committees. [22849]

  Mr. Bowis
  The exact composition of an area child protection committee is a matter to be agreed locally. Government guidance, contained in "Working Together Under the Children Act 1989: A Guide to Arrangements for Inter-Agency Co-operation for the Protection of Children from Abuse", is that general practitioners should be represented by the general practitioner representative(s) of the local medical committee(s). Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  National Blood Authority
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she now expects the NBA to submit to her its proposals for reorganisation of the national blood transfusion service; and if she will place in the Library a copy of the NBA proposals. [23423]

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Blood Authority will make its final recommendations shortly. A copy of the authority's published proposals will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contingency planning on the part of the NBA to implement amalgamation of blood centres and changes to present arrangements for the production and testing of blood products she has authorised. [23424]

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Blood Authority was set up in April 1993 to be responsible for the strategic management of the national blood service with a view to enhancing its quality and cost efficiency. Specific changes are a matter for consideration by the National Blood Authority.

  Privatisation
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on the inclusion of privatisation as one of her priorities and key challenges for 1995–96 to 1997–98; [22763]

  (2) what factors led to the addition of privatisation as a priority in the 1995 departmental report; [22765]

  (3) what services she has prioritised for privatisation in 1995–96 to 1997–98. [22764]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 9 may 1995]: The Department is committed to securing the best value for money available for its internal running costs. Its "Priorities and Key Challenges 1995–96—1997–98"—repeated in the "1995 Departmental Report"—includes privatisation as well as market testing and purchasing among the range of techniques available to secure this. This is in line with the White Paper "Continuity and Change", Cm 2627.

  A prior options review recommended the privatisation of the non-core business of the National Health Service Estates agency. Ministers have accepted this recommendation and a scoping study is now under way to consider the extent of the business that might be included. There are no other privatisations planned.

  Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the percentage change in the average length of time waiting list patients stay in hospital in 1982–83 and 1992–93. [22777]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Estimates show that the average length of stay in hospital for patients admitted from waiting lists reduced by 41 per cent. between 1982–83 and 1992–93, from 8.7 days to 5.1 days.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Cinemas
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information he has on the structure of ownership of cinemas in the United Kingdom. [23604]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the recent report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of films for exhibition in cinemas in the United Kingdom, which provides detailed information about the pattern of such ownership. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the future pattern of ownership of cinemas in the United Kingdom. [23605]

  Mr. Dorrell
  None.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made within his Department on equal opportunities matters. [21486]
  575
  Mr. Sproat
  After initial consultation with staff through formal working parties, my Department published in November 1994 an equal opportunities policy statement and an equal opportunities action plan for 1994–95. The policy statement and action plan are consistent with government policy and have recently been updated to reflect the considerable progress made in this area. The documents underline the Department's commitment to be an equal opportunities employer.

  Tourism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what programmes analysis review has been carried out as the value of the expenditure of public money on promoting tourism; [22529]

  (2) what contribution is made from public funds to the promotion of tourism in the United Kingdom; for what public purpose or purposes; and if he will publish the available evidence on the return produced. [22522]

  Mr. Dorrell
  This financial year the combined grant in aid allocation to the British Tourist Authority and the national tourist boards for England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland is close to £90 million. In addition, local authorities in England spend some £62.7 million annually on direct tourism promotion.

  The British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board have evaluation studies attached to all their major programmes. Although it is extremely difficult to establish the link between tourist board activity and tourist spend, research undertaken on behalf of the BTA indicates that its activities may stimulate as much as £10 in incremental revenue per £1 spent.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his assessment of proposals made by the British Tourist Authority's VAT working group's report for a reduction in the level of value added tax levied on the accommodation sector. [22947]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The report does not take account of all the different costs to business in other member states and therefore I believe does not demonstrate that UK tourism operators are placed at an overall competitive disadvantage because of the level of VAT alone. The Government are working with the industry on a range of measures to improve the competitiveness of British tourism.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has made to other Departments with regard to the report prepared by the British Tourist Authority's VAT working party. [22948]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a copy of the final report and is aware of the industry's views.

  Churchill Papers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage in what circumstances historians and others wanting to use the Churchill papers, following their purchase for the state, will have to pay a copyright fee; to whom such copyright proceeds would go; what is the estimated amount of such proceeds per annum; and if he will make a statement. [22447]
  576
  Mr. Dorrell
  Anyone wishing to use the Churchill papers for commercial purposes will need to seek permission from the copyright owners. Copyright in the non-state papers is vested in the Churchill family; copyright in the state papers is vested in the Crown. The proceeds go to the copyright owners; it is not possible to estimate the amount per annum of such proceeds as this is entirely dependent upon the use made of the papers.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his consultations with the national heritage memorial fund in respect of the decision to purchase the Churchill papers. [22448]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, the national heritage memorial fund is responsible for distributing 20 per cent. of the net proceeds from the national lottery for expenditure on or connected with the national heritage. Individual funding decisions on applications are made entirely independently of Government. However, once the NHMF had reached its decision to fund the purchase of the non-state papers in the archive, the Government chose to transfer the state papers in the archive to Churchill college in order that it be retained intact for the nation.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many items in the Churchill papers recently purchased(a) are state papers, (b) are private papers and (c) have been the subject of dispute as to whether they are state or private. [22934]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government are of the view that none of the papers recently purchased by the national heritage memorial fund was a state paper.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the state papers or classes of state papers which Her Majesty's Government have given to Churchill college and the Churchill archive. [22946]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The classes of state papers transferred to the Churchill college by the Crown were those listed as "official" in the catalogue of the Chartwell papers which is available at Churchill college, Cambridge and in the national register of archives, Chancery lane. They include papers relating to Sir Winston Churchill's appointments as Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, President of the Board of Trade, Home Secretary, First Lord of the Admiralty, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Minister of Munitions, Secretary of State for War and Air, Colonial Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister, and to the Cabinet, War Council, War Cabinet and Committee of Imperial Defence.

  The remaining classes in the catalogue also contain a number of state papers; ownership of these was transferred at the same time.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many, and what proportion of, vacancies advertised by his Department, and by each of his Department's agencies, in the last three years have listed the attainment of NVQs as an acceptable entry requirement; and, of those, how many have required (i) level 1 NVQs, (ii) level 2 NVQs, (iii) level 3 NVQs and (iv) other level NVQs. [22981]
  577
  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department of National Heritage does little direct recruitment which necessitates advertising vacancies. However, the Department has conducted two recruitment schemes for administrative assistants in the last three years. In both cases, the entry requirement was stated as two GCSEs or equivalent qualification. The NVQ business administration level 1 was accepted as an equivalent qualification.

  The Historic Royal Palaces agency and the Royal Parks agency have not so far specified that candidates must possess NVQs for any job vacancies advertised. However, where a NVQ was held which was clearly linked to levels of skills, competencies or experience required for a particular post, it would be taken into account and accepted in place of other equivalent qualifications.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy on the extent to which funds from the national lottery should he evenly distributed over the United Kingdom(a) on an annual basis and (b) over a longer period. [23261]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The net proceeds from the national lottery will be distributed by independent bodies according to the merits of each individual application. The Government have made it clear that they expect to see a fair distribution of lottery proceeds across the United Kingdom taking into account the relative merits of the projects submitted for approval.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage to what extent the organisations to which he gives directions under section 26 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 have regard to previous successful applications when considering subsequent applications from the same area. [23264]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The 11 bodies responsible for the distribution of the net proceeds of the national lottery will consider all projects on their individual merits.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will require the organisations to which he gives directions under section 26 of the National Lottery etc. Act to publish the criteria they apply in distributing national lottery funds. [23262]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under directions issued under section 26(3) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, the distributing bodies are obliged to publish and regularly update guidance for potential applicants for grants. Copies of the guidance documents published to date—all of which include the criteria against which they will assess applications—have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will review the rules governing the release of information concerning bids for lottery money in so far at this may happen in election periods. [22805]

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no special rules to the release of information concerning bids for lottery money during election periods. As is the case throughout the public 578
  service, the lottery distributing bodies are expected to take particular care during election periods to ensure that their actions are politically impartial.

  Digital Terrestrial Television
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects digital terrestrial television to become available in the United Kingdom. [23179]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Digital terrestrial television could become available in the United Kingdom by 1997.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what costs his Department has incurred during the last 12 months as a result of cloning of mobile telephones being utilised by his Department, with particular reference to the making of unauthorised calls. [23485]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: My Department has incurred no charges due to the cloning of mobile telephones.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps his Department has taken to prevent the cloning of telephones being utilised by his Department; and if his Department has discussed this matter with any official agencies. [23459]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: My Department has converted all mobile telephones from analogue to digital. This is in line with advice received from official sources.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations his Department has made to the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the need for legislation to prevent the cloning of mobile telephones. [23472]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: My Department has made no representations to the DTI on this matter.

SCOTLAND

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many, and what proportion of, vacancies advertised by his Department, and by each of his Department's agencies, in the last three years have listed the attainment of NVQs as an acceptable entry requirement; and, of those, how many have required (i) level 1 NVQs, (ii) level 2 NVQs, (iii) level 3 NVQs and (iv) other level NVQs. [22972]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department and agencies do not specifically list Scottish vocational qualifications—the Scottish equivalent to NVQs—in their recruitment advertisements, but they make it clear that candidates with qualifications equivalent to any listed are eligible to apply.

  A78
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his document "Local Government Reform, Shaping the Trunk Road Network: The Government's Response", if he will make a statement on the trunking of three-mile non-trunk section of the A78 south of Greenock town centre. [23293]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: One of the criteria for establishing the new trunk road network was to provide the road user with a coherent and continuous system of routes which serve destinations of importance to industry, commerce, agriculture and tourism. Taking into account responses to the published draft proposals and the commercial role performed by the A78, the Government concluded that the A78 should remain part of the new trunk road network and to ensure continuity of this route decided the section of the A78 south of Greenock town centre, which is presently a local road, should be trunked.

  A statutory instrument for negative resolution will be prepared and laid before Parliament to give effect to trunking and detrunking proposals across the existing Scottish road network and will include provision to trunk this section of the A78.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the expenditure per(a) primary school and (b) primary school pupil in real and constant price terms in every year since 1979; and what are the corresponding figures excluding staffing costs. [23394]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  Information on annual budgeted expenditure for each primary school in Scotland, and per pupil for each such school, is contained in reports published annually since 1993 by the audit unit of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools. A copy of the most recent report—"Scottish Schools: Cost 1993–94 and 1994–95"—has been placed in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions during the last five years(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers in his Department or its agencies have declared conflicts of interest; and how many instructions have been issued about their retention, disposal or management. [21382]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer I May 1995]: All staff are required to comply with the civil service management code and the Department's staff manual. Comprehensive records are not collected centrally, but where potential conflicts are identified involving staff, including special advisers, arrangements are made to ensure that no actual conflict arises.

  Meat Inspections
  Mr. Dalyell
  To as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what considerations underlie the requirements(a) for a vet to pass deer as fit for slaughter and (b) a meat inspector to pass venison as fit for consumption before sale;
  580
  what aspects of inspection prior to slaughter which are undertaken by a vet could not appropriately be undertaken by a meat inspector; and if he will seek to amend EC regulations in this area. [21442]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 9 May 19951: The EC legislation and our national implementing regulations require all fresh meat, including farmed venison, to be produced under the supervision of an official veterinary surgeon. The Government support the principle of veterinary responsibility for meat hygiene and inspection and have consistently argued for flexibility in the EC legislation to make maximum use of qualified meat inspectors working under the responsibility of the official veterinary surgeon in all aspects of meat inspection and hygiene control.

  Where young deer are slaughtered at an abattoir, ante-mortem inspection may be carried out by a meat inspector answerable to the official veterinary surgeon. We will discuss with the Meat Hygiene Service and with interested organisations whether it would be appropriate to review the arrangements for ante-mortem inspection of deer slaughtered on farm, which is normally carried out by the farmer's own veterinary surgeon.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number and species of birds of prey poisoned in each year since 1987. [22365]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food co-ordinates the wildlife incident investigation scheme which monitors the effect of pesticides on wildlife and domestic animals. The following figures have been compiled from reports of deaths of birds of prey where pesticides have been confirmed as the likely cause. The figures relate to incidents reported in Great Britain. In order to reduce the risks to wildlife, the Ministry has mounted a campaign against illegal poisoning in collaboration with a number of interested organisations.

  Year

  Total (number of incidents)

  Species

  1987

  20

  Species include Kestrels, Sparrow Hawks, Barn Owls and Buzzards

  1988

  26

  12 Buzzards

  1 Peregrine Falcon

  1 Hen Harrier

  2 Sparrow Hawks

  5 Tawny Owls

  4 Golden Eagles

  1 Harris Hawk

  1989

  43

  22 Buzzards

  1 Golden Eagle

  3 Peregrine Falcons

  12 Red Kites

  4 Sparrow Hawks

  1 Kestrel

  1990

  36

  24 Buzzards

  3 Golden Eagles

  2 Red Kites

  2 Hen Harriers

  4 Sparrow Hawks

  1 Kestrel

  581

  Year

  Total (number of incidents)

  Species

  1991

  28

  4 Owls

  16 Buzzards

  2 Red Kites

  1 Golden Eagle

  1 Hen Harrier

  2 Kestrels

  2 Peregrine Falcons

  1992

  34

  19 Buzzards

  1 Goshawk

  1 Hen Harrier

  2 Kestrels

  2 Sparrow Hawks

  6 Red Kites

  1 Golden Eagle

  2 Peregrine Falcons

  1993

  32

  22 Buzzards

  1 Golden Eagle

  5 Red Kites

  1 Hen Harrier

  1 Sparrow Hawk

  1 Merlin

  1 Owl

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was his Department's official response to the legal opinions obtained by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on the live export of veal calves; and if he will make a statement. [22892]

  Mrs. Browning
  My right hon. Friend informed the House in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) on 22 February Official Report, columns 276–86, that consideration of the RSPCA's latest legal advice was under way; that process is still on-going.

  Historical Documents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what special training is given to persons who have responsibility for assessing the historical significance of documents held by his Department. [23274]

  Mr. Jack
  Training in assessing the historical significance of departmental records is carried out under the guidance of the Keeper of Public Records. It is provided in a number of different ways, including courses on the appraisal of records and through conferences and seminars arranged by the Public Record Office. Additionally, reviewers receive desk training from visiting Public Record Office staff who constantly monitor appraisal criteria and decisions.

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the meetings he has had in the last three months with representatives of the brewing industry with the topics which were discussed at each meeting. [23271]

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend has met representatives of the brewing industry on four separate occasions over 582
  the last three months. A number of issues were discussed including issues relating to the single market.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what costs his Department has incurred during the last 12 months as a result of cloning of mobile telephones being utilised by his Department, with particular reference to the making of unauthorised calls. [23486]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: The Department has incurred no costs during the last 12 months as a result of cloning of mobile telephones. The service providers—Mercury and Vodac—met the cost in all known instances.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many mobile telephones being utilised by his Department have been cloned during the last 12 months. [23430]

  Mr. Jack
  There were seven known instances of mobile phone cloning during the last 12 months.

  Religious Slaughter
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the Jewish community, what was discussed, and if he will make a statement. [24308]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I met the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and other representatives of the Jewish community on 30 March when Shechita—religious slaughter—was discussed in relation to the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, SI 1995/731.1 assured the president that the 1995 regulations maintain the legal protection for Shechita contained in the previous legislation.

  Council directive 93/119/EC, on which the 1995 regulations are based, recognises the need to take account of the requirements of religious requirements such as Shechita. The Government accept that Shechita is a fundamental matter of religious belief to Jewish communities who are an important part of our national life and would oppose any moves to remove the right of the Jewish community to practise Shechita.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1994,Official Report, columns 118–20, if he will list the projects on which British aid to Indonesia was spent in the financial year 1991–92; and what was the value in each case. [23232]

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is as follows:

  Indonesia: projects financed from technical co-operation funds expenditure 1991–92 (£ thousands)

  Project

  Allocation

  Expenditure 1991–92

  Renewable Natural Resources

  Rice Development Project

  1,659

  341

  Cloves Disease Research

  706

  49

  583

  Indonesia: projects financed from technical co-operation funds expenditure 1991–92 (£ thousands)

  Projec t

  Allocation

  Expenditure 1991–92

  Coastal Fisheries—University of Diponegoro

  384

  135

  Animal Health Phase 4

  1,687

  433

  Coastal Prawn Culture

  1,298

  337

  Regional Physical Planning Map Improvement and Training Project

  655

  259

  Forestry Senior Management Team

  1,793

  297

  Forestry Conservation

  1,984

  61

  Forestry Training

  2,454

  15

  Forestry Research

  2,644

  25

  Energy—Gas

  Gas Distribution Phase 1

  4,193

  570

  Gas Distribution Phase 2

  5,509

  886

  Support to LEMIGAS (Petroleum Authority)

  4,762

  1,415

  Education

  Active Learning and Professional Support at Primary Level

  1,708

  316

  Libraries, Books and Development Project

  747

  259

  English Language Teaching at National Level

  1,325

  177

  English Language Teaching in Government Institutions

  1,789

  207

  English Language Teaching

  421

  421

  Maths Primary Specialist

  30

  29

  Biotechnology

  428

  102

  Mining and Geological Exploration

  South Sumatra Geological Survey Project

  2,261

  413

  Ombilin Coal Mine Training School

  377

  86

  Public Administration and Finance

  Assistance to Regional and Local Finance and Economy

  905

  412

  Trade Investment Cooperative Programme

  286

  57

  Police Management Training

  713

  178

  Indonesian Civil Service Training Institute (LAN) Assistance to Public Administration

  120

  29

  Public Works

  Survey and Mapping Advisers Project

  400

  36

  Local Consultants/Professional Engineers Training Project

  1,735

  242

  Madura Groundwater

  52

  52

  Energy—Electric Power

  Bali Power Study

  305

  122

  Electricity Authority (PLN) Training Project Phase 2

  1,162

  423

  Mini Hydros—Phase 2

  1,290

  15

  Mini Hydros—Phase 3

  5,610

  74

  Roads

  Highway Engineering Course

  565

  16

  Road Engineering Research

  68

  26

  584

  Projects financed from the aid and trade provision

  Project

  Allocation

  Expenditure 1991–92

  Steel Bridging (Phase I)

  6,642

  353

  Navigational Aids

  6,386

  367

  Bandung Television Studio

  9,734

  556

  Scattered Diesels

  5,891

  322

  Cigading Port Extension

  13,266

  1,129

  Radio Studios Rehabilitation

  5,040

  216

  Cigading/Serpong Railway

  24,690

  769

  Citayam/Cibinong Railway

  20,105

  487

  Radio Communication System for the Ministry of Forestry

  34,111

  1,617

  Western Universities Equipment

  13,671

  831

  Flight Simulator

  4,659

  262

  Bali and Medan Airport Security

  10,455

  259

  Jambi Power Station

  5,345

  310

  Steel Bridging (Phase II)

  3,669

  223

  Shortwave Radio Transmitters

  26,911

  1,223

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which date his Department first began funding Indonesian police officers(a) in Indonesia and (b) in the United Kingdom. [23235]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have been providing UK training awards for Indonesian national police officers since 1979 and meeting some of the costs of training courses in Indonesia since 1983.

  Mrs Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1994,Official Report, columns 118–120, if he will give the exact date of formal appraisal documents submitted by the Overseas Development Administration and the Department of Trade and Industry in respect of the aid and trade provision support for each project listed. [23251]

  Mr. Baldry
  I provided responses on two of the projects on the list previously in my answers on 10 January to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), Official Report, column 14, and on 1 March to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley,Official Report, column 574. Because the other projects on the list were generally approved some years ago, the information requested is not immediately available. I shall write to the hon. Lady when we have obtained it.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much Her Majesty's Government contribute to United Nations programmes to clear mines in(a) Cambodia and (b) other countries; and if he will make a statement. [23100]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 10 May 1995]: Since April 1992 we have contributed a total of £4.96 million to UN de-mining programmes. Of this, £2.133 million was for Cambodia, £2.5 million for Afghanistan, £226,000 for Angola and £100,000 for the Yemen. In addition, in March 1995 we paid £500,000 into the UN voluntary fund for mine clearance. We shall continue to consider UN requests as helpfully as possible.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 27 April,Official Report, column 638, when Her Majesty's Government will decide how much funding is to be made available to British non-governmental organisations for emergency aid to Afghan refugees and displaced persons for (a) rehabilitation and (b) other purposes. [23133]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 10 May 1995]: I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Exhibitions
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to women in science, engineering and technology to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 3 July to Friday 7 July 1995.

WALES

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy with regard to the provision of matching funds to help applications for assistance from the EU in Wales under objective 5b schemes. [23074]

  Mr. Redwood
  The objective 5b single programming document for rural Wales 1994–99 makes available European structural funds grants averaging some £23 million a year to support national public expenditure on projects averaging some £34 million and private sector contributions of around £5 million a year. These figures clearly demonstrates that, without substantial domestic expenditure to support projects, it would not be possible to utilise the structural funds grant resources being made available.

  Funding for projects can come from a variety of sources including local authorities, Government agencies, training and enterprise councils and voluntary bodies as well as from my Department. It is for applicants to determine whom they should approach to seek funding for any project. Those approached for matching funding, including my Department, will need to satisfy themselves that there is no legal or other constraint to them providing such funding and consider, inter alia, the quality of the project, whether it represents good value for money and what other funding approaches they have received before deciding whether they wish to invest in the project.

  Historical Documents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what special training is given to persons who have responsibility for assessing the historical significance of documents held by his Department. [23275]
  586
  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department,Official Report, column 565.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to review the way in which his Department assists local support services for voluntary organisations. [24170]

  Mr. Richards
  I have today issued a consultation paper seeking comments on the effectiveness of current arrangements for delivering support services to voluntary organisations at local level. The paper also seeks views on the best way of channelling support from the Welsh Office to the organisations providing such services. I shall welcome comments from voluntary organisations throughout Wales, from those who have links with the voluntary sector and from the organisations which the Department currently funds. A copy of the consultation paper has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

EDUCATION

  Inspection Training
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the cost of sending(a) a primary school teacher and (b) a secondary school teacher on additional inspector training; what is the cost of the place on the course and the additional cost of any supply teaching which has to be provided; and which body meets this cost; [23649]

  (2) how many (a) primary and (b) secondary school teachers have attended additional inspector training this year. [23650]

  Mr. Forth
  These are matters for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  Pupils
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list for each local education authority(a) the proportion and (b) the number of pupils in grant-maintained (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools. [23651]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is set out in the tables.

  Primary

  LEA area

  Number of pupils in GM primary schools

  Percentage of maintained primary pupils in GM schools

  Avon

  0

  0

  Barking

  0

  0

  Barnet

  758

  3

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  586

  1

  Berkshire

  2,390

  4

  Bexley

  643

  4

  Birmingham

  1,655

  2

  Bolton

  380

  2

  587

  primary

  LEA area

  Number of pupils in CM primary schools

  Percentage of maintained primary pupils in GM schools

  Bradford

  1,538

  4

  Brent

  1,522

  8

  Bromley

  2,235

  10

  Buckinghamshire

  2,817

  5

  Bury

  190

  1

  Calderdale

  1,229

  7

  Cambridgeshire

  2,000

  3

  Camden

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  472

  1

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  Corporation of London

  0

  0

  Coventry

  0

  0

  Croydon

  1,339

  5

  Cumbria

  3,236

  8

  Derbyshire

  2,175

  3

  Devon

  283

  0

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  Dorset

  632

  1

  Dudley

  385

  1

  Durham

  0

  0

  Ealing

  1,104

  5

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  Enfield

  157

  1

  Essex

  19,866

  16

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  5,412

  12

  Greenwich

  191

  1

  Hackney

  96

  1

  Hammersmith

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  3,993

  3

  Haringey

  0

  0

  Harrow

  0

  0

  Havering Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  2,157

  3

  Hillingdon

  2,707

  15

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  Humberside

  336

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Isle of Scilly

  0

  0

  Islington

  0

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  497

  9

  Kent

  6,559

  5

  Kingston upon Thames

  171

  2

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  Lambeth

  1,963

  12

  Lancashire

  780

  1

  Leeds

  67

  0

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  Lewisham

  368

  2

  Lincolnshire

  7,530

  15

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  Manchester

  0

  0

  Merton

  0

  0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  0

  Newham

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  3,202

  5

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  17

  0

  Northamptonshire

  3,391

  7

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  Oldham

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  81

  0

  588

  Primary

  LEA area

  Number of pupils in primary schools

  Percentage of maintained primary GM pupils in CM schools

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  1,612

  8

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  Salford

  0

  0

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  Sefton

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  1,295

  3

  Shropshire

  721

  2

  Solihull

  499

  3

  Somerset

  469

  1

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  Southwark

  1,437

  7

  St. Helens

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  102

  0

  Stockport

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  Surrey

  4,506

  6

  Sutton

  821

  7

  Tameside

  0

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  Trafford

  0

  0

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  Walsall

  572

  2

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  531

  3

  Warwickshire

  40

  0

  West Sussex

  375

  1

  Westminster

  0

  0

  Wigan

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  3,815

  8

  Wirral

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0

  Notes:

  1. Pupil numbers are derived from the 1994 DFE schools census and include schools which are currently grant-maintained.

  2. Pupil numbers and percentages include all full and part-time pupils, other than these in nursery classes.

  Secondary

  LEA Area

  Numbers of pupils in GM secondary schools

  Percentage of maintained secondary pupils in GM schools

  Avon

  1,710

  3

  Barking

  0

  0

  Barnet

  9,905

  53

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  9,451

  21

  Berkshire

  9,029

  19

  Bexley

  3,655

  25

  Birmingham

  15,177

  23

  Bolton

  2,803

  16

  Bradford

  5,286

  11

  Brent

  10,975

  86

  Bromley

  13,923

  81

  Buckinghamshire

  10,174

  27

  Bury

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  7,367

  55

  Cambridgeshire

  15,274

  37

  Camden

  2,381

  22

  Cheshire

  2,492

  4

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  Corporation of

  589

  Secondary

  LEA Area

  Numbers of pupils in GM secondary schools

  Percentage of maintained secondary pupils in GM schools

  London

  0

  0

  Coventry

  0

  0

  Croydon

  7,718

  52

  Cumbria

  10,873

  35

  Derbyshire

  18,048

  31

  Devon

  4,700

  8

  Doncaster

  1,128

  5

  Dorset

  9.947

  24

  Dudley

  4,669

  26

  Durham

  0

  0

  Ealing

  6,111

  45

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  Enfield

  5,634

  32

  Essex

  67,497

  70

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  Gloucestershire

  23,474

  70

  Greenwich

  0

  0

  Hackney

  0

  0

  Hammersmith

  1,237

  21

  Hampshire

  17,020

  21

  Haringey

  0

  0

  Harrow

  528

  6

  Havering

  3,877

  26

  Hereford and Worcester

  3,643

  8

  Hertfordshire

  23,567

  34

  Hillingdon

  11,988

  85

  Hounslow

  2,123

  15

  Humberside

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  Islington

  0

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  621

  20

  Kent

  53,506

  52

  Kingston upon

  Thames

  2,901

  37

  Kirklees

  1,267

  5

  Knowsley

  731

  8

  Lambeth

  3,308

  52

  Lancashire

  6,843

  8

  Leeds

  1,117

  3

  Leicestershire

  3,270

  5

  Lewisham

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire

  17,598

  47

  Liverpool

  3,164

  10

  Manchester

  0

  0

  Merton

  750

  10

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  0

  Newham

  582

  4

  Norfolk

  9,431

  23

  North Tyneside

  220

  2

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  9,386

  21

  Northumberland

  650

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  1,837

  3

  Oldham

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  Redbridge

  1,125

  7

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  2,058

  16

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  Salford

  430

  4

  Sandwell

  1,679

  9

  Sefton

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  1,936

  7

  Shropshire

  4,539

  18

  Solihull

  0

  0

  Somerset

  574

  2

  590

  Secondary

  LEA Area

  Numbers of pupils in CM secondary schools

  Percentage of maintained secondary pupils in GM schools

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  Southwark

  2,786

  30

  St. Helens

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  4,442

  6

  Stockport

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  Surrey

  15,082

  33

  Sutton

  6,699

  59

  Tameside

  2,371

  18

  Tower Hamlets

  891

  7

  Trafford

  3,083

  26

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  Walsall

  7,077

  36

  Waltham Forest

  2,099

  18

  Wandsworth

  6,606

  74

  Warwickshire

  4,783

  19

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  Westminster

  0

  0

  Wigan

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  14,338

  42

  Wirral

  2,107

  10

  Wolverhampton

  2,404

  15

  Note:

  1. Pupil numbers are derived for the 1994 DFE schools census and include all secondary schools which are currently grant-maintained.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the number and percentage of pupils in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in (i) January 1980, (ii) January 1991, (iii) January 1992, (iv) January 1993, (v) January 1994 and (vi) January 1995 being taught in classes of 30-plus in maintained schools (1) in each local education authority and (2) in total. [23653]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on pupils in classes of size 31 and over in maintained primary and secondary schools for January 1980, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 has been placed in the Library. Information for January 1995 will not be available until the autumn.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list those schools which have been required to modify the admissions policy submitted as part of their proposals for grant-maintained status before having their application approved. [23652]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list by local education authority the schools holding ballots on grant-maintained status since 1 January 1994, giving in each case(a) whether the outcome favoured or opposed grant-maintained status, (b) whether the governing body applied for a grant under section 36 of the Education Act 1993, (c) the maximum grant available and (d) the amount of grant (i) claimed and (ii) paid: [23654]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.
  591
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools held ballots on grant-maintained status; how many of each voted in favour of and against becoming grant-maintained; and if she will list the amount of eligible parents in each sector who (i) voted in favour, (ii)

  GM ballots

  Primary schools

  Total number of ballots

  Eligible voters

  Actual voters

  Yes votes

  No votes

  Number abstained

  Number of yes ballots

  Number of no ballots

  April 1993–31 March 1994 274

  96,822

  66,946

  41,655

  25,291

  29,876

  201

  73

  1 April 1994–31 March 1995 94

  30,956

  21,155

  10,231

  10,924

  9,801

  55

  39

  Secondary Schools

  Total number of ballots

  Eligible voters

  Actual voters

  Yes votes

  No votes

  Number abstained

  Number of yes ballots

  Number of no ballots

  1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994 171

  218,518

  135,779

  76,612

  59,167

  82,739

  107 13

  64

  1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995 43

  54,830

  33,965

  14,867

  19,098

  20,865

  13

  30

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of funding(a) the GM information team and (b) the GM information line in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what are the budgets for 1995–96; [22790]

  (2) how many staff are employed in staffing (a) the grant-maintained information team and (b) the grant-maintained information line. [22781]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Currently there are 10 staff employed in the Department's grant-maintained schools information team, dealing with GM publications and organising Going GM conferences. The grant-maintained information line is staffed by members of the team.

  The team's costs—including pay, superannuation, employers' national insurance contributions, accommodation, travel and administrative costs—were approximately £330,000 in 1993–94 and £410,000 in 1994–95; and it is estimated they will be some £4020,000 in 1995–96. However, these figures are not wholly comparable because of changes in accounting arrangements between 1993–94 and 1994–95. Expenditure on the GM information line cannot be disaggregated from the Department's general telephone costs.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the cost to her Department of materials and staff involved in the campaign to persuade schools to opt for grant-maintained status. [22897]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department's information activities concerning grant-maintained schools are designed to provide factual, unbiased information, not to persuade schools to "opt-out". The total expenditure on GM publications, including videos, since 1988 is some £1,200,000. This represents spending of about 16p per pupil in England.
  592
  voted against and (iii) did not take part in the ballots for the years (1) 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994 and (2) 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  The grant-maintained schools information team was established during 1991–92. The team's costs—including pay, superannuation, employers' national insurance contributions, accommodation, travel and administrative costs—are estimated at approximately £330,000 in 1993–94 and £410,000 in 1994–95. These figures are not wholly comparable because of changes in internal accounting arrangements between the two years.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list by local education authority the grant-maintained secondary schools, indicating for each(a) the percentage of pupils entitled to receive free schools meals and (b) the percentage for the secondary sector in each local authority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A table showing the information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the cost to her Department of the free video tapes outlining the advantages of opting for grant-maintained status which are provided to parents with children in schools balloting on opt-out proposals. [22898]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The video "Our Children, Our Choice" provides factual information to those interested in grant-maintained status. It cost some £48,000 to produce and some £30,000 for the 20,000 copies made to date, giving a total cost of £78,000—£3.90 per tape.

  Technology Colleges
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list by local education authority the schools which have become technology colleges, together with details of the sponsorship agreed in each case. [23656]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is set out in the table, with local education authorities listed alphabetically. Each technology college is supported by
  593
  sponsorship totalling some £100,000. For most schools, this comprises support from several organisations or individuals. The table then indicates the largest sponsor by value pledged, or largest sponsors where two or more have each pledged the same value, as indicated in the school's application.

  Local education authority

  Technology college

  Main sponsor

  Barking and Dagenham

  All Saints Catholic School

  Research Machines

  Barnet

  Mill Hill County High School

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  Berkshire

  Denefield School

  DHL Worldwide Express

  Herschel Grammar School

  Slough Estates pic

  Prospect School

  Granada

  Reading School

  Sponsors requested anonymity

  Bexley

  Bexley-Erith Technical High School

  BETHS Parents Association

  Birmingham

  Small Heath GM School

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  Bolton

  St. James's C of E School

  GTi Educational Systems

  Bradford

  Hanson School

  ICL

  Brent

  John Kelly Boys' Community School

  The Bestway Group

  John Kelly Girls' Community School

  The Bestway Group

  Bromley

  Kemnal Technology College

  Philip and Pauline College Harris Charitable Trust

  Ravens Wood School for Boys

  ICL

  Buckinghamshire

  The Chalfonts Community College

  GTi Educational Systems

  Calderdale

  Rastrick High School

  Stanley Kalms Foundation

  Cambridgeshire

  Deacon's School

  Perkins Group

  Sawtry Community College

  Crossfield Electronics

  Soham Villagen College

  ICL and G's Marketing Ltd.

  Cheshire

  Fallibroome High School

  Database Ltd.

  Cumbria

  North Cumbria Technology College

  Carnaud Metal Box and Cavaghan and Gray

  Derbyshire

  Belper School

  Thorntons pic

  The Merrill Community School

  Denford

  Dorset

  Budmouth School

  Budmouth Limited

  Durham

  St. John's RC Comprehensive School

  Black and Decker Ltd.

  Enfield

  The Latymer School

  ICL

  Essex

  Chalvedon School

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  The Philip Morant

  Garfield Weston School Foundation

  Saffron Walden County High School

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  Gateshead

  St. Thomas More School

  Komatsu UK

  Gloucestershire

  Central Technology College

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  Cirencester Deer Park School

  ICL

  Hampshire

  Applemore Technology School

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  594

  Local education authority

  Technology college

  Main sponsor

  Kent

  Chatham Grammar School for Girls

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  The Cornwallis School

  ICL

  Hugh Christie School

  ICL

  Senacre Technology School

  Research Machines

  Lancashire

  All Hallows RC High School

  British Aerospace

  Archbishop Temple School

  British Aerospace

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  Stanley Kalms Foundation

  Baines School

  Baines Foundation

  Lancaster Girls' Grammar School

  British Aerospace

  Royal Grammar School Lancaster

  Trustees of the Endowment, Royal Grammar School

  St. Aidan's VA School

  British Aerospace and Canatxx Energy Ventures

  Leicestershire

  Uppingham Community College

  L. J. Technical Systems

  Lincolnshire

  The King's School

  Database Ltd.

  Lincoln School of Science and Technology

  Lincolnshire Business Education Trust

  St. George's GM Technology School

  Mr. R. Brealey

  Manchester

  Trinity CE High School

  Communications Business Solutions

  Newham

  St. Angela's Ursuline Convent School

  Acatos and Hutcheson plc

  St. Bonaventure's VA School

  Franciscan Community

  Norfolk

  Lynn Grove High School

  ICL

  Northamptonshire

  Bishop Stopford School

  Sponsors requested anonymity

  Lodge Park School

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  Northampton School for Boys

  Northampton Old Grammar School Foundation

  Nottinghamshire

  George Spencer School

  Northampton Old Grammar School Foundation

  Suffolk

  St. Alban's VA School

  Sponsors requested anonymity

  Surrey

  All Hallows RC High School

  All Hallows Farnham Charitable Trust

  Collingwood College

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  The Glyn School

  ADT Group

  Trafford

  New Wellington School

  Garfield Weston Foundation, Hopewiser Ltd. and Playlight Hire Ltd.

  Sale Moor School

  The Alliance Family Foundation

  Wigan

  Deanery CE High School

  Latham Jenkins Ltd.

  Wiltshire

  Wyvern College

  GTi Educational Systems

  Wolverhampton

  Aldersley High School

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  Moseley Park GM School

  Research Machines

  St. Peter's Collegiate School

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will estimate the number of hours which staff in her Department spend on issues relating to teacher training in(a) whole-time equivalents and (b) cost terms. [23637]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of full-time equivalents working on issues relating to teacher training including teacher supply in the Department is 14.8. Each member of staff works a contractual 41-hour week. The cost of employing these staff during the financial year 1995-96 is estimated at £656,279.

  Indonesian Students
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many Indonesian nationals studied in the United Kingdom in each year since 1980. [23234]

  Mr. Boswell
  The available information is shown in the following table.

  Numbers of full-time students from Indonesia studying in further and higher education in the United Kingdom

  Academic year

  Numbers

  1979–80

  600

  1980–81

  1—

  1981–82

  300

  1982–83

  200

  1983–84

  300

  1984–85

  300

  1985–86

  400

  1986–87

  600

  1987–88

  600

  1988–89

  600

  1989–90

  600

  1990–91

  500

  1991–92

  500

  1992–93

  500

  1993–942

  700

  1 Data are not available for 1980–81.

  2 Provisional estimate. Rounded to nearest hundred.

  Rounded to nearest hundred.

  Sources:

  Universities Statistical Record.

  Further Education Statistical Record.

  Welsh Office.

  Scottish Office Education Department.

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland.

  Administrative Staff
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will make a statement about the success of(a) North Yorkshire county council education department and (b) other county councils in England over the last five years in reducing the levels of managerial and administrative staff as a result of improved technology and the advent of local management of schools; [23174]

  (2) what was the estimated percentage reduction in administrative staff in the education departments of county councils in England resulting from the introduction of local management of schools; and what was the actual percentage achieved; [23176]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect of high-technology computer systems in the last five years on the establishment of managerial and administrative staff within the education departments of county councils; [23175]
  596
  (4) what reductions have been made in the last five years in the managerial and administrative staff of the education departments of county councils as a result of local management of schools; [23177]

  (5) what changes of staff numbers in each of the education departments of county councils in England have occurred since the introduction of local management of schools. [22788]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 28 March 1995,Official Report, column 570.

  Historical Documents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what special training is given to persons who have responsibility for assessing the historical significance of documents held by her Department. [23289]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Training in assessing the historical significance of departmental records is carried out under the guidance of the Keeper of Public Records. It is provided in a number of different ways, including courses on the appraisal of records and through conferences and seminars arranged by the Public Record Office.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many, and what proportion of, vacancies advertised by her Department, and by each of her Department's agencies, in the last three years have listed the attainment of NVQs as an acceptable entry requirement; and, of those, how many have required (i) level 1 NVQs, (ii) level 2 NVQs, (iii) level 3 NVQs and (iv) other level NVQs. [22984]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department and its agency have held 19 recruitment competitions in the last three years of which three have listed the attainment of NVQs as an acceptable entry qualification. Of those, all have required NVQ level 1.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she was consulted by the Further Education Funding Council on its decision to have the right not to disclose its deliberations; and what plans she has to review the council's provisions on the disclosure of information. [22680]

  Mr. Boswell
  Since its establishment, the Further Education Funding Council has published a bulletin after each council meeting, each committee with delegated authority and each regional committee meeting. The council has proposed to make the minutes and agendas of those meetings available in future. My right hon. Friend has no plans to review these procedures.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions she has had with the Further Education Funding Council on the setting up of an independent panel to oversee the council; and if she will make a statement. [22684]

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend is aware that the Further Education Funding Council is consulting on the possibility of establishing an independent panel to
  597
  consider allegations of maladministration. This is a matter for the council.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the decision of the Further Education Funding Council not to disclose general advice given to her Department with particular reference to its implications for open govnerment. [22678]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Further Education Funding Council's policy is to make publicly available the substance of advice to my right hon. Friend except where my right hon. Friend has asked that advice should remain confidential.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the policy of the Further Education Funding Council not to publish individual items of expenditure below £20,000 in its annual report; and which other educational bodies observe this limit. [22686]

  Mr. Boswell
  Neither the FEFC, nor any of the non-departmental public bodies which the Department sponsors, is required by statute to publish details of individual items of expenditure. The FEFC's decision to publish details of contracts with values of over £20,000 demonstrates the council's openness and willingness to make information available to the public.

  Each of the other educational non-departmental public bodies decides its own policy in this area. Practice varies, but none has adopted the FEFC's approach.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what criteria apply in terms of registrable financial interests in respect of the work of the Further Education Funding Council. [22587]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Further Education Funding Council is consulting on a code of individual conduct of council members, including a register of financial interests. The council intends to make the register publicly available. This is a matter for the council.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to introduce legislation for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to act as the ombudsman for the Further Education Funding Council. [22685]

  Mr. Boswell
  None.

  Publications
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the production and distribution costs of her Department's recent leaflet "National School Tests in 1995—a Parent's Guide"; and what is the circulation of the leaflet other than for schools. [22704]

  Mr. Forth
  The cost of producing 9 million copies of the leaflet "National School Tests in 1995—a Parent's Guide" is £140,000. In addition to schools, distribution routes included post offices and inserts in television listings magazines. Copies were also sent to a database of parents who have asked to receive our material, and will shortly be distributed through a number of retail outlets. In all, over 6 million copies will be in circulation, in addition to the 2.3 million copies requested by schools. The total distribution cost is estimated at some £273,000.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the total cost of(a) establishing and (b) administering the GM publications centre. [22791]
  598
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The GM publications centre was established in January 1994. The costs to date are as follows:

  Establishment £

  Administration £

  1993–94

  6,000

  28,000

  1994–95

  —

  124,000

  The administration costs include handling the freephone requests and publications dispatch costs but do not include call charges.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the cost for 1994–95 for the publication and distribution of(a) "How to Become a Grant Maintained School", 1995 edition, (b) "Going Grant Maintained: A Brief Guide", (c) "Questions Parents Ask", (d) "Questions Staff Ask", (e) "Questions Governors Ask", (f) "Funding Worksheet 1995–96", (g) "Nursery Factsheet", (h) "Experiences of Primary Schools", (i) "Experiences of Secondary Schools", (j) "Experiences of Former Voluntary Schools", (k) "Our Children, Our Choice" and (1) "Going Grant Maintained with other schools: Grant Maintained clusters; and how many responses has she had to each of these publications (i) in total and (ii) from Nottinghamshire schools. [22782]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is as follows:

  Approximate publication cost 1994–95 £

  Responses September 1994—March 1995

  (a)"How to Become a GM School, 1995 edition

  24,000

  —

  (b)"Going Grant-Maintained: A Brief Guide"

  6,000

  —

  (c)"Questions Parents Ask"

  0

  568

  (d) "Questions Staff Ask"

  7,600

  483

  (e) "Questions Governors Ask"

  16,200

  477

  (0 "Funding Worksheet 1995–96"

  11,500

  —

  (g) "Nursery Factsheet"

  0

  234

  (h) "Experiences of Primary Schools"

  55,000

  496

  (i) "Experiences of Secondary Schools"

  55,000

  357

  (j) "Experiences of Former Voluntary Schools"

  55,000

  248

  (k) "Our Children, Our Choice"

  46,000

  328

  (1) "Going Grant-Maintained with Other Schools: GM Clusters"

  12,500

  285

  Notes: 1. The above costs do not necessarily represent the full production and printing costs for these publications, but only those which were incurred during the 1994–95 financial year.

  2. The total distribution cost for publications by the DFE GM publications centre in 1994–95 was some £124,000.

  3. The Department does not keep records of how many people it is contacted by as a result of seeing these publications. The table shows how many orders for one or more copies of each publication were placed with the GM publications centre between September 1994 and March 1995 inclusive. Data on such inquiries were not collated before that time and are therefore not readily available.

  4. It is not possible to specify how many orders were destined for Nottinghamshire schools.

  5. Although costs were incurred in 1994–95 on the production of items (a), (b) and (f), these were not available for distribution to schools until the current financial year.
  599
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total cost of the publication and distribution of the letters and information concerning the annual consideration of grant-maintained status; and what was the specific cost of the packaging in which the information was sent. [22789]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Final figures are not yet available, but the estimated total cost of producing and distributing these letters concerning the annual consideration of grant-maintained status, including the enclosed publications, is some £50,000. The cost of packaging was £3,000—some 12p per item. The letter and enclosures were sent to all chairmen of governors and chief education officers in England. Copies of the letter without the publications were sent to head teachers.

  Further and Higher Education, Cumbria
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of west Cumbrian secondary school pupils gain(a) qualifications in further education and (b) qualifications in higher education; and what are the national averages. [22736]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not available.

  Funding Appeals
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to replace the present complaints procedure for an appeals process for funding. [22681]

  Mr. Boswell
  It is for the Further Education Funding Council to make arrangements for handling complaints about its decisions.

  Research
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the share of her departmental budget set aside for research purposes. [22688]

  Mr. Boswell
  For 1994–95 over 6 per cent. of the Department's total expenditure was allocated for research and development. This included the Higher Education Funding Council's allocation to higher education institutions for research.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the supervisory educational bodies funded by her Department which do not disclose their deliberations. [22682]

  Mr. Boswell
  None of the Department's executive non-departmental public bodies currently publishes minutes of meetings.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the available information by which hon. Members are able to examine the financial viability of colleges in their constituencies. [22679]

  Mr. Boswell
  Under the financial memorandum between colleges and the Further Education Funding Council, colleges are required to keep proper accounts and accounting records, and to prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year. Colleges are required 600
  to make reasonable arrangements to make copies of the accounts publicly available.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education to what extent colleges are penalised in their funding via the Further Education Funding Council if the institution fails to meet her growth targets. [22683]

  Mr. Boswell
  Details of the allocation of funding to colleges are matters for the Further Education Funding Council. I am therefore asking the council's chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Teachers' Pay
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many individual letters objecting to the Government's decision not to fund fully the pay rise for teachers from(a) hon. Members and (b) others her Department has received. [22603]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has received around 1,500 letters from hon. Members and 15,000 from others on funding issues. Most of these refer either directly or indirectly to the funding of the teachers' pay award.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment the Government have made of the effect of class size in state secondary schools on the education of children in those classes; what representations she has received on the subject from private schools; and what are the current average class sizes in the fifth form for(a) grant-maintained schools, (b) public schools, and (c) other independent schools and (d) other state schools. [22437]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The accumulated research evidence has not demonstrated any simple or conclusive link between marginal changes in class size and pupil performance. What matters most is the quality of the teaching. I am unaware of any representation to my right hon. Friend from independent schools on the issue of class size.

  The schools census provides limited information on class size by age. In January 1994 the average size of one-teacher classes for pupils mainly aged 14 and 15 was 21.2 for both maintained and grant-maintained secondary schools. Information on class size in independent schools is not collected by the Department.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many males aged between 50 and 65 years are not in full-time employment, as defined by working over 16 hours per week. [22395]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest estimates from the labour force survey for autumn 1994 show that 1.8 million males agreed between 50 and 65 were not in full-time employment. Of these, 0.1 million worked 16 hours or less per week, 0.3 million were ILO unemployed and 1.4 million were economically inactive, a category which includes long-term sick and disabled and retirees.
  601
  Over three quarters of the economically inactive males—about 1.1 million people—included in this figure stated, in reply to the LFS, that they did not want a job.

  Earnings
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average weekly wage in each year since 1965. [22987]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information on the average weekly earnings of all full-time employees on adult rates of pay has been available only since 1983. The most convenient source is table 17 of recent reports of the new earnings survey. The 1994 report contains the information for 1984 to 1994 and the 1993 report that for 1983 to 1993. Table 16 contains information for males and females separately.

  Between 1971 and 1983, the available information is for full-time men aged 21 and over and full-time women aged 18 and over. The information for 1974 to 1983 is in table 30 of the 1984 new earnings survey report and that for 1971 to 1973 is in table 15 of the 1980 report.

  The available information for the years between 1955 and 1968 is in tables 54 and 55 of "British Labour Statistics Historical Abstract 1986–1968".

  Copies of the publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what has been the average weekly wage for(a) part-time male employees and (b) part-time female employees in each socio-economic group in each year since 1865; [22989]

  (2) what has been the average weekly wage for (a) full-time male employees and (b) full-time female employees in each socio-economic group in each year since 1965. [23001]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  No information on average earnings in each socio-economic group is available before an earnings question was introduced into the labour force survey at the end of 1992. For the years since 1971, information on average weekly earnings in each major occupation group can be found in the reports of the new earnings survey, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Employment Medical Advisory Service
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received(a) in favour of and (b) against the proposals for the employment medical advisory service; and if he will make a statement. [22803]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to change the employment medical advisory service; and if he will make a statement. [22800]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In 1994 the Health and Safety Executive began a prior options study to consider whether any of the functions currently carried out by the employment medical advisory service could be undertaken by other means. the report of the study has not yet been completed.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many doctors were employed by the employment medical advisory service in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [22801]
  602
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The number of doctors employed in the employment medical advisory service of the Health and Safety Executive at 1 April in each of the last five years was as follows:

  1991:47

  1992:52

  1993:55

  1994:47

  1995:35

  The 1995 figures are not completely comparable with those of earlier years due to the effect of changes in the management structure of the service. Numbers are planned to rise to 39.5 by 1 April 1996.

  Historical Documents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what special training is given to persons who have responsibility for assessing the historical significance of documents held by his Department. [23288]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training in assessing the historical significance of departmental records is carried out under the guidance of the keeper of public records. It is provided in a number of different ways, including courses on the appraisal of records and through conferences and seminars arranged by the Public Record Office.

  Licensed Premises
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in licensed premises in(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) 1994. [23273]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is provided in the following table:

  Employees in licensed premises in Great Britain at December of each year

  Thousands

  1980

  1985

  1990

  1994

  Restaurants, snack bars, cafes etc1

  185

  221

  306

  307

  Public houses and bars

  236

  259

  338

  329

  Nightclubs and licensed clubs

  136

  141

  148

  136

  Hotel trade and tourist accommodation1 2

  204

  221

  274

  298

  Total1

  761

  841

  1,066

  1,070

  Source:

  Workforce in Employment survey.

  Notes:

  1 Includes some unlicensed premises.

  2 In 1994 includes other tourist or short stay accommodation.

  3 Due to rounding totals may not equal sum of component industries.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what use his Department makes of hand-held and car-based mobile telephones; what were the costs for each financial year of these services since mobile telephones were first introduced to his Department; and how many mobile telephones are currently in use. [23440]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Within the Department, mobile telephone are used by staff whose duties involve travel away from the office or where personal safety may be compromised by the need to work

  603
  in isolated areas. The costs for each financial year for these services and the number of mobile telephones in use could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department has taken to prevent the cloning of telephones being utilised by his Department; and if his Department has discussed this matter with any official agencies. [23498]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: The Department has not identified any effective efforts it could make as a service consumer to prevent cloning of mobile telephones. The Department will be raising this matter with CCTA—the Government Centre for Information Systems—to establish what practical steps can be taken.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what costs his Department has incurred during the last 12 months as a result of cloning of mobile telephones being utilised by his Department, with particular reference to the making of unauthorised calls. [23480]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: There is no evidence to suggest that any charges have been incurred as a result of cloning.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many mobile telephones being utilised by his Department have been cloned during the last 12 months. [23504]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: There is no evidence to suggest that any of the Department's mobile telephones have been cloned.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations his Department has made to the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the need for legislation to prevent the cloning of mobile telephones. [23477]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: The Employment Department has made no representations to the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the need for legislation to prevent the cloning of mobile phones.

  Stapro Insecticide
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) for what reasons staff were not evacuated during the spraying of Stapro insecticide at Grays benefit office on 5 October 1991; [22598]

  (2) which firm was commissioned to spray Stapro insecticide at Grays benefit office on 5 October 1991; [22599]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 28 April, Official Report, column 717, what are the conditions of approval to which he refers and where they are to be found; and what are the requirements of the consent of use to which he refers and where they are to be found; [22662]

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 28 April, Official Report, column 717, if the manner and method of the spraying of the Stapro insecticide at Grays benefit office on 5 October 1991 complied with regulation 4(5) of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986. [22663]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 10 May 1995]: Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given and to keep me informed on progress on this issue.
  604
  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Andrew Mackinley, dated 11 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions relating to the spraying of an insecticide at Grays Unemployment Benefit Office on 8 October 1991.
  My letter to you of 2 May advised that the contractor employed to undertake the spraying was CDR Services of Tiptree, Essex. We were assured that the chemical used could be sprayed whilst the office was occupied and, in accordance with this, the office was not evacuated. The contractor also assured us that he had complied with the manufacturers instructions, which encompass the conditions for use.
  I am not in a position, at this time, to provide you with further information on the conditions for use as we have now been informed by the contractor that the chemical sprayed was not Stapro Insecticide. A letter has been sent to the contractor's solicitors seeking details of the chemical used, which will enable me to provide the information you seek.
  I will write to you again as soon as I have received the solicitor's reply.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 145, what was the chemical sprayed at the Grays benefit office on 5 October 1991. [22912]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given and to keep me informed of progress on this issue.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 11 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about to the spraying of an insecticide at Grays Unemployment Benefit Office on 8 October 1991.
  My letter to you of 2 May advised that the contractor employed to undertake the spraying (CDR Services of Tiptree, Essex) has now informed us orally that the chemical used was not Stapro Insecticide. A letter has been sent to the contractor's solicitors seeking details of the chemical used.
  Given these circumstances, I am unable, for the time being, to provide you with the information you seek. However, I will write to you again as soon as I have received the solicitor's reply.

  Sikhs (Headwear Exemptions)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to seek to arrange for an exemption(a) throughout the United Kingdom and (b) throughout the European Union of the personal protective equipment at work regulations to enable resident Sikhs to wear holy turbans; and if he will make a statement. [23097]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 10 May 1995]: The European directive on the use of personal protective equipment at work does not permit such an exemption. During the negotiations on this directive, the UK pressed for a derogation which would have allowed an exemption to be granted, but was unsuccessful.

  Disability Employment Advisers
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training and information disability employment advisers and special needs careers advisers receive to enable them to advise people with epilepsy accurately about employment and training. [22843]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The training provided by the Employment Service for disability employment advisers
  605
  covers a wide range of disabilities, including epilepsy. From July this year, the training will be enhanced. Training will continue to include information about specific disabilities such as epilepsy, and DEAs will be actively encouraged to develop expertise in dealing with specific disability groups.

  The additional skills, knowledge and attitudes required of careers officers dealing with young people with special needs are included in the post graduate diploma in careers guidance. Careers officers must hold this or an equivalent qualification.

TREASURY

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's policy regarding the exchange rate with the deutschmark. [22237]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government do not have a policy of targeting the exchange rate against the deutschmark or any other currency. The exchange rate is one of the factors that are considered in determining the appropriate stance of monetary policy.

  Structural Adjustment Programmes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has made to the International Monetary Fund to alleviate the effects of structural adjustment programmes on poor and indebted countries. [22239]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government support the International Monetary Fund's policy on structural adjustment programmes. Adhering to a structural adjustment programme will often require difficult decisions by the country concerned. But we believe it is important that requests for lending by international financial institutions be accompanied by sensible conditions. This is in the interests of the countries concerned. Sound economic policies are needed if countries are to achieve sustainable economic growth. The alternative to structural adjustment is slower growth and worse poverty.

  Domestic Economy
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the state of the domestic economy. [22240]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Britain is enjoying sustained economic growth with low inflation, which will lead to higher living standards for all.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what submissions he plans to make to the IGC 96 on economic and monetary union. [22242]

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what submissions he proposes to make to the IGC 96 on economic and monetary union. [22251]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government do not intend to provide any submission to the 1996 606
  intergovernmental conference on any of the articles or associated protocols relating to economic and monetary union, which are contained in the treaty on European Union, as agreed at Maastricht.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which countries currently fulfil the Maastricht conditions for economic and monetary union. [19074]

  Mr. Nelson
  The question of which countries meet the Maastricht criteria will be decided by the Council on recommendations from the Commission.

  Value added Tax (Tourism)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in examining proposals for the harmonisation of value added tax on tourist services throughout the European Union. [22243]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are no proposals for the harmonisation of VAT on tourist services throughout the European Union.

  Mortgage Interest Relief at Source
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on MIRAS. [22244]

  Sir George Young
  Mortgage interest relief helps some 10 million borrowers to buy their own homes at an estimated cost to the Exchequer of £2.8 billion in 1995–96.

  Teachers' Pay
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of funding the current teachers' pay award; and what increase in the standard rate of income tax is required to raise this sum. [22245]

  Mr. Aitken
  The cost in England and Wales of the pay award recommended by the school teachers' pay review body is about £294 million. The estimated full year effect, at 1995–96 income levels, of a 1p change in the basic rate of income tax is £1.9 billion.

  Tax Changes
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about recent tax changes. [22246]

  Sir George Young
  I have received a wide range of representations from hon. Members, organisations and individuals about recent tax changes.

  Economic Performance
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the performance of the United Kingdom economy in the last two quarters of the 1994–95 12-month period. [22247]

  Mr. Aitken
  Growth is slowing to a more sustainable rate. Public borrowing and unemployment are falling, and inflation remains low. Living standards continue to rise.

  Living Standards
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on recent changes in living standards. [22249]
  607
  Sir George Young
  Real personal disposable income is expected to rise by 1½ per cent. this year. This should mean that households will on average be about £5 per week better off after tax and inflation.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the loss of revenue to Her Majesty's Treasury of the abolition of capital gains tax. [22250]

  Sir George Young
  Receipts from tax on the capital gains of individuals, including trustees, and companies are forecast to be £1,650 million in 1995–96, projected to rise to some £3 billion by the turn of the century. This revenue would be lost if tax on capital gains was abolished. A very significant amount of income tax would also be lost due to behavioural effects as returns were taken as gains rather than as income.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the revenue yield in a full year of restricting the annual exempt amount for capital gains tax to relief at(a) 25p and (b) 20p in the pound; and what would be the yield from abolition of the annual exempt amount for CGT, for both individuals and trusts. [23350]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Under current rules, net chargeable gains below the capital gains tax annual exempt amount are totally exempt from tax. The effects of restricting this relief at the 25 per cent. and 20 per cent. rates are given in the table, based on forecast 1995–96 liabilities. The estimates assume the restriction would only affect individuals with gains above the annual exempt amount and do not allow for any consequential change in their behaviour.

  Capital gains tax yield (£ million)

  Restricting the relief to:

  (a) 25 per cent. rate

  40

  (b) 20 per cent. rate

  65

  It is estimated that the cost of the annual exempt amount in 1995–96 amounts to £300 million. However, consequential behavioural effects could alter the yield from abolition.

  All figures exclude tax on gains made by companies, which is included under corporation tax.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish estimates for the revenue cost/yield in a full year of altering the top rate of capital gains tax from 40 per cent. to(a) 30 per cent., (b) 35 per cent., (c) 45 per cent., (d) 50 per cent. and (e) 55 per cent., and levying the new rate on those with incomes over (i) £27,825, (ii) £30,000, (iii) £40,000, (iv) £50,000, (v) £60,000, (vi) £70,000, (vii) £80,000, (viii) £90,000, (ix) £100,000, (x) £110,000, (xi) £120,000, (xii) £130,000, (xiii) £140,000 and, (xiv) £150,000, and assuming that where the new top rate is lower than 40 per cent., the 40 per cent. band is abolished, and where it is higher, the 40 per cent. band remains in place. [23353]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Estimates for all the requested combinations of top rates
  608
  and income limits could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Estimated revenue effects for the various top rates and four limits are given below. It has been assumed that capital gains are taxed as if they were the top slice of an individual's income and therefore the limits apply to the total of taxable income and gains. The estimates are based on forecast 1995–96 liabilities and take account of the likely effect of the changes on the volume of disposals in a full year.

  Estimated revenue effects (£ million)

  Top rate of capital gains tax (per cent.)

  30

  35

  45

  50

  55

  Taxable income and gains over:

  £27,825

  -120

  -55

  +45

  +75

  +100

  £50,000

  -130

  -70

  +40

  +70

  +90

  £100,000

  -140

  -90

  +30

  +60

  +80

  £150,000

  -150

  -110

  +25

  +50

  +70

  These figures exclude gains made by companies which are included under corporation tax.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of individuals with capital gains(a) below and (b) in excess of the capital gains tax threshold who pay income tax at 40p in the pound. [23355]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: It is estimated that 32,500 of the forecast 90,000 capital gains taxpayers with liabilities in 1995–96 will pay income tax at 40p in the pound. However, I regret that reliable estimates are not possible for the number of individuals with net gains below the annual exempt amount.

  All figures exclude companies making gains which are charged under corporation tax.

  Inflation
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the latest annual rate of inflation. [22253]

  Mr. Aitken
  The Chancellor receives a variety of representations which reinforce his determination to achieve the Government's objective of permanently low inflation.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average rate of inflation(a) over the past five years and (b) between 1974 and 1979; and if he will make a statement. [22392]

  Mr. Nelson
  The average rate of underlying inflation—retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments—over the past five years was 5 per cent.; between 1974 and 1979 it averaged 14 per cent.

  The Government are committed to permanently low inflation. The benefits of low inflation are coming through in healthy growth, based on good export performance, and falling unemployment.

  European Bank Notes
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had about whose head shall appear on common European currency bank notes.[22254]
  609
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Under article 109f(3) of the treaty of European Union the European Monetary Institute is responsible for supervising the technical preparation of ecu banknotes. The EMI has set up a group of national central bank experts to undertake a detailed study. The Chancellor has made it clear to other member states that if the United Kingdom were to participate in a single currency it would attach great importance to the retention of national features on the notes and coins.

  Under the UK protocol to the treaty, any decision to seek to join a single currency would be a matter for the UK Government and Parliament.

  Executive Remuneration
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new proposals he has with regard to executive remuneration in the privatised utilities. [22241]

  Sir George Young
  Remuneration is a matter for the companies and their shareholders. The Greenbury committee is reviewing best practice for companies and we will consider the need for any Government measures, if appropriate, in the light of their conclusions.

  Summit for Social Development
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken to ensure that the United Kingdom Government complies with the agreement reached at the world summit for social development to institute regular national reviews of economic policies and budgets in respect of the eradication of poverty and the reduction of inequality. [22238]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The best way to tackle poverty and inequality is by giving people opportunities, promoting wealth creation and helping people back into work. As a result of our policies the average income of all economic groups and family types has risen since we came to office.

  Paymaster General (Targets)
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the key targets for 1995–96 for the office of HM Paymaster General. [24047]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Paymaster Agency's key targets for 1995–96 are as follows:

  Pensions
  meet targets agreed with customers for responding to correspondence and processing associated amendments
  meet quality targets agreed with customers for processing amendments

  Banking
  meet agreed transaction timetables for handling banking transactions
  meet agreed quality targets for processing banking service transactions
  610
  APEX
  meet the agreed timetable for sending financial information to the Treasury 95 per cent. of the time and never exceed the timetable by more than one day

  Recovering the full cost of running the agency
  obtain sufficient revenue to cover the full costs of running the agency

  Reducing unit costs
  achieve at least a 10 per cent. reduction in real terms in the average unit cost of paying a pension compared to the previous year
  achieve a 5 per cent. improvement in the average unit cost index for banking transactions compared to the previous year.

  Uniforms
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from organisations faced with a retrospective demand from the Inland Revenue for taxes to be paid by employees who have to wear a uniform at their place of work as part of their contract of employment. [23314]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: I am not aware of any such representations, other than my hon. Friend's representations, on behalf of employees who have received clothing from their employer.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last discussed, and when he next plans to discuss, tobacco taxation with (i) European Union Finance Ministers and (ii) Group of Seven member country Finance Ministers; and if he will make a statement. [22970]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Chancellor has not personally discussed tobacco taxation with European Union Finance Ministers. The previous Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont), last did so during the discussions leading up to the completion of the single market on 1 January 1993. The subject will be discussed again at the next appropriate meeting of Finance Ministers following publication of the Commission proposals arising from their review of minimum rates of excise duties. We would not normally expect to discuss tobacco taxation in a G7 context.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy in the taxation of tobacco products. [22958]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Government policy is to set duty rates which are consistent with revenue needs and health of the nation objectives but which also take account of industry and retail business concerns.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, for each year since 1965, the yield, in current and in real terms, from tobacco tax; and what is the estimated yield for the current year. [22956]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Total tax £ million

  Tax in real terms (at 1994–95 prices) £ million

  1965–66

  1,014

  9,841

  1966–67

  1,025

  9,589

  1967–68

  1,043

  9,537

  611

  Total tax £ million

  Tax in real terms (at 1994–95 prices) £ million

  1968–69

  1,104

  9,568

  1969–70

  1,142

  9,413

  1970–71

  1,142

  8,775

  1971–72

  1,125

  7,912

  1972–73

  1,185

  7,782

  1973–74

  1,266

  7,528

  1974–75

  1,526

  7,697

  1975–76

  1,889

  7,646

  1976–77

  2,112

  7,416

  1977–78

  2,334

  7,189

  1978–79

  2,739

  7,789

  1979–80

  3,096

  7,603

  1980–81

  3,467

  7,320

  1981–82

  4,166

  7,889

  1982–83

  4,224

  7,470

  1983–84

  4,628

  7,820

  1984–85

  5,019

  8,073

  1985–86

  5,383

  8,174

  1986–87

  5,747

  8,457

  1987–88

  5,772

  8,168

  1988–89

  6,035

  8,057

  1989–90

  6,105

  7,560

  1990–91

  6,783

  7,658

  1991–92

  7,769

  8,374

  1992–93

  7,588

  7,928

  1993–94

  8,133

  8,355

  1994–95

  8,980

  8,977

  The forecast for tobacco duty receipts in 1995–96 is £7.2 billion.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current proportion of the purchase price paid in taxation for an average(a) packet of 20 cigarettes, (b) 250 g of hand-rolling tobacco, (c) packet of five cigars, and (d) 250 g of pipe tobacco in each country in (i) the European Union and (ii) the Group of Seven. [22967]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information for the European Union member states is given in the table. The information requested is not readily available for the Group of Seven countries in the form required.

  (a) Cigarettes

  (b) HRT

  (c) Cigars

  (d) Pipe

  Austria

  73.67

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Belgium

  74.77

  54.57

  27.01

  54.57

  Denmark

  84.56

  56.42

  30.37

  92.26

  Finland

  75.57

  66.04

  n/a

  n/a

  France

  74.16

  72.69

  45.58

  63.48

  Germany

  71.72

  54.40

  18.04

  38.71

  Greece

  72.52

  72.75

  n/a

  72.76

  Ireland

  83.41

  73.31

  55.08

  73.37

  Italy

  72.96

  70.26

  n/a

  69.97

  Luxembourg

  63.82

  42.21

  n/a

  42.21

  Netherlands

  71.89

  61.98

  19.89

  65.94

  Portugal

  81.70

  43.79

  n/a

  43.78

  Spain

  75.57

  44.54

  24.53

  34.56

  Sweden

  69.18

  61.74

  n/a

  n/a

  UK

  77.59

  72.65

  50.42

  55.11

  n/a = information not readily available.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, for each Sp between 5p and £1, his estimate of the revenue raised by an increase in excise duty on an average(a) packet of cigarettes, (b) 250 g of hand-rolling
  612
  tobacco, (c) packet of five cigars and (d) 250 g of pipe tobacco, if such increases were to be fully reflected in price. [22959]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information is as follows:

  Revenue £ million

  Pence

  Cigarettes 20 king size

  Cigars five small cigars

  Hand rolling 250g

  Pipe 250g

  5

  235

  8

  1

  0

  10

  470

  16

  1

  1

  15

  705

  23

  2

  1

  20

  940

  31

  2

  1

  25

  1175

  39

  3

  2

  30

  1410

  47

  3

  2

  35

  1645

  55

  4

  2

  40

  1880

  62

  4

  2

  45

  2115

  70

  5

  3

  50

  2351

  78

  6

  3

  55

  2586

  86

  6

  3

  60

  2831

  94

  7

  4

  65

  3056

  101

  7

  4

  70

  3291

  109

  8

  4

  75

  3526

  117

  8

  5

  80

  3761

  125

  9

  5

  85

  3996

  133

  9

  5

  90

  4231

  140

  10

  5

  95

  4466

  148

  10

  6

  100

  4701

  156

  11

  6

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount in sterling equivalent and/or percentage rate of levied on an average packet of 20 cigarettes in(a) specific excise duty, (b) at valorem excise duty and (c) VAT or other sales tax in each country in (i) the European Union and (ii) the Group of seven including the United Kingdom. [22965]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information is as follows:

  Specific duty £ per 20

  Ad valorem (per cent.)

  VAT rate (per cent.)

  Austria

  0.30

  41.00

  20.00

  Belgium

  0.16

  50.00

  20.50

  Denmark

  1.39

  21.22

  25.00

  Finland

  0.22

  50.00

  22.00

  France

  0.08

  54.95

  18.60

  Germany

  0.75

  24.80

  15.00

  Greece

  0.05

  53.86

  18.00

  Ireland

  1.16

  16.82

  21.00

  Italy

  0.04

  53.35

  19.00

  Luxembourg

  0.05

  54.50

  12.00

  Holland

  0.65

  21.05

  17.50

  Portugal

  0.12

  56.00

  16.00

  Spain

  0.04

  50.00

  15.00

  Sweden

  1.28

  0.00

  25.00

  UK

  1.15

  20.00

  17.50

  US

  high

  0.48

  —

  —

  low

  0.17

  —

  —

  Canada

  high

  1.85

  —

  —

  low

  0.60

  —

  —

  Japan

  0.93

  —

  3.00

  For the United States and Canada, tax rates vary considerably between states. For these countries, the specific duty column shows the total tax burden.
  613
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the loss to the Treasury in uncollectable revenue from(a) tobacco, (b) beer, (c) wine and (d) spirits in (i) duty and (ii) VAT from overseas mail order arrangements for selling through a personal agent: and if he will make a statement. [22963]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The duty receipts for the financial year 1994–95 are as follows:
  614

  £ billion

  Tobacco

  7.4

  Beer

  2.5

  Wine

  1.1

  Spirits

  1.8

  The quantities that might be purchased through a personal agent are unknown. Any figure would therefore he wholly speculative.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Aldermaston: Security Arrangements
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are keeping under review security arrangements at Aldermaston and other nuclear establishments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, security arrangements at Aldermaston and other atomic weapons establishment sites are reviewed continuously, as are those at civil nuclear installations.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply and I am glad that the antics of the intruders on 17th April were suitably rebuffed. Does my noble friend agree that those attempts to interfere with normal operations and the subsequent incorrect and misleading statements by Greenpeace were designed to obtain publicity? They were also a disservice to responsible organisations committed to protecting the natural environment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree totally with my noble friend. The activities of Greenpeace on that occasion were silly and infantile and achieved nothing. Greenpeace attempted to disrupt the activities at Aldermaston on the date mentioned by my noble friend. Those involved did not gain access to the site, my noble friend will be pleased to learn, and damage was slight, being confined to the pouring of cement into a drain. It was removed without undue difficulty. I offer praise to the Ministry of Defence police who conducted themselves with their usual skill and professionalism.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, without wishing to question the Minister on a specific point, is he saying that all is well in Aldermaston, always has been, and always will be?
Lord Henley: My Lords, yes, yes and yes.

Northern Iraq: Withdrawal of Turkish Army
3.3 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have been informed that the Turkish army has withdrawn completely from northern Iraq.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the Turkish Government announced on 4th May that all Turkish troops have withdrawn from northern Iraq.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Can she say whether the Government received independent verification that the withdrawal was complete? Also, have they received any guarantees from the Turkish Government that the invasion will not be repeated?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are not aware of any independent verification. We trust that the Turkish Government mean what they say. We shall be extremely concerned if there is any clear evidence that the withdrawal is not complete and will respond appropriately. In relation to guarantees that there will not be a recurrence, I understand that the Turkish Government are holding talks with the Kurdish groups in northern Iraq. Their aim is to make arrangements to prevent the PKK from operating from within northern Iraq. We support that approach of dialogue. We have also made it clear to the Turks that we shall be highly critical of any further incursions.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the President of Turkey claimed that the Turkish Government wish to withdraw the boundary between Turkey and northern Iraq in order to block the passage of PKK terrorists? Can the Minister make clear the Government's position on that extraordinary claim? Is it not vital that Iraq's territorial integrity should be respected and that that should be conveyed to the Turkish Government with urgency?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I too heard that remark. I am told that it was not authorised by the Government of Mrs. Ciller. Our position remains as it always has been: however much we dislike what is going on in Iraq, we must respect its territorial integrity.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the noble Baroness believe the Turkish Government's reasons for going into northern Iraq—to confront or chase up and destroy PKK guerillas? Was there not much more likely to be another agenda? I refer to their making a show of force to the Kurds in northern Iraq, possibly in league with Saddam Hussein, to show who is boss.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have no reason to believe that the Turks went into northern Iraq other than to stop the PKK operating from there into Turkey. We believe that that was their agenda and that there is not another agenda. But I learnt a long time ago never to rule out such things. From time to time one finds that something exists which has not been reported. As far as I am aware at this moment, there is no other agenda. We shall continue to press the Turks to find a political solution to the conflict in the south-east of Turkey and also to make rapid progress on democratic reform.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, have the Government received any news about the means adopted by the Turkish army to prevent the PKK operating in Turkey? Were any means used other than killing the terrorists; and how many in fact were killed?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord in such detail without notice. We know that the visit of the OSCE mission to Turkey went well. The delegation saw all those that it requested to see

167
and it may provide further information of the sort requested by the noble Lord, in which case I shall pass it on to him.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, how does the noble Baroness suggest that Turkey should arrive at a political solution in the south-east? The Turks have eradicated the only party in that region which represents the aspirations of the Kurdish people. In relation to the negotiations undertaken by Ankara with the KDP, can the Minister confirm that the PUK were not also involved in those negotiations? I understand that they were demanding that the KDP be responsible for policing the border, and that Mr. Barzani, in return, asked for salaries to be paid to the peshmergas in charge of the operation. Does the noble Baroness think it is a good idea for one state to pay the armed forces of another state to guard a border for which it has responsibility? Is it not better that the Turks should look after their own security on the border rather than asking people across the frontier to do it for them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord's penultimate question, the answer is no. If the Turks need to police their border, they should do it themselves. I shall inquire into the answers to the noble Lord's other detailed questions, but I do not follow his line of questioning at all.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the Government confirm reports that the offensive by the Turkish army in northern Iraq followed agreement for that action with the regime in Iraq? Can the Government also confirm that major troop activities by any NATO member need to be reported to the NATO centre, especially when that was done in regard to the Turkish army's offensive in northern Iraq?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no evidence with regard to the noble Lord's first question. With regard to his second question, NATO members are not required to report, but since NATO members share on a regular basis in Brussels what is going on in their own countries, we knew at the time it was going on.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how the Turkish army are supposed to know whether the Kurds they are killing in northern Iraq are members of the PKK and not members of the PUK or the KDP?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I just hope that their intelligence is better than mine.

Local Authorities: Councillors' Allowances
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the reason for issuing to local authorities on 29th March 1995 new subsistence allowances for elected members backdated to 1st April 1994.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, following the recommendations made to us in the report of the Joint Working Party on the Internal Management of Local Authorities, published in 1993, we undertook a review of councillors' allowances, including their travel and subsistence allowances. Following that review we agreed that members' travel and subsistence rates should be aligned with those of local authority officers. Because those allowances had not been uprated during the course of the review we thought it only fair to give councils the discretion to decide whether or not payment of the allowances at the uprated level should be backdated to 1st April 1994.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, does he not think that this is really a backward step as I understand that the changes are being made for simplicity. In the past the system was very simple: four to eight hours, eight to 12 hours, or 12 to 16 hours. But the allowances now are a breakfast allowance—four hours before 11 a.m.; lunch allowance—a phrase that is worrying councillors—including the time between 12 noon and 2 p.m.; tea allowance, including the period of 3 p.m. to 6 p.m.; and evening allowance—this is more vague—after 7 p.m. Was it not more simple when the allowance was calculated on the basis of the number of hours you were on duty? Will all councillors now be watching the clock to see whether their meeting finishes at 1.55 p.m.? Will there then be a difference depending on whether you buy your sandwich on the premises and you are still there until 2 p.m. or you buy your sandwich as you go home and therefore do not qualify for the lunch allowance?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe my noble friend is confusing two things. She is confusing a remuneration allowance, which is for the hours spent away in the course of business, and that for subsistence. Subsistence is for meals missed at home. If one does not miss a meal, one does not claim subsistence.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, can the Minister indicate how many local authorities have declined to use their powers to backdate these allowances?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no, I cannot. It is for each individual council to resolve. We believe that where they decide to backdate the allowances it is reasonable to assume that they will do so based on the evidence provided by councillors when they submitted their earlier claims.
Lord Howell: My Lords, can the Minister say whether in the review the inadequate allowances of many local government people serving the democratic process were compared with what is received by those appointed by the Government to serve on quangos whose salaries and allowances are far greater than those received by people who are elected by their fellow citizens to govern the city or council area in which they live?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it was because the officers were being more generously rewarded that the working party decided that the members should be equally generously rewarded. For instance, the new motor mileage rates for members represents an average increase

169
of some 48 per cent. The subsistence a member can claim for a full day away from home on council business, including all the meals which my noble friend Lady Gardner indicated she would have to miss, has increased by 84 per cent.
Baroness Faithful!: My Lords, why was it recommended that the travel and subsistence allowances paid to councillors should be aligned with those paid to officers? The role of councillors is quite different from the role of officers and many councillors have other jobs. Why, therefore, should their allowances be aligned?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Secretary of State set up a working party on the internal management of local authorities in England. That was established some time in June 1992. The working party recommended that the travel and subsistence allowances of officers and councillors should be aligned. Ministers agreed that there should be uprating and alignment with officers' allowances. Having taken the advice of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, it was decided that it would be right to uprate allowances.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, what is the maximum allowance a member of a local authority can claim for attendance for 24 hours? What is the maximum subsistence allowance, including overnight allowance, a member can now claim for 24 hours? What does the increase in the mileage allowance being paid bring the total mileage allowance up to? If the Minister cannot give those figures today, will he be good enough to place them in the Library, as we shall then know what we are talking about?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the department has issued this information: reference DoE LGR 61/1/14. The day subsistence for breakfast is £3.98; for lunch, £5.48; for tea, £2.16; and for the evening meal, £6.79. Overnight subsistence is £69.80 and in London £79.60. I believe I have answered the noble Lord's questions.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to say that the Government had taken advice from Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. Did the said Uncle advise the Minister that if such backdated allowances were to be paid they would be paid to those councillors who, regrettably, for one reason or another, had lost their seats in last week's election?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, because it is backdated that would have to be by a resolution of the existing council.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the circular says that there will be another review this summer and that the outcome of that review will be backdated to this year. Can my noble friend assure me that if the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of London Authorities or any of the Tom Cobbleighs to which he referred make representations to say that they find this system very cumbersome and unworkable, the Government are prepared to look at the matter again?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we are going to review it. We have just received notification of the new officers' rates for this year. Those will be taken into account in the review. The working party to which I referred—I hope that the House will not think that I have belittled its work—made that strong recommendation. The review will not be carried out by the working party. However, if representations are made, I am sure they will be considered.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister explain why a councillor needs more than a Peer for overnight allowance in London?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords.

Eating Disorders: Guidance
3.18 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they intend to take in the light of the increasing number of cases of eating disorders, particularly among young women.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, we have issued clear guidance to general practitioners and health authorities on the needs of this group of people. Last month we issued a handbook on child and adolescent mental health which draws attention to the prevalence of these disorders. In addition, we are funding the Eating Disorders Association and Young Minds, both of which are active in this area, and we are supporting the Medical Research Council in its research.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for what to many parents will be an encouraging reply. They are increasingly worried about, in particular, their daughters, who tend to follow the fad for being thin and imitate their role models. Can she say whether in her view there is enough guidance to parents and teachers in order for them to distinguish between what may be irritating, though relatively harmless, dieting and what may develop into a serious disorder?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the advice I have is that we should imitate my noble friends the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip. To be serious, I confirm that it is a serious problem. In terms of numbers it is a very small problem, but to the families concerned it causes extreme anxiety. That is something we shall be considering in terms of the advice to GPs which we are giving out.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister believe that the fashion magazines may be promoting very thin and sexy images which some of the young girls copy and which then lead to eating disorders?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, there is a great deal of pressure on young girls today. Models like Kate Moss set an ideal that many of them try to follow.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not only a question of following the fashion that makes young people suffer from anorexia and eating disorders? Is it not true that there is considerable evidence that it is caused by stress, particularly in families where marriages break down?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is no single cause for this particular disorder. In fact, it is believed that genetics may have something to do with it. There are certainly social factors and individual psychological difficulties. It is possible also that there are causes within the family which encourage that kind of behaviour.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Government consider placing some relevant advertising to counter the number of slimming clubs which advertise on television and especially to point out to the young that there is no point in trying to achieve a certain shape if one actually knows what one will look like when an adult?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we encourage a healthy diet and the Government put out a lot of information on that. But we are always very anxious not to be a nannying state.

Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [H.L.]
3.21 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [After-care under supervision]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 10, line 1, leave out ("section 25H") and insert ("sections 25H and 251").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2. These amendments introduce a new Section 251 into Clause 1 of the Bill. This changes the provisions for patients subject to supervised aftercare who are sentenced to imprisonment or committed or remanded to custody. The effect is that for those on remand or serving sentences of six months or less, aftercare under supervision would remain in force although the conditions would be suspended until the person was released. If supervision was due to expire while the person was in custody, or within 28 days of the person's release, it would be extended and deemed to expire 28 days from the date of release. The power would have to be renewed within 28 days of release subject to the prior consultation procedures which are already in the Bill.
The amendment does not apply to those sentenced to longer periods in custody essentially because if someone has been out of touch with the specialist services for a long period, the presumption that he or she is still suffering from the conditions which led to aftercare under supervision being arranged becomes hard to sustain. However, if the sentence was more than six months but less than a year and supervision had not expired while the person was in custody, it would still he reactivated when he or she left prison.
We think that the number of cases in which supervision arrangements expire during a period in prison is likely to be very small. Indeed, it is very likely that the patient would have been transferred from prison to hospital under the existing Mental Health Act power enabling a fresh supervision application when he or she was eventually discharged. Nevertheless, we think it important to minimise the possibility of even a few patients slipping through the net of care in this way. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 13, leave out lines 6 to 15 and insert:
Special provisions as to patients sentenced to imprisonment etc
("251.—(1) This section applies where a patient who is subject to after-care under supervision is detained in custody in pursuance of any sentence or order passed or made by a court in the United Kingdom (including an order committing or remanding him in custody).
(2) At any time when the patient is so detained he is not required—

(a) to receive any after-care services provided for him under section 117 below; or

(b) to comply with any requirements imposed on him under section 25D above.

(3) If the patient is so detained for a period of, or successive periods amounting in the aggregate to, six months or less and, apart from this subsection, he—

(a) would have ceased to be subject to after-care under supervision during the period for which he is so detained; or

(b) would cease to be so subject during the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which he ceases to be so detained,

he shall be deemed not to have ceased, and shall not cease, to be so subject until the end of that period of 28 days.
(4) Where the period for which the patient is subject to after-care under supervision is extended by subsection (3) above, any examination and report to be made and furnished in respect of the patient under section 25G(3) above may be made and furnished within the period as so extended.
(5) Where, by virtue of subsection (4) above, the patient is made subject to after-care under supervision for a further period after the day on which (apart from subsection (3) above) he would have ceased to be so subject, the further period shall be deemed to have commenced with that day.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 13, line 15, at end insert:
Patients moving from Scotland to England and Wales
25J.—(1) A supervision application may be made in respect of a patient who is subject to a community care order under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and who intends to leave Scotland in order to reside in England and Wales.
(2) Sections 25A to 25I above, section 117 below and any other provision of this Act relating to supervision applications or patients subject to after-care under supervision shall apply in relation to a patient in respect of whom a supervision application is or is to be made by virtue of this section subject to such modifications as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the question of patients who move from England to Scotland, or vice versa, has been raised on a number of occasions during our debates on the Bill. I said on Report that we would be introducing amendments to deal with this, and the present amendment is one of them. It covers the movement of patients from Scotland to England and is complemented by the amendment my noble friend Lord Lindsay will be moving shortly covering movement in the opposite direction.
The amendment introduces a new provision into Clause 1 under which an application for aftercare under supervision may be made in respect of a patient subject to a community care order. The modifications which need to be made to the procedure to cover the fact that the patient is moving, not from being detained in hospital, but from being subject to a Scottish community care order, will be prescribed in the regulations. In practice we see this working as follows. If the care team in Scotland believes it is in the patient's best interest to move to England or Wales, it will make contact with a Section 12 approved doctor south of the Border. This is likely to be the same person who will eventually be the patient's community RMO after the transfer has taken place. This doctor will then make the application to the health authority, which will have to be supported by two recommendations, one from an approved social worker and the other from a registered medical practitioner who has knowledge of the patient's history.
The significant difference from the general arrangement in Clause 1 of the Bill is that the application is made not by a doctor who has been looking after the patient in hospital, but by one who is likely to be his or her responsible medical officer in the community. So far as the supporting medical recommendation is concerned, it would obviously make sense for this to be given by the special medical officer who is the Scottish equivalent of the community RMO and that is what we expect to happen in the ordinary way. There would have to be full consultation on both sides of the Border and the transfer would take place when all concerned were ready for it to go ahead. The patient would become subject to aftercare under supervision upon taking up residence in England or Wales. He or she would have an immediate right to a mental health review tribunal.
It would only be practicable to apply these provisions to patients who agree to the transfer. The new powers rely on the sanction of the patient's possible return to hospital rather than any more direct form of compulsion, so it is not feasible to legislate for patients who abscond.
Although the number of patients who are likely to be affected by such transfers is probably very small, we feel that we need this new provision to ensure that a patient does not lose the support and supervision he or she may need simply as a result of moving to the other side of the Border. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Absence without leave]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 16, line 21, at end insert:
("(2A) In section 22 of that Act (special provisions as to patients sentenced to imprisonment etc.)—

(a) in subsection (2) (detained patient in whose case application for admission for treatment or guardianship application does not cease to have effect), for the words "and 21" there shall be substituted ". 21 and 21A"; and

(b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3) In its application by virtue of subsection (2) above section 18(4) above shall have effect with the substitution of the words "end of the period of 28 days beginning with the first day of his absence without leave." for the words from "later of" onwards."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment serves to correct an oversight in the current provisions relating to detained patients who are sentenced to imprisonment. It was brought to our attention as a result of our consideration of the earlier government amendments on this issue.
At present, Section 22 of the Mental Health Act 1983 states that when a patient who has been subject to imprisonment is released, he should be treated as though he were absent without leave under Section 18 of the 1983 Act. This is a legal device to provide a period of 28 days in which such patients could be returned to detention in hospital. However, as your Lordships know, Clause 2 of this Bill extends the period of time in which an absconding patient can be returned to hospital from 28 days to at least six months. An unintentional consequence of this is to extend the period of time within which a released prisoner could be returned to detention under the 1983 Act. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is undesirable, both in its own right, and because it would be inconsistent with the provisions laid out in the earlier amendments relating to prisoners subject to supervision applications. The effect of the amendment, therefore, is to retain for the purposes of Section 22 the period of 28 days within which a person who has been released from prison may be returned to hospital. This is followed by a period of seven days during which the responsible medical officer must examine the patient and determine whether his liability to detention should be renewed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
Clause 4 [Community care orders]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 18, line 12, after ("appropriate") insert ("to ensure that the patient receives such medical treatment and after-care services").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 9. The purpose of Amendment No. 5 is to ensure that any order that the sheriff gives under these provisions should not impose conditions in the community care order which are not relevant to the main aims of the order. We believe that if this wording is not inserted, the sheriff's powers could be too wide and that would defeat the purpose of treatment of the patient. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, explained, these amendments seek to clarify the position when a sheriff amends or adds to the conditions proposed in an application, or if the sheriff varies the conditions following the refusal of an appeal against the order. The amendment seeks to specify that the conditions must be:
"to ensure that the patient receives such medical treatment and after-care services".
The general objective of making a community care order is so that a patient can receive the medical treatment and aftercare services that he needs to support him in the community. We believe that it is unnecessary to add qualifications to the sheriff's power to impose conditions or vary conditions following the refusal of an appeal

175
against an order. Any condition of an order or variation thereof would have to continue to relate to the need for conditions; that is, that they be with a view to ensuring that the patient receives medical treatment and aftercare services.
The sheriff will decide whether a condition which he is imposing or varying relates to those aims. We believe that the example that I gave in Committee was a valid one. However, we accept that it is likely that conditions of this nature would more usually be the exception than the rule. More usual conditions might include attendance at various places for the purposes of education or training, and a required place of residence. In addition, we believe that the discretion of the sheriff to vary the conditions, which must be exercised reasonably, must be preserved to allow him to take account of relevant points put forward on appeal.
After that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister has been very flexible, particularly in the Scottish part of the Bill. I read carefully his reply to the amendment moved earlier which corresponded to this one. I was not totally convinced, but I hope that there will be a chance perhaps in the other place to deal with this matter. I am grateful to him for the time that he has taken over it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No, 6:
Page 19, line 15, at end insert ("and the consequences of non-compliance;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the patient is fully briefed on his situation as soon as he has been made the subject of a community care order.
The patient is not required to be present when the community care application is being heard by the sheriff and the order granted. The amendment places an explicit duty on the aftercare officer—the social worker—to ensure that the patient fully understands his new situation: not only the purpose, effect and conditions of the order, his right of appeal to the sheriff on renewal of the order and his opportunity to make representations to the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, but also the consequences upon the patient for non-compliance with the conditions of the order.
Non-compliance comes broadly in two forms. First, the failure to take medicine or other treatment will probably lead to renewed mental illness and admission to hospital for reassessment under Section 35G. Secondly, failure to co-operate with the conditions of the order must also have consequences—for this is a compulsory measure of care. Here I have in mind, for example, a refusal to meet with the care team or moving address without prior agreement or not attending workshop or leisure programmes or day centres.
That may seem to be a rather negative approach to the fundamentally beneficial mental health measure of the community care order. But I am keen to point out that, although the community care order gives the patient
176
priority access to services, it is still a compulsory measure of care imposed on a citizen by the state. I suspect that the compulsory nature of the order may often lie more heavily on a patient's mind than the benefit of priority access to services.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will see the merit of this amendment and be able to accept it. It clarifies the aftercare officer's immediate task and ensures that the patient's immediate future is fully understood. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, seeks further clarification about what might happen if a person subject to a community care order did not go along with the conditions specified in the order.
Let me say at the outset that, although the patient may not be present at the hearing when the community care order is decided, the explanation of the community care order will be given to him both orally and in writing. The effect of any failure to comply with conditions depends on the nature of that failure. We do not see how it can be predicted and explained to the patient in advance. It will depend on which of the conditions he fails to comply with.
We discussed this matter in some detail at Report stage. I noted that the noble Earl then drew comparisons between community care orders and probation orders. We do not believe that that is appropriate, given that probation orders are a penal disposal included in the criminal justice system, whereas community care orders are a care and treatment option included within the mental health system. We do not believe that it would serve any useful purpose to bring before the sheriff a person subject to a community care order who did not keep to the conditions of his order. We feel that, although that may be appropriate in the case of probationers where the sheriff is enforcing an order made by the court following a criminal act, it is totally out of keeping with the role of the sheriff in the community care order process.
The community care order proposals provide a framework within which care and treatment can be provided. If a patient fails to meet the conditions in his order, that will clearly be of concern to the care team. But it must be addressed administratively. The care team will have to decide whether the conditions remain appropriate or whether a reassessment in hospital might be necessary because of a deterioration in the patient's mental health. If the patient met the criteria for reassessment, he could be returned to hospital for that purpose, as the noble Earl pointed out.
With that explanation to the background of the amendment, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for explaining the Government's thinking on this matter. I am certainly quite pleased with the liberal approach that has been taken within the context of a compulsory measure of care. We discussed this matter at Report and continue to do so. I shall accede to his request to withdraw the amendment in the hope that he will continue to have discussions on this subject with his

177
ministerial colleagues and possibly come back with something along these lines in another place. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 21, line 45, leave out from beginning to ("have") in line 46 and insert ("Subject to section 35J of this Act and the following provisions of this section, a community care order shall").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 12.
As my noble friend the Minister explained a few minutes ago when she spoke about the provisions for England and Wales, and as I mentioned at Report stage, we have reconsidered the position of those who are subject to community supervision and are subsequently imprisoned. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for bringing this matter to our attention in Committee (as recorded as col. 356 of the Official Report of 6th April).
We have concluded that what we had previously provided should remain; that is, that if a person who is subject to a community care order is imprisoned and the community care order expires while he is in prison, the conditions are suspended while he is in prison. If the community care order is still in force when he is released, the conditions re-enter into force.
However, as I understand it, the noble Earl raised the question of a patient whose community care order expired while he was in prison and the steps which might be taken to revitalise the order when he was released. We take the view that in order to maintain a feasible causal link with the making of the community care order, such a revitalisation should only be possible in cases where the period served in prison was six months or less.
If a person is imprisoned for such a period, or successive periods which amount in the aggregate to six months or less, and his community care order expires while he is in prison or within 28 days of his release from prison, then it will be artificially extended and deemed to expire 28 days after his release from prison. We believe that that will allow adequate time for a renewal of the community care order under new Section 35C if that is considered necessary and allow time for the necessary consultation and a proper assessment of the patient in a community rather than a prison setting.
I hope that those provisions meet fully the concerns expressed in Committee by the noble Earl. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendments. The few vulnerable prisoners who are subject also to community care orders will benefit from the fact that there will be a 28-day guaranteed resettlement period. Social workers and probation officers working in prisons in England and Wales will find it helpful to know that there is a community care team outside the prison waiting to receive the ex-prisoner who will once again be their patient.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 25, line 28, at end insert:
("( ) An appeal under subsection (1) above shall be by way of summary application and shall be made to the sheriff of the sheriffdom within which the patient is resident.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I mentioned on Report, as recorded at col. 1304 of the Official Report, that we were considering this matter.
This is a technical amendment. It ensures that appeals to the sheriff against a community care order are in line with other appeals under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984—that is, that they are by summary application to the sheriff of the sheriffdom within which the patient is resident. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 27, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) This section is without prejudice to the emergency admission provisions of section 24 of this Act and in the event that a patient under a community care order is admitted to hospital under section 24 of this Act, his community care order will cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put down the amendment in order to ask the Minister whether he had finished his consultation. He was helpful during earlier stages of the Bill and said that he would take away this section and look at it. The amendment is designed merely to give him the opportunity to report to the House and to say what his thoughts now are. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we agreed to consider whether an amendment was required to make clear the effect of an emergency admission on a community care order. Our consideration is continuing. But there is no doubt that emergency detention under Section 24 would be available in respect of a patient detained under a community care order. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, as before, the Minister has been helpful, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 27, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) A patient who is detained in hospital under this section shall have the right to appeal to the sheriff for his discharge from detention.
(2) Unless the sheriff is satisfied that—

(i) the patient is suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to be detained in a hospital for assessment, or for assessment followed by medical treatment for at least a limited period; and

(ii) he ought to be so admitted and detained in the interests of his own health or safety or with a view to the protection of others persons,

he shall order that the patient be discharged from hospital and he may revoke the community care order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment gives a patient detained in hospital the right to appeal against that detention. If the amendment were carried, the sheriff

179
would have to stop the detention if he was not satisfied that the case for it had been made out, and he may also revoke the community care order.
While a patient on a community care order generally has the right to appeal against it, he does not have that right during the first six months of the making of the order. So new Section 35F(1) allows for appeal only after the first renewal of the order—Section 35F being the appeal provisions in relation to detention in hospital.
Deprivation of a patient's liberty without the right of appeal to a judicial forum may be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. We raised that issue before, and I hope the Minister has been able to check and double check. He said that he thought they were safe enough with regard to the terms of the Convention on Human Rights. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment or give us an assurance that there is no conflict. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister replies, I should like to point out from a practical point of view that when mentally disturbed people are first taken into hospital they are often unhappy and distressed because they are in a different environment. After about a month or eight weeks—they would need that time even to be able to appeal—they have usually settled down. While I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, in moving the amendment, when someone is taken into hospital they need to be held there for some time, partly to allow the medical people to carry out research to their satisfaction. Although I sympathise with the idea of an appeal, I do not believe that an appeal should be permitted at too early a stage.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the amendment seeks to introduce a right of appeal to the sheriff by the patient against reassessment in hospital.
The detention in hospital under new Section 35G is for the purposes of reassessment, or reassessment followed by medical treatment. The procedure prior to admission under new Section 35G requires much consultation. The reports are also copied widely, including to the Mental Welfare Commission. We do not, therefore, think that a right of appeal is necessary at this point.
The proposed reassessment period is for a maximum of seven days and is drawn from an existing provision in Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983. At the end of the seven days the patient will have returned to the community on his community care order (with its existing rights of appeal); or the community care order will have been revoked (when no appeal is necessary); or an application will have been made to a sheriff for the patient's detention in hospital. That may answer the point made by my noble friend Lord Balfour. If seven days is too short to make a proper reassessment, there is always the option to apply for a Section 18 order for that patient.
We are convinced, having looked carefully at this matter—it having been pointed to by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, at an earlier stage of the Bill—that the existing provisions are sufficient. We are
180
also advised—I stress this—that this provision does not fall foul of the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble that he has gone to. I am grateful also to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, for his intervention. I accept the point that a patient may need a certain amount of time to become acclimatised to a hospital regime and to find his way around. But I was worried that the six months may be too long. The Minister's reassurances and the possibility of a review in any case, without one being demanded, are such that I feel satisfied and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 29, leave out lines 17 to 24 and insert:
("Special provisions as to patients sentenced to imprisonment etc.: community care orders.
35J.—(1) This section applies where a patient who is subject to a community care order is detained in custody in pursuance of any sentence or order passed or made by a court in the United Kingdom (including an order committing or remanding him in custody).
(2) For so long as the patient is so detained the period for which, under section 35C of this Act, the community care order has effect shall continue to run but the conditions to which he is subject under that order shall not apply in relation to him.
(3) If the patient is so detained for a period of, or successive periods amounting in the aggregate to, 6 months or less and, apart from this subsection, the community care order—

(a) would have ceased to have effect during the period for which he is so detained; or

(b) would cease to have effect during the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which he ceases to be so detained,

the order shall be deemed not to have ceased, and shall not cease, to have effect until the end of that period of 28 days.
(4) Where the period for which the patient is subject to a community care order is extended by subsection (3) above, any examination and report to be made and furnished in respect of the patient under section 35C(3) and (4) of this Act may be made and furnished within the period as so extended.
(5) Where, by virtue of subsection (4) above, a community care order is renewed for a further period after the day on which (apart from subsection (3) above) the order would have ceased to have effect, the further period shall be deemed to have commenced with that day.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to the amendment when I moved Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 29, line 24, at end insert:
("Patients moving from England and Wales to Scotland.
35K.—(1) A community care application may be made in respect of a patient who is subject to after-care under supervision under the Mental Health Act 1983 and who intends to leave England and Wales in order to reside in Scotland.
(2) Sections 35A to 35J of this Act shall apply in relation to a patient in respect of whom a community care application is or is to be made by virtue of this section subject to such modifications as may be prescribed.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister introduced a similar amendment to cover arrangements in the provisions for England and Wales.
The amendment will allow an application for a community care order to be made for people subject to aftercare under supervision in England and Wales who intend to move to Scotland. It is vital that people who require their care to be provided within such a legal framework continue to receive that care when they move from one area to another, if that is considered necessary.
The most straightforward way for that to occur in this case is to allow applications for community care orders to be made available in such cases. However, it will be necessary for the new provisions contained in the Bill to be modified slightly for that to occur. That modification is to be by way of regulations made by the Secretary of State.
It may be helpful if I reassure the House that the regulations will not produce a "fast-track" procedure by which a community care order can be made. The sheriff will continue to be involved, and we envisage that the application will require to be made by a medical practitioner approved for the purposes of Section 20 of the 1984 Act. We also envisage that the care team in England or Wales will wish to discuss the proposed transfer with those likely to be concerned with the patient in Scotland some time prior to the making of the application and that there will be the appropriate full consultation about the application.
We believe that these provisions are adequate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Absence without leave]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 31, line 49, at end insert:
("(3A) In section 32 of that Act (special provisions as to patients sentenced to imprisonment etc.: hospital)—

(a) in subsection (2) (detained person in whose case application for admission does not cease to have effect), for the words "and 31" there shall be substituted ", 31 and 31A"; and

(b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3) In its application by virtue of subsection (2) above section 28(3) of this Act shall have effect with the substitution of the words "end of the period of 28 days beginning with the first day of his absence without leave." for the words from "later of" onwards.".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 15. In a similar vein to Amendment No. 4 to the England and Wales provisions, these technical amendments seek to rectify an unintentional effect of the new provisions for those absent without leave. They amend Sections 32 and 49 of the 1984 Act.
They ensure that where a person is imprisoned for six months or less and his liability to detention in hospital or guardianship expires while he is in prison, then on release he is for a period of 28 days liable to be taken into custody to establish whether a renewal is necessary. It was never our intention for that period to be six months for such a person. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 34, line 24, at end insert:
("(6A) In section 49 of that Act (special provisions as to patients sentenced to imprisonment etc.: guardianship)—
182

(a) in subsection (2) (detained person in whose case guardianship application does not cease to have effect), for the words "and 48" there shall be substituted ", 48 and 48A"; and

(b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3) In its application by virtue of subsection (2) above section 44(2) of this Act shall have effect with the substitution of the words "end of the period of 28 days beginning with the first day of his absence without leave." for the words from "later of" onwards.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [After-care under supervision: supplementary]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 36, line 34, after ("treatment") insert ("as defined in paragraph 15.4 of the Code of Practice").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 and probing amendments. It may seem slightly odd to move probing amendments at this stage of the Bill. However, noble Lords who were in the Chamber at the end of the Report stage will remember that I was badly bitten by a gremlin which leapt out at me and prevented me moving the amendments then, which may have been a more appropriate occasion. I can deal with the matter shortly.
On Report I moved a number of amendments and made the general point that it would be desirable if draftsmen of such legislation could be prevailed upon to use language which has been used in previous legislation, and with which many practitioners in the field are familiar, and not try to invent a new language. If people have been working a system for a number of years and have been used to a particular definition it is important that if a word appears in later legislation they know that the same definition applies. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 defines the community responsible medical officer and refers to a person who:
"is in charge of medical treatment provided for him".
My amendment refers to the code of practice, which defines medical treatment as being provided not only by doctors. It includes, for instance, nursing, care, habilitation and rehabilitation under supervision. That is a broad range of activities aimed at anticipating or preventing a deterioration of the patient's mental disorder. Of course, it includes physical treatment such as ECT or the administration of drugs and it includes psychotherapy.
The same point arises in new Section 2A, which is added to Section 117 of the 1983 Act. It states:
"It shall be the duty of the Health Authority to secure that at all times while a patient is subject to after-care under supervision… a person who is a registered medical practitioner … is in charge of the medical treatment".
That appears to suggest that the use of the term "medical treatment" is confined to the kind of treatment that only doctors can give. However, everyone recognises that when one is dealing with mental patients in circumstances provided for by the Bill medical treatment goes much wider. Therefore, is it not necessary to include as part of the definition of "the community responsible medical officer" the words which appear in my amendment? It refers to paragraph 15.4 of the code of practice, which ensures that the phrase is defined in the widest possible terms.
The point has been raised by people who are concerned with the provisions. For instance, it has been raised by the chief executive of an NHS trust who believed that it was likely to give rise to confusion and uncertainty. I do not say that my words are correct but it may be necessary to add such words in order to clarify the position. I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I support the amendment. Throughout the passage of the Bill we have tried to obtain precise definitions about the qualifications and responsibilities of the various officers involved. As noble Lords will know, we have succeeded in obtaining a definition of the precise professional qualifications of the community responsible medical officer. The amendment would help to define that even more clearly.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I recognise the purpose of my noble friend's amendment but we believe that the objectives are already met. The term "medical treatment", which occurs throughout the Act, is defined in Section 145(1). It includes nursing and also care, habilitation and rehabilitation under medical supervision. The meaning would be the same here. The code of practice does not add to or extend the meaning of "medical treatment" but merely explains it more fully.
We do not believe that quoting the code of practice explanation of the meaning of "medical treatment" will add anything here. We believe that its meaning in the Act is unambiguous. Apart from that, the Mental Health Act provides for the code to be made and it would be circular for the Act to rely on definitions in the code.
I understand that Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are probing amendments and I am pleased that on this occasion my noble friend has slain the gremlin and been able to put them forward. However, although he may not have found my explanation entirely satisfactory I hope that he found it explanatory.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. It will be helpful to have that explanation on the record and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 39, line 17, after ("authority") insert ("in conjunction with the local social services authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there appears to be a departure from the standard terms of the 1983 Act and it has given rise to a query. Are we talking only about health authorities or are we also talking about local authority social services? It is well understood that the type of treatment that a patient will receive in the circumstances envisaged by the Bill is bound to involve at least those two statutory authorities and may well involve voluntary bodies.
Section 117 of the 1983 Act refers to aftercare. Subsection (2) states:
"It shall be the duty of the District Health Authority and of the local social services authority to provide, in co-operation with relevant voluntary agencies, after-care services for any person to whom this section applies".
184
However, the new community supervision order that we are adding refers only to the health authority. Why does it not refer to the local authority social services? Such provisions raise doubts in people's minds. Is it intended to mean something different or is there somewhere tucked away a form of words which says that it means the same thing? It is quite clear that the Bill will not work unless the local authorities are involved, as has been discussed throughout the passage of the Bill. This is a matter of drafting. I hope that my noble friend will be able to set our minds at rest. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 17. It is quite clear and it was agreed by the Minister during the earlier stages of the Bill that this legislation can work only when a complementary approach is adopted by the appropriate social services and health authorities. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as my noble friend said, the amendment would place a shared duty on the health and local social services authorities to ensure that there are always a suitably qualified medical officer and supervisor in place throughout the period of supervision. The Bill as it stands makes this the duty of the health authority alone.
We believe it is important that the duty to see that a patient has a community RMO and a supervisor at all times should be vested in a single agency. We have made it clear that the new power is health led but with a firm requirement for the social services to be fully consulted and involved. It is the health authority which accepts the application but it does not act in isolation. Before accepting the application, the health authority will need to be satisfied that the requirements of the Bill have been fully met. As a double check on that, the health authority is also required to consult the local social services authority. That will ensure that there has been full consultation with the care team in the community and anyone else directly involved with the patient's care. A doctor must have been identified for the purposes of being a community responsible medical officer. One of the professionals in the care team in the community must have agreed to act as supervisor. When the health authority accepts the application it also accepts the responsibility of ensuring that there are always professionals in place to fulfil these roles.
Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 already makes clear that the provision of aftercare is a joint health and local authority responsibility. The imposition of any requirements on the patient in the community is also a joint health and local authority responsibility, as is keeping the aftercare services under review. Those provisions should avoid any risk of a health authority going ahead independently of the local social services authority and we shall also be emphasising the need for full consultation in our guidance on the operation of the new powers. With those assurances, I hope that I have set my noble friend's mind at rest.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, my noble friend has gone a very long way towards achieving that. However, I am not sure that in the eyes of those who have been advising me, she has fully met their concerns. They will need to read what my noble friend said. It may be that this matter will need to be looked at again at a later stage in another place. I am grateful for the support I have received for the amendment from the Benches opposite but it would not be right to press the matter further at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 39, line 32, at end insert:
("Mental Health Act Commission
—In section 121 of the Mental Health Act 1983, in subsection (4) leave out from ("review") to ("Act") and insert—

(a) the exercise of the powers and the discharge of the duties conferred or imposed by this Act so far as relating to patients received into guardianship or after-care under supervision under this Act; and

(b) the care and treatment, or any aspect of the care and treatment in hospitals and mental nursing homes of patients who are not liable to be detained").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to make one final attempt to persuade the Government of the important role the Mental Health Act Commission should play in the working of the new supervised discharge system.
As noble Lords will remember, the Mental Health Act Commission is a special health authority which, since the implementation of the Mental Health Act 1983, has monitored the care and treatment of patients detained in hospitals. Commissioners visit at least once a year all the residential hospitals and nursing homes which care for legally detained patients. The commission also deals with about 500 complaints per year through its statutory complaints procedure.
In Committee the Minister said that the commission admirably fulfils its function. Amendment No. 18 simply seeks to extend that function to include patients living in the community under legally enforceable supervised discharge orders. That is something that could be achieved easily by amending the 1983 Act.
Noble Lords who are familiar with the Act will know that Section 121 deals with the Mental Health Act Commission and Section 121(4) makes provision for the Secretary of State to extend the remit of the commission lo include residential patients who are being treated voluntarily; that is, they are not formally detained.
The subsection as it now stands in the Act reads:
"The Secretary of State may, at the request of or after consultation with the Commission and after consulting such other bodies as appear to him to be concerned, direct the Commission to keep under review the care and treatment, or any aspect of the care and treatment, in hospitals and mental nursing homes of patients who are not liable to be detained under this Act".
Amendment No. 18 would extend the power of the Secretary of State to direct the commission to include patients living in the community who are subject to guardianship or aftercare under supervision.
The House will have noticed that the central existing provision in the 1983 Act from which I quoted refers to a request by the commission to alter the scope of its authority and to consultation with the commission. On Report, in response to a similar amendment, the Minister said:
"We consulted with the commission over our proposals"—
those proposals are the ones in the existing Bill—
"and listened carefully to what it said".
But the Minister went on to reject the amendment.
It is extremely difficult to believe that the Government listened carefully to the commission because very recently, during our consideration of the Bill, the commission published its own position paper on supervised discharge orders which seems to support the extension of its remit which is the subject of the Amendment No. 18.
I make no apology for once more quoting directly from section 3 of the commission's published paper which states:
"The Commission notes that the independence given to it by the Secretary of State is an important realisation of the principle that where individuals' rights are or can be abridged there must be adequate safeguards".
It goes on:
"The powers of control and compulsion included in the Bill… in the Commission's opinion warrant consideration being given to the extension of its remit to patients under supervised after-care so as to enable it to ensure (so far as possible) that the new powers are correctly exercised and applied in strict accordance with the statutory requirements, and that, by a process of observation and monitoring over the years, the use of the powers is of benefit to the patients involved and to the community into which the patients have been discharged".
Those are extremely important principles which, in our opinion, should always be included in legislation dealing with the compulsory care of the mentally ill. However, on Report, the Minister seemed more concerned with the practical problems which the commission might have in extending its responsibilities. The Minister said in the same reply to which I referred earlier that,
"bearing in mind the commission is undergoing a major structural change later this year, we do not propose to divert it from its central task of safeguarding the interests of detained patients".—[Official Report, 1/5/95; col. 1314.]
I understand that the internal changes at the commission will be completed by this autumn and, as the House knows, this Bill will not come into force until April 1996. Surely, if the commission, which is a responsible statutory body, proposes to take on that new function it must be confident of its ability to do so.
We are discussing new and untried powers which will be exercised over the lives of some of the most vulnerable and probably the most difficult members of our society. The legislation seeks to protect them and the communities in which they live. It is a complex area where the problems of practical health and social care are combined with anxieties about civil rights. We must have national monitoring and we must be able to evaluate the effectiveness of those significant changes. We should also have a nationwide system responsible for the well-being of patients.
The Mental Health Act Commission is the one statutory body that we have which can assume those tasks. The commission has proved its very great value in its work

187
with detained patients. It now wishes to extend its authority to include patients on supervised discharge orders. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 18.1 beg to move.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I should like briefly to express my support for the amendment. The noble Baroness explained very clearly its substance. I believe that it is universally agreed that in the operation of the powers of the Bill, especially the power to convey, great sensitivity should be exercised by those concerned. It seems to me that it would do nothing but good for those concerned to know that there was an authority which was able to keep an eye on the way that the powers were being exercised. I support the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, the noble Baroness moved amendments at both the Committee and Report stages of the Bill to extend the Mental Health Act Commission's remit to include patients subject to aftercare under supervision. As I explained then in responding to the earlier amendments, we have reservations about this on two counts. The first is the question of priorities for the allocation of the finite resources at the commission's command. It seems to us that detained patients, having been deprived of their liberty, have a uniquely powerful claim on the commission's protection and that any extension of its remit to other groups certainly ought not to be at their expense. The second reservation has to do with timing. The commission is at present undergoing a major reorganisation of its structure and we think that that needs to be allowed to settle down before any widening of its remit could be considered.
That does not mean that the commission will have no locus at all in reviewing the use of the new power. Given its general responsibility to protect the rights of patients liable to be detained, it will be able to review the procedures for making a supervision application since the patient at that point must be liable to be detained. The commission's involvement will be similar to its monitoring of Section 117 aftercare procedures prior to a patient's discharge. But its remit does not at present extend to the services provided in the community once a patient has left hospital.
I can also assure your Lordships that the department will be keeping the use of the new power under review. It will form part of the NHS Executive's routine monitoring of health authorities and the Social Services Inspectorate will be keeping in touch with local authorities about their involvement in providing aftercare under supervision. The rights which all patients will have to appeal to a mental health review tribunal are also an important guarantee of their civil liberties.
I recognise of course that the amendment adopts a different approach from those which were moved in Committee and on Report in that it would not directly extend the commission's remit to include patients subject to aftercare under supervision but would instead give my right honourable friend the Secretary of State discretion to extend it to them and also to those received into guardianship. It would be very tempting to agree to that proposal on the basis that it would not actually commit us
188
to an extension of the remit but would only give my right honourable friend the option of extending it at some later date when we were satisfied that the circumstances were right. I am afraid, however, that it is a temptation that I must resist. Although there is certainly a case for saying that those patients should fall within the commission's jurisdiction, the question of extending its remit beyond those who are detained in hospital raises an important point of principle. We think that it would be wrong to amend the primary legislation in that way without that point having been fully considered. It is certainly something that will need to be looked at as part of the more fundamental review of the Act which is likely to be needed before too long. By that time, we shall have some practical experience of the operation of aftercare under supervision on which to draw. Meanwhile, I ask the noble Baroness and the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, although I must confess that I am not entirely convinced by her arguments. Nevertheless, I am pleased to hear that the noble Baroness was tempted into accepting my arguments. I hope that the suggested provision will be introduced at another stage in another place and that the temptation then will be even greater and perhaps irresistible. I hear what the Minister says about the need to consider the role of the Mental Health Act Commission in the context of a wider review of the Mental Health Act 1983. As the noble Baroness will know from our previous debates on the Bill, I hope that that review will take place very soon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Community care orders: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
I am most grateful for the careful thought and attention that your Lordships have given to the Bill. A number of excellent amendments have been moved. I am very pleased that we have been able to accept the spirit of some of them. Even those which have been unacceptable to us or those which have been probing amendments have almost invariably be invaluable in stimulating thought and debate. I can say without hesitation, and I hope without much fear of contradiction, that your Lordships have significantly improved what, of course, I believe was already a good Bill.
I have no doubt that the measures that we have passed in the Bill mark a significant advance in the care of some of the most vulnerable patients. As your Lordships know only too well, the background to our debates has been the cases of high risk patients who have become lost to care with tragic consequences. Those cases were very effectively highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. My noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy, Lord Haig and Lord Balfour also spoke very movingly from their personal experiences with relatives who have suffered from severe mental illness.

189
The Bill aims to give the essential underpinning to help avoid tragedies in the future. But in doing so it maintains the key elements of the care programme approach which apply to all patients receiving specialised psychiatric care in the community. The central principle of the Bill is that supervision cannot be separated from the aftercare services which it exists to support. Many of your Lordships, in particular the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, raised the question of resources. As I said during the course of the Bill, the background to that is that the Government have increased very substantially the resources devoted to the care of mentally ill people. Your Lordships can rest assured that there is no question of compulsion being substituted for care.
I should also like to offer a special word of thanks to those of your Lordships who have made suggestions for amending the Bill and, as I said, have helped us significantly in sharpening its provisions and ensuring that the essential interests of patients and their relatives are properly reflected.
In his unfailingly courteous but effective way, my noble friend Lord Mottistone persuaded us by the force of his argument of the importance of consulting the patient's nearest relative. He was joined by my noble friend Lord Haig and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in arguing the case for the community responsible medical officer to be someone approved by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Rea, put forward a persuasive case for requiring information, including that about mental health review tribunal rights, to be given to patients both orally and in writing. I confess that I enjoyed being able to surprise your Lordships just a little by going even further than we had been asked to do.
We also had important contributions to our debates from the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. They brought to our considerations that blend of wisdom and experience which people expect from your Lordships' House. Of course, their contributions have not been the only ones. I hope that your Lordships will excuse me for not mentioning by name all those who have spoken.
Perhaps I may just add that I am very sorry that, because of his illness, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was not able to be with us after the Second Reading of the Bill. I have referred to the high quality of our debates, but I am sure that, with his long-term interest and knowledge in the field, the noble Lord would have enriched them even further. I am sure that all noble Lords will want to join me in wishing the noble Lord a speedy recovery.
In relation to the Scottish provisions of the Bill, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for his intervention on the subject of the immediate re-use of the period of reassessment in hospital. We have now made it clear on the face of the Bill that rolling periods of reassessment in hospital are not to be permitted. We are also very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for bringing to the debates knowledge gained from his experience in the field.
We are particularly grateful for the noble Earl's intervention on the subject of those community care order patients whose order expires when they are in prison. As
190
a result, we have now addressed that group of people not only in Scotland but also in England and Wales. The noble Earl's interventions have also allowed my noble friend to explain quite clearly, and in some detail, the client group in respect of whom applications for community care orders may be made. We are grateful to have had that opportunity.
Finally, it is my very pleasant duty to thank my ministerial colleagues who have helped me take the Bill through your Lordships' House. As your Lordships will have recognised, it has been a textbook example of Anglo-Scottish co-operation. It has been salutary to have been told on occasions how much better the Scottish provisions are. My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser and my noble friend Lord Lindsay have taken the Scottish clauses through with skill and flair. I am also most grateful to the noble friend Lady Miller for sharing the burden of the English clauses and for being such a stalwart ally by my side. I think we have done good work on this Bill and I look forward to seeing it progress smoothly through the other place and on to the statute book.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, this is a difficult Bill about a difficult subject. Community care for the growing numbers of mentally ill people in this country is causing great anxiety to the professional and informal carers who try to look after them; anxiety to ordinary citizens who are disturbed and sometimes threatened by the presence of seriously ill people in their midst and, above all, anxiety to the patients themselves who often feel isolated and bereft of support and treatment.
The problem arises from a failure to develop proper community care services which substitute for the old-fashioned, long stay residential institutions. The Government have introduced this Bill in the hope that additional legal powers over patients living in the community will alleviate anxiety. But we on these Benches have argued from the beginning that the fundamental issue is inadequate services, not inadequate laws. However, as I said at Second Reading, many of those involved in the care of seriously ill patients reluctantly accept that in a limited number of cases the kind of community supervision proposed in this Bill may be useful.
The fundamental questions we have raised about supervised discharge concern achieving an appropriate balance between an effective statute which must limit a patient's liberty, and the patient's own civil rights. We have also questioned the necessity of introducing this new, somewhat draconian order when the less onerous system of guardianship already exists. Guardianship provides almost identical powers to those in the new order, and I am glad that at Report stage the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that the Government were reviewing this power again and may extend it.
The most important protective agency looking after detained patients is the Mental Health Act Commission which also provides a national monitoring and evaluation of residential services. Throughout the discussions on the Bill we have introduced amendments to extend the remit of the Mental Health Act Commission to include the

191
patients covered in this Bill, and/or those on guardianship orders. This is an additional responsibility which, as I have already discussed this afternoon, the Mental Health Act Commission itself has suggested. But the Government have rejected this proposal although we still feel strongly that the commission could provide the necessary safeguard both as regards the effective operation of the new orders and as regards the well-being of the patients concerned. I am sure that my right honourable and honourable friends in another place will return to this issue.
But, on the whole, as the Minister said, we on these Benches, and noble Lords around the House, are satisfied with the changes in the Bill for which we have argued, and which the Government have now accepted. I am pleased, for example, that at Report stage the Government moved amendments to formalise the arrangements for consulting and informing patients about the procedures for supervised discharge and their legal rights. I am also glad that they have extended the involvement of relatives which, as the Minister mentioned, was something of particular concern to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, my noble friend Lord Longford and others were also concerned about the professional qualifications of the community responsible medical officer—a new post—and that, too, has been made explicit on the face of the Bill, as has the professional qualification of the person who will hold the responsible position of the community supervisor. The noble Earl, Lord Haig, moved amendments in Committee—which we on these Benches followed at Report—to clarify the position of patients who move between England, Wales and Scotland. That, too, has been satisfactorily resolved by government Amendments Nos. 3 and 13 this afternoon.
I thank the Minister for responding so positively to these concerns. I also thank her and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for their courteous and usually helpful replies to many other amendments. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, seemed even more amenable to proposals from my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove on the Scottish provisions. No doubt this was due to the superior forensic skills of my noble friend to whom I am most grateful for shouldering responsibility for the second part of the Bill. As the Scottish arrangements are so different from those in England and Wales, it really amounts to two Bills. There were several occasions when noble Lords from south of the Border cast envious eyes at Scotland's community care orders which seem to be more flexible and realistic than our supervised discharge orders. As my noble friend Lord Carter said in Committee, there was a clear case here for devolution in reverse.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, who unfortunately cannot be with us this afternoon, has been, as always, a tower of strength during the passage of the Bill. I thank him and my noble friend Lord Rea for tackling the whole range of complex health, social and legal issues included in this legislation. My noble friend Lord Rea has, of course, longstanding personal experience of working on the front line with mentally ill patients in the community and this has lent his contributions special authority.
192
The longstanding personal experience of my noble friend Lady Farrington in local government was particularly valuable when she pressed the Government to tighten the arrangements for providing community services. I am grateful to her for emphasising in her amendments the importance of jointly planned, properly resourced care programmes if supervised discharge orders are to be of any use. Adequate resources have also been a major concern of the many professional and voluntary organisations working in this field. I must thank them for their comprehensive briefing and careful help on the detail of the Bill. I am particularly glad that representatives of several outside bodies were able to take part in the special meeting we had with Ministers and officials before the Committee stage began. I echo the words of the Minister in regretting the absence of my noble friend Lord Ennals who was so helpful at the beginning of the Bill and whose illness we greatly regret. We wish him a speedy recovery.
We have made considerable progress on the detail of this Bill, but my concern remains that it seeks to solve a serious problem from the wrong direction. I repeat that the primary need in this area is for more services, not for more laws. The fundamental flaw of the Bill is in the introductory financial memorandum which states that the new measures will give rise to no new additional costs. If any new form of community care is not properly funded, it will fail. I am sure that that central issue will be addressed by honourable Members in another place and I look forward to their further consideration of this Bill.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I will not detain the House more than a moment. However, one or two of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, require some answer. The NHS trust which I have the honour to chair is in the process of closing one of the south's major mental hospitals, Claybury Hospital in north-east London, and providing those services elsewhere. I have not the slightest doubt that the provisions of this Bill will be extremely helpful to the professionals who are engaged in finding—if I may use the words which I used as chairman—a place and a plan for every single one of those patients who is to be moved into the community.
The Bill will provide the safeguard and the safety net to make sure that when patients are moved into the community there can be a provision whereby they can be properly supervised, and in particular whereby their medication can be properly supervised. If any single message came out of the cases to which my noble friend referred when she moved the Motion, it is the fact that people are lost sight of and as a result they cease taking the medication which keeps their condition under some kind of control and the result is disaster of the worst kind.
In the case of a major hospital closure such as I am engaged in, the question of adequate finance is, of course, crucial. We are close now, in our case, to being able to match the requirements with the resources that are available to meet them. The suggestion that somehow there is still an enormous amount of community care for mentally ill people which is not adequately resourced seems to me to be alarmist and untrue. Of course people always want more, but where one is engaged in a major operation of this kind, and where one is spending millions

193
of pounds in new capital provision for accommodation in the community and on various forms of community care, it falls odd on one's ears to be told that it is not new laws that we need, we just need more money. If I may say so, the noble Baroness has not fully reflected on what most of us feel is the considerable value of this legislation. It will strengthen the hands of everyone who has the interests of patients at heart. I warmly support the Bill.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am sorry to rise to speak at this stage of the Bill. I very much regret that I was unable to be present at the Committee and Report stages. I thank my noble friend Lord Russell for so staunchly standing in in my absence.
I read with great interest the proceedings of both the Committee and the Report stages. I am very conscious of the great assistance that both Ministers on the Front Bench have given in response to the anxieties expressed by Members of this House.
In her final remarks, the Minister referred to resources. That is one issue which still worries me deeply. How can one say that the Bill will not give rise to additional costs for health authorities while at the same time the Secretary of State states that those responsible for mental health services must ensure that this particular group of patients is afforded priority in terms of resources, staff time and active monitoring in the community? That cannot be done without increased expenditure. If it is done without increased expenditure, the services for other mentally ill patients who also need the services of the community will be diminished.
I know that the Government have injected another £10 million into mental health services. However, that money was injected, and was badly needed, before the Bill comes into effect. I am convinced that the Bill will be costly if it is implemented in the way that it is intended that it should be implemented. I am concerned that some other mental patients may suffer neglect in the community. Otherwise, I am grateful for and welcome the Government's attitude to the amendments that were introduced.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to my noble friend the Minister for her acceptance of several of the amendments that I was, happily, able to put forward, so ably advised by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship.
I am concerned that people are worried as to whether this is the right kind of Bill for the subject in question. I believe it is a very good Bill, which fills a gap that needs to be filled. It provides additional resources in introducing the power to make supervision orders. It is now up to us to make use of the Bill, once it has been agreed by another place. If that turns out to be more expensive than suggested in the introduction to the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, expects, that is unfortunate from the Government's point of view. They have guessed wrong again.
The Bill provides a power that is needed for supervision of people in the community which is at present lacking. In my view, those people who feel that the Bill implies some form of restraint on civil liberties are wrong. As I see it, if and when this Bill is implemented, if the psychiatrists and
194
others who are empowered to apply the legislation make use of it, then we shall find that more people are given the opportunity to live in the community than otherwise would be. Without the possibility of providing for supervision, the authorities might not dare to let patients out into the community.
I believe that the concept of the Bill is most imaginative. Above all, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for being so ready to accept good arguments and to introduce amendments of her own to meet points which were made. That is something which, generally speaking, my noble friends on the Front Bench tend not to do. This is a jolly good Bill, and I hope that another place does not spoil it in any way and will hurry it through as quickly as possible.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I too wish to add my support for the principles behind the Bill and the important issues which it seeks to tackle. I had not intended to speak, but, declaring an interest and drawing on my experience as a member of a social services authority in a county council, I feel that the issue of resources needs to be placed firmly on the record at this stage in the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.
Inexorably, additional demands for care in the community of a new range, quality and quantity are being added to the existing demands on local authorities providing those services. I say in passing—not as a member of a housing authority—that with a reduced range of properties available for tenants it is increasingly difficult to find property for people who may, through no fault of their own, at times not be good neighbours and who may be difficult to place.
Within the community there are demands to meet the needs for the care of the elderly, chronically sick and mentally ill patients needing care in the community. As hospitals are closed and such people no longer become patients in hospitals, the demands grow. At every stage, every new demand is treated as being small or less than the total resources realistically required to meet those needs.
"Priority must be given" is a phrase the Minister will use. However, at the end of the day the community believes that priority must be given to other groups who are mentally ill: priority must be given to the young who need care within the community; priority must be given to the elderly within the community. When all those priorities are top priorities, priority must be given by the Government to the resources necessary to enact legislation which is basically good legislation, as this will be, but which will be better legislation if in another place the resources are appended to make it fully effective in all places at all times.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Baroness and the noble Earl for the way they have presented the Bill and have been prepared to take on board some of the amendments which were moved in Committee and subsequently. I believe that the Bill has been improved as a result and will be more roadworthy for the 150 or so Scottish patients affected when the Bill becomes an Act. I should also like to thank

195
the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for his patient and helpful explanations of the Government's thinking about the practical operation of Part II of the Bill.
Finally, I should like to make a comment arising from the Report stage. There seems to be merit in not grouping amendments, for it is then clear to external readers of Hansard exactly what the Government's thinking is on any one aspect.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I shall not repeat what my noble friends have said. The noble Baroness knows that I agree with it in detail. But I shall say, on the basis that all that the noble Baroness was able to introduce was a Bill, that it is rather a good Bill. I can recognise a good government Bill when I see it. It gives me great pleasure to do so and to congratulate the noble Baroness and her team on producing it.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this final debate and for the, on the whole, warm welcome they have given to the Bill. I am particularly grateful for the words of the noble Earl, whose experience in your Lordships' House is long and distinguished. We believe that the Bill as a whole strikes the right balance. It provides the means of ensuring that mentally ill people who no longer need to be detained in hospital but who still represent a serious potential risk to themselves or other people receive the support they need in the community.
I understand the issues concerning resources, but the level of resources for the care of mentally ill people has increased and is continuing to increase, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, acknowledged. Gross expenditure on hospital and community health services for mentally ill people increased by 40 per cent, in real terms between 1979 and 1990 to £1.7 billion. Gross expenditure on local authority social services for the mentally ill increased by 209 per cent, in real terms between 1978 and 1992. So there has been a huge amount of increase. But I think that the new power will help to set priorities for the use of those increasing resources.
As with any new power, it is important that it is properly understood and used. We shall be issuing full guidance before it comes into effect next year.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Jobseekers Bill
4.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) in respect of Clause 6 of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) in respect of Clause 6 of the Bill.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[THE VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS in the Chair.]
Clause 6 [Availability for, and actively seeking, employment]:
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 11, at beginning insert:
("( ) No regulations made under this section shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House, whether or not those regulations are made before or after the date on which jobseeker's allowances first become payable.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 5. It is essentially the same point, whether one considers the original Clause 6 or the Clause 6 which is about to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It is a simple amendment which I hope that I can move relatively simply. It may have some complicated results, but in essence the point I wish to make is simple.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee of the discussion that we had last week on the Motion to recommit Clause 6. The basis of the argument then was the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I am delighted to see the chairman of that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, in his place. In relation to Clauses 4 and 6 of the Bill, that committee felt that the procedures for dealing with regulations should be the affirmative procedures. It is perhaps important that we trace the argument to understand why the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee came to that conclusion and why I urge the Committee, too, to come to that conclusion.
The provisions for parliamentary control in the Bill are extraordinarily complex; they are almost Byzantine in their complexity. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee analysed a difficult legislative passage in a few words. It stated:
"There are five categories of parliamentary control, as set out [in the Bill]. The first three categories are normal: categories (4) and (5) go somewhat further than is usual in legislation of this kind".
To adopt an Americanism, "You can say that again".
The first three categories, the normal ones, are, first, delegated legislation subject to no parliamentary control, namely commencement orders and that sort of power; secondly, under some sections of the Bill subject to the negative procedure, and some subject to the affirmative procedure. The report continues with the fourth category:
"Subject to affirmative procedure on first exercise and negative thereafter".
There is then an even more unusual category:
"Subject to affirmative procedure if made before the date on which jobseeker's allowances first become payable, but to negative procedure if made thereafter".
As I understand it, that applies to all the other regulations in the Bill. The idea is that the jobseeker's allowance should first become payable in April of next year. Therefore if the regulation is made before April of next year, it is the affirmative procedure; if made after April it is the negative procedure. That seems both illogical, difficult to justify and somewhat burdensome.
Applying those provisions to the current Bill, the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee concluded in relation to Clauses 4 and 6 that the procedure should be the affirmative procedure. Again, I hope that the Committee will allow me merely to give the flavour of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's report on this.
In relation to Clause 4 the further report states:
"It is against the background of the views we have expressed above, and without prejudice to them, that we now review the specific provisions of the bill. Clause 4 allows the calculation of the amount of the jobseeker's allowance to be governed by delegated legislation. The Departments' memorandum states the provision follows current income-related legislation. In spite of the fact that it is precedented the Committee draws this provision to the attention of the House because the amount of the jobseeker's allowance will be fundamental to the operation of the statute".
It then states:
"The House may wish to consider with care whether regulations under this Clause should not always be subject to the affirmative procedure regardless of when they are made".
That is as regards Clause 4. My amendment relates only to Clause 6 because it is only Clause 6 that has been recommitted.
In relation to Clause 6 the committee stated:
"The House has already considered the possibility of restricting in some way the breadth of the powers to be exercised under Clause 6…If the House is satisfied that it is not desirable to amend the bill so as to limit the powers themselves"—
the House has not so decided because it has not amended the Bill as such—
"we consider that the argument becomes stronger for improving Parliamentary control over the way in which those powers are exercised".
That is the crucial point. It is the basis of my submission to the Committee tonight.
The report continues:
"In line with the views that we have expressed at paragraphs 5 and 7, we urge the House to consider most carefully whether, irrespective of whether Clause 6 remains in its current form"—
in other words, the clause as drafted, before the amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is passed—
"the level of parliamentary control provided for the exercise of the powers in that Clause is sufficient to ensure that the accumulation of changes does not result in an unacceptable level of uncertainty for those affected by the regulations. In particular, the House may wish to consider whether the affirmative procedure should not apply to any regulations changing the meaning of the terms 'available for' and 'actively seeking work', whenever those regulations are made"—
in other words, whether they are made before or after the Jobseekers Bill comes into force.
The fact of the matter is that either in the original Clause 6 as drafted or in the amended form to be proposed by the noble Lord there are too many provisions for regulations to be made. I do not wish to bore the Committee too much, but perhaps we may consider the proposed new, clarifying clause which the Government introduced when they recommitted the Bill. The amendment deals with the difficulties caused by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. What are the provisions? The proposed Clause 6 provides that,
"Subsection (1) is subject to such provisions as may be made by regulations".
Subsection (3) states:
"The following are examples of restrictions for which provision may be made by the regulations—(a) restrictions on the nature of the employment…(b) restrictions on the periods for which he is available; (c) restrictions on the terms or conditions of employment … (d) restrictions on the locality or localities within which he is available".
Subsection (4) states:
"Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which, for the purposes of this Act, a person is or is not to be treated as available for employment".
198
Subsection (5) provides that:
"Regulations under subsection (4) may, in particular, provide for a person who is available for employment—(a) only in his usual occupation, (b) only at a level of remuneration not lower than that which he is accustomed to receive",
or is to be treated as though he is available, and so on; I shall not bore the House. But a glance at the proposed amendment put forward by the Government tonight indicates that almost every subsection provides for regulations in relation to this part of the Bill.
My position is simple. It is this. The fact of the matter is that the meat of the Bill is contained in the regulations and not in the Bill itself. As the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee said, it is a skeleton or a framework Bill. In its wisdom or otherwise, the House decided not to amend the Bill in the way that we on this side of the Chamber suggested. However, in a situation in which the real substance of provisions which will affect the lives of people in this country who are subject to the Bill will be dealt with by regulation rather than by primary legislation, it is wrong that Parliament should not have a full opportunity to consider them. In our view, it would be wrong that matters of this importance should pass unremarked as a result of a framework Bill.
Perhaps I may make two more points. The tendency to legislate in this way is a temptation for all governments and from time to time they lean in that direction. It is much easier for them to legislate by regulation than in primary legislation and it is much easier to do it by the negative procedure than the affirmative. The regulations are scrutinised far less and observed far less, the Government can get away with far more and do not have to deal with difficult questions of interpretation or restive parliamentarians.
With regard to the Bill, the Government are not leaning, they are horizontal. In our submission, it is a point that would appeal to the Front Bench below the gangway on the Government's side, where the constitutionalists of the House tend to sit. It is time that we put some limitation on the Government's desire to avoid the proper examination of crucial parts of the legislation.
We have never hidden our view on the merits of the Bill. We regard it as a mean, nasty, rather vindictive piece of legislation which will make life more difficult for some of the most vulnerable sections of our society. However, that is not the point raised by the amendment. We believe that the Bill deserves greater, not less, scrutiny. Quite apart from one's view of the legislation, here there is a more fundamental constitutional point: how far are the Government entitled to go in denying such a Bill detailed parliamentary scrutiny? We believe that the least the Committee can do is to demand that the affirmative procedure be used for the regulations which are brought in under Clause 6, which are important and fundamental to the operation of the Bill and which are the meat of it. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It might be for the benefit of the Committee if I intervene early in the debate in order to set out my reaction principally to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's report which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I welcome him to our deliberations on the Bill. Normally his noble friend Lady Hollis, myself and a few other season ticket holders spend

199
long nights in the Chamber, largely on our own. I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was anxious about that and had decided to do a bit of chaperoning this afternoon. I do not say whom he would chaperone!
When my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal introduced the Motion to recommit Clause 6 to the Committee, he said:
"the Government mean what we say when we say that we take seriously the reports of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee."—[Official Report, 3/5/95; col. 1386.]
The Lord Privy Seal emphasised that on a number of occasions throughout his two contributions on that day. Some noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me underline the point and say that I too take seriously the reports of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, especially since I can claim to be one of its founder members. I remember the deliberations we had on the various kinds of delegated powers. I received a short lesson on matters such as Henry VIII clauses which stay with me and occasionally seem to come back to haunt me in my new capacity.
Given that I sat on that committee until I was asked to join the Government, I found the work interesting and I take what the committee says and its recommendations and arguments very seriously indeed. Those noble Lords who had season tickets to proceedings on the Pensions Bill will realise that I took on board the main criticisms made of that Bill in regard to the negative and affirmative procedures.
Thus I fully understand the concerns and anxieties which go wider than merely the issue with which I started. They address questions of the balance to be struck between the role of the courts and that of the legislature in determining the conditions under which people are entitled to benefit. They address questions about how the terms of social security benefits can be expressed in law while remaining responsive to constantly changing labour markets and social provisions. They address questions about how your Lordships' House should maintain its vital role of scrutinising the nuts and bolts of social security rules.
Those questions deserve a full response from the Government. The Committee will have seen from the Marshalled List that the Government seek to respond to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's report by bringing forward extensive amendments to the Bill, in particular to Clause 6 but also to Clauses 7 and 8, and to other provisions in the Bill. But before I come to the specific terms of the amendments (because they are part of the argument I wish to put to the Committee regarding the specific proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, this afternoon) I wish briefly to set out our approach to secondary legislation in this area. It is central to our debate today and so I hope that I shall be forgiven for spending a few minutes on the issue. I refer especially to Clause 6 which deals with the definitions of "availability" and "actively seeking work".
We believe that it is crucially important for social security legislation to retain a degree of flexibility. In that, it is following the precedents of previous administrations.
200
That need for flexibility is just as great today. With a benefit for unemployed people such as the jobseeker's allowance, it is important that the benefits administration and its rules of eligibility are sensitive to labour market conditions and can take account of the continual change to the structure of and demand for employment. That has always been recognised; but I believe that in recent years there has grown in all developed countries a new consensus over the importance of social security structures playing a central role in active labour market policy.
JSA must also be responsive to changes elsewhere in the benefit system. It must be compatible with income support and other income-related benefits. It must dovetail with the provisions for in-work benefits to maintain incentives for people to move into work. It must be able to respond to the decisions of the courts.
Equally important, JSA must be able to change in the light of experience. Throughout the passage of the Bill, both in this House and in another place, there have been requests for special exemptions for particular groups or circumstances. Such requests come almost daily to social security Ministers. Where there are genuine problems in the terms of the legislation or where there are new issues to address, any government would often wish to respond quickly and decisively. But if to do so a government always had to have recourse to primary legislation, I believe it would place an intolerable burden on Parliament.
The scrutiny committee recognises that there is a need for flexibility and, accordingly, a need for delegated powers in the Bill. It recognises how that serves:
"to keep the details of legislation off the statute book".
The Government fully endorse that finding.
These considerations, I believe, apply in equal measure to the two principal labour market conditions for JSA that a person must be available for employment and must actively seek employment.
However, it is not and never has been the Government's intention to bring forward regulations which departed significantly from established policies of availability and actively seeking. Our intention was merely to provide for a more direct route through regulations rather than through the indirect route of treating or deeming people available or not available which legislation has until now employed. However, I recognise that Clause 6(1) of the Bill, with its stipulation that availability and actively seeking shall,
"have such meaning as may be prescribed",
may have created the impression that we might be seeking to depart from established definitions. In the light of concerns expressed about the Government's intentions, we are now bringing forward the amendments which will be dealt with later this afternoon. On the other hand, I do not accept all the criticisms that are being expressed that the Bill is unprecedented in neglecting to provide full definitions for the terms and full details of the manner in which the conditions should apply. In responding to those criticisms, I should like to dwell for a moment on the history of the provisions.
Members of the Committee will look in vain in the current primary legislation for detailed provisions on availability. Section 25A(1) (a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 provides that:

201
"a day shall not be treated in relation to any person as a day of unemployment unless on that day he is capable of work and he is, or is deemed in accordance with regulations, to be, available to be employed in employed earner's employment."
That is all it has to say specifically on availability. It simply carries forward the provisions from the Social Security Act introduced by the Labour Government in 1975 which consolidated earlier legislation. However, its origins lie very much earlier. Since 1911 it has been a condition that a person must be available for work in order to receive benefit. That condition has been repeated in all subsequent pieces of legislation, but it has never been defined on the face of the primary legislation. That has been achieved through interpretations of the case law of social security umpires and commissioners, and through regulation.
To case law we owe the interpretation that a person must be willing and able to be employed, and that he must be ready to be employed immediately. To regulation we owe the provisions whereby a person may, or may not, restrict his availability. Such regulations were first introduced in 1955, when it was found necessary to review the operation or availability in relation to people who placed unreasonable restrictions as compared with insured contributors generally. It is salutary to recognise that government and Parliament were even then considering the same questions of the balance between broad provision and regulation. Thus, for 40 years now the provisions of availability have been carefully circumscribed by regulation. I will go on later to explain how we intend in JSA to build upon, not replace, the established interpretation of availability.
The condition that a person must be actively seeking employment has a more recent provenance, although it has always been to some extent explicit in the availability condition that a person claiming benefit must seek work. This condition was introduced in 1989. The level of detail in the provisions on the face of the Bill simply follows the established precedent of the previous legislation. The benefits Act 1992, which consolidated the earlier legislation provides in Section 25A(1) (a) that,
"a day shall not be treated in relation to any person … as a day of unemployment unless … that day falls in a week in which he is, or is deemed in accordance with regulations to be, actively seeking such employment".
The legislation then provides for regulations with respect to the steps which a person is required to take in any week and the meaning of a "week", but no more. As with availability, so with actively seeking, regulations carefully limit and define the condition through setting out the steps which a person is required to take.
It was recognised fully in 1989 just how important it was to provide for such detail in secondary legislation. In bringing forward the Jobseekers Bill the Government were looking to follow that precedent, since in approach and in policy we are making no fundamental change to the condition of actively seeking work which Parliament has already approved.
I have set out the precedents for the conditions in Clause 6 because I felt it was important to explain why the Government took the approach we did in providing a clear regulation making power when we presented this Bill. We wanted to build on the provisions. And where we were making new proposals for the details of the terms of
202
availability and actively seeking employment we set out clearly and at length—in the White Paper, throughout the passage of the Bill through another place, in Committee in your Lordships' House and in the delegated powers memorandum—how the regulations would be applied.
Nevertheless, in the light of the views expressed on Clause 6 as presented in the Bill the Government have come to the conclusion that the current drafting of Clause 6 should be changed. We have listened carefully to the concerns voiced by many Members of your Lordships' House, in particular the concerns of my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton, and by noble Lords on all the Benches opposite, that we should include a definition of the conditions of availability and actively seeking on the face of the Bill. In bringing forward amendments in response to these concerns we have been mindful of the recommendation from the Scrutiny Committee that the House should consider whether the Bill should be amended,
"so as to provide a more detailed framework within which Ministers may exercise the powers to be delegated to them".
This is, I believe, what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was looking for when he called in the debate in Committee for the Government to put more on the face of the Bill that would form a synergy with the delegated powers committee. I believe that the government amendments achieve that.
I shall deal in response to a later amendment with some of the details that are in my new Clauses 6, 6A and 6B. But I wanted just to set out the background to these definitions and draw to the Committee's attention that the three amendments in my name to which we shall turn later go a long way to respond to the points made by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
I now turn to the point that the committee makes when it states that in particular the House may wish to consider whether the affirmative procedure should not apply to any regulations changing the meaning of the terms "available for employment" and "actively seeking employment" whenever these regulations are made. The committee recommended to us that, irrespective of any changes to Clause 6 that we may make—as I say, we have made very considerable changes—the House should consider whether the proposals for parliamentary control of the delegated legislation for the conditions of availability and actively seeking were sufficient.
I accept that there is a real concern in both Houses that regulations that affect the meaning and treatment of the two terms, "availability" and "actively seeking", should receive the full and proper scrutiny of Parliament. I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks my background as a founder member of the Scrutiny Committee. As my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal made clear last week, it was the Government's view that we had to take the findings and recommendations of the Select Committee very seriously indeed. I propose to come to the House at Report stage having tabled an amendment that will mean in future that Clauses 6 and 6A, which we shall discuss, will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I will table that amendment as an amendment to Clause 34, which, as the draftsman would say, is the proper place to table that particular amendment.

203
I have taken up a certain amount of time because this matter is important. I shall explain in a little more detail later the meaning of our Clauses 6, 6A and 6B. So far as concerns this particular issue; namely, the point of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that we should use the affirmative procedure whenever any regulations (formerly to have been made under Clause 6) are made under new Clauses 6 and 6A, I hope the Committee will appreciate that we have indeed gone a very long way in meeting the concerns expressed not only by noble Lords but also by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I hope that with that assurance, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Richard: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him just one question. He has very carefully referred to Clauses 6 and 6A. What about Clause 6B?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I very carefully indeed said 6 and 6A, because Clauses 6 and 6A are the two clauses that have regard to the "actively seeking work" definition and the "availability for work" definition. Clause 6B deals with other matters, such as signing on, etc. They were not the matters referred to by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee concentrated on and drew our attention as a House to the terms "availability for employment" and "actively seeking employment". It is therefore in respect of Clauses 6 and 6A that I give the Committee an assurance that when on Report we come to Clause 34 I shall have tabled an amendment stating that the affirmative procedure will always be used.
Lord Richard: Perhaps I may press the Minister just a little further. He has been very kind and has given us assurances. He has bent a long way and we are all very grateful to him. Will he just have a little look at Clause 6B:
"Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular … prescribe"—
let us pay attention to this—
"matters which are, or are not, to be taken into account in determining whether a person has, or does not have, good cause for failing to comply with any such regulations".
That provision is massively wide. Also, the regulations may prescribe,
"circumstances in which a person is, or is not, to be regarded as having, or not having good cause for failing to comply with any such regulations".
With great respect to the Minister, those provisions are too wide to be left to the negative procedure. If the Minister could go so far as to say that in relation to Clause 6B he would also be minded to consider actively—or, if I dare use the phrase in this connection, actively consider—that that clause, too, should be subject to the affirmative procedure, then I in turn will be prepared actively to consider that which the Minister has put to me.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply, and most grateful also to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee for a distinguished and extremely useful report. However, as the Minister has set out a general exposition of the government amendment and the thinking behind it, it might perhaps be in order for me to make some comment on that before we go further.
204
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, deals with parliamentary scrutiny. It enables us to look at the draft provisions and see what is happening. It does not deal with parliamentary control. It does not enable us to say, "No, we are not going to agree to this". Until we have sorted out the issues in regard to voting, that cannot be done merely by a change from negative to affirmative procedure.
I am most grateful to the Minister, to his department and to all concerned for the trouble they have taken in producing this new amendment. The amendment had to deal with three issues. The first test it had to face was a linguistic one; it had to improve the felicity and clarity of the Bill. Secondly, it had to face the test of drafting intention both in relation to the amount of regulation-making powers and putting into legislation matters which should have been for judicial consideration. Thirdly, as we get the receding of the waters with the removing of the muddy water of unclear draftsmanship, so the policy intention appears exposed for the first time. Inevitably, therefore, issues will arise as to those policy intentions.
In regard to the language and clarity of the Bill, the amendment is to a large degree successful. For once Humpty-Dumpty genuinely has had a great fall and all the King's Ministers will not put him together again. That I welcome. The new amendment makes the Government's intention a great deal clearer than it was before. It provides definitions of "available for employment" and "actively seeking employment". Of course, I do not find those definitions acceptable, but they are at least clearer and we shall therefore be able to have a lucid argument about them in due course.
In relation to the second test, that of drafting intention, I have given the Minister notice of a question as to whether there are actually fewer regulation-making powers in the amendment than there were in the original. I appreciate that it is a difficult question. The tendency has been to divide the Bill into more separate regulation-making powers for purposes of clarity. There is an appearance therefore of an increase in the number of regulation-making powers. I shall not hold the Government to that. But I will be surprised if the Minister can tell me that there was any decrease.
I am familiar with the defence of flexibility and I shall not waste time on it. I understand what the Minister wants. But I hope that he understands that there is also a possibility of conflict between that objective and that of parliamentary control. There is a balance to be struck. The Minister talks of not putting details in legislation. In principle that may be agreed ground, but the question is: what is a detail and what is not?
We are all familiar with the phrase, "The devil is in the detail". In social security legislation that is often the case. We have seen, even during the short time I have been here, a rapid escalation in the size of issue which is classified as detail. We arc now seeing conditions of eligibility for benefit being classified as detail; we are seeing the disentitlement of whole groups of people being classified as detail. If the Minister thinks that that is detail, I can only say that not everybody in this Chamber agrees. The number of regulation-making powers still needs addressing.

205
I am concerned also about what I see as over-fussy draftsmanship; for example, attempting to set out in detail all the individual steps which shall be evidence that a person intends actively to seek employment, when one cannot do that. We must look at the person's conduct as a whole if we are to judge intention. That over-fussy draftsmanship was something that concerned us very much before. I cannot see that it has improved. I will give the Minister, therefore, for the amendment, one point out of three. I welcome that one very warmly. For the other two, we have yet some important points to come—more important than those here—and I leave those to later amendments.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House are grateful for the way in which the Minister responded to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Richard. I cannot help but reflect that, close to Christmas, when my wife makes the Christmas cake, it is the icing at the end that really makes the cake so much more attractive. I suggest to the Minister that he has done well with the cake but he is missing the icing. He may not be able to go as far this afternoon as my noble friend wishes. My noble friend raised a matter of principle. If the Minister will give an undertaking that we can consult on these matters to see whether the whole of Clause 6 can be covered, that may be acceptable.
My noble friend's amendment goes only a short way in meeting the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, relating to parliamentary control. I recognise and support the idea of delegated legislation. But I have a funny feeling that over recent years—maybe stretching to 10,15 or 20 years —in order to get legislation through both Houses in ever-increasing amounts, there has been a tendency to say, "Let us avoid time in the House of Commons where it is most important and let us put this into regulation". I do not know whether, when he was considering the establishment of the scrutiny committee, the noble Lord was aware of the figures in terms of delegated legislation. Between 1988 and 1992 the amount of delegated legislation increased by over 50 per cent. That means that 50 per cent, more pieces of legislation are being passed in one form or another by this House and another place with only cursory interest.
We all know that when governments introduce Bills they table amendments of a drafting nature to turn what was originally drafted into something more closely resembling good law. But we are unable to do that in terms of regulations, and it is regulations that have a more direct impact upon ordinary people than primary legislation. I welcome therefore, as the noble Lord indicated in agreeing new Clause 6A, that those regulations should be taken by affirmative procedure. But even then, affirmative procedure is extraordinarily limited.
In relation to the negative procedure, because of the flexibility that exists in this Chamber those matters can be considered here by laying a prayer. If a prayer is laid, it must be taken. I look at my noble friend Lord Tonypandy. He is aware of the great difficulty in finding time in the House of Commons for prayers. There is therefore a vast area of legislation being passed with hardly any parliamentary control in relation to the House of Commons.
206
The time has come when we must recognise the enormous amount that is being done by delegated legislation. Both Houses of Parliament should look together to see which way the scrutiny of that legislation, with expedition—not delay —can be conducted. Then at least Parliament can be satisfied that it is not only primary legislation that is considered in detail but also delegated secondary legislation.
I conclude by thanking the Minister for the distance he has gone. Perhaps he can give us a little icing and make some overtures to my noble friend. If not, I shall follow my noble friend in whatever course of action he chooses to take.
Lord Skelmersdale: I rather think that the time has come for me to eat some humble-pie before your Lordships because for four years now I have been promoting, both publicly and privately, the idea that is incorporated in the Bill; namely, that there are many affirmative instruments to which in the modern day and age only lip service is given in this House and in another place. In other words, as time has gone by it has been felt that they should not be affirmative at all. Noble Lords can imagine my excitement when the Government, in terms of the Department of Social Security—my old department— and in this Bill in particular, picked up this idea of mine that orders should in the first instance be affirmative and thereafter go through the negative resolution procedure.
That was my initial excitement. The more I looked at the Bill the more I decided that, although the idea still had merit, this was not the Bill to do it on—and certainly not in the first instance. I am therefore very grateful for my noble friend's proposed amendment on Report to Clause 34 to make these orders continually by affirmative resolution. Having said that, I have a slight problem because in this House there is a convention, established now for some 30 years, that we do not vote on affirmative orders.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does the noble Lord not remember that that was negatived specifically by a resolution of your Lordships' House?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, but that does not destroy the point I am seeking to make. In fact, if anything, it rather adds to it. The point I wanted to make is that the serious and direct parliamentary control in your Lordships' House, although not in another place, is through negative resolutions. The House still has the power, if it has the will, to, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has just said, pray against a negative resolution order. That is all very well, but we have only 40 days' praying time. With so many orders going through the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and being presented to your Lordships in the Minutes of Proceedings it is very rare that one can actually put down a prayer in time when one wants to have a prayer. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has managed to find a way around this conundrum, which I am not sure is any more satisfactory, by putting down a Motion to annul a particular negative instrument once it has been enacted by default, as such things inevitably are.
I conclude that it is rather more valuable in this House to have a negative resolution than an affirmative resolution. That said, there have been enormous pressures in recent years to have affirmative legislation. On this

207
occasion the Government have conceded to that, and all credit to them for doing so, but when we look in the longer term, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has just suggested, we should bear all these things very much in mind. In the meantime, having eaten my humble-pie originally, I congratulate the Government.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It would be churlish of all of us not to be grateful to both the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and to the Leader of the House and the Minister. The Government have listened to the voice of the House in an earlier debate and have come forward in a positive way. That was half of it. The other half of it is that what I fear the Minister may have offered us today is the shadow rather than the substance. He has agreed that he will come back at Report stage to move that amendments to Clauses 6 and 6A be by affirmative resolution but not, after April 1996, amendments to Clause 6B.
I wish to ask the Committee to help me in pressing the Minister as to why precisely he has drawn that distinction because they are two sides of the same thing. Clauses 6 and 6A set out what it means, to be confirmed and elaborated by regulation, to be available for work and to be actively seeking work. That is welcome. But Clause 6B goes on to say what counts as good cause and therefore a reason either for not doing X or doing X but continuing to receive benefit. In other words, what is the definition of when you have failed to do what is being asked?
The first part—Clauses 6 and 6A—sets out what you must do to be available for work and actively seeking work. Clause 6B says that you must have good cause if you are to continue to receive benefit but not to fulfil that. Clauses 6 and 6A are by the affirmative procedure. But Clause 6B—which is the other half of it concerning what counts as good cause so that you continue to receive your benefit if you do not meet these conditions—is still left uncertain to the negative procedure. The claimant remains on the quicksand with which he entered the system—knowing what he must do but not knowing when he cannot do it whether what he believes is good cause is regarded as good cause. That will not have been discussed in your Lordships' House as part of the affirmative procedure. It may be if the Opposition are alert enough to pick it up under the negative procedure, but that, as we all know to our cost, is a somewhat random way of doing it.
Why is the Minister giving us the half of it—what you must do—but not giving us the other half in Clause 6B as to what counts as good cause if, in the claimant's view, he cannot do it? We need the totality really to deliver what the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and, I believe, your Lordships want tonight. If the Minister can do that we would all be well satisfied.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness has nicely brought back the debate to the substance of this amendment and the effects on the people who are subject to the regulations which will be generated under it. In relation to the earlier discussion, I would just say that the clear difficulty we all labour under is having only three options. One is statute; the others are two forms of subordinate legislation, neither of which can be altered. They can be rejected or accepted, but they cannot be amended. That is the difficulty.
208
I do not think that this is the proper occasion to discuss whether that gap is too wide—as I believe it is—and whether there ought to be some further course which we could devise, though I do hope that the usual channels will note the general anxiety among your Lordships that this choice is difficult and does not always offer the right alternative. But the alternatives we have at the moment are just between these three courses.
I merely want to acknowledge the very major concessions my noble friend has announced to the concerns uttered at the earlier Committee stage—not merely by the recommittal but also by what he has put on the Marshalled List and what he has undertaken to put on the Marshalled List at Report stage. The alternative to doing what he advises is either merely a shift between one or other of the subordinate legislation procedures and having a whole mass of detail—we may call it detail. It may be very major for the individuals who are affected but for the actual volume of work to be done by Parliament, adjusting for this vast number of people, for these enormous differences in circumstances and for these constantly changing circumstances, to put all this into major statute is simply not in question. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend has made major concessions. Your Lordships should be satisfied by that and not accept the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I shall be very brief. I also thank the Minister for having brought forward proposals which go some way to meet some of the issues which concern Members of the Committee. There are two other points which I should like to mention in the hope that the Minister might be able to look at them also. The first is that there is throughout the Bill a pervasive question raised to some extent by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, concerning what is a test of reasonableness. In many cases if one felt that the issue of reasonableness was brought into the Bill, one would feel more content about it. A great deal is left to regulation.
The second issue I wish to touch on is what one might describe as the rights or liberties of citizens which are not bitten on by the argument as regards flexibility. I understand the relevance of the argument on flexibility, but I cannot see how it applies to such things as the extent to which issues such as someone's race, religion, linguistic background or disability should be left to regulations to be safeguarded. I draw those two matters to the attention of the noble Lord, especially since he seems to be in such an extremely receptive state of mind this afternoon.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I express the gratitude which I am sure a great many of us feel to my noble friend the Minister for bringing forward this very substantial amendment to that part of the Bill to which, very properly in my view, great objection was taken at an earlier stage. Those of us with some experience of government know how difficult it is inside the machine of government to get major changes made in a Bill which is already at Committee stage. I believe that the Committee will feel that my noble friend the Minister has fulfilled a very important and effective task in

209
securing the very considerable improvements which are offered by the amendment which he will be moving. That is the real aspect of the matter. It is a relief to many of us to know that the Government are not persisting in the original attitude which they took on the Bill.
It will be very relevant to the Bill, as amended, to make clear the rather misty subject of the conventions regarding what your Lordships' House can do with either the affirmative or negative resolution. My own view is—and I suspect that it is shared by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale—that there is in fact nothing to prevent your Lordships' House insisting, by vote if necessary, on either defeating an affirmative resolution or moving against a negative one. I know of no rule unless the provision can be classified within the broad concept of a money Bill. I know of no other limitation. In view of the increasing importance and significance of delegated legislation, it is very important to get this matter abundantly clear. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will feel able to say something very specific on this point.
The only other matter which I should be grateful for my noble friend to enlarge on is that originally raised by the noble Lord opposite. That is whether in addition to new Clause 6A, new Clause 6B will be covered in some form or other by the amendments which he proposes to bring forward on Report.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may very briefly thank the Minister for the concession on new Clauses 6A and 6B. Is it right that that concession really seeks to implement any interpretation that can be put on the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, whereas on no interpretation of that committee's report can it be said to be requisite to give that concession on new Clause 6B? Is that the basis on which the concession is made? If so, I should like to support it and express my own personal gratitude for the manner in which the Government have produced Amendment No. 4 and compliment the draftsman on a truly magnificent piece of work.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may briefly respond. I thought that I might do better in the marking system of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, than one out of three. All I can say is that with a marker as hard as that, thank goodness I am not one of his students! So that I do not dip below that one mark, I accept the point he made that because I have extended what was one clause into three clauses, there are, if one counted them, more individual positions where there is a delegated power. That is because the draftsman has advised tackling it in the way which the Committee sees before it.
The substantive point I am asked is why have I only dealt with new Clauses 6 and 6A and not accepted the argument on new Clause 6B? I believe that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway put his finger exactly on the point. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee says in paragraph 10 of its Further Report on the Jobseekers Bill:
"In particular, the House may wish to consider whether the affirmative procedure should not apply to any regulations changing the meaning of the terms 'available for employment' and 'actively seeking employment' whenever these regulations are made".
210
The simple fact is that new Clause 6 in my name deals with availability and new Clause 6A deals with actively seeking. New Clause 6B does not deal with either of them in the defining way that new Clauses 6 and 6A do. It deals with matters like attendance at the Jobcentre and the information and evidence which the jobseeker should make available to the Employment Service and the Jobcentre officer.
I believe that I have addressed directly the point made by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I have done so in the promise that I have made to bring forward an amendment at Clause 34 in order to do as has been suggested and to make regulations under new Clauses 6 and 6A always under the affirmative order and not, as currently proposed, only for a limited period and thereafter by the negative procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, may not agree with me, but I hope that he can see why I have reached this position because I have taken the very strong recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and the various opinions expressed in this Chamber. I like to think that I have done a little better than one mark out of three in actually responding positively to the recommendations. For that reason, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will be able to withdraw his amendment which now really centres only on an argument over new Clause 6B. If he does not, I hope that my noble friends, and other Members of the Committee who take an interest in these matters, will accept that I have gone a long way to respond to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and that they will support me in the Lobby.
Lord Richard: I am very sorry indeed that the Minister, in his generous spirit this afternoon, has not found it possible to include new Clause 6B as well as new Clause 6A. I can see why he has left it out and I fully understand the reasons for that. But the merits of the argument have not been dealt with. The Minister has merely analysed why he has not dealt with it. I cannot respond to his blandishments even if I were to give him one-and-a-half marks out of three. It still seems right to test the opinion of the Committee on the other one-and-a-half marks.
5.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 161.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Airedale, L.

Chorley, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Barnett, L.

David, B.

Bath, M.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Desai, L.

Birk, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Blackstone, B.

Donoughue, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Dubs, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Eatwell, L.

211

Erroll, E.

Mishcon, L.

Falkender, B.

Molloy, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Foot, L.

Monson, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Peston, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rea, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Richard, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hollick, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rochester, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Howell, L.

Russell, E.

Hughes, L.

Scanlon, L.

Hylton, L.

Seear, B.

Jacques, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jay, L.

Serota, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Shannon, E.

Jeger, B.

Shepherd, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Simon, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Judd, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Stallard, L.

Stedman, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lawrence, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lockwood, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Longford, E.

Tordoff, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

McNair, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mallalieu, B.

White, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Wigoder, L.

Mayhew, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Addison, V.

Carnock, L.

Ailsa, M.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Aldington, L.

Chelmer, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Chesham, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Annaly, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Clinton, L.

Coleridge, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Astor, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L

Astor of Hever, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Balfour, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Courtown, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cox, B.

Biddulph, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Blatch, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Crathorne, L.

Blyth, L.

Cross, V.

Boardman, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Denham, L.

Burnham, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Butterworth, L.

Digby, L.

Cadman, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Caithness, E.

Donegall, M.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ellenborough, L.

212

Elton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mountevans, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Finsberg, L.

Moyne, L.

Flather, B.

Nelson, E.

Foley, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Norfolk, D.

Geddes, L.

Norrie, L.

Goold, L.

Northesk, E.

Goschen, V.

Orkney, E.

Gridley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Henley, L.

Prior, L.

Hertford, M.

Rankeillour, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hood, V.

Reay, L.

Howe, E.

Rennell, L.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Renton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Romney, E.

Inglewood, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ingrow, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Salisbury, M.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Savile, L.

Kingsland, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Sharpies, B.

Kintore, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Knollys, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Leigh, L.

Stockton, E.

Lindsay, E.

Strafford, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Lucas, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lyell, L.

Swansea, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Swinfen, L.

McConnell, L.

Terrington, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Torrington, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trumpington, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Marlesford, L.

Ullswater, V.

Merrivale, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mersey, V.

Wakeham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wise, L.

Milverton, L.

Wolfson, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.48 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 4:
Leave out Clause 6 and insert the following new Clauses—
Availability for employment
("6.—(1) For the purposes of this Act. a person is available for employment if he is willing and able to take up immediately any employed earner's employment.
(2) Subsection (1) is subject to such provisions as may be made by regulations; and those regulations may, in particular, provide that a person—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) only in his usual occupation,

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

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

to be treated, for a permitted period, as available for employment.
(6) Where it has been determined ("the first determination") that a person is to be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as available for employment in any week, the question whether he is available for employment in that week may be subsequently determined on a review of the first determination.
(7) In this section "permitted period", in relation to any person, means such period as may be determined in accordance with the regulations made under subsection (4).
(8) Regulations under subsection (4) may prescribe, in relation to permitted periods—

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

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

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

(9) For the purposes of this section "employed earner's employment" has the same meaning as in the Benefits Act.
Actively seeking employment
6A.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person is actively seeking employment in any week if he takes in that week such steps as he can reasonably be expected to have to take in order to have the best prospects of securing employment.
(2) Regulations may make provision—

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

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

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

(a) only in his usual occupation,

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

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

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

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

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

"employed earner's employment" and "self-employed earner's employment" have the same meaning as in the Benefits Act.
Attendance, information and evidence
6B.—(1) Regulations may make provision for requiring a claimant—

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

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

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

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

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

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

(d) prescribe—

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

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

The noble Lord said: We now come to the three new clauses which are in my name on the Marshalled List and which replace Clause 6 in the original Bill. In responding to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I have already outlined some of the preliminary points that I might otherwise have made when introducing this amendment. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I do not again go over that ground. I shall simply ask the Committee to consider the structure of this amendment in my name.
First, let me take new Clause 6, which deals with availability. We propose to devote the whole of this clause to availability. Clause 6(1) provides a broad definition; namely that:
"a person is available for employment if he is willing and able to take up immediately any employed earner's employment".
It is not our intention with this definition to introduce anything new or additional to the current understanding of the term. That understanding is made clear by case law, as I have explained, which already defines and interprets availability in these terms. The effect of case law is also

215
that a person who is unable to accept offers of work either because he is precluded by law from working or because he is not in a position to respond to such offers is not available.
The vast majority of people who currently sign on for unemployment benefit and income support declare that they will accept immediately any work. However, we recognise that some people will want to restrict their availability in some way from that absolute condition to be willing and able to accept work immediately. Subsection (2) allows for that. It is our intention that regulations will provide that in any week a claimant who does not wish to make himself available at all times may limit his availability to a minimum of 40 hours. He may agree any pattern of 40 hours across the week, provided that that pattern does not limit unreasonably his prospect of securing work.
Thus a person who wanted to be available for night work only (10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Monday to Friday) or a person who wanted to be available for work on certain days only might meet the condition for benefit, provided that he or she showed that with that pattern they retained reasonable prospects of finding work.
People may also want to place restrictions on, for instance, the locality in which they are prepared to work. Again, it is our intention that the same labour-market test of retaining reasonable prospects of securing work will be applied under this subsection. Subsection (2) (b) recognises that there are certain classes of claimant who for specific reasons wish to place further restrictions on their availability.
Subsection (3) gives examples of how people may restrict their availability. Regulations will make provision for people who will be able to restrict the type of work they are prepared to accept on the grounds of conscience or religious conviction. Such restrictions will not be subject to the test of the prospect of securing work.
We shall make provision for people with disabilities. As we have made clear already in Committee, such restrictions on nature, hours, rate of remuneration, locality or other conditions of employment will be accepted where they are reasonable in view of the person's physical or mental condition and will not be subject to the test of reasonable prospects of securing work.
We will also, for the first time, make explicit provision for people with caring responsibilities to restrict their availability. They will be able to restrict the hours for which they are available below the normal 40 hours minimum where those restrictions are necessary in view of their caring responsibilities. They, unlike other jobseekers, will have to be ready to take up work only at 24 hours notice rather than immediately.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Perhaps I may ask a question on this issue. Will it also be permissible for someone with caring responsibilities to restrict the place at which they can work, which can be crucial for someone in that situation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Just a few sentences ago I said that I had made it clear in Committee that restrictions on the nature, the hours, rate of remuneration, locality or other conditions of employment will be
216
accepted where they are reasonable in view of the person's physical or mental condition and will not be subject to a reasonable prospect of securing work. I imagine that the noble Baroness is asking that a person with caring responsibilities should not be asked to take a job so far away that it would damage their ability to carry out their caring responsibilities. If we are putting in restrictions which are necessary to take a proper view of someone's caring responsibilities, if the job entails them making such travelling arrangements that they cannot fulfil those responsibilities, it would not be reasonable to ask them to do so. I think that I am clear about that.
Subsection (4) is an important provision. Current legislation at Section 137(2) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act enables regulations to make provision as to the circumstances in which a person is or is not to be treated as available for employment. Regulations under that provision deal with a wide range of very specific instances where it is appropriate for a claimant to be entitled or not entitled, notwithstanding the general rules for availability. Those provisions have been extensively used for a long time. For instance, they provide that people undertaking emergency duties such as crewing a lifeboat or as a part-time fireman, people attending court, taking part in training courses or people who are temporarily looking after a sick child can be treated as available for work. The list is extensive and deals with a range of specific issues. We intend to follow broadly the same approach in JSA.
Regulations to treat people as available will also make special provision for people undertaking part-time study and those undertaking voluntary work for no pay. Jobseekers pursuing part-time study in higher education or fewer than 16 hours of guided learning in further education will not be regarded as unavailable simply on account of their study if they are prepared to take a job—subject, of course, to the normal safeguards of "good cause". Volunteers similarly will be treated as available provided that they are prepared and can make arrangements to leave their voluntary work within 48 hours if a job offer is made to them. I believe that not all local office staff currently understand that voluntary work should not of itself prevent a person from being available. With the new regulations for JSA we will be making sure that the benefits of voluntary work—so clearly expressed by many noble Lords—are recognised properly.
The provision to treat people as not available for employment will also apply to certain specific groups. People such as full-time students, or women who are receiving statutory maternity pay within the maternity pay period, should not be entitled to JSA even though they can make themselves available for work. Those groups of people are adequately covered elsewhere by government provision.
Subsection (5) makes explicit provision, as pan of the conditions for availability, for a permitted period during which a person may be treated as available if he is only prepared to be available for employment in his usual occupation and at his former rate of pay. The Bill currently makes provision for such a period to be specified in the jobseeker's agreement. That might appear to imply that the jobseeker's agreement, by introducing the notion of the permitted period, itself gives rise (rather

217
than expression) to the conditions of entitlement to JSA. We made it clear during Committee, in response to concerns expressed by noble Lords, in particular the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we would consider the balance of the provisions in the Bill. This specific provision in relation to availability is our response. As before, regulations will stipulate that the maximum permitted period will be 13 weeks and the determination of the length of the permitted period by an adjudication officer will depend on a number of factors, including the skills, qualifications and availability of employment in a person's usual occupation.
Before I leave the question of availability I should also remind your Lordships about provisions relating to the circumstances where a person may or may not refuse offers of employment. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, during our earlier debate in Committee suggested that an essential point about availability was that it was a test of intention and that any attempt to set out in legislation one outward and visible sign which shall be taken for proof of intention is very difficult indeed. I agree but only up to a point, because commissioners have made it clear time and time again that there are tests which can and should be applied about intention. But I do agree that in some circumstances a clearer test of whether a claimant is prepared to accept an offer of employment is to offer him a vacancy. In those circumstances we are dealing with specific details and can consider specific reasons why it is not reasonable that a person should or should not be expected to accept the offer of employment.
Under Clause 16 we will be carrying forward the current approach of specifying the circumstances which will constitute good cause for refusing an offer of employment. Those include any condition or personal circumstances where accepting the offer would subject him to excessive physical or mental stress, religious or conscientious objection, caring responsibilities, excessive travelling time and excessive in-work expenses. We also propose to bring forward an amendment to put on the face of the Bill, as current legislation provides, an exemption from sanction where a person refuses a vacancy which has arisen as a result of a trade dispute.
We believe that all those provisions provide appropriate protection against claimants being required to accept unreasonable offers of work.
I turn now to the new Clause 6A, which is to be wholly devoted to the active seeking condition. Regulations for unemployment benefit and income support currently provide for two aspects of the steps to be considered in the test of whether a person is actively seeking work. We are proposing to reflect both those aspects in the definition on the face of the Bill. The steps must be those which an individual can reasonably be expected to have to take. This is important because it recognises that jobseekers are individuals: a jobseeker with disabilities will not be expected to take the same steps as someone without those disabilities; a person looking for work in a skilled occupation will go about it in a different way from a person looking for a labouring job. Secondly, the steps must be those which give the jobseeker the best prospects of securing employment; thus the test is not a straightjacket but is sensitive to what is appropriate to help the individual secure a job.
218
Subsection (2) enables regulations to provide for this test in more detail. We intend that regulations under subsection (2) (a) should specify that, as now, the taking of one step on a single occasion during a week will not suffice unless that is all that it is reasonable for the individual to do in that week. Regulations will also provide for a non-exhaustive list of the steps which a person might be expected to take. As now, this list will include applying for jobs directly or in writing or registering with an employment agency. But for the first time it will also include steps which a person may take to improve his employability. Such steps might include producing a CV, researching into alternative occupations or, in some circumstances, attending short job-preparation courses.
Regulations under subsection (2) (b) will make it clear that all the circumstances of the case should be taken into account in determining what steps are reasonable in the case of the individual. As subsection (2) (b) makes clear, such considerations should include the person's skills, qualifications, his abilities and any mental or physical limitations. I recognise that some Members of this House have been concerned that, for instance, people with disabilities will be required to seek work in a way which they simply find impossible because of their disability. I hope that I have made it clear that this will not be the case.
Subsection (3) provides for the circumstances which we have already extensively discussed in Committee; namely, that where a person has taken steps designed to negate the value of his jobsearch—perhaps by presenting himself to employers in a way guaranteed to dissuade them from offering him a job—those steps should not be regarded as active jobsearch.
Subsection (4) enables regulations to provide for circumstances where a person is to be treated as actively seeking work. This is a counterpart to the provision under availability since in many of the circumstances where a person is to be treated as available he should be treated as actively seeking also if he is to receive benefit. Additional examples of the circumstances where a person might be treated as actively seeking are where he is taking part on an Employment Service course and will not be required to take extra steps to apply for jobs.
I would, however, draw your Lordships' attention to a significant difference from the provisions as currently set out in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Renton and others had some fun, as I could reasonably describe it, in criticising the provision currently at Clause 6(2) (d) of the Bill which provides for circumstances where a person who is actively seeking may be treated as not actively seeking. I understand that concern and it will, I suspect, do nothing to meet that concern if I were to point out that current legislation already provides for just that power in Section 137 of the Supplementary Benefits Act. The Government have always made it clear that we proposed to make one and one use only of that power; namely, to provide that to meet the condition of actively seeking employment 16–17 year-olds should also seek training. On reflection I now regard it as unsatisfactory that the Bill should propose such a wide-ranging power to treat someone as not actively seeking employment. We have therefore dropped this provision and have made specific

219
provision in subsection (6) for the case of 16–17 year-olds seeking training. I hope that that meets with your Lordships' approval.
Subsection (5) will enable regulations to provide for a person to satisfy the actively seeking test if he is seeking work only in his usual occupation during his permitted period. Subsection (8) will enable regulations to specify, for the first time, that where the person has previously been self-employed in that occupation he will, during his permitted period, be able to limit his jobsearch to self-employment.
I now turn to new Clause 6B, which we discussed earlier and on which there was a division of opinion. It carries forward the arrangements previously in Clause 6(4) to (6) concerned with claimants' attendance and the supplying of information and evidence. Any unemployed person will be familiar with the long-standing arrangements for attending regularly to sign on for benefit and to sign a declaration that he is available for work and actively seeking work and that his circumstances have not changed. Although as regards JSA, because it is an open-ended benefit, claimants will not be required to make a claim on each occasion, we still intend that they should attend their Jobcentre regularly in order to show that they are available and actively seeking work. That is a normal procedure and every claimant knows that if he does not sign on he will not receive his benefit.
One of the key purposes of JSA is to ensure that only those who are available and actively seeking employment receive the allowance. In order to ensure that jobseekers meet those conditions, it is essential to review the activities which they are undertaking to find work. The regular contact is indeed not only to monitor their jobsearch but also to identify whether they need advice or help, which might be attendance on an unemployment programme or on a training course. Each new claimant is given written notification of the day, time and place that he should attend to sign. From then on it is his responsibility to attend in accordance with the notice. Of course, we recognise that from time to time matters can arise which mean that claimants cannot attend at the right time. Benefit entitlement will not cease if they can show good cause for their failure. We are making specific provisions to enable matters to be set out which are or are not taken into account for the consideration of good cause.
In Committee we discussed a number of provisions relating to Clause 6 and to other parts of the Bill—but in particular to Clause 6. As I said earlier, when responding to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee about the affirmative rather than the negative procedure being used, we have done so largely in response to the well-argued case of the committee. This is the other part of that equation, so to speak, and we have addressed the problem of availability for work and actively seeking work. We have attempted to put a definition on the face of the Bill as well as retaining the powers to prescribe the greater detail which will be required to run the system in regulations.
220
I hope that your Lordships consider that we have responded positively to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee in this regard, as clearly was the case in respect of another regard. I commend the new clauses to the House. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
[Amendment No. 5, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 5A:
Line 3, leave out ("immediately") and insert ("within reasonable time").
The noble Baroness said: I apologise for the amendment being in manuscript form but your Lordships will be aware that we have all been pressed to scrutinise the new clause, which understandably has come to us very late. I hope that the Government will treat the amendment as a drafting amendment which they can therefore accept.
The amendment provides that a person would be regarded as being available for employment if he were willing and able to take up the work not immediately but within reasonable time. It embodies the understandings that the Minister gave to the House 14 minutes ago and the concessions that he has already made to the House; for instance, that someone with caring responsibilities would have 24 hours notice and someone with volunteering responsibilities would have 48 hours notice.
The amendment is a tidying up of this part of the new clause in line with the undertakings given by the Minister. It recognises that many of us have commitments which society encourages claimants of JSA to take on board as regards their families and organisations. The more that that is recognised the more that jobsearch is extended to jobs that we may regard as having unsocial hours, to late evening work and to Saturday and Sunday work. A jobseeker may not have anticipated that he would be expected to meet such unsocial hours and if he has other commitments he will need time to make arrangements.
The amendment in no sense alters what the Committee has already accepted and what the Minister has already conceded. It merely embodies it. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose the amendment, not because I object to the spirit of it but because, if it is passed, it will create a very woolly form of administration. The situation is perfectly satisfactory under the clause as drafted, which uses the words, "take up immediately", as implemented by the regulations, which then provide that that shall be done within 24 hours. If the words "within reasonable time" are inserted and the implementing regulation refers to 24 hours, that makes matters very difficult for the employment officer. In all the circumstances, I believe that it is best left alone.
Lord Inglewood: I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for explaining the amendment and for the way in which she has approached the subject matter. While we may disagree as to the way in which it should be approached in a technical sense, there is considerable common ground between us in relation to what we are trying to do.

221
An effective availability condition is vital for any unemployment benefit and this has been one of the main underlying principles in drawing up the availability condition in JSA. Jobseekers must be available to take up work, and in order to ensure that they are open to as many job opportunities as possible, they have to be available to take up employment immediately.
This is not a new condition—it has been a long-standing principle in case law that those who wish to receive unemployment benefits should be available to start work immediately. The aim of the jobseeker is, and must be, to get back to work as quickly as possible. This means that he must be ready to start work immediately should the opportunity arise. To require any less would be to diminish the range of work for which the jobseeker might be eligible, and that would be in the interests of neither the jobseeker nor the labour market.
Of course we recognise that there are certain groups who will find it difficult to meet the immediate availability condition and that it would be unreasonable to expect them to do so. That is why we are carrying forward the concept of 24 and 48 hours' notice for special groups. Thus, a claimant who has caring responsibilities or who otherwise provides a service will be entitled to 24 hours' notice of any job or job interview. That gives carers longer to rearrange their caring responsibilities and be available for employment. Similarly, volunteers will be entitled to 48 hours' notice to rearrange their voluntary duties.
We strongly believe that these concessions will allow both carers and volunteers to participate in the labour market. Such people will, as now, need to plan in advance the best way of rearranging their responsibilities to fit in with any future employment that may be offered. In that way, when an opportunity of work arises, they will have some time to put these plans into place and take up work or attend an interview.
The requirement to be available immediately is longstanding and necessary. In today's increasingly flexible labour market, it is probably more important than ever before. Therefore, I feel that we must oppose the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall read the Minister's response. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, it is important that Clause 6(1) should be understood, as modified by the subsequent subsections. There is concern in relation to carers and volunteers. We fear that the concession which the Minister has made will not perhaps be at the forefront of employment officers' minds when dealing with those matters unless it is written on the face of the Bill. However, I shall read what the Minister has said and return to the subject if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 5A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 6:
Line 4, at end insert ("which his age. qualifications, and experience might reasonably enable him to undertake").
The noble Earl said: I am not completely wedded to the words of the amendment and if the Minister wishes to suggest an alternative form of words, I would be perfectly willing to discuss them. However, in the text of the Government's amendment, I am worried about the requirement to take up immediately any employed earner's employment. That is quite a sweeping requirement. If I had not already determined to table the amendment, I should have done so as soon as I heard the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, refer to "absolute availability". Those words caused me some alarm.
Some of us are suited to do some forms of work and some of us are suited to do other forms of work. To require us all to be available for any sort of work whatever will put us into work at which we will be no good at all and in which we might cause quite considerable harm.
I remember one person who was about to undertake driving lessons. He was asked to read a car number plate at 25 yards. He replied, "Where is the car?". I would not have required that person to take a job as a lookout. That would be extremely dangerous.
I remember the Minister—I believe that it was on 9th February—telling me that people were not all required to apply for jobs as professors of history. If he was right on that occasion, does this government amendment represent a significant change in the law? Are people in fact going to be required to apply for absolutely anything? If so, when is that change coming in?
I remember another case which was in the newspapers recently. A man held a job in a clothes shop fitting ladies with bras. The customers thought that he was not suitable for the work. He was dismissed from it. He brought a case under the Sex Discrimination Act and he lost. I think that it was quite right that he lost, but if this becomes law, will that man be required to apply for all similar jobs, even though we know perfectly well that he is not suitable to do them?
I take a case which could happen. Let us suppose that in time to come the Minister is no longer employed in his present capacity. Let us suppose that an employment officer were to require him, in order to prove that he is actively seeking employment, to apply for a job doing telephone fund-raising for the Labour Party. I believe that such jobs are advertised at the moment. Should the Minister refuse to undertake such a job? I would most warmly support his right of refusal. There is such a thing as an issue of conscience. We cannot have people altogether deprived of any choice whatever about the jobs for which they apply. They should apply for anything that they can reasonably do; that makes sense. But to say that they must apply for anything, however unsuitable, however much conscientious objection they have, however bad they may be at doing the job and however unsafe they would be, seems to me to come remarkably close to forced labour. Indeed, I suspect that absolute availability enslaves absolutely. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: It is just possible that my understanding of our wonderful language is not as good as that possessed by other noble Lords. But when I read the words,
"to take up immediately any employed earner's employment".

223
I read that as a suggestion that it means that he is going to pinch somebody else's job. It seems to me that we should consider that very carefully.
There is an easy way to achieve the purpose of the noble Earl's amendment; that is, instead of saying "any employed earner's employment", we should simply use the words "any suitable employment". That might be worth considering.
Earl Russell: If it would assist the Minister, I should be entirely ready to go along with the suggestion just made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Lord Skelmersdale: Surely the expression "employed earner's employment" already exists in social security law in some abundance? For example, I have in mind the contributions Acts where one talks about employed earners' contributions. Therefore, the term "employed earner's" must be well trailed; indeed, I believe that the phrase "employed earner's employment" is also well trailed.
However, I turn now to the amendment. I can well understand why the noble Earl has moved it. I say that because, generally speaking, in the initial period of unemployment and, therefore, of jobseeker's allowance, a person's age, qualifications and experience should bear very heavily; but, after the permitted period, which my noble friend the Minister restated this afternoon is to be 13 weeks, it seems to me to be quite sensible—indeed, it should be expected—for a jobseeker to be prepared to lower his sights a little to obtain work. In such a situation, an individual may be overqualified. Dare I suggest to the noble Earl that my noble friend the Minister might be slightly overqualified for the telephone job that he posited earlier.
I can see that there are circumstances in which the amendment would be appropriate, but I do not believe that that would always be the case. Therefore, one has to turn back to subsection (3)(a) of the proposed new Clause 6 (on page 2 of the Marshalled List) which describes,
"examples of restrictions for which provision may be made by the regulations".
The first example deals with:
"restrictions on the nature of the employment for which a person is available".
It seems to me that that would cover the noble Earl's point.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Following the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I cannot help wondering whether the gibberish in previous social security legislation enacted under both parties is a particularly good argument for continuing with such language. The phrase used in the Bill is clearly not very plain to the ordinary man and woman in the street. I much prefer the formula proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I wonder whether the Minister would consider it seriously.
One of our problems is that the test of reason is crucial and reflects on the wording of the Bill. The phrase "suitable employment" is one that is widely understood by the public and by those who look to Parliament to try to explain the situation clearly to them. Following what
224
my noble friend said, it seems to me that the promotion of that phrase by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, encompasses exactly what this Chamber ought to do in terms of making legislation clear, transparent and obvious to those who are bound by it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With the leave of the Committee, may I respectfully ask whether we are dealing with the noble Earl's amendment or the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Renton?
Lord Renton: They coincide.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Yes, but is it still proposed to introduce into the Bill the wording as set out on the Marshalled List?
Earl Russell: Yes, it is still proposed to do so. However, I would withdraw the amendment were the Minister to indicate any willingness to accept the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: One would hope that the Minister would indeed be prepared to consider the arguments put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The point about "absolute availability" is surely a most important one. However, I should like to ask the Minister a question which enlarges the doubts about this part of the Bill which have emerged during our discussions. The Minister has already spoken this evening about employment and about work. In the White Paper issued by the Government last October, they took some pride—and, indeed it was in a sense a bright spot in that document—in saying that there would be an extension of what people could offer as regards being available for work. For example, people may be available for self-employment provided that they are prepared to take a job as an employee. It was claimed that that was a widening of the scope of the availability condition which recognised that people were moving into being self-employed.
Can the Minister say whether that extension has disappeared? I may be wrong, but it seems to me that it might be arguable that it has disappeared because in the original Bill—if I may call it that—there was no definition of the word "employment"; indeed, it was to be prescribed. However, in the Minister's new Clause 6(9),
"'employed earner's employment' has the same meaning as in the Benefits Act".
It is of some importance for us to know whether that is a narrower formulation than that in the White Paper of being able to offer self-employment, especially in the case of people like those who have been cited this evening. For example, a carer may well be in a position of not being strictly in an "employed earner's employment". That is how I understand it, but the Minister can correct me if I am wrong. If that is so, the regulations would not be able to rescue someone in that situation who, although prepared to offer to take employment, could in fact only show that he was available for self-employment.
For once, I rather hope that the Minister and the Government have kept to their original intention. If the noble Earl's amendment were to be accepted, then being able to show that one could be suitable for a wide range of jobs in the broad sense would be quite important.

225
However, if the provision is limited to a narrower notion of employee, the importance of suitability is restricted to that area.
The Minister may wish to answer that question at a more suitable point. However, it is a thread which runs right through all the new clauses: employment is linked to "employed earner's employment" in the Benefits Act. Whether that has made any change in the intention of the original Bill and of the White Paper is, I submit, a rather important point which can suitably be discussed in regard to the proposed amendment.
Lord Inglewood: I must begin my comments on the amendment on rather similar lines to those that I used in connection with the previous amendment. I said then that I do not believe that, in terms of our aspirations, there is necessarily a great deal between the noble Earl moving the amendment and ourselves. However, we have approached the problem in a slightly different way.
Perhaps I may return to the principles which lie behind the Bill. To be entitled to JSA, jobseekers have to be available for any employment. That is one of the main labour market entitlement conditions of JSA, which carries forward existing case law and practice. The amendment seeks to qualify that basic condition in a way that, in our view, weakens the condition unacceptably.
Of course, we recognise one principle behind the amendment; namely, that jobseekers should have the opportunity to be available for and look for work in their usual occupation. That is why we are carrying forward the current provision of the "permitted period", as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, in which jobseekers may restrict their availability and jobsearch to their usual occupation and level of pay for up to 13 weeks from the beginning of a claim.
We will also accept, as we do at present, reasonable restrictions beyond the permitted period, provided that people retain reasonable prospects of employment. Any restrictions would be set out in the jobseeker's agreement and, like the rest of the agreement, would be subject to review from time to time. The longer the person is unemployed, the wider the range of work for which he is available should become. That is vital to the effective functioning of the labour market focus of JSA. The first priority for jobseekers is to get back to work. It is only fair to expect them to widen their jobsearch and to make the most of the opportunities available in the labour market.
There was considerable debate about the definition of the word "employment" and particular reference was made to the definition clause, Clause 6(9). Clearly our discussions have indicated that there is, perhaps, a degree of verbal confusion as regards the way in which the provision is formulated. However, we did that deliberately because of the relationship between this type of legislation and other social security legislation. The Government, as much as anyone else, want to see clear legislation. Of course, we can think about the matter to see whether we believe that any changes would help to clarify the meaning of the provision and thereby assist people who will actually be dealing with such matters on a day-to-day basis.
226
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, raised an important point. Here, the condition is that they have to be available—perhaps I had better write to the noble Lord to explain it to him more clearly than I can at present.
I suspect that the noble Earl may be concerned that jobseekers may be forced to consider or apply for unsuitable vacancies notified to them by the Employment Service and be subject to a sanction if they do not do so. I emphasise that that will not be the case. When all is said and done, there is a difference between being required to be available, and having to do or apply for a particular job in question. If the claimant had good reasons why he should not accept the offer of a vacancy, they will be put to the adjudication officer, who will consider whether the jobseeker had good cause for his refusal. If the person's age, level of skill and experience meant that it was unreasonable for the jobseeker to apply for the job, the adjudication officer may well consider that he had good cause.
As regards a job as professor of history, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would be infinitely better suited to that job than I. I would be unsuitable for that job. As regards the second example which the noble Earl gave, I do not feel well able to comment on that. However, as regards the final example he gave of a job raising money over the telephone for the Labour Party, it is not often that I offer disinterested advice to the Labour Party; but even if I were the only applicant for the job, I would advise the party not to accept me. I hope that I have made the Government's position clear in this regard. I urge the Committee to reject this amendment, and I hope that I have covered the point about which the noble Earl is concerned.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wish to ask him something. I do not wish to press him unreasonably—at least, not at this time. When he writes to me, I hope that he will send copies of the letter to everyone involved in this discussion. I hope that he will make clear whether we are debating a measure which is changing the range of those who come within the benefits which he claims the old clauses will offer. Will he make it clear in his letter whether those people are employees or whether they can be self-employed? The White Paper claims, at paragraph 4.3, that under the new scheme,
"Those whose usual occupation is in self-employment will be enabled to concentrate on returning to that line of work during their 'permitted period'".
Is that still the case or is it not? I do not see how we can debate the Bill unless we know whether fundamentals of that kind are still there.
Lord Inglewood: I am glad to say that I am clearer about the position in this regard and that I can now clarify the position for the Committee. The position is quite simple. One can be available for self-employment but one must be available for employment.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Before I decide what to do with the amendment, I should be grateful for a few further replies. I understand that some of the questions about suitability may not come up until a person applies for a job. But can the Minister spell

227
out unambiguously that when a person has a job presented to him, he may yet retain a right to say, "I am not taking this job because I cannot do it", or that he may be able to say—as in the case of the job fundraising for the Labour Party—"I am not going to take it because I think it is wrong"? I should like clear answers to those two questions before I decide what to do with this amendment. If the Minister would consider that for a moment, I should be extremely grateful.
Lord Inglewood: The short answer is that it is always open to a jobseeker to turn down an offer of employment if there is good cause for doing that. That seems to me a fundamental principle. As regards the point that the noble Earl raised, it seems to me that there would be good cause if a person was unable to do the job. As regards his second question, I would object to doing the job that he has described but I do not think that one could say it was against my religion to do it. However, at the end of the day, it is a matter of seeing whether the test of good cause, as it is currently extensively defined, would meet the particular circumstances of the case.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The situation would not arise because once the Labour Party discovered who my noble friend was it would not employ him anyway. Therefore that is a wholly hypothetical question.
Baroness Seear: There is an additional point; namely, that it is absolutely maddening from an employer's point of view—my memory goes back a long way on this—if totally unsuitable people are sent for jobs. It is highly desirable that there should be some selection before that point. There is the classic case of an employer who wanted a hydraulic engineer but who was sent a plumber. That sort of thing is extremely irritating. I hope that point will be taken into account and not only the point about what is convenient from the point of view of the employee. On what basis are the people in the Employment Service being paid? Does their pay in any way depend on the number of people they send forward for jobs or the number of people for which they get placements? It is important that we should know how they benefit in relation to the people they submit for employment.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend responds to that point, perhaps he can tell the Committee whether a jobseeker's conscience can be taken into account. For instance, someone may be conscientiously opposed to the fur trade, and the only job on offer is one on a fur farm. Would that person be entitled to turn that job down and still be able to claim benefit? That, in my view, is a better analogy than a political one. However, that may be the only job going and the person concerned may have been looking for work for many months. Would he still be able to turn that job down on grounds of conscience?
The Earl of Dudley: On that same point, even if it is a fundamental principle that a jobseeker may be able to turn down a job, is there a safeguard written into the legislation that he can do so without risking being disqualified for the jobseeker's allowance, or forfeiting it?
Lord Inglewood: A number of questions have been asked. I shall begin with the most straightforward one that was asked by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. In the proposed new Clause 6(2)(b), one of the grounds for restriction of availability is conscience. I hope that answers my noble friend's point. Obviously that must be tied in with good cause, and it must be genuine conscience. That takes me to the point made by my noble friend behind me. If you have good cause for not taking a job, then the various provisions and penalties which can come into play will not come into play. The two most important points were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Her first point concerned the Employment Service sending unsuitable people to employers. It is not ever the intention of the Employment Service to do that. Its intention is to send people to jobs for which they are suitable. First, the Employment Service wants to try to put people into work; and, secondly, it does the Employment Service's reputation no good at all to be accused of sending "duff people to employers. That will reduce the achievements of the Employment Service on behalf of the unemployed. I hope that answers the points that have been raised on this matter.
Baroness Seear: The Minister did not answer my point about how staff in the Employment Service are paid. That is an important point.
Lord Inglewood: I apologise. I had a feeling in the back of my mind that there was a further point that I had not replied to. The staff in the Employment Service are paid on the same basis as staff in the Civil Service. There is a series of targets and rates which are assessed by an overall system. We shall deal with that issue in greater depth elsewhere in the Bill. I suggest that that would be the appropriate time to take up this point.
Earl Russell: The plot thickens. Are we now being told that an employment officer may affect the performance targets of his service if he does not send someone to apply for a vacancy? If that is the case, that would materially affect the situation.
The Minister has made a very gallant and careful attempt to reassure me. My misgivings have not entirely disappeared; they have been reduced. They have been reduced almost entirely by the invocation of good cause. That makes me the more concerned that under this Bill the Minister, and the Minister's successors—and we do not know who they will be —will have the power to define "good cause" by regulation. Therefore, the safeguard on which we now rely could be removed altogether. That is an issue which, together with the issue of performance related pay, my noble friend Lady Seear raised, both of which I shall address in the appropriate place. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 6, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 7:
Line 6, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Earl said: This is one of a series of amendments which replaces the word "may" with the word "shall". All the way through, the government amendment says simply that they "may" bring in

229
regulations. My noble friend Lady Williams pointed out just now that all the safeguards that we have been told about in relation to conscience, religious conviction, physical or mental condition or caring responsibilities are safeguards which the Minister may introduce in regulations. One casual act of omission could blow them all away in a puff of smoke. If we let the provisions go through in their present form there is nothing that we could do about that.
There is a whole string of such instances, and if we are to make the Bill watertight, and if we are to put any weight on a series of often quite useful assurances that we have been given, we need the Bill to be in a mandatory form. Without that we do not have any reassurance. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I get the feeling that the noble Earl does not trust the Government. I have the suspicion that he thinks that the Government will welch on their commitments.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord may be right.
Lord Inglewood: Surely not.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The question is whether we have good cause.
Lord Inglewood: We set out our intentions at length at the opening of this afternoon's debate. They repeat the proposals contained in the White Paper. I emphasise once again that the provisions for restrictions on availability are central to our policy on availability and central to JSA. We do not want to, would not and I suggest could not disappoint people with disabilities, carers and people with sincerely held religious convictions by failing to act on our commitments. Provisions will relate in different ways to restrictions on the nature of employment, on the hours in the week and the pattern of those hours across the week, on the terms and conditions of employment and on the locality within which a person may restrict his availability.
However, the regulations will be complex and the legal confines of a duty are sometimes difficult to interpret. A duty to make regulations creates a duty to make regulations to the extent set out in the primary legislation. Without in any way stepping back from our absolute commitment to provide for restrictions to availability in regulations, it is important to retain a degree of flexibility should we find, through experience, that the same results could be achieved in a more effective way but one which may involve using different powers. I regard a power to make regulations as more appropriate in these circumstances and therefore cannot accept the amendment.
Earl Russell: The Minister asks me to trust him and at the same time asks to retain flexibility. That reminds me a little of a Member in another place who once said that the King was like a debtor who said "I owe you nothing, yet pray trust me". He cannot really use both of those arguments. I should like to know which he will rely on.
The Minister seems a little surprised about my not trusting the Government. I can recall the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, saying in this Chamber that it is not the business of Parliament to trust the Executive; that is
230
entirely independent of party. We are here to distrust the government—nothing personal, nothing to do with party. We are here to distrust governments of all sorts and all types. It was, after all, a Prime Minister of my own party, I regret to say, of whom it was said:
"Count not his broken pledges as a crime. He meant them, how he meant them, at the time".
The person who wrote that is said to be none other than Lloyd George himself.
Therefore, I am sure that the Minister understands why I believe that it is important that we have a little more certainty. The Minister says that a problem would arise from a specific requirement to make regulations. I accept that. I understand it very well. However, I was not the one who insisted that this Bill should go down the regulation-making road. If the Government wish to put matters as vital as this in regulations, they must give us an assurance that they will actually make the regulations. Is the Minister prepared to give that assurance?
Lord Inglewood: Yes. I am in a position to give that assurance and do so willingly, if the noble Earl will believe me.
Earl Russell: I beg leave to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 7, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 1O, as amendments to Amendment No. 4, not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Wise Lord Wise moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 11:
Line 14, at end insert:
("and may provide for voluntary work by unemployed people to be recorded as a positive outcome at any Restart interview carried out by an employment officer").
The noble Lord said: When this matter was last debated many examples of the way in which volunteering helped the unemployed were quoted. My noble friend the Minister appeared to be impressed by the arguments put forward. That is why I ask that the matter be considered again.
I believe that comparisons need to be made between government-sponsored schemes for the unemployed and the successes achieved by both formal and informal voluntary schemes.
Everyone accepts that the first priority of jobseekers must be obtaining paid work. However, it is also accepted that for a number of reasons jobseekers are often advised to take a place on a training scheme. Sometimes there are long waiting lists for such places. Many voluntary organisations are able to offer both formal and informal schemes to the unemployed which are just as helpful. I ask again that such opportunities are recognised as positive outcomes.
That happens informally now. One positive example was given to the National Association of Volunteer Bureaux only the other day by a woman graduate who is now employed by a local development agency in Cumbria. Her local employment office gave her every assistance when she wished to become a volunteer with

231
the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers. She gained administrative and managerial experience and found herself negotiating with parish councils and other bodies in the course of that work. She is adamant that but for that experience she would not have obtained her present post, which is not in the environmental field.
The negative side is that she told NAVB that people in a neighbouring area were discouraged from joining such a scheme because of the time commitment of 15 hours a week. If paid jobs were available it would be difficult to argue with that ruling, but they were not. It seems to many of us that such a scheme compares favourably with many official training schemes.
In 1993 Professor Alan McGregor of the University of Glasgow wrote an independent evaluation report which examined the work of five programmes run for unemployed people in the Greater Glasgow area. One of them consisted of work normally associated with a volunteer bureau. The unemployed were not compelled to join up nor asked to do set amounts of hours. During their involvement with the Glasgow Volunteer Centre they continued to sign on and had to meet normal benefit regulations—for example, regarding availability for work. The positive outcomes from this scheme were 57 per cent. Nearly 70 per cent. of those positive outcomes were job entries. That compares very favourably with official training schemes.
For those reasons, I once again ask that voluntary work be recognised as a positive outcome. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said in the last debate on this subject, that is not the first outcome. That must always be obtaining paid employment. But surely it is on a par or just behind official training schemes.
I should like to make one further point. The new allowance will be dealt with by benefit offices and employment offices. Will that cause further confusion? If it were to do so, surely that is another valid reason for counting volunteering as a positive outcome so that at least that situation is clarified.
In view of the considerable support that this ordinary amendment received at an earlier stage, and the response that the Minister gave, I hope that he may yet be persuaded to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I strongly support the amendment. Perhaps I may add two points to those that the noble Lord, Lord Wise, so eloquently made.
First, the term "positive outcome" is, as he indicated, a state of the art term. That it should be a positive outcome will affect what employment officers do. The term does not simply mean a positive outcome in the sense that we might say that it was a good thing for someone to gain a job as a volunteer if they were unemployed. The term involves an incentive for employment officers to encourage people to accept voluntary work, as I understand it.
Secondly, perhaps I may make this brief point in strong support of the noble Lord, Lord Wise. One of the greatest dangers of being unemployed over a period of time, even for someone highly motivated to obtain work, is the gradual rotting of that motivation and of losing the habit of work —not having to get up in the morning or to make
232
provision to get to work. That loss of motivation gradually begins to sour and undermine even the strongest personality. Any of us who have experienced living with unemployed people know that phenomenon.
The great advantage of permitting voluntary work to stand alongside the attempt actively to seek remunerative work is of significant and great importance. It is also of great importance to those who benefit from the work of volunteers, many of whom are becoming increasingly dependent on volunteers for assistance.
It is in strange symmetry that noble Lords today discussed the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill which puts great emphasis on the work of volunteers in the area of care in the community. There is vital need for volunteers in that field, as in the care of aged people. Surely we should do everything possible to encourage and to respect volunteering. I strongly commend the noble Lord's amendment. I very much hope that the Minister will find it acceptable.
Lord Norrie: I, too, support my noble friend's amendment which gives full recognition to the value of volunteering where this would improve an unemployed person's experience, skills or job prospects.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 45 in this group concern unemployed people who offer their services as volunteers for charities or other voluntary bodies. The exact purpose of my amendments is to ensure that, before regulations are brought before Parliament, the voluntary sector will be consulted on relevant aspects of those regulations. As noble Lords may be aware, provision for consultation about regulations is relatively commonplace in legislation.
Let me give noble Lords two examples. Part of Section 91 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 provides that regulations be subject to consultation with persons having experience of land agency and farming. In this case, it would be, for example, the National Farmers' Union which would discuss the content of the regulations. Part of Section 77 of the Charities Act 1992 provides for consultation with appropriate persons or bodies before regulations are made. For example, it might be the Church Commissioners or the NCVO. I believe that regulations arising from the Jobseekers Bill are a proper subject for consultation with the voluntary sector.
The Committee is aware of the extent and value of work undertaken by charities and voluntary organisations. We heard during Committee stage about the confidence, experience, self-discipline and skill which can come from volunteering. We heard of cases where volunteers had been deterred from valuable voluntary work because of benefit rules. We heard of the fears that the Bill could make matters worse for unemployed people who volunteer. Those fears are shared by the many voluntary organisations to which I alluded when we last debated the clause.
I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Inglewood was able to give very helpful assurances on that occasion. He confirmed that jobseekers who undertake voluntary work will continue to be allowed 48 hours' notice before taking up an offer of a job. He also stated that any volunteering work which a jobseeker is undertaking will be taken into consideration when assessing whether he or she is "actively seeking work".

233
My noble friend Lord Wise asked my noble friend the Minister to confirm that the Government will consult the voluntary sector on the drafting of any new regulations. The Minister said that he confirmed those matters. In the spirit of that reply, I trust that the intention of the amendment that I have tabled will be accepted by the Government.
Members of the Committee have expressed concern that regulations may be prepared without proper consideration or guidance from this House. One way to provide greater opportunity for reflection and avoid the pitfalls of haste would be to ensure that proper consultation takes place. This sort of consultation would help to draw from the enormous practical experience which exists within the voluntary sector. It would also assist in making the intention of regulations clearly understood and avoid inconsistency of application. It would help to ensure that the intention of Parliament and the Government at least to carry forward existing provision for unemployed volunteers is put into practice. In that context, I welcome the comments made by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish this afternoon concerning Clause 6(4) of the Bill.
The commitment of the Prime Minister and the Government to volunteering is not at issue. I should like to remind the House that on 1st April 1995 the Prime Minister extolled the virtues of volunteering at the Conservative Central Council meeting in Birmingham. He said:
"Duty and Responsibility are instinctive to Conservatives as a Party, and as people. Ask the huge number of Conservatives who run Voluntary Services, Meals on Wheels, Citizens' Advice Bureaux, Red Cross shops, and a hundred thousand charities up and down the land … I … want to provide more opportunity for people to help others".
The Prime Minister has publicly proclaimed the value of volunteering. We need to consider how best we can ensure that the regulations made under the Bill will encourage volunteers rather than impede them. It is in that spirit that I ask my noble friend to accept the principle of my amendments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: From this side of the Chamber we warmly support Amendments Nos. 11 and 23 and the double-backed amendments (if I may so call them), Amendments Nos. 30 and 45.
I believe that all the major parties are considering proposals for voluntary citizens' service—the chance for young people, especially those between 18 and 25 years, to volunteer for, say, three months with voluntary organisations concerned with homelessness, the disabled, the elderly or the environment.
There is no dispute in the Committee. We all recognise that volunteering allows both those who volunteer and those who receive the voluntary work to tackle issues of crime, unemployment, social fragmentation and the growth of inequality. We all recognise that volunteering helps to bond people to each other. As we explored at Committee stage, in the process it helps skilled volunteers in all kinds of positive ways in the world of work.
Yet the most recent survey reported by the Demos think-tank which featured in the national press showed that only 5 per cent. of the volunteers were unemployed. That is half the rate of the population. All the research shows that the more educated, wealthy and successful you
234
are, the more likely you are to be a volunteer. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, rightly said, those who have the most time and the most social need to find a purpose, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said, those most in need of skills, of openings in the labour market, knowledge of the labour market and networking, those unemployed people are the least likely to volunteer.
Community Service Volunteers suggests to us that the main obstacle is the stifling effect of the benefit system. Benefit rules prevent those who have the most to give and the most to gain from volunteering from doing so. Helping out in school for a couple of days a week may lose a person benefit.
Today I received a report from the National Trust. A recent survey of 25 volunteers who worked last year with the trust in the Lake District revealed that seven secured permanent or temporary posts with the National Trust, 12 obtained employment with other environmental organisations and six went on to higher education. As a result, there were seven jobs within the National Trust, 12 with other environmental organisations and six in higher education. Out of 25, that record of placement and improvement is almost unrivalled in any government scheme of which I am aware. Yet the National Trust reports that recently it closed down a project involving structured work experience for seven volunteers in Kent because of major difficulties with the employment service. After three months, benefit was refused and the employment office insisted that the volunteers should apply instead for government training schemes or seek work in fields unrelated to their qualifications and interests. How short-sighted can we be, and how short-sighted was that?
I have some questions for the Minister to reinforce those already raised. Will the Government consult not just about these regulations but, after April 1996, on any subsequent changes to regulations? In what way will they consult? Further, following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and given all the evidence on how successful a placement with a voluntary organisation is, will the Government allow such work to be treated as a positive outcome? All kinds of conditions may be attached, such as that the voluntary organisation is registered with the Employment Service; that with training, the placements are approved as appropriate by the Employment Service; and that the Employment Service should regard the training as reasonable. All those matters can be sorted out in the consultation which the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, suggested. We want people to work together on it.
Surely the Minister can accept that worthwhile work, with a worthwhile organisation which catches the spirit and commitment of the volunteer and where the organisation has a superb track record in placing people in permanent and secure work thereafter, must be an appropriate, acceptable and positive outcome. Will the Minister accept that?
Finally, I have one small point. Will the Government assure us that people receiving incapacity benefit will qualify in the same way as those receiving the jobseeker's allowance? They should also be allowed to continue to volunteer for 16 hours. Can we hope that the Minister will accept the spirit shared by the whole Committee that the major amendments are an important way not only to bring

235
people back into the world of work but into work which captures their commitment and offers them the best we can—a secure place for the future?
7 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: As someone who has spent many years involved in such matters and who was the author of Restart, I wish to support the amendment, with an important caveat. It appears contradictory, but it is not. It is, first, that the voluntary work should be real and should involve a sufficient number of hours per week to be an adequate substitute for work. It should prevent the claimant from being able to look for work during that period. Secondly, it should be sufficiently short in duration, in terms of months, so as not to become a substitute for work itself. Voluntary activity is voluntary and should not be paid for by the state. With those caveats, I support the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I wish to support the amendment, particularly as regards young jobseekers. They have often had little in the way of work experience and the opportunity of building up good references. It is always useful for a prospective employer to be able to obtain references as to an individual's capacity for work and his diligence. If that person has not previously been in work, surely the employer can go to a voluntary organisation and obtain a reference on how the voluntary work was undertaken. That would be an indication of how the paid employment would be undertaken.
Lord Inglewood: Having heard Members of the Committee on the subject this evening, I find that there is no doubt that we are all in agreement on the importance of volunteering in the community. As my noble friend Lord Wise and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, not only is it of great assistance to those who are unemployed, since it helps them to stay in touch with the labour market and provides them with an opportunity to maintain and develop their skills while looking for work. But also, clearly, volunteers are a great help to the voluntary sector. That is one of the reasons why we are happy to consider the views of the representatives of the voluntary sector before regulations are drafted in the future.
Certain examples were given of the way in which, it was alleged, the activities of the Employment Service got in the way of people wishing to volunteer. Without having chapter and verse, it is impossible for me to comment on them. However, we believe that volunteering within the context of actively seeking and being available for work benefits people. We wish to see it happen if it is slotted in with the overall scheme of things.
As my noble friend Lord Norrie pointed out, one of the Government's proposals in the Bill is to make a number of significant special provisions for volunteers. It is important that we do not forget that. As I explained before, I am still unconvinced about the proposal to treat voluntary work as a positive outcome from a Restart interview. The position is that all claimants who have been unemployed for six months are required to attend such an interview and to continue to do so every six months as long as they remain unemployed.
236
The Employment Service, as part of its annual performance agreement with Ministers, has targets for positive outcomes achieved from certain Restart interviews. They are designed to maximise the effectiveness of the Restart process in helping claimants back to work. It is important to emphasise that. Examples of positive outcomes include placings into jobs and referrals to programmes. I do not think that it would be right to treat voluntary work as a positive outcome, since the jobseeker doing voluntary work—that was the point made by my noble friend Lord Young—is still unemployed.
Similarly and in parallel, it would not be appropriate or right to set out specific positive outcomes in legislation. After all, there are no positive outcomes listed in legislation at the moment. Nor for that matter are any other Employment Service targets. As we have stressed before, it would be most odd to do so, since those are primarily management tools which change from year to year.
In view of the commitments that we have given, I hope that my noble friends and the noble Baronesses will agree that it is not necessary to put such undertakings on the face of the Bill. I hope that in view of that they will feel able to withdraw their amendments. However, in saying that, I wish to emphasise that it in no way lessens our commitment to volunteers.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am puzzled by the Minister's reply. I took his words down. He said that he was concerned about how volunteering and so on,
"slotted in with the overall scheme of things".
He went on to argue that, nonetheless, volunteering and placement in an appropriate and, I hope, approved volunteer course would not be counted as a positive outcome. He reminded us that the function of the JSA was to support someone while they were actively seeking work. The Minister is of course right. But he failed to remind the Committee that one of the outcomes is not just a job, but a training course. That is fine. But perhaps the Minister can help by telling us why an approved placement with a voluntary scheme would not also count as equivalent to a training course. There could be negotiations with the voluntary organisations to see that that provision was met. Can the Minister tell us what aspects a voluntary placement would have to show for it to count as a training placement?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Perhaps I may raise one other point before the Minister replies. He was extremely helpful on this issue at earlier stages of the Bill. I hope he will forgive my saying that I thought his answer had a certain bureaucratic ring to it. I fully accept that the phrase "positive outcome" may not be the appropriate phrase; but I am sure that it is well within the ingenuity of the Minister to find another phrase which would provide an incentive to employment officers to accept volunteering as a truly positive outcome, although he may want to use a word that is not a term of art, as this one is. Surely it would be possible in regulations to use such phraseology as, "It will be regarded as an outcome that can be widely accepted although it may not be in technical terms a positive outcome". I am sure that the noble Lord can easily find language which implies that the outcome

237
is positive without necessarily using the term of art to which his brief clearly objects. I ask him to consider that point.
Lord Inglewood: In relation to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, as to schemes, the crucial requirement in respect of the jobseeker's agreement is that the two tests must be met: availability for employment and actively seeking employment. Therefore any volunteering has to fall within the framework of those two criteria.
The point about voluntary work is that the volunteers who do it are willingly and constructively working for some organisation. The approved government schemes are exclusively focused on getting people back to work. We have already heard examples—most of them, I am glad to say, from my home county of Cumbria—of how voluntary work is of positive benefit in achieving a job. At the same time when people are doing voluntary work, that is not the prime purpose of the activity. The point about referrals to approved government programmes is that they are exclusively focused on the overriding objective; namely, to get the people concerned back into work.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps the Minister will forgive me for intervening. The Government's new Clause 6A states that,
"For the purposes of this Act, a person is actively seeking employment in any week if he takes in that week such steps as he can reasonably be expected to have to take in order to have the best prospects of securing employment".
Why should that not include volunteering?
Lord Swinfen: I get the impression that my noble friend is on a slightly different tack to the rest of us. I get the feeling that he considers voluntary work to be an alternative to fully paid employment. I do not think that any other Members of the Committee take that view. What we suggest is that an unemployed person doing voluntary work can do it quite happily without it interfering with his or her jobsearch and at the same time can be of benefit to the community. Such people can give themselves additional skills, and possibly put themselves in a position to build up Brownie points, credit points and good referees who might help them towards finding work. I have the feeling that there is a misunderstanding on my noble friend's part. None of us suggests that voluntary work is an alternative to full-time employment, but it can be a very good adjunct to seeking full-time work.
Lord Inglewood: My noble friend Lord Swinfen is right. However, what he describes can be done now. Voluntary work has obviously in the past been of benefit to many people and will no doubt continue to be so in the future. The other point to remember is that voluntary work is one of the list of circumstances that are taken into account when determining whether someone has met the "actively seeking employment" condition. It is not the only criterion; it is one of the criteria.
Baroness Seear: Is the noble Lord's trouble that "positive outcome" is a term of art, and means something quite specific? Would it be preferable to use the term "a positive activity" or "a suitable activity" to be taken into
238
account at the restart interview? In that way we could get over the "term of art" problem which I believe is the noble Lord's difficulty.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Baroness is right. As I endeavoured to explain in my remarks, this is part of the means whereby the Employment Service measures itself for its own purposes. I do not believe that any Member of the Committee would dissent from the general proposition that doing voluntary work is helpful to people and should be encouraged. I am merely trying to make the point, and to emphasise, that the purpose and whole thrust of this legislation is to get people back into employment. That is the first and principal target that we have.
Earl Russell: The Minister has illustrated the harm that is done by the performance related concept of "positive outcome".
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The problem is that "positive outcome", as the Government now have it, has two possibilities. The first is work—and we all agree that that is what we wish to see people able to accept. But it also includes steps to getting work: for example, a training place. We argue that voluntary work, subject to any conditions of consultation, should also be regarded as a step to getting work and should therefore count as a positive outcome. Voluntary work is not ultimately an alternative to full-time salaried work. It may be a worthwhile route to getting work and may take more than 16 hours a week, in the same way as training may take more than 16 hours a week. But it is an approved, recognised, well-regarded and appropriate step to work and should therefore be treated as a positive outcome in the same way as training is, although not in the same way as work is. That is the distinction that we ask the Minister to join with us in accepting. Can the Minister help us?
Lord Inglewood: The noble Baroness has helped me, but there is still a difference between us in emphasis and in the way that we describe these matters.
Lord Wise: I must confess to becoming more and more confused as the debate went on. Obviously I am somewhat disappointed in the remarks of my noble friend the Minister. I listened carefully to them. I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who supported this amendment. I cannot for the life of me see why my noble friend cannot accept it. I am somewhat concerned that under the present arrangements unemployed people who volunteer can be treated inconsistently by local employment officers. Given the new regulations and the new allowance that will come into being, I fear that unemployed people may be unduly deterred from volunteering. That will possibly be so.
However, on the basis of the Minister's comments, I shall withdraw the amendment. I look forward to seeing at the next stage of the Bill how he proposes to deal with the issue of volunteering and consultation with the voluntary sector. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 11, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumping ton: I beg to move that the Committee do now adjourn during pleasure until 7.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.19 to 7.50 p.m.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 12:
Line 14, at end insert:
("Provided always that regulations shall not have the effect of creating any new conditions of eligibility").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 12 is an amendment of some importance and needs to be argued on two different levels. I heard what the Minister said on the first amendment about the use of regulations for detail. He will have heard what I said in reply; that from time to time what is defined as a detail tends to grow, as it has always been said the prerogatives of princes daily grow. The amendment attempts to put a line under that, to say that any new condition of eligibility for benefit such that a person could be deprived of benefit if he did not need it, is not a detail and should not be put into regulation under the Bill.
There is a perfectly serious political case to be made for that. Conditions of eligibility for benefit are serious matters. People's livelihoods are at stake. Last Sunday I heard the Secretary of State for Employment, speaking on "The World This Weekend" say that the British people should be subject only to laws made in the Parliament which they have chosen. With appropriate reservations and on the appropriate subject matter, we would agree with that entirely. But the Secretary of State's Bill does not entirely live up to his criterion. Regulations are not made in the Parliament which the British people chose; they are made by the Minister, as ministerial language occasionally reveals, and are merely rubber stamped, passed or put through a consultation process very much like that of the social security advisory committee in this Chamber.
That is the first point of principle. The other point, which goes to the nature of the way the Bill is drafted, is that the Bill sets out to prescribe so carefully all the tests, all the criteria, all the steps, that it is easy for some of them to go over the watershed and become in effect new conditions of eligibility for benefit. For example, the power by regulation to define, "good cause". The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, went to great trouble to assure me about "good cause" earlier this evening. But, since regulation can change what is to be taken for "good cause", those reassurances can be valid only until the next lot of regulations are introduced. After that we must begin all over again. We are seeing a long series of steps being set out as proof that the claimant is actively seeking employment. They may not be the same steps that appear to the claimant to be the ones that put him in the best position to obtain employment. So, from the claimant's point of view, they may very well resemble conditions.
I can understand the Minister saying that he would not accept the claimant's word without question. That would be only proper. But what is or is not "good cause"; what are or are not "sufficient" steps to prove one is actively seeking employment are not the sort of things that
240
legislation can set out in exhaustive detail. They are matters which must be left to judicial resolution. If we set them out in detail the Government may find that they are prescribing new conditions of eligibility for benefit almost before they are aware that they have done so. This is something which needs judicial oversight and attention if respect is to continue to be given to the sovereignty of Parliament. Parliament must be able to spell out what are the conditions of eligibility for benefit and what are not. If Parliament cannot do that, the Minister will be left doing it on his own, which will get us into a situation where his will is law. That is not something which any real defender of parliamentary sovereignty could possibly stomach. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for explaining his position in regard to this amendment and I now understand the point he is trying to make. It must be axiomatic that new entitlement conditions cannot be introduced through regulations as a matter of principle. If we look at Clause 6, subsection (1) is qualified by subsection (2). It is merely a matter of defining or refining the matters that are determined in new Clause 6(1).
In relation to the clause, it is clear that subsections (2) (a) and (b) relate to specific restrictions which cut down the scope of a wider provision contained in Clause 6(1). But the important point made by the noble Earl is one we discussed earlier this evening, at the beginning of this afternoon's debate. We explained to the Committee that we do not wish to extend the eligibility criteria by regulation; we believe that they should be set out clearly on the face of the Bill. The noble Earl is concerned that in some way, through the use of regulations—a mechanism of law-making which, from his perspective, is one which does not provide suitable parliamentary scrutiny—we will impose new conditions on the jobseeker which are not on the face of the Bill.
I must return to our earlier debate. As my noble friend explained, in regard to new Clauses 6 and 6A we intend that regulations made under the new clauses should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That will bring Parliament further into the consideration of matters which, as the noble Earl explained, are obviously important to the working of the Bill. But the fundamental point—it is one to which I must return—is that we cannot add to the entitlement conditions on the face of the Bill by introducing new matters through subordinate legislation, because the subordinate legislation locks back to the matters which are on the face of the Bill.
I understand that the noble Earl may feel that that is an unsatisfactory reply. For him to take that view would be consistent with the position he has been arguing ever since we began to talk about this point some days ago. We do not seek now under existing legislation, nor do we seek under the JSA legislation, to extend the conditions of eligibility through secondary legislation.
8 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am grateful for that reply. I hear what the Minister is saying. He is perhaps a little optimistic

241
about it. He said—I think I have his words down correctly—that it is axiomatic that regulations can create no new conditions. But paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 states:
"Regulations may require additional conditions to be satisfied with respect to the payment of a jobseeker's allowance to any person who is, has been, or is to be, in employment which falls within a prescribed description".
That appears to be a specific gift of vires to impose additional conditions. I understand what the Minister says about the vires being locked back to what is in the Bill. I understand that the point is perfectly genuine. I am not convinced that it is sufficient, because the conditions are simply the very general ones of being available for employment and actively seeking employment.
I have had no answer at all to what is my very much deeper concern that the Bill is attempting to spell out in such detail what shall be taken as evidence of actively seeking employment and of being available for employment that the tests, just like performance indicators, take over from the real thing, that the shadow displaces the substance and that the things which are supposed to be evidence of actively seeking employment will themselves be elevated into conditions.
Clause 6(3) of the old Bill is a classic example of that, and I notice that no attempt has been made to change it in the new Bill. All the way through the Bill these tests and steps are being spelt out through regulation. They are going to be taken as evidence of the primary criterion—I think very often inappropriately taken as evidence; and, if inappropriately taken as evidence, if they appear to the Minister to be suitable tests when they do not appear to the rest of us to be suitable tests, they will appear to the rest of us to be new conditions of eligibility and, what is more, they will appear to the claimant to be new conditions of eligibility. I cannot let this Bill go until I can get some satisfaction on that point. I should be very grateful if I could have an answer to it.
Lord Inglewood: I shall begin by referring to the point raised by the noble Earl about Schedule 1. It will be used in very particular circumstances to adapt the JSA regime for groups who have access to benefit under special conditions who are given more favourable access in general. The two groups concerned will be share fishermen and temporarily stopped workers.
The general point which the noble Earl raised must be one of concern but it is certainly not the Government's intention that items which are evidence should by some process of osmosis or transmutation suddenly find themselves turned into items which are articles of principle and items of law. The noble Earl made that distinction and explained that he was concerned that this process may take place. All I can do, standing here at the Dispatch Box, is to recognise that there is at least a theoretical possibility that the distinction he makes could occur and explain that it is not the Government's intention that the distinction between evidence and law. should be blurred in the manner in which the noble Earl describes.
Earl Russell: I am grateful for that reply. I am particularly grateful for the reply about paragraph 17 of Schedule 1. If that could be spelt out rather more clearly, it might save me from moving an amendment to delete
242
that later on. The intention is one I can only welcome. But the words at present do not confine the Government to the intention the Minister stated.
On the question of evidence and intention, let me take a parallel case. Suppose one of our spouses should require as evidence that we love them that we present them with 12 red roses every day. We might think that there was a disjunction between the deed and the intention and that it was possible for one to exist without the other. The spouse would not think that. She would not think that she was creating any new test of love. She would simply think that if one loved her one would do what was required. The perception of those who are imposing the test is necessarily different from the perception of those who are receiving it. The Government really have to take that into their head. I understand that they do not think they are imposing new tests, but do they understand that the rest of the world, and possibly the courts as well, will not see it the same way?
Lord Inglewood: Perhaps it would be useful to talk about paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 on another occasion. The noble Earl was talking about the distinction between evidence and law and instanced the case of 12 red roses. The key to the process on which the Jobseekers Bill will proceed is that these things must be measured not subjectively but objectively—whether it is by the adjudication officer or ultimately by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the commissioner or the courts. In those instances they will have to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. We have introduced concepts such as reasonableness and good cause—the noble Earl has referred to them and has expressed concern about the way in which they are bedded into the Bill—in order to give that objective standpoint from which these matters have to be judged rather than the purely subjective one which the noble Earl is concerned will find its way into the workings of the entire Bill.
Earl Russell: The Minister has spoken with the best of intentions but I think he has given vent to the deepest fallacy in Whitehall. That is the notion of the objective test. We are familiar with objective tests. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and I have had many arguments about an allegedly objective test for incapacity benefit. The point about these tests is that they appear objective to the person who composes them but to anyone else they appear to be no such thing because they represent what appears to be objectivity to one particular mind with one particular outlook.
It really is not convincing. The desire to be objective is of course fine but it results in a search for outward and visible signs which may in fact be quite irrelevant to the criteria we are really trying to get at. It is the same with the whole Whitehall machinery of performance indicators. In my own professional field a good score on the performance indicators and a good performance are absolutely totally different. The one may totally inhibit the other.
I understand that the Minister thinks he is being objective. That really is not the human condition. The Minister is trying to be objective and that is a very, very different matter. I really must ask him to think a little more about this before the next stage of the Bill, when we must

243
return to it and, I am afraid, return to it in a great many places. It really will not do as it is. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 12, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, not moved.]
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 14:
Line 23, at end insert:
("( ) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3) above, in the case of claimants suffering from a physical or mental handicap restrictions appropriate to a claimant's capacities shall be acceptable even if they do not offer a reasonable prospect of employment.".
The noble Baroness said: In this amendment I can follow fairly directly from the point made by my noble friend on a previous amendment and perhaps again cast some light for the Minister as to why there seems to be so many amendments on these lines from this side of the Committee.
The problem with the Bill—and the Government's amendment has gone some way to meet it and, again, we are very grateful for it—is that it leaves the issue of the determination of the definition which is now on the face of the Bill still subject to regulation. In many cases, although those regulations may be conceived and drawn in the most farsighted and imaginative way, this is a Bill which will turn into an Act and that Act will be on the statute book. Governments come and go with different Secretaries of State for Employment. One has to allow for the possibility that they may not all be balanced and fair in their approaches. Therefore one has to look at what is actually said on the face of the Bill.
Therefore, I particularly draw the attention of the Minister to two aspects. The first is the broad aspect and I believe that my amendment and the ones grouped with it address themselves to the issue that Ministers will know has concerned this Committee time and again in the course of this Bill. I refer to the worrying gap between people so disabled or otherwise affected by mental or physical problems, that they are unable to meet the disablement income benefit tests yet for reasons connected with those disabilities they are also unlikely to get employment.
I shall give one striking example. Someone may have a physical disfigurement like a birthmark. That might mean that it was very difficult for him to get a job, although he tried very hard to do so, in virtually any work that involved interaction with the public yet for the purposes of disablement income benefit he would certainly fail to satisfy the conditions laid down. It is this gap, described at one stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, as the gap or stools between which disabled or handicapped people might fall, that this amendment addresses.
Secondly, the amendment uses the verb "shall" instead of what is repeatedly in the Government's amendments, especially new Clause 6B; namely, the verb "may". "May" leaves it to the employment officer to decide whether to take notice of these conditions, but "shall" requires him or her to do so. Therefore, this amendment lays down that the employment officer shall take into
244
account the restrictions that are appropriate to the claimant's capacities where they arise from a physical or mental disability.
The reason we have put in "shall" is that we want it to be a condition that has to be taken into account by the employment officer when he considers the position of the claimant and not one which is open to his or her discretion. Of course, for many claimants that is not relevant, but for those where it is relevant, we believe that it is part of the duty of taking into account genuine—and if I may use the Minister's own term—"objective difficulties"—and that shall be a requirement made on the employment and adjudication officer and not be simply something that he may or may not take into account.
The noble Lord may be able to assure me—to quote an earlier part of the Bill—that for 'may' we may read 'shall' and for 'shall' we may read 'may' which would go some way to comfort me, but not a very long way. Can the Minister address the main purpose of this amendment which is to deal with a particular group of our fellow citizens who, through no fault of their own, are disadvantaged in seeking employment? The terminology I have used is very close to that used by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in Amendment No. 16. It tries precisely to indicate that work should be sought by a disabled person, that that disabled person should be available for work, but it necessarily must be within the terms of what his or her mental and physical capacities allow him or her to encompass. I hope that the Minister will take at least a sympathetic view considering the great difficulties in getting employment which already apply to this particular group of our fellow citizens. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: Grouped with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, are my Amendment Nos. 15 and 16. The purpose of Amendment No. 15 is to allow people appealing against a decision that they are not entitled to incapacity benefit nonetheless to be treated as available and actively seeking work until the point at which their appeal is heard. In the first year of the jobseeker's allowance at least 150,000 people are expected to be considered capable of work and therefore to leave incapacity benefit or income support and disability premium to sign on for the jobseeker's allowance. The Government have stated that in the year 1996–97 they expect about 190,000 appeals to be lodged against a decision that someone is capable of work, as reported in the Official Report of the other place on 28th March at col. 556.
Most of those 190,000 people will have little choice but to sign on as unemployed pending their incapacity appeal. They will have little choice because many people may want to protect their national insurance record by registering as unemployed. If they lose their incapacity appeal they will not be entitled to any national insurance credit for the period between the withdrawal of their incapacity benefit and the date of the appeal. As appeals are taking some 26.6 weeks, as reported at col. 745 of the Official Report of the other place on 17th March this year, that means that someone could lose half a year's national insurance credit if they lose their incapacity appeal.

245
The introduction of the 20 per cent. reduction in income support payments for people who do not sign on pending appeal, is not only an appeal penalty, but may result in additional numbers believing that they have little choice but to sign on for the jobseeker's allowance. Where the person's capacity for work is at the heart of their appeal, it makes sense, in my view, to treat the person as available for and actively seeking work just for the period pending their appeal. It makes sense because it is futile to make Employment Service staff assess someone's entitlement to the jobseeker's allowance when they may not qualify for it after a matter of weeks. It is likely to be time-consuming to assess what restrictions someone may need to place on their availability and to check on the steps that they are taking to actively seek work. It should not be forgotten that the employment staff will have the additional work load of disabled people coming from incapacity benefit and income support, whether appealing or not. If the staff have to spend their time chasing disabled people to ensure that they are really looking for work, they will have less time to assist other long-term unemployed people into jobs which, of course, is the whole point of the Bill.
Treating people as available and actively seeking work also makes sense because the individual is not placed in the position of having to show that they are available and actively seeking work when they may be ultimately considered incapable of all work. Already there is evidence from the citizens advice bureaux and disability organisations that Jobcentres do not consider that someone is really available and actively seeking work pending an incapacity appeal. That is hardly surprising given the logical inconsistency in a claimant being asked to present as being both capable of work and incapable of work at the same time. It does not sound logical.
If people fail the availability and actively seeking work conditions, they may be shunted back to the Benefits Agency for reduced rate income support. Such a person could also appeal against the decision that they were not available for, or actively seeking work, thus having two appeals in progress at the same time, one on incapacity and the other on the jobseeker's allowance. Surely that is not the Government's intention. It would be costly in terms of distress to the individual and to the department in terms of administration.
With regard to Amendment No. 16, which is also in my name, its purpose is to place on the face of the Bill the current law which allows for disabled people to restrict their work availability and not have to show that they have a reasonable prospect of finding work. The statement made by my noble friend during the Committee stage earlier on this Bill indicated that the intention is to carry forward current provisions about restricting work availability in the jobseeker's allowance. These appear in part in the Government's new clause.
Despite statements that the availability rules are to be carried forward, there remains some confusion about the precise position of disabled people who place reasonable restrictions on their availability. In Committee on 25th April, my noble friend was asked to explain his response (in the Hansard record of the debates on 20th April) when he stated that the acceptability of restrictions on availability would depend on the individual
246
demonstrating a reasonable prospect of securing work, as reported in col. 626, which is the reverse of the current rules. This issue does not appear in the Government's new clause. When answering, can my noble friend please clarify that point?
As already mentioned, with at least 150,000 more disabled people having their incapacity benefit withdrawn and therefore signing on, the Employment Service will be faced with an unprecedented number of disabled people who need to restrict their availability. Disability organisations remain concerned that the current law should be reproduced in full and that there should be clear guidance to Employment Service staff about the interpretation of these conditions. Placing the conditions on the face of the Bill will go some way toward ensuring that staff, claimants and advisers are clear about the conditions of entitlement.
There is already evidence that the system is failing to provide. I am sure that my noble friend will appreciate that the amendment will ensure that disabled people will be able to restrict their availability without consideration being given to their prospects of work, given these restrictions. It merely reproduces current law and will clarify the present position.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We on this side of the Committee would very much like to support the three amendments, moved so smoothly and illuminatingly today. What all these issues have in common is the question of the interface between the new incapacity benefit now in place and the new proposed jobseeker's allowance. We believe that at the heart of the problem lies the fact that the Government got things badly wrong and we shall find out over the next year or two how badly wrong they were. They got it badly wrong on incapacity benefit because they insisted on an either/or test of incapacity for work. Anyone who has worked with partially disabled people knows that the problem is a continuum and not an either/or situation. That is why we shall have so many problems in future.
The Government have given no recognition to the many people who currently receive invalidity benefit but may well be disqualified, and the many more who would have got it but will not now do so but nonetheless will not fit tidily into the definition of "jobseeking". Our fears about that were confirmed when I came across a parliamentary Answer in the other place given on 27th March 1995. It was a referral of claims to the Benefits Agency's Medical Service for the quarter to September 1994. They are references to the Benefit Agency's medical services for sickness benefit, invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance. This is on the more generous interpretation before the one we have now. The figures for September 1994 for those claims show that 4,000 out of a total of some 31,000 people who appealed in that quarter were capable of undertaking their normal occupation and 27,000 were regarded as capable of some alternative work—I repeat, 27,000 capable of alternative work. We are concerned about those 27,000 as opposed to the 4,000 who could resume their jobs.
The Minister insists that there can be no problem. We believe—we have no reason to think that this is not still the case—that being partially disabled, those people will be denied incapacity benefit. Being partially disabled they

247
must then apply for the jobseeker's allowance, where their partial disability may so limit their capacity for work and ability to find work, if it exists, and then to keep it once they have it, that it will be deemed as being only partially available for work and partially able to qualify for any tests under "actively seeking work".
I know that the Minister insists that that will not be the case. But the Minister is speaking—if I may use a word of which he is very fond—of "hypotheticals". Why engage in hypothetical figures when we can read the book. The book includes the RADAR survey, which showed that even under the more generous, compassionate and lenient regime nearly one-third of the 77 cases which it followed up who were refused invalidity benefit because they were only partially disabled were also refused unemployment benefit because they were partially disabled. That is one third and, incidentally, not one of those who were refused invalidity benefit went on to find work—not one.
So what reassurances can the Minister give us that that will not continue to happen when it has happened in the past and is happening at the moment. Who are we talking about? We have tried to produce some profiles of possible claimants who may, we fear, fall between the two stools. Let me give a couple more examples.
Let us take the case of someone with physical incapacity. That is fairly easy to recognise and understand. Consider someone who comes within the invalidity benefit, the medical assessment for incapacity benefit—someone whose speech is so distorted that strangers have great difficulty in understanding it. He receives 10 points. That person also loses control of his bladder frequently, once a day or more —three points. Nonetheless, that person is refused incapacity benefit, even though he is probably suitable only for a job with little or no public human contact—perhaps a warehouseman or perhaps stacking shelves. But I forgot to mention that that person cannot use one arm in the sense that he cannot lift it to his head or carry any weight with it. For that, as it carries no points, he will still not get incapacity benefit; but it will certainly disqualify him from a job as a warehouseman or stacking shelves, which might be the only jobs which may fit that profile. Here, the employment officer may consider, justifiably, that the limitations on work are so severe that there is no reasonable chance of him finding work. He therefore disqualifies that person from JSA, at the same time denying him access to incapacity benefit.
Or let us take someone with a mental health problem—again a different example from the one that we gave during the last Committee stage. The person is unable to concentrate without sustained prompting, somewhat dangerous because he overlooks the risks associated with dangerous appliances and equipment, is unable to cope with changes in routine, is in distress because of severe mood fluctuations, prefers to be left alone for most of the day and gives up on tasks because of apathy or fatigue—all symptoms of quite severe depression. That person is virtually unemployable, yet with that profile he would get only six points of the necessary 10 points to render him eligible for incapacity benefit. I ask the Minister in the real world what job that person realistically would be available to do or to obtain or to hold. I do not ask about
248
hypothetical jobs but real jobs for a person with that profile of severe depression, unable to complete a task, wanting to be left alone and unsafe to be left alone. What job can that person do? He is disqualified from one benefit and apparently unable to be employed in work and therefore possibly disqualified from another. We need to know of such cases.
Perhaps I may move away from the vocabulary of two stools. What we fear is that in that situation, if the employment officer recognises, understands and sympathises with such symptoms, the claimant might quite reasonably fail the availability for work test on the grounds that his symptoms so limit what he can do that he cannot reasonably gain work. But if the employment officer does not recognise, understand or respect those symptoms, especially if they are in the field of moderate mental ill-health and he thinks that that person should simply pull himself together, he may regard him as not actively seeking work. If he is perceptive and supportive, he will fail the ability for work test; if not, he may fail the actively seeking work test. On one or the other, he will go down the middle. Hence the importance of the amendments.
We believe that restrictions relevant to disability may so handicap a person's ability to hold a job that the prospect of obtaining that work may be so limited that any employment officer could, as the Bill currently stands, refuse that person JSA—those very people who have already been disqualified for incapacity benefit. We need the Minister's help on this. It is no use him trying to assure us again that there will be a seamless web. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary already. We fear that that evidence will grow when we have two more restrictive and demanding benefits seeking to interlock with each other. We wholeheartedly support the amendments.
8.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I should like to add a brief word in support of two points. The first is restricted availability—allowing disabled people to put restrictions on their employment which do not provide a reasonable prospect of employment. We all know of disabled people who had no reasonable prospect of employment but who have nevertheless found it. Those are people who want to work, as so many of them do, but can work only in peculiarly favourable conditions. When they do work, they often work with great distinction to their benefit, to society's benefit and to the Treasury's benefit.
But were those people to be forced to accept conditions which were compatible with a reasonable prospect of employment, they would often be unable to meet them. If it were demanded that they should search for work on those terms, they would be unable to do it at all. If the Minister will accept Amendment No. 14 or Amendment No. 16 —I have no great preference—it would make it a lot easier to get disabled people into employment.
The other point concerns—I should like to ask the Minister seriously to take legal advice about Amendment No. 15—the appeal penalty for appealing against denial of incapacity benefit. Will the Minister take legal advice on whether that is contrary to Clause 40 of Magna Carta,
"To no one will we sell, refuse, or delay the operation of right or justice"?

249
It is my understanding that that is still on the statute book. It is a law which is enforceable in our courts, and there is a long tradition in case law that precisely that sort of thing—placing a financial penalty on those who seek justice—is what that clause was intended to prevent.
If the Government were to lose a court case on this under Magna Carta, it could be extremely embarrassing and lead to a great deal of publicity. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to check first.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend replies, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, gave examples of people with disabilities who might possibly be seeking work but might well be refused it. Will my noble friend give examples of the type of work the Employment Service will expect them to obtain and how many jobs of that nature it currently thinks are available?
Baroness Seear: Does not the Minister now see what a great advantage it is to have a professor of history sitting on one's Benches?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I might do better with a lawyer from some of the questions that the noble Earl asks, but that is another matter. I am reminded by my noble friend that I have one. My doubts about the noble Earl's question on the Magna Carta is that I am not entirely sure that it encompasses the whole of the UK. I suspect that it does not. My part of the UK was not involved in the Magna Carta, but that may be a subject upon which I shall have to take further legal aid. I suspect that I would not receive legal aid if I tried to get a definition of that!
Earl Russell: The Minister is quite correct on that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may return to the serious matter before us, not that I am suggesting that the Magna Carta was not and is not serious.
I understand the concerns that lie behind these amendments. The easiest way to deal with them is to take them in turn. Amendment No. 14 seeks to recognise that the circumstances of people who have a disability need special consideration. I would like to assure the Committee that we have most certainly taken the needs of people with disabilities into account in drawing up the JSA labour market rules.
I cannot accept the amendment because it would add an unnecessary level of detail to the face of the Bill and it is also technically deficient, since it refers to "restrictions" offering reasonable prospects of employment. I shall address the intention behind it, with which I can agree. I hope to be able to show that the fears expressed in putting forward the amendment are not justified.
I have given those assurances before to the Committee. Déjà vu occurs to me when I think about the answer I have to give. I have given assurances, and I give them again. We intend to carry forward into JSA the current provisions in unemployment benefit and income support which allow a person with a mental or physical condition which limits the work he can do to place restrictions on the nature, hours, rate of remuneration, locality or other condition of employment which he is prepared to accept where those restrictions are reasonable in view of his
250
condition, and with no requirement that such restrictions should be inhibited by any variation in the prospects of securing employment
There is an important principle here. We wish people with disabilities and others with a mental or physical condition to be able to participate as fully as possible in the labour market. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made that point in his intervention. Many people with severe physical and mental disabilities can and do participate successfully in the labour market. But we recognise that for some, though by no means all, jobseekers the reality will be that their condition will mean that there is necessarily some reduction in their job prospects because of their condition. That is the reality and we accept it. Provided that jobseekers in those circumstances remain available to the extent that their condition permits, we want to ensure that they may be entitled to JSA and to offer them all the general and specialist facilities which the Employment Service has available.
On one of the Committee days I outlined some of the extra money that we were going to make available to the Employment Service to deal in particular with those people who are likely to come off invalidity benefit and not receive incapacity benefit in response to questions similar to those my noble friend has asked again tonight. This formulation will in fact be more generous than the amendment, as it is quite possible that jobseekers may have a physical or mental condition which limits their availability but that does not classify as a mental or physical handicap. I suspect that the disfigurements mentioned by the noble Baroness might come within the scope of that phrase. I hope that the positive statement I have just made helps to reassure the noble Baroness and other Members of the Committee who have spoken on this point.
We want to include, not exclude, people with disabilities from JSA. But the amendment could mean that anyone dissatisfied and appealing against the incapacity test could get JSA even though they were not available for work or looking for it. I cannot agree with that. JSA is for jobseekers, and no matter how many conditions or limitations have to be put on because of mental and physical disability, fundamentally it is still for people who can work, who are looking for work and are capable for work. People who are not capable of work will receive incapacity benefit. I do not know how many times I shall have to repeat the point about the two stools, but I draw the Committee's attention, as I have done on a number of occasions, to Schedule 1, paragraph 2(1), which states:
"The question whether a person is capable or incapable of work shall be determined, for the purposes of this Act, in accordance of the provisions of Part XIIA of the Benefits Act".
That, I have said on a number of occasions, should ensure that the two stools problem does not arise.
Where a person appeals against a decision that they are capable of work, they will be able to claim JSA pending the outcome of their appeal if they make themselves available and look for work.
I appreciate that Members of the Committee may be concerned that this will prejudice their appeal. As I have made clear —and I repeat it—the adjudicating authorities have made it clear in their judgments, and the chief

251
adjudication officer confirmed in his published guidance, that making themselves available for work should not prejudice their appeal. There may be some people who do not wish to make themselves available for work pending their appeal. Existing IVB claimants, those in receipt of severe disability allowance and others who have been incapacitated for 28 weeks as of 12th April 1995 will be able to receive their full income support personal allowance pending their appeal if found capable at their first all-work test.
Any other person who first claims incapacity benefit on or after 13th April 1995 can also claim income support pending the appeal, although their personal allowance will be reduced by 20 per cent. because we do not believe that it would be reasonable to pay the full rate of income support for people who do not satisfy the normal conditions of entitlement.
I turn Amendment No. 16. I reassure the Committee that we are fully aware of the important role that disabled people can play in the labour market and of the difficulties which they can face. As I have said previously—and I am happy to say it again—we intend to carry forward the current provisions in relation to unemployment benefit and income support which allow a person with a mental or physical condition which limits the work that they can do to place restrictions on the nature, hours, rate of remuneration, locality or other condition of employment which he is prepared to accept when those restrictions are reasonable in view of his condition. Such people will not be required to show that they have reasonable prospects of securing employment. I believe that in that way our proposals already meet the concerns of my noble friend Lord Swinfen.
However, we prefer not to use the terminology in this amendment for two reasons. First, disability is not a term defined in the Bill and, secondly, people who are ill will be deemed available for work only for limited periods. There is, however, a difference between the two categories, since a person with a disability claiming JSA will be capable of and available for some work, but a person who is ill may not be capable of or available for work. Under JSA, we will introduce a specific easement in the treating provisions which will give people who are sick the chance to stay on JSA and be treated as available for work for up to two consecutive weeks. That will avoid the need for people to terminate and start claims within short periods of time, while ensuring the JSA is focused on the labour market.
Our proposals to set out in regulations that jobseekers can restrict their availability in line with their mental or physical condition should cover all jobseekers, including those who are disabled, who wish to restrict their availability on those grounds, depending on their particular circumstances. That is an example of why these matters, which are complicated and detailed if they are to cover the many situations that all Members of the Committee wish them to cover, are best left to regulation.
We shall also ensure that people's skills, qualifications, abilities and any physical or mental limitations will be taken into account in considering the steps that they have
252
taken to look for work. This formula has been tried and tested in current legislation and we believe that it is the right basis for JSA.
Those points aside, I acknowledge the anxieties of Members of the Committee about the balance between primary and secondary legislation. The regulations to which I have referred, and which are included in the new clauses that I have been discussing, will be dealt with by the affirmative procedure. Therefore, Parliament will be in a position to give a view on what we bring forward. However, I have made it crystal clear, and I know that words from Ministers at the Dispatch Box have gained slightly more importance as regards courts of law and so forth. I hope that the fact that I have been prepared to try to outline in detail the way in which we envisage the system will work as regards disabled people and those found to be insufficiently disabled to qualify for IB will reassure the Committee. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen will withdraw their
amendments.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister said that he believed that his answer would cover all jobseekers. How does he explain the fact that people who were refused invalidity benefit were, on the grounds that they were partially disabled, refused unemployment benefit? The RADAR case was more than one-third. How does the Minister explain the matter if what he says is correct?
Earl Russell: I had some sympathy with the Minister when he said that he wondered how many times he would have to explain that this should not happen. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, however, the point is that it does happen. I am afraid the answer is that the Minister will have to explain that it should not happen until he finds a way of doing something to make sure that it does not. Surely that is fair.
I suggest that the Minister, before saying that the suggestion of Magna Carta was not to be taken seriously, first takes legal advice. He might get a shock. When he takes his legal advice he will see that Clause 40 was in the 1215 and 1225 enumeration.
Lord Swinfen: I do not know what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, intends to do with her amendment but I shall not be pressing mine. I shall take the opportunity of reading what my noble friend said and will probably come back at a later stage.
As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, the issue is not the incapacity benefit but the conditions of entitlement to the jobseeker's allowance of disabled people. If people have a disability sufficiently substantial to warrant an appeal under incapacity benefit it is ludicrous to expect them to have to show in each week of their claim that they are taking steps to find work when they may never be regarded as being capable of work.
We have on the statute book the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act; we are working through the Jobseekers Bill and we will soon be dealing with the Disability Discrimination Bill. All those fit together as regards disabled people. My noble friend should consider bringing forward a consolidation Bill in order to pull all three together to see how they work.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I strongly commend the proposal suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. We are illustrating the point that some of the proposals could be included in the Bill. What the Minister said was much more attractive and sympathetic than what is written in the Bill. That illustrates precisely the matter that we were discussing earlier today when we first discussed the issue of primary and secondary legislation; namely, a requirement that has nothing to do with the flexibility of the labour market and everything to do with the rights of disabled citizens.
Perhaps the Minister will be able to see his way towards putting some of the comments that he has made from the Dispatch Box into law; not least his useful phrase about what is appropriate to the physical and mental condition of the claimant. All Members of the Committee would be much happier. I thank the Minister for what he said and hope that he will draft it as an amendment to the Bill on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 14, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16, as amendments to Amendment No. 4, not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 17:
Line 24. leave out subsection (4).
The noble Earl said: The amendment seeks to delete subsection (4), which states:
"Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which, for the purposes of this Act, a person is or is not to be treated as available for employment".
That is our old friend Humpty Dumpty in fancy dress. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out at an earlier stage, a distinction is to be made between the two parts of the clause. I raise one for probing purposes and the other in the hope of seeing it changed. There is no objection to the prerogative of mercy. People are treated as available for employment when they are not available for employment. The case of women receiving statutory maternity pay has already been mentioned. That is a proper case.
I wish to ask the Minister about a point on which I trust he has now received my letter. It relates to women who have taken shelter in refuges as a result of domestic violence. I understand that the present position is that women in that situation, who very often cannot go out for fear of pursuit, are able to continue to receive benefit because they are treated as though they are available for work when they are not. That is a good illustration of why one needs to be careful about the drafting and why my own attitude to it cannot be cast in stone. I recognise the validity of those cases.
On behalf of Women's Aid, as well as on my own behalf, I should like to say how grateful I am to Mr. Alistair Burt for the care that he took on this subject when I had occasion to write to him in 1992. Therefore, I am concerned whether that exemption still stands.
But it is quite a different matter when one moves from the prerogative of mercy on to what one might describe as the prerogative of mercilessness—that is, treating people as though they are not available for employment when they are. When that is turned into plain English, it is a
254
power to deprive people of their right to benefit. Does the Minister now understand why I was not entirely satisfied by his answers about creating new conditions of eligibility for benefit?
If you disentitle a group of people to benefit because they are not jumping through one of the particular hoops set out in the Bill, that is in effect creating a new condition of eligibility for benefit. That is something which I cannot regard as proper ever to do by regulation. Therefore, I hope that the Government will spell out what they mean or will take it away. Next time they bring back Humpty Dumpty, perhaps they will put a rather thicker disguise over him. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The provisions which this amendment seeks to delete are not new. I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Inglewood who addressed this matter on the last occasion and many remarks were made about Humpty Dumpty and Gilbert and Sullivan. Therefore, as Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, it is perhaps more appropriate that he should do so. However, I have decided that I shall attempt to address the issues this evening. Having watched a rather excellent performance of the said "Yeomen of the Guard" performed by Welsh National Opera a week or two ago, I am an expert on the subject, or nearly.
I hope to be able to persuade the noble Earl that the powers that he wishes to delete are there for very good reason and the regulations made under the current provision have been used extensively for a long time. They do not deal with hypothetical situations, but with a wide range of very specific instances where I am sure all Members of the Committee would agree that it is appropriate for a claimant to be entitled or not entitled to benefit. The list is extensive, and therefore a wide power is needed; we intend to follow the same approach in JSA.
First, people engaged in certain emergency duties will be treated as available for the periods when they are undertaking those duties. These include lifeboatmen and part-time firemen, and people helping in a fire, flood, explosion, accident, natural catastrophe or a search for a missing person. Secondly, we intend to prescribe other situations which will enable claimants to be treated temporarily as available: for example, a domestic emergency, the need to look after a child while the person normally responsible is ill, or attendance at an Open University residential course.
But we also need a power to treat a limited number of groups as not available for employment—full-time students, women who are receiving statutory maternity pay within the maternity pay period, and prisoners on home release. They may be able to make themselves available for work, but the Government have made other provision for their support. The power will ensure that if any people in those groups make a claim for JSA, they will be treated as not available. I accept that that is not a power to be used lightly, but it is nonetheless important.
There has been some consternation over the original Clause 6(2). But the fact is that use is made of very similar powers under existing long-standing legislation, and in very large measure we intend simply to continue this usage. The regulations under new Clauses 6 and 6A will

255
be permanently subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That will be a change to the way in which similar regulations are dealt with under existing statutes.
I understand the point which the noble Earl has made about women in refuges. We are still giving careful consideration as to how they should be catered for within the new benefit. At this stage, I am not in a position to give a firmer answer than that we are looking at that small group of women who have a serious problem.
I have explained which are some of the important groups of people who are covered by and who benefit from the provisions—lifeboatmen, firemen and people who do other similar jobs. Those are voluntary part-time jobs which people often do in addition to their normal work. When those people become jobseekers, we wish to ensure that they will carry on with those activities without their position being damaged. Therefore, I hope that explanation persuades the noble Earl that Humpty Dumpty has some justification in that regard.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said about women's refuges. I hope that we shall hear how they are to be protected before the Bill leaves this Chamber. I shall give the Minister an opportunity to come back on that at a later stage. I do not believe that it will be contentious because I think that our hearts are in the same place; it is just something that we want to get right.
The Minister very nearly pushed me into the Division Lobby when he started mentioning full-time students as an example of a category that he wished to be able to disentitle under this provision. That was a major change in the law which has caused massive hardship around the country, as I know very well. It struck me then and it strikes me now that to be able to do that by a procedure by which this Chamber had absolutely no right to vote was an outrage. In fact, the Minister's example has illustrated precisely why I am not content to let that power remain.
I hasten to assure the Minister that I am not going into the Lobby now unless he attempts to force me, in which case I shall be happy to do so. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment; but I assure him that we shall hear more of this issue on this Bill and many others.
Amendment No. 17, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 19:
Line 35, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 42 which is grouped with it. The amendment seeks to remove a subsection from the Government's new Clause 6 which reads:
"Where it has been determined ('the first determination') that a person is to be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as available for employment in any week, the question whether he is available for employment in that week may be subsequently determined on a review of the first determination".
I am not at all clear what that means. I listened very carefully to the Minister when he made his speech in support of the new clause. I am still not clear about what
256
is intended here. Presumably, the first determination will have decided the question of availability and, therefore, entitlement. Apparently the question is to be determined at another review for that particular week.
That seems to me to be very unclear indeed. In what circumstances will a weekly entitlement be reviewed? It seems to me that that is importing a degree of uncertainty into the whole question of entitlement, and so on, that is not acceptable. I am sure that the Minister understands that for many unemployed people, it really is an extremely traumatic experience. If they are to have further pressure put on them as a result of uncertainty as to whether, as I read it, they may keep what has already been described as their entitlement, seems to me to be very unsatisfactory indeed.
I really do not understand what is meant by the clause. Of course, I note that it is repeated in the section dealing with "actively seeking employment". I hope that the Minister will be prepared to give us some explanation. As it stands, I question whether the provision is at all necessary. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should like to begin by welcoming back the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, to the long-running play of the Jobseekers Bill. As regards the two amendments to which the noble Baroness rightly referred, I can assure her that the two subsections do no more than carry forward current provisions. Indeed, Members of the Committee will find almost identical wording in Sections 25A(4) and 25A(5) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Members of the Committee may consider that that is not bad as a starter defence, but it is not a complete one.
Perhaps I may explain why I believe that the provision is necessary. As the noble Baroness is aware, there are a number of situations where regulations treat a claimant as being available for employment and as actively seeking it. In fact, we have just discussed some of those situations. In many cases, that is where the claimant has been or is to be engaged in some sort of urgent, worthwhile activity that made it impossible for him to satisfy the conditions of entitlement in the usual way. Indeed, I gave such examples in the previous debate.
In such situations, for example, a voluntary member of a lifeboat crew may report that his duties took him to sea in an emergency. In that situation he is entitled to be treated as satisfying the conditions. That is what happens and his JSA payment is not affected. However, the legislation must make allowance for the possibility that the situation may, in reality, not have been as he described it. Perhaps I may put it bluntly, although I believe that my example is not a good one because I do not think that anyone would do so. In fact, the lifeboat may not have been out at sea that week, or the claimant himself may not have been a member of the crew. If that is the case, obviously the claimant is no longer entitled to be treated as satisfying the conditions. Subsections (6) and (7) and their predecessors enable us

257
to have the treating decision reviewed on the receipt of new information. A fresh decision is therefore made as to whether the claimant did in fact satisfy the conditions.
I hope that that explanation will assist the noble Baroness to understand what I admit is a fairly convoluted piece of wording. My explanation should help the noble Baroness to realise why we believe that the provision is needed and the circumstances in which it might have to be used. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for his explanation. As far as it goes, it seems to me to be quite satisfactory. The Minister seems to be saying that there may be a fraudulent claim made and that the provision would be a way of catching up with it and, presumably, ensuring that the individual who attempted to perpetrate the fraud pays back the money. That is my assumption. However, on the other hand, that really is not terribly clear from the wording, as I believe the Minister accepted. I believe that the wording as it stands could, as I said earlier, import into the whole system an air of uncertainty as far as concerns claimants. Claimants may feel that the first determination is the determination which matters and that they can go on receiving their benefit for that week, and so on. They may feel that their benefit is quite secure because they have had a first determination.
I wonder whether the Minister will consider looking again at the wording. As he rightly said, it is "convoluted". It does not give the impression of the kind of situation that the Minister described in his answer. Of course, I shall not press the issue at this late hour of the night, but I would ask the Minister to look again at the wording because it is most unclear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 20:
Line 50, at end insert ("but circumstances constituted by or connected with a person's ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability or religion shall not he treated as evidence that he is not actively seeking employment;").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the above amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 34. The amendments seek to ensure that the considerations, such as gender, ethnic origin, and so on, which may restrict the availability for the actively seeking work criteria, are, if you like, deemed good cause and should not be regarded as evidence that one is failing to make oneself available for work or failing actively to seek work.
The Government have rightly accepted in the new Clause 6 that there are external circumstances which may, with good cause, affect availability for actively seeking work. Indeed, we have gone through some of them already, such as caring responsibilities, physical and mental disabilities, religious convictions, and so on. The amendment adds to and overlaps that list. It is a perfectly standard formulation which is often now attached to job descriptions in local government and is, I should have thought, entirely unobjectionable. I doubt that any Member of this Chamber could argue that those
258
are not reasonable grounds. But, equally, I would doubt that any Member of this Chamber would argue that such discrimination does not currently occur within the labour market.
The CAB's report of a year ago entitled Unequal Opportunities proved just how extensive discrimination was in the labour market. There is sex discrimination; for example, where women working in a leisure centre were required to wear very short skirts, for reasons that we can guess. When that made some of them uncomfortable, they were dismissed. We also have countless cases of bosses harassing female staff, especially hotel managers. Very often, women fear to complain because, if they do so, they may lose their job. If they lose their job and go to a tribunal they will not find another job. Therefore, women tend either to endure what they should not or they go quietly and the harassment continues.
Equally, on racial discrimination, the CAB reported the case of an Asian client employed in a shop who, when he requested holiday pay, was told that it was only paid to white workers. There was also a black woman who was racially harassed at work by her personnel manager. She complained several times but with no result. The woman felt unable to take the matter to a tribunal because the personnel manager was also the chairman of the tribunal. There are also disabled clients in similar situations. Indeed, we could all recite examples in well-attested circumstances from the CAB, from newspaper reports, and so on. We can all give instances of discrimination in the labour market. Such stories hit the newspapers every day. But, beyond that, there are many more cases which go to the CAB which are never taken up by tribunals because the clients feel that their card would be forever marked as a troublemaker. That applies particularly in the case of women.
Therefore, we believe that the amendment is important because it serves two functions. First, we hope that it will tackle any prejudice that may exist in the minds of the Employment Service about availability for work. Secondly, if claimants are dismissed from work on those grounds, they are given additional protection when facing an adjudication within the Employment Service on whether they voluntarily left work or, possibly, left work through misconduct.
The Government may argue in a moment that, although this unfortunately and regrettably may still be true as regards some employers, it does not apply to the Employment Service and therefore such an amendment is unnecessary. I wish that were the case. When recently a highly paid, well trained professional police force could apparently enjoy the viciously racist so-called jokes of a well known so-called entertainer, and when dozens of cases are brought each year by serving police officers against their fellow officers as regards prejudice on grounds of race or gender, why should we expect comparatively untrained employment officers to be any different, particularly where so much is left to their discretion and their subjective interpretation?
However, there will of course be one difference between them and the police force: the cases brought by serving police officers were brought by people who

259
were themselves confident, trained and knowledgeable about their rights. How many clients of the Employment Service will have the same confidence, the same training and the same knowledge of their rights, especially when English is not their first language, or when they may have mental health problems or learning disabilities which make it hard to understand a conversation even though the employment officer may think with good reason that he has made himself unambiguously clear, or whose disability, appearance or religious beliefs may not be ones with which employment officers readily sympathise?
Our worries in this field are sharpened by three matters that have already been explored in Committee. First, the Government have increased the rate of doubts as a target figure. Secondly, there is an increasing suspension of benefit and, thirdly, there is an increasing refusal of hardship payment. Together these serve to legitimize a referral which is less an honest doubt than a less than honest and covert exercise of prejudice. Before the Minister replies, I wish to ask him whether he disagrees with any words in this amendment. If he does not, will he include them? What I hope he will not do is say that he agrees with the words but they are not necessary, when, in the world of work and of employers and in the world of the public service such as the police service, there is ample evidence to show just how necessary such protection is on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: Before talking about the substance of these two amendments I wish to talk briefly about Amendment No. 20, because I am slightly puzzled by it. I think it may be deficient. It applies to subsection (8) of Clause 6 (in the Government amendment). That clause of course is concerned only with availability for work, but this amendment is concerned with actively seeking work. Furthermore, subsection (8) is about regulations made under subsection (4) in relation to permitted periods. That seems limiting to what I presume are the noble Baroness's much wider intentions.
I suspect that the amendment, like Amendment No. 34, is probably intended to ensure that the labour market conditions of JSA will be able to take account of the many different needs of people looking for work. I shall speak to it as if that were the case. Let me emphasise once more that this has always been our objective. That is why we are providing for people with disabilities to be able to restrict their availability in accordance with their mental or physical condition; that is why we are providing for people with religious or conscientious convictions to be able to restrict the types of jobs for which they are available; that is why we are introducing easements to the availability rules for carers. We have given a clear indication of our intentions by setting on the face of the Bill such groups as examples of the people who may restrict their availability.
The noble Baroness is obviously concerned that staff delivering JSA may act in a discriminatory way. Again I wish to give an absolute assurance about that. All staff in jobcentres will be mindful of the issues of sex and race discrimination. They will have clear guidance on
260
how to deal with people from different ethnic origins and with men and women in determining the steps that they are taking to seek work actively. Against that background, if there are examples of where this kind of behaviour has not occurred in line with the guidance, may we please be given chapter and verse on that? On behalf of the Employment Service we endeavour not to condone or permit the kind of behaviour to which the noble Baroness alluded in a different context but which she implied may be occurring in the Employment Service. If we want to ensure that that does not happen, we need to be given chapter and verse as regards certain incidents in order to root out the problems. If we cannot be given chapter and verse, I do not believe it is proper to level accusations at the Employment Service.
We will also take into consideration, when drawing up the regulations to define availability and actively seeking work, the requirements of the sex and race discrimination Acts. The noble Baroness gave a number of miserable examples of discrimination at the workplace. It is important to be clear that that is beyond the scope of what we are discussing now. Of course, proper legal redress is available. Clearly some of the behaviour which was described would undoubtedly be construed as constructive unfair dismissal.
I am sorry that after we discussed a similar amendment during the Committee stage on 25th April and the assurances we gave then we have to return to this issue. If I remember correctly, on that occasion members of the Committee were perplexed as to why we could not cover these issues in primary legislation. We have now made clear in our own amendments to Clause 6 how regulations will provide for the restrictions in availability on grounds, for example, of religion or mental or physical condition. However, the detail must be an issue for regulation rather than appearing on the face of the Bill.
As has been explained on many previous occasions our policy is to include, not to exclude; to take account of all the facts in determining eligibility for benefit, not to ignore them. We believe that that is best achieved in regulations.
I fear that the provision envisaged in the amendment would be impossible to relate to real labour market needs and could result in some claimants qualifying for JSA when their intentions and actions meant that they were not genuine jobseekers. That would not be to the benefit of either the taxpayer or the vast majority of jobseekers who are making every effort to find work. For those reasons I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Earl Russell: The Minister gave me some, perhaps unwitting, encouragement. He said that regulations "will" provide for these conditions. The Bill says "may". I asked the Minister to change that: perhaps he has now agreed.
Lord Inglewood: Regulations will be made. It is a permissive power in the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that reply. To use a phrase of the Minister's, I am absolutely sure that he believes every word he said. The

261
difficulty is that I do not believe that he can deliver what he has promised us. I am convinced of his intention. In his phrase, he gives us an absolute assurance that discrimination will not occur. With the best faith in the world he can speak for himself, as I am sure he does, but he cannot give an absolute assurance that such discrimination will not happen.
The CAB has evidence to the contrary, and I am happy to make it available to him. None of us wishes to see that happen, and I am sure that we are entirely as one on that. I am sure that the Minister speaks for himself when he says that he believes, hopes and expects that it will not happen. However, we have evidence that it has happened, and we fear that it may happen. The last time the Minister asked for evidence we had some and he was kind enough subsequently to acknowledge that evidence. We have it in this case too.
Would discrimination be less likely to occur if this provision were on the face of the Bill? Alternatively, if the Minister feels that that is not the most appropriate way to proceed, and I do not necessarily disagree, will he at least give us an assurance that this issue will be drawn to the attention of staff as one of exceeding sensitivity, if not in the regulations, in the guidance to be issued to employment offices?
I hope that the Minister understands our position. This Bill is based on regulation, which offers double discretion—to the Secretary of State in terms of the regulations that he will introduce, and a further delegation of discretion to the employment offices. At this point I do not challenge that, but it is a discretion which is once or twice removed from Parliament. At the end of the day, employment officers, like police officers and the rest of us, represent a range of people. In the exercise of their discretion they will inevitably bring to bear their experiences, their value judgments and, let us face it, their prejudices. That is inevitable. I suspect that we all do that in certain circumstances and under certain pressures. We are trying to ensure that those officers are aware of the importance that this Chamber attaches to ensuring that that prejudice should not be exercised and to make employment officers self-conscious about it.
If the right way to proceed is not to place the issue on the face of the Bill, can the Minister at least give us an undertaking that it will be achieved through guidance and the matter will be drawn to the attention of employment staff? I hope that the Minister can help us on this.
Lord Inglewood: Yes. As I mentioned earlier when I gave the assurance that all staff in jobcentres will be mindful of the issues of sex and racial discrimination, they will have clear guidance on how to deal with people from different ethnic origins, and with men and women, in determining the steps they are taking actively to seek work. I hope that that provides the kind of foursquare assurance that the noble Baroness seeks in this regard.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will we see that guidance in the form of regulations? Will it be part of the affirmative regulatory powers?
262
There appears to be a negative response from another quarter. Can we than hope that the Minister will undertake to send copies of such guidance to these Benches so that we can circulate it to relevant organisations? Is the Minister willing to give us that undertaking?
Lord Inglewood: Perhaps it would be best if I wrote to the noble Baroness giving the background to how we deal with these matters so that she will be fully seized of all the facts.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That will be welcome. The important issue is that we see the guidance and that it reflects what the Minister has encouraged us to believe tonight. I take it that that is what will happen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 20, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 21:
Line 50, at end insert:
("( ) that where a doubt arises as to whether the claimant is available for employment or is to be treated as available for employment, an income-based jobseekers's allowance shall be payable pending a determination by the adjudication officer at an amount determined in accordance with section 4 but reduced by 40 per cent. of the claimant's personal rate which would otherwise be applicable;").
The noble Baroness said: I am sorry that we come to the amendment as late as we do; it is the fault of us all collectively. However, I believe that the amendment relates to one of the most worrying aspects of a rather worrying Bill.
It is a straightforward natural justice amendment. It provides that, where there is a doubt—I emphasise the word "doubt"; it is not a decision—that a claimant may not be fully available for work or is not seeking work sufficiently actively, and while that doubt is being investigated and resolved, that individual should continue to receive a benefit, albeit that the benefit would be only at 60 per cent. of the full rate. Why? Perhaps I may suggest three reasons.
First, as the Bill is being debated, and as a result of amendments in another place, the benefit sanctions being introduced are now increasingly complicated. If individuals are unemployed through alleged misconduct, or allegedly without good cause, they may continue to receive full JSA. So if someone is unemployed because he is a job leaver, he continues to receive full benefit while that factor is being investigated. But, if he is unemployed not because he is a job leaver but because he is a jobseeker, he may receive 60 per cent. of benefit immediately if he is both vulnerable and in hardship, or after two weeks if not vulnerable but in hardship, or he may receive nothing if apparently neither vulnerable nor in hardship. So he may receive full benefit, or reduced benefit immediately; after two weeks he may receive reduced benefit or he may receive nothing. Yet the individual would be unemployed in all those circumstances.
On a simple point of clarity I do not believe that that is fair. No one will know what they are entitled to. After all, all individuals simultaneously met the conditions of contributory benefit through national insurance and that

263
is on their record. That benefit should not be denied them while possible doubts are explored before they go on to a means-tested benefit. A means-tested benefit is in itself a statement of hardship. I believe that the amendment produces simplicity and clarity. If it were accepted, there would be full benefit for some and 60 per cent. for the remainder while all doubts were investigated and appeals heard.
My second argument follows on. It is an argument which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has put forward frequently and most tellingly. How can someone who has had a means-tested benefit withdrawn—I do not refer to a contributory benefit but to a means-tested benefit—by definition not be in hardship? He has qualified for a means-tested benefit precisely because he already was in hardship: that is, without a partner in work; with little or no alternative income; and with little or no savings. He is already very poor. That was the qualification for receiving means-tested benefit. If he has received means-tested benefit for any length of time, he is likely to be even poorer.
By suspending benefit, even though that benefit may subsequently be repaid if the individual is found innocent, the Minister is pushing such claimants into a spiral of temporary loans at extortionate rates of interest, leading to arrears of rent and rates because housing and council tax benefits are passported to income support and JSA, as well as fuel debts, social fund loans, and the like. As Charles Booth taught us many years ago—we seem to be full of historical analogies tonight—people on irregular income cannot pay regular bills. Once locked into debt, even subsequent repayments are unlikely to clear up the mess.
If we adopt the amendment on clarity, my second argument is that it avoids very real hardship regarding people who are already in hardship by virtue of having qualified for means-tested benefit. My third and last argument is that the amendment is based on natural justice. According to the Government, a relatively untrained employment officer is required to increase the number of suspensions from benefit, because that is what the target of increased referrals of doubt involves.
I emphasise that no one on these Benches has any objection to increasing the number of referrals of doubt where there is a reasonable cause, so long as the claimant is not fined because the employment officer has a doubt. None of us has any objection to checks for fraud. None of us wishes to countenance fraud provided that the punishment follows the offence and does not anticipate it. At present, the Bill provides that punishment anticipates the offence. I suggest that only where there is a real risk to fellow human beings of violence, for example—perhaps someone who is drunk regularly is barred from driving a car—will he be detained or held on remand. In other words, he is punished in advance, so to speak, of his offence being heard. In all other cases, the punishment is imposed only after trial. Yet simply because a relatively untrained officer has a doubt, which could be an exhibition of prejudice if someone's behaviour or appearance is unpleasing or of incomprehension because someone is inarticulate, the applicant is punished in advance. Those
264
of us who do not claim benefit would not for one moment tolerate the degree of discretion which would allow someone to be fined in advance of an offence being established. We would all find it outrageous. But that is what we shall visit on some of the more vulnerable members of our society—the unemployed, the marginal, the not very competent and the not very articulate. It would be done on the ground, "It's all right for them because they are not one of us".
Were we then to find out that many, if not most, of those punished in advance were subsequently to be found innocent, even though reparation was made we would still be further outraged. Yet 180,000 people were referred to adjudication who were found on appeal to be innocent and 90,000 of them had to wait at least two weeks before adjudication and several months before their appeal was heard.
We are literally treating the unemployed worse than those arrested for a criminal offence. That point was also tellingly made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We are cutting off their income. As a method of turning the unemployed into petty criminals, it must be one of the most effective devised. First, harry the unemployed, then stigmatise them, then make them destitute and then encourage them into criminality: aren't we clever?
When finally the Equal Opportunities Commission argued that in cases of alleged discrimination there should be a presumption that discrimination had occurred and that the defendant—perhaps the employer—should have the responsibility of proving that it had not occurred, the argument was rejected by the then Secretary of State, David Hunt, in the following words:
"fundamentally inconsistent with justice and the rule of law in this area. The idea that a person, on proof of certain facts, should be presumed guilty unless he can prove himself innocent appears hard to reconcile with natural justice".
David Hunt said that to the chair of the EOC on 19th July 1993. How then can the Government defend their position on imposing a fine in advance of an offence being established? I beg to move.
Earl Russell: This is one of the most important amendments of the day and I agree with practically every word that the noble Baroness said when moving it. I owe her an apology for the fact that my name is not to the amendment, for which there is a reason which the noble Baroness may or may not believe to be a good one. When I considered the amendment, I was in total agreement with what it aimed at, but I could not bring myself to put my name to an amendment which allowed a 40 per cent. disentitlement to benefit to someone who had done no wrong. I understand why the noble Baroness worded it that way. It was good politics. But occasionally one's gorge rises, even at good politics.
We went over some of the ground earlier. We were told that people should lose benefit if they did not meet the conditions of entitlement. That is not in dispute. But if we say that, as soon as the employment officer thinks people do not meet the conditions of entitlement they do not meet them, it is rather like saying that someone is guilty of a crime as soon as a policeman chooses that they should be charged with it. There are certain policemen who occasionally talk as if that ought to be

265
the law. Thank God, it is not. No one's suspicion, indignation or firm conviction that someone must have clone something is evidence that he has. Taking away from a person something which is still an entitlement is a judicial penalty which should not be inflicted without clear proof, a chance to make a defence and an investigation of the issues. A prima facie assumption of guilt is simply not warranted. The claim that the person does not meet the conditions when that is itself the question which needs investigation is a logical fallacy and a dangerous one.
If people are disentitled to 40 per cent. of their benefit, or indeed the whole of their benefit, we have to consider what they are to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, raised the question of debt. This is at the very centre of the matter. Through catalogues, it seems possible for people on benefit to run up pretty high levels of debt. I have asked many times for the department to investigate levels of debt among people on benefit. I must ask it again to do so.
One of the main effects of being in severe debt when on benefit is that you cannot take on a new housing tenancy; you cannot put down a deposit; you cannot pay rent. If you have a bank account and you try to write a cheque, it will bounce. As a handicap to getting into employment, that is very severe indeed. Therefore when we let people who are on benefit fall deeper and deeper into debt, we make it harder for them ever to get back to work. This is another form of poverty trap, and a very powerful one. If we ensure that people cannot work, we prolong benefit dependency, we increase the cost to the Exchequer and we increase suffering to the person. In fact, we do the very reverse of what we want to do.
If people do not go into debt, the alternatives are perhaps even worse. To be pushed down into an underclass, a twilight world where you may have to conceal your identity, is to be pushed into a situation that it is very hard ever to climb out of. To do that to people who may have done nothing wrong is a criminal waste of potentially law-abiding and hard-working citizens. We do not have so many people in this country who are capable of doing a decent job of work that we should wantonly throw away those that we have. This is a vital amendment, and I hope that the Minister will listen to it.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: These amendments concern an area that we have debated on other occasions. On previous occasions they have shown up a considerable gulf between this side and the Benches opposite. I fear that they will do exactly the same this evening.
The issue of payment to claimants who have not demonstrated that they meet the conditions for benefit is indeed difficult. Where there is a doubt as to whether someone is entitled to JSA—whether he is a jobseeker or whether he is eligible—the Employment Service must refer the case for decision to an adjudication officer. The payment of benefit cannot be made on the normal basis. Where it appears that a claimant has not been available for work in the previous weeks, he should not receive
266
benefit for that period as if he had been. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, noted, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in her amendment appears to go some way to accepting the principle by providing for reduced payments in such circumstances. To that extent only, we are agreed.
However, unlike the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, we do not accept that everyone should have immediate and automatic access to benefit while the adjudication decision is reached. The jobseeker's allowance is a benefit that is intended to support claimants who are available for work. That is a central condition. If the claimant does not meet it, he has forfeited his right to the allowance.
Our proposals will, however, protect claimants in vulnerable groups by making hardship payments from the outset to those who show hardship. That includes all claimants who have children and cases where the claimant or partner is sick or disabled, pregnant or has caring responsibilities. Other claimants will receive hardship payments after two weeks. We believe that that is a reasonable period in the case of a childless, healthy claimant.
We believe that these proposals strike a fair balance. They reflect our basic principles; namely, to reinforce claimants' obligations in return for benefit, but also to protect the vulnerable. Both principles are important. The amendments of the noble Baroness do not give due weight to both principles, since they seek to continue to make payments automatically to everyone, even in cases where there is a clear doubt as to whether benefit conditions have been met.
The amendment would require us to make payments simply because a person chooses to make a claim to JSA, irrespective of whether he satisfies any of the basic conditions or whether he is in financial need. It would require us to make a payment to a claimant whose benefit is suspended in the course of a claim simply because in the past he received JSA, irrespective of any changes in his circumstances. As I have said before, the Government do not accept that proposition.
Members of the Committee questioned why we felt able to introduce a significant easement on current arrangements and pay benefit in full for sanctions when we are not proposing to do that for cases of doubt over entitlement. The point I made before is that we are dealing with two quite separate issues. In the case of a sanction the claimant has shown that he is genuinely unemployed, available for and actively looking for work. He is a jobseeker and has satisfied the entitlement. The only question at stake—it is an important one—is whether he has left or refused a specific job or refused to carry out a specific jobseeker's direction without good cause. They are one-off occurrences, serious in themselves, but do not necessarily mean that the claimant has failed to make himself available for or to look for work. We therefore consider it right to continue to make payments until the issue of doubt has been cleared up. That is quite different from saying that, just because someone is claiming JSA, we should pay him even though we believe he is not meeting the basic conditions for eligibility.

267
The noble Earl argued on a number of occasions that any person who qualifies for a means-tested benefit must automatically be in hardship if he is denied that benefit. The extent to which a claimant suffers hardship must depend on his specific circumstances. The current guidance to adjudication officers points out that they should take into account a whole range of factors, including the presence of particularly vulnerable family members and the length of time for which funds have been withdrawn. I should remind the noble Earl, for example, that it is possible for unemployed claimants to possess capital resources up to £8,000, wages from previous employment or access to pay from part-time work which they or their partner undertakes.
The key point is that we do not accept that claimants who do not satisfy their obligations should have automatic access to benefit financed by the taxpayer. They are not jobseekers and are therefore entitled to benefit only to provide protection against hardship. We accept that we should provide for claimants in particularly vulnerable situations—those defined in our vulnerable groups. I must say again that childless healthy claimants have a choice. If they want to receive JSA they must make themselves available for and look for work.
I appreciate that the noble Earl and the noble Baroness will not be satisfied by my answer. I suspect that they will also not be surprised—they have heard it on a number of occasions. But I fear that we shall have to continue to disagree on what I appreciate is an issue about which the noble Earl and the noble Baroness—but particularly the noble Earl—feel very strongly.
Earl Russell: The Minister is right that there is a gulf between us. I should like us to be able to understand each other's arguments well enough to be able to continue discussion across this gulf. At the moment I confess that I find the Minister's reply totally unintelligible. I observe what his position is but I simply cannot understand why.
I want to ask him, first, whether he recognises the concept of benefit as an entitlement. That may possibly be the hub of the whole debate. Secondly, I want to ask whether he recognises that the results of appeals show that the denial of benefit may be undertaken in error. I cannot see how else one can explain the fact that a large number of appeals are successful. Thirdly, he says that a claimant's hardship must depend on his circumstances. Clearly we all accept that. If he tried to define hardship in ways that said one could not be in hardship if one had savings, one could not be in hardship if one had wages left over from a previous employment, we might have argued about the details but we would at least have understood what the Minister was saying. We would have been on ground where some common criteria were possible.
What I simply do not understand is how. it can be possible for somebody who has no income except his benefit, to lose his benefit and not be in hardship. It is a little like a proposal to suspend him from a sky-hook and leave him there until something further is done. It is a kind of dropping out of the world. It does not make any sense to me at all.
268
I do not understand, either, why the Minister is so convinced that a person can be said to have broken the conditions of eligibility when what is being investigated on the appeal is precisely whether he has broken the conditions of eligibility. I said earlier that this sounded like the wrong kind of policeman, and unless I get a better explanation, I really cannot withdraw that description. It seems like an assumption that a person is guilty the moment he is charged with something.
It seems as if the Minister does not regard this judicial analogy as a fair one. If not, he must have some reason for not regarding it as a fair one. He must have some way of discriminating between the cases. I would love to understand what that is because then we might understand each other well enough to talk about this. That would at least be a comfort.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was hoping to put some questions to the Minister, and so we need to continue this debate. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I simply do not comprehend the ethical nature—I use those words purposely—of the Government's position. I shall put some questions to the Minister and then make a comment. First, does he accept that not to pay someone benefit is a fine or a penalty? Secondly, does he accept—I am following on from what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said—that by taking away benefit from the moment a consideration is raised the Minister or the employment officer is assuming what he has yet to prove? Does the Minister accept that?
I followed the Minister's answer carefully, and I was quite interested in his linguistic shifts as his answer developed. Sometimes he said that the claimant was not meeting his obligations; sometimes he said, "even though we believe he is not meeting his obligations"; sometimes he said, "he does not satisfy his obligations"; sometimes he said that there is a doubt as to whether he satisfies his obligations. That is the problem. The Government are consistently acting as though to raise a doubt is itself to determine the case. They assume that the doubt of the employment officer carries the same weight as the judgment of the adjudication officer. In other words, the Minister is assuming what is yet to be proved and in the process is fining in advance of the offence being established.
I cannot believe that the Minister cannot ethically comprehend what is evil—I use that word advisedly—about that. None of us in this room would accept that in any walk of life where it affected us; but we shall do it to them out there because they do not have our voice, our weight, our clout or our status. It is evil to fine someone in advance of establishing whether an offence has been committed. The process of fining them will remove from people who are among the poorest of the poor even the barest of livelihoods. I hope the Minister can persuade me that there is some ethical basis and not merely Treasury money cutting to his reply.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I apologise, for I was called out of the Chamber by an urgent message and therefore was not present when the amendment was moved. I shall be brief in what I want to add to what

269
has been said by my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I wish to make two points. First, this is a clear case of assuming guilt when innocence should be assumed until guilt is proven. I should like to suggest that Ministers might want to take legal advice again —in this case with regard to the section of the European Convention on Human Rights which particularly relates to the possibility of people being found guilty before any proof has been put forward to that effect. It adopts a piece of very old English law that people are innocent until proven guilty. It will be a question of whether this was regarded as that kind of legal proceeding.
Secondly, I hope Ministers will consider the implications of this amendment. I can only add to the very eloquent things said by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, the quite devastating experience of the United States as regards refusing any form of benefit to those who do not have children. As the Committee will know it has long been the case in the United States that only the so-called aid for dependent children applies in the case of people who have ceased to have unemployment benefit. There is no form of income benefit for people without dependent children.
The consequences have been dire. Sometimes I think that we should not follow the United States, but we seem to have a tendency to do so all the time. I cannot say whether it will happen in this country—I hope it will not—but there is no doubt that in the United States this has been a factor which has driven people into taking extreme measures in order to get some kind of income. Very often those measures take the form of low-level drug running. The outcome of that is far more expensive to society than occasionally giving benefit to people who, after six, eight or 10 weeks, may be found to be not entitled to it.
I do not believe, with respect—and I do respect it—that the Department of Employment has much experience of American welfare conditions. I do not believe that it has very much experience of the enormous levels of crime which have overtaken inner cities in the United States. I say that with due seriousness and some first-hand knowledge of what I am talking about. I accept everything that the Minister said with regard to the fact that claimants should not be entitled to benefit if they have drawn themselves out of the necessary conditions. But in this case we do not know whether they have.
I plead with Ministers to think again. The ultimate consequences for society and for public expenditure could be very much more grave than they recognise. When one compares the United States with some other countries like Canada, one has to draw the conclusion that one of the reasons for the problems is the non-entitlement to legitimate benefit for people who for one reason or another are unable to get work.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure what I can add to my argument that will help Members opposite to understand it. I understand their argument but I do not agree with it. They probably understand mine but they do not agree with it, and that is the difference between us. I have made the point before that it is a question of judging entitlement. Some sort of legal
270
terminology has been pushed around as though we were talking about police and criminal matters—guilt, innocence, fines and so on. This matter has nothing to do with that.
We are talking about a benefit to which people are entitled if they meet the conditions. Earlier this afternoon I mentioned the principles of availability for work and actively seeking work. Claimants are entitled to those benefits only when they satisfy the entitlement conditions. If there is doubt as to whether they meet the conditions, it cannot be right to pay the allowance. That is the difference between us. The claimant then has to wait until that has been decided by the adjudication officer. A great deal was made—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I did not interrupt the noble Baroness. As my argument develops I might just help her. I shall try to answer all her questions or at least those which I understood.
Of course, in any adjudication procedure some will be successful and others not. If they were all unsuccessful, the Benches opposite would be complaining that somehow I had rigged the rules against any claimant to make sure that all were unsuccessful. Therefore, I am not in the least surprised that some are successful and others are not. That is what one would expect from a system where an adjudication officer examines a case and decides whether the claimant is entitled to the benefit because he satisfies the conditions. That is the first clear point that I want to make.
On the matter of hardship, I have tried to explain some of the criteria and things for which the officers look when they examine for hardship. I explained that not all people who apply for these tests are totally without funds. Some may have capital resources up to £8,000; some have wages from previous employment or access to part-time work for themselves or their partner. Anyone who is in disagreement about availability for work has the alternative of taking steps to fulfil the conditions and not have a doubt placed on his availability and actively seeking work criteria. So I do not believe that this is such an either/or situation as the noble Baroness and the noble Earl try to make out.
Frankly, I think that it is extravagant to talk about this measure as being evil. My definition of evil and that of the noble Baroness are clearly poles apart. I do not believe that trying to run a benefits system which is fair to both claimants—as we are trying to be—and the taxpayer, who is fundamentally footing the bill for those benefits, can be described as evil. Trying to look after people in certain categories who can show hardship is perfectly sensible and reasonable. But saying to people who have not established whether or not they are eligible for the benefit, "I am sorry but until your basic eligibility is established, you cannot have this benefit", is neither wrong nor evil. In the opinion of the Benches opposite it may be misguided and they may not agree with it, but I do not think that extravagant argument helps this particular argument.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wanted to interrupt because the Minister was making an elision from one statement to another. I wanted to break it at that point to see whether he could justify the leap that he was making. He is talking all the time as though people have to establish a benefit and, if there is a doubt, they do not receive it. That is not the situation at all. They have the JSA. The employment officer has a doubt as to whether they are meeting the conditions. It is presumed that because he has a doubt they are not meeting the conditions and therefore they are denied benefit until their innocence is established.
It is not the job of the claimants to establish the basic eligibility. There is already a basic eligibility. That is their entitlement. It is being denied on a doubt. The Minister moved from saying that a claimant was entitled to it if he met those conditions to saying that it was therefore entirely reasonable to stop it if someone doubted whether the claimant was meeting it while he was investigating. How is that fair to the claimants? It is not a penalty in advance of determining whether they are meeting the conditions. A doubt is not a determination. The Minister is treating it as though it were. That is what is not fair to a claimant who is entitled to that benefit until evidence has been found for the fact that he is not meeting those conditions and it has been so ruled. Doubt is not the same as adjudication. Would the Minister please comment on that?
Earl Russell: I listened to the Minister as carefully as I could. It is a genuine difficulty. I do not understand the position that he takes. I understand that he rejects the criminal analogy. I do not understand why.
Perhaps I may repeat what I believe were his exact words:
"They have an entitlement if they meet the conditions".
There is no argument about that.
I own a house. I have an entitlement to that house if I meet the conditions. It is my property if I meet the conditions of having a proper and lawful title. Throughout its history, English law has been very heavily influenced by concepts of property. We have a traditional ruling that the right to vote is a form of property. I believe that we are thinking about this matter as though the entitlement to benefit is a form of property.
If one is to be deprived of one's property, first one retains possession pending the case; and, secondly, there have to be good reasons shown why one has no entitlement to the property before one can be moved out of it. Those have been fundamental principles of English law for about 1,000 years. If the Minister does not like the criminal analogy, I do not see why he will not accept this one.
The Minister is still repeating that there may be certain people on benefit who have savings. I understand that point. But why does he then not propose that the only exceptions from hardship payments should be those who do have those extra means of support? That would be an obvious way of looking for common ground, but because some people have extra money, I do not see the justification for depriving all those who do not have extra money, who are, after all, rather numerous.
272
I do not understand either the argument that says that single people are incapable of being in hardship. Hunger hurts just as much if you are single as if you are married. I hope that the Minister will think carefully about the powerful arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby. I, too, have seen that sort of thing in the United States. It is not pretty. It is a world in which people do not dare go out at night; a world in which everyone has to keep on big outside lights. That costs a great deal of money. It does a great deal less good than putting a meal in someone's stomach occasionally. I do not understand. I should like to, because then we might get on a bit faster.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure that I can add much. I do not agree—I made that clear—with the attempt to compare a benefit and decisions about entitlement with guilt or innocence. Nor do I compare it with a house and one's property rights. One should look at the situation of the benefit itself and not try to draw in outside comparisons to bolster up a case.
I have made my position on this clear. I thought the noble Baroness was arguing on both parts of the situation where doubts may arise as to whether a claimant met the entitlement criteria. The first situation I might envisage is at the beginning of a claim when the officer has doubts as to whether the claimant is prepared to meet the two conditions we discussed earlier. Then during the claim doubt may arise as to whether the claimant is continuing to fulfil the conditions.
It is important to recognise that in JSA, as in the current system, it is not sufficient for claimants to satisfy the benefit conditions just once at the start of the claim. They must go on satisfying them and be able to show that they are available and actively looking for work in every week in which they wish to receive benefit. That is why, if the Employment Service has a doubt as to whether a claimant continues to meet the conditions, it must refer the claim to the adjudication officer for a decision on that point.
I return to the point I made previously. This is a benefit that people receive if they are fulfilling the conditions of entitlement. Those conditions are that they are available for work and that they are actively seeking work. I suggest to the Committee, as I have suggested on a number of occasions, that if someone feels that they are in danger of losing their benefit they can take steps to fulfil the two—I should have thought—fairly easily met conditions. They are conditions which the great majority of people who become unemployed meet, without any bother, without any help from the noble Baroness and noble Earl, and without getting into any of the problems paraded before us this evening. Most unemployed people manage without any trouble.
Most taxpayers, most people who are employed, who go out in the day to work and provide the taxes that allow us to run a generous benefit system in this country, would expect nothing less than that we insist upon those conditions being met. If they are not met, then, until we have resolved the issue, we do not pay benefit. That is the position that I believe most people would accept. I do not believe that the great majority of my fellow countrymen would consider that evil. I

273
believe that they would consider it a sensible and prudent use of the money that they themselves pay in taxes.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may ask the Minister to withdraw the suggestion that we are arguing for benefits for people who do not meet the conditions. None of us is. What we are saying is that people should have the benefit until it becomes clear that they do not meet the conditions.
I understand that the Minister is no happier with the property analogy than he was with the other. I ask him then: what does he think is the moral basis of entitlement to benefit, or does he think that there is no moral basis to that entitlement?
10 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not intend to get into too much of a ping-pong game and I hesitate to argue with a professor of modern history about such philosophical issues. I believe that it is clear that if, rightly, we as a community decide to help people who are unemployed, we have the right to expect them to meet some conditions for that benefit to be paid. The conditions that we have decided they should meet—and I believe that most people agree—are that they are available for work and that they are actively seeking it. If they fulfil those conditions the entitlement to benefit follows. If they do not fulfil those conditions doubts are placed.
I accept—and I happily retreat from the position that I put forward to the noble Lord—that the noble Lord does not believe that benefit should be paid for all time regardless of entitlement. Perhaps we are narrowing the argument down. The period about which we are in dispute is the period between the employment officer having doubts and deciding that they are sufficient for him to communicate them to an adjudication officer and the adjudication officer making the decision.
I reiterate the fact that I believe that as the entitlement has not been established the benefit should not be paid. That is my position and I am afraid that we must agree to disagree.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister said that the claimant would receive JSA if he fulfilled the conditions of entitlement, that those conditions were twofold—available for work and actively seeking work—and that the taxpayer would agree with him. I agree with the Minister, as does the noble Earl and every Member of the Committee, that if a claimant is not fulfilling the conditions of entitlement he is not eligible for the jobseeker's allowance. He may be eligible for something else but not for that allowance. The point is that we do not know whether he is meeting the conditions of eligibility. That is the difference.
I honestly cannot comprehend how the Minister can fail to distinguish between a doubt that is being investigated and a case that has been established. Does the Minister accept that there is a difference between doubting and proving? Does the Minister accept that? If we can understand whether the Minister agrees that to doubt is not the same as to prove we shall have narrowed the gap between us. To prove establishes the case; to doubt raises the question only.
274
Does the Minister accept the difference between doubting and proving? Does he accept that there is a distinction? I hope that the Minister will reply because that appears to be the basis of the difference between us. The Minister shakes his head.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not going to reply. I have made my point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The basis of the Minister's argument—and he has said it time and again in his answers tonight as he has switched from "has to establish", to "has to show", to "may be entitled to", "believes that" and so forth—is that when the employment officer has a doubt it is the same as showing that the person has committed the offence of failing to meet the JSA for which benefit may be withdrawn.
The Minister has continually said that entitlement to benefit has not yet been, so to speak, earned. We are talking about a situation in which someone is receiving JSA and it is being withdrawn on a doubt which has not been established. Yet that person is being punished in advance of the case being heard.
If the Minister cannot understand why we find that so deeply offensive and repugnant I do not know how we can communicate that. However, I promise him that we shall come back and if we cannot persuade him then perhaps we can persuade other Members of the Committee that, as the Secretary of State, David Hunt, said to the EOC, it is the principle of English law that one should not be presumed guilty until one's case has been heard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 21, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 22:
Line 50, at end insert:
("Provided always that no words in this Act nor any regulations under this Act shall restrain the adjudication officer from considering factors which appear to him to be relevant to the claimant's eligibility under section 1(2) (a) and (c).".
The noble Earl said: This amendment is to be inserted after a provision that regulations may list factors which an adjudication officer may take into account in determining the period in any case. The amendment would provide that those factors listed in regulations should not be the only factors which the adjudication officer may be able to take into account. I hope that we may have a slightly better response on this amendment than we received on the last amendment.
What concerns me—and this is at the bottom of my concern about the accidental creation of new conditions of entitlement—is that if a whole series of factors which may be taken into account are set out, it may make it much more difficult to take into account other factors, those which any reasonable adjudication officer, hearing the case de novo and guided only by case law and by discretion, would obviously take into account. For example, a woman might refuse to take a job if her battering former partner happened to work in the same building. One would have thought that would have been perfectly reasonable. But if that is not listed as one of the

275
factors which the adjudication officer is allowed to take into account, is there a risk that he will not be able to do so?
I hope that the Minister understands the basis of my anxiety and that he can reassure me. If he cannot, then I may have to take the matter further but I hope that I shall not have to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: The permitted period, which was introduced into benefit legislation in 1989, is an important concept. It is only right that claimants who have been regularly engaged in a particular type of work should have a reasonable opportunity to return to that work. The existing permitted period rule therefore allows claimants to refuse employment outside their usual occupation and at the rate of pay which they used to enjoy in that occupation for up to 13 weeks, and to restrict their availability accordingly.
I am pleased to say that in amending the original Clause 6, we are able to make it clear on the face of the Bill that in JSA the permitted period concept also applies both to claimants' availability and to their jobsearch activity. Members of the Committee will note that Clause 6(8) is worded in similar terms to the current Clause 17(5) and the provision in current legislation, and it is our intention that the prescribed factors for determining the permitted period will follow the precedent of current provisions. I should mention that this new Clause 6(8) enables Clause 17(5) to be deleted, and we shall be bringing forward an amendment to that effect on Report.
In particular, Clause 6(8) (c) enables regulations to prescribe factors which the adjudication officer may take into account in determining a permitted period. We intend broadly to continue the current list of factors: that is, the claimant's usual occupation and any relevant skills and qualifications which he has acquired; the length of the periods during which the claimant has undergone training relevant to his usual occupation; the length of the period during which the claimant has been employed in his usual occupation, and the length of time since he was so employed; the consideration that the more skilled the usual occupation and the greater the extent to which the skills in that occupation have been exercised recently, the longer the permitted period; and the availability and location of employment in his usual occupation.
But I should make it clear that Clause 6 does not mean that that must be taken as an exhaustive list. I hope that that answers the noble Earl's point. The adjudication officer will be able to take into consideration any other factor which he considers to be relevant. I believe that that is exactly what the noble Earl's amendment seeks to achieve, and I therefore hope he will agree to withdraw it.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister. I have received exactly the reply for which I was hoping and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 22, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 to 31, as amendments to Amendment No. 4, not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 32:
Line 66, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("( ) A person's relevant acts (including his behaviour or appearance) may be considered when judging whether that person is actively seeking employment.").
The noble Earl said: The above amendment relates to the clause which deals with appearance and behaviour. It is a very much more moderate amendment than that which I moved in Committee. I still believe that the one I previously moved was the better amendment. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby will probably say so. She believes that it is an extremely mild amendment. I must say that I have some sympathy with that view.
However, I like to compromise wherever I possibly can. Therefore, I have tried to retreat from a position where I would have asked that appearance and behaviour were not taken into account. My amendment merely asks that a,
"person's relevant acts, (including his behaviour or appearance)".
be taken into account. What I found so disconcerting about the original proposals of the Bill was the provision that a person's jobseeking activities may be disregarded if those concerned do not like his behaviour or appearance. That seems to me to be an impossibly automatic slot-machine way of getting at intention. I say that because the person may have worked like a Trojan, and indeed may have held many jobs. He may also have applied for many jobs. But, on the form of the Bill, if someone does not like his face, it can be ruled that he is not actively seeking employment and he will be denied benefit.
We have before us again the point to which I keep returning about tests of intention. As I understand it, the concern of the Bill is to use appearance as a way of getting at people whose intention is not to find work. That case was dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, on Second Reading. However, one does not get at a person's intention by disregarding altogether some of his actions. That is simply a way of pinpointing one particular thing and never working out what a person really means. It will lead the Government into many problems. Once one starts to argue about people's appearance, one gets into problems.
I remember a case in the 1950s which was reported in the newspapers. It concerned a policeman on duty outside Buckingham Palace who was dismissed because he refused to shave off his beard. The official statement said, "In the opinion of the authorities, the beard was an unsatisfactory one". I can understand why there might have been a case for redeploying that person or for putting him on different duties; or, even, possibly, for dismissing him for insubordination as he was in such a job. But to say that that person was not actively seeking work when he was in fact proud of parading up and down with his brand new beard really does not seem to me to be at all reasonable. One simply cannot use a single thing as evidence of intention without taking the whole of the person's behaviour and actions into account. That is the most unreasonable part about the provision in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I support the amendment with great reluctance, as my noble friend pointed out, because I do not believe that it goes far enough. For one thing, I find it very odd to consider that

277
an act—and it is actually stated within the Government's amendment—is in fact behaviour and appearance. It seems to me to be an act of God rather than an act over which someone has any control.
However, I am more worried about something which is relevant to what my noble friend said, but not quite the same. I am most bothered about what is generally the difference in judgment between generations. I do not really understand why people like wearing nose-rings in their noses, or for that matter why young males like wearing earrings in their ears. However, I notice that many of my children's friends do wear earrings in their ears. It seems to me to be an inoffensive if not a strange activity. I am also well aware that many of their parents' generation become terribly upset about young men wearing earrings in their ears and about young women wearing nose-rings in their noses. But the essential point is that subsection (3) gives a very disturbing degree of credence to whether the behaviour or appearance of a person does or does not recommend itself to an employment officer—and well might not do so.
I think that there are strong arguments for pressing that point hard. I believe that behaviour and appearance are irrelevant to this issue, as distinct from willingness to try to seek work, willingness to fufill conditions every week as regards showing a real desire to be actively employed and a real desire to be available for work. I cannot see what behaviour or appearance have to do with that unless they constitute a deliberate attempt to avoid being employed—which seems to me highly unlikely—which would be caught by many other provisions of this Bill. I therefore ask the Minister to reconsider whether behaviour or appearance should be listed in subsection (3). This is not a matter of an act of a person but in some cases of acts beyond his control.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Does the Minister agree that some people have extraordinary appearances—extraordinary, that is, in the eyes of the employment officer, and possibly of the noble Lord and someone like me—which may be a positive recommendation for certain jobs?
Lord Swinfen: Grouped with this amendment is my Amendment No. 33. This amendment is intended to ensure that disabled people whose physical appearance may be misconstrued by others should not be considered by employment staff to have deliberately presented themselves in such a way as to negate their chances of finding work. There is ample evidence that disabled people are discriminated against in society, either directly or unconsciously. The Government themselves are putting forward at the moment a disability discrimination Bill to deal with this subject.
There is concern that someone with a disability could be considered to be not actively seeking work under this subsection. The way this subsection has been drafted could mean that someone with a facial disfigurement, who had been refused interviews or offers of work because employers could not cope with his physical appearance, could have his efforts ignored as steps actively to seek work. Surely that is not the Government's intention.
278
Some disabled people whose condition may not be obvious may nonetheless present an appearance as unkempt or sweaty as a result of symptoms of an illness or disability. Some disabilities such as anxiety states, diabetes and Brights disease cause heavy sweating. Someone with a mental health problem may have difficulties on occasion in presenting himself to an employer as the employer would expect, but this would be as a result of the disability, not because he had deliberately set out to fail a job interview. Can my noble friend give assurances that disabled people whose condition could result in a physical appearance which some employers or Employment Service staff may find unappealing should not be caught by this subsection?
Lord Harmsworth: From the point of view of an employer someone's appearance may be important. An employer has a right to expect a standard which would not upset a customer. From that point of view an employee's appearance may be relevant. I personally think that too much attention should not be paid to the kind of controls which this part of the Bill provides because reasonableness usually prevails.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend has just made a common-sense point. Amendment No. 32 seeks to remove an important provision from the Government's amendment and so from the Bill. I wish to give the Committee a quick and clear indication of our intentions in this area. I am sure that the Committee will agree with me that the majority of jobseekers are committed to looking for work and make every effort to try to find a job. They would not dream of undermining their chances of obtaining a job by their behaviour or by deliberately presenting a certain appearance or dressing in a certain way which they knew would make them unacceptable to the employer.
However, there are unfortunately a few people who are not prepared to put their best efforts into finding work and who are prepared to sabotage their chances of finding employment. It is surely right that if someone undermines his chances of obtaining employment—for example, by being abusive to an employer at a job interview—he should certainly not be able to claim that attending that interview is an active job step. We want to make sure through the regulations that people in this minority group cannot, on the one hand, undermine their chances of getting a job while still claiming that the very activities that they have undermined are active jobsearch steps.
To Members of the Committee who are keen on beards, earrings and the like, perhaps I may give an example of where problems could be caused by someone who does not really want a job but has to fulfil the actively seeking work requirements. Perhaps on Humberside, where the food industry is a major player in the labour market, someone is sent along to a food processing factory, safe in the knowledge that the food processing factory has to ensure that it obeys all the standards and rules and health and hygiene regulations, exercises due care and diligence, and so on. One of those rules happens to be, certainly in the most sophisticated sector of the food processing industry, that if Members of the Committee were to visit the factory they would have to put on hairnets. If they had a beard they would have to put on a face mask. It would

279
be necessary to take off one's watch, one's rings and, regardless of one's sex, one's earrings, and leave one's jewellery outside. The courts take a very dim view of a piece of jewellery turning up in your Lordships' fish dish in the Lords' dining room. Therefore, I suggest that if someone says that they made a genuine effort actively to seek work, the fact that he told the potential employer that he would not take his earring out in order to work on the production line and certainly would not wear a face mask cannot be set aside and ignored.
There are common-sense situations which we ought to address to deal with that tiny minority of people who, I am afraid, do exist and who are quite capable of working out how they can obey the rules in order to remain entitled to benefit but make dashed sure that they do not get any job that they actively seek.
I hope that nobody thinks that anything that I have said sounds sinister or shows that I have some deep underlying motivation. It is simply a rule that we wish to include in order to prevent a very small number of people abusing the system. I believe that the fears that have been expressed tonight, and on other occasions, on this issue are totally unjustified.
Interestingly enough, Amendment No. 32 seeks to put a provision in the Bill that "relevant acts" shall be considered. However, there is no indication of what would count as a relevant act. Having removed the regulation-making power, how would anybody know what was a relevant act? The effect of the amendment is that much that would be dealt with in regulations would be left to the discretion of the adjudication officer. I am certain that that is not what the noble Baroness and the noble Earl would wish to bring about.
I turn now to Amendment No. 33. I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling the amendment. It raises an important issue and allows me, even at this late hour, to place a few sentences on the record which I hope will not only help him but, more particularly, will help anyone who falls into the category of persons he mentioned.
The current regulations provide that in determining whether a jobseeker has met the condition of actively seeking employment all the circumstances of the case, including physical and mental limitations, will be taken into account by the adjudication officer. That includes any aspect of his appearance connected with his disability. I should like to make it absolutely clear that that will be carried forward to the JSA regulations.
As I have explained, the regulations we discussed earlier provide for the making of regulations dealing with the acts of someone who would otherwise—
I had better start again. This has become quite convoluted. I was trying to go more quickly than I should have done and I shall probably have to go back a phrase and start again because I do not want anybody to be in any doubt when they read what I said about the issue.
I mentioned being carried forward in the JSA regulations, a point made explicitly in the references to physical and mental limitations in Clause 6A(2) (b). As I have just explained, Clause 6A(3) provides for regulations to make provision for acts of a person which would otherwise be relevant to be disregarded in certain
280
circumstances, including those constituted by or connected with his behaviour or appearance. This is intended to ensure that jobseekers who set out to undermine their chances of gaining employment will be penalised.
Again I should like to make it clear for the record, in case there be any doubt, this cannot and will not be used in relation to involuntary aspects of appearance, in particular those connected with disability.
I apologise for getting into a slight tangle in the middle. I hope that that clear statement to my noble friend, and of course on the record, will allay his fears on this regard.
Lord Swinfen: I find that a helpful statement. I thank my noble friend for making it. I am delighted that for once I am able to thank my noble friend regarding the Bill, and to do so quite genuinely.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, I am afraid that he has rather missed the point of my concerns about relevant acts. I knew that I had not specified relevant acts. I knew that the effect was to leave it to the discretion of the adjudication officer. The Minister states that I cannot have intended that. I do not see why not.
The Minister has convicted himself of going down the road of fussy draftsmanship against which the Renton report warns us. You really cannot set out in advance what all the relevant acts are to be. In the nature of language, you cannot know what is relevant until you have a question. You cannot have a question until you have a case. Therefore you cannot know what the relevant circumstances will be until you have the evidence of the case. That is why I did not put in the amendment the circumstances which were to be relevant. I believe that that is good legislation. I am sorry that the Minister thinks otherwise.
Unlike on one of the previous amendments, I understood what the Minister said this time. The point about the food factory is well taken. I agree that appearance may matter. My concern is that the Government are trying to achieve the point by disregarding other acts which would have been relevant. I seek to argue that that is the wrong way to go about it. I have not had a response to that suggestion.
As so often, I believe that the Minister is concerned with intention. His remarks about people who were not genuinely looking for work rather proved that that was the basis for his concern. One simply cannot get at intention if one chooses simple to disregard half the evidence. It is not a proper judicial procedure. I hope that he will think again about disregarding other evidence. Perhaps we can then find out whether it is the right procedure with regard to the person's whole record.
The Minister has not thought enough about the number of difficulties that he will get himself into once he starts going into appearance. The provision which allows him to disregard acts which would otherwise be relevant will only make the situation worse.
However, I do not believe I can take the matter further now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 48, as amendments to Amendment No. 4, not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved, as an amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 49:
Leave out lines 116 to 122.
The noble Earl said: The amendment again relates to methods of legislation. The words I am trying to delete are ones which allow regulations to prescribe matters which are to be taken into account or not taken into account in determining good cause, or circumstances in which a person is or is not to be regarded as having good cause for failing to comply with regulations. We cannot make law like that. We must set out the general principle and then judge whether the case meets it. The provision is trying to foresee all cases in advance and it does not work. It will lead to endless trouble: appeals, doubts, big cases. It will lead to a vast amount of legal expense. Even if it is not the intention to rule out other forms of good cause which the regulations do not happen to remember to prescribe, it will make it much harder for the adjudication officer to take them into account than it would otherwise have been.
It is becoming obsessive; it is legislation in the style of people who dust the furniture 12 or 15 times a day. I wish the Department of Social Security would make sure that it possesses a copy of the Renton Report, reads it carefully and drafts its legislation accordingly. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: A claimant may have a good reason for failing to attend the Jobcentre to sign on or failing to attend a Restart interview. He may be sick, he may have a job interview or he may be dealing with an urgent domestic problem. Subsection (2) (d) enables entitlement to cease or not to cease if the claimant shows within a prescribed period that he had good cause for his failure to attend. This carries forward existing practice where a person can make a delayed claim for unemployment benefit or will not be disallowed for failing to attend a Restart interview if he can show good cause. Good cause, however, is not defined in either case.
Throughout JSA, we are aiming to introduce greater clarity into benefit procedures and conditions. At present the adjudication officer decides on the merits of each case whether the claimant has good cause, guided only by precedent. We believe that that introduces uncertainty and inconsistency into the arrangements for claimants. By prescribing in a non-exhaustive list matters which are or are not to be taken into account by the adjudication officer, it will be clearer for all concerned whether or not the reasons for non-attendance should lead to the claimant losing benefit.
Earl Russell: I wish that both departments would read the Renton Report. That argument about certainty is the draftsman's will-o'-the-wisp. It is explained in the report far more clearly and powerfully than I could ever do it that the attempt to pursue certainty by total enumeration is destined to inevitable failure, at great expense and in great confusion. The desire for certainty I understand, share and respect. What I do not accept is that certainty can ever be achieved by that method.
282
I ask the Minister whether, when I raise points of this kind (which I shall continue to do) during the remainder of proceedings on the Bill, I may have replies which relate to the point of my concern. This is the wrong method of drafting legislation; it will lead to uncertainty, not certainty. It will lead to confusion, not clarity. If one could only get something by wanting it, life would be so simple. You get clarity—in so far as you ever do—only by having a general principle, the application of which to particular cases you have to leave to be settled judicially. You cannot possibly foresee the particular circumstances until you get to them. This provision is very gravely mistaken and we shall have to return to it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 49, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 50:
Line 122, at end insert:
("( ) Regulations made under this section shall provide that at each stage the claimant is notified of his right to appeal against any decision made and of the procedure to be followed.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall probably be told that this amendment is not necessary as there is provision in the Bill for the right of appeal. However, new Clause 6 is the core of this Bill. Regulations made under this section will determine whether claimants will receive their benefit. We have already voiced our concern that the likely effect of this Bill when it is on the statute book will be to diminish the number of people who receive the new benefit as compared with those receiving unemployment benefit. Indeed, that would appear to be one of its main purposes.
Procedures for appeal may be lengthy; and even if arrangements are made whereby benefit continues pending appeal—as indeed it should—people who have received an adverse decision will be very worried about their future entitlement prospects. It is absolutely essential that such people are advised at each stage, not only of their right of appeal if the decision is an adverse one, but also as to how to go about it and the procedures to be followed.
I cannot emphasise too strongly that we are here dealing with people who are mostly poor and extremely vulnerable. It is up to Parliament to ensure that the procedures that they have to follow in order to secure the benefits to which in many cases they may feel their contributions entitle them are as user-friendly as possible. I hope therefore that the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I am happy to support this amendment. The right of appeal is important. Notification of the right of appeal is something without which the right cannot be beneficial, as it should be. I do not think that we understand often enough quite what a fog most people dealing with the benefits system are in. After all, most of us can remember the sort of fog that we were in when we first arrived here, or in some cases in the other place, and were faced with Marshalled Lists, groupings, amendments and Bills and were trying to juggle them with each other. I was certainly in great confusion. I often still am. I do not see why we should suppose that people on

283
benefit are any better able to manage than we are. If they do not receive some help and guidance they may have all the rights in the world, yet if they do not know about them, if they do not find out about them and cannot exercise them, they are under a very extreme form of arbitrary power, even when there is no such intention—as I accept there very often is not—on the part of any of those dealing with them.
Therefore, a provision for notification of rights of appeal is essential. It is likely to do a great deal of good at very little cost, without the sacrifice of any principle of the Government. I cannot imagine that the Minister will have any objection in principle to this provision. He may try to tell us that it is unnecessary; I do not think that he can tell us that it conflicts with any of the principles of the Bill. I am sure that it does not, I am glad to say. If it does not conflict with any of the principles of the Bill, I wonder whether perhaps this is just one amendment in relation to which the word "resist" does not appear on the brief, or, if it does, it might even, for once in a blue moon, be deleted.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Earl may be at least momentarily pleased to hear that the word "resist" does not appear in my brief—however, the word "reject" does.
This amendment would ensure that claimants are told of their rights of appeal if their entitlement to JSA ceases because they fail to attend a jobcentre as required. It is not clear to me why the amendment picks out this particular circumstance, because benefit can be disallowed for a variety of other reasons, but there is no question of our failing to inform claimants of their rights. Claimants get a pack of general information when they first sign on. It includes information about their right to appeal against any decision by an adjudication officer.
It is true that there are agencies of government which are making considerable efforts to try to make forms understandable and readable, and they are often colour-coded to help people wade through them. I fully accept that sometimes they are difficult to understand because of the variations in the human circumstance for which they have to cater, but over the years we have made considerable advances to get away from what was pretty impenetrable language to language which people can understand.
Once a decision has been given, the claimant is sent written notification setting out the decision, explaining its effect, notifying the claimant of his right to appeal to a social security appeal tribunal and explaining the procedure. JSA arrangements will continue to follow that general procedure, and the arrangements in the case of decisions as a result of non-attendance will be no different.
The letter is a standard notification, and the last paragraph says,
"After a decision has been made by the adjudication officer you can appeal to a Social Security Appeal Tribunal. If you wish to appeal ask for a leaflet NI246 at either your Employment Service Office or a Benefits Agency office. You should appeal within three months from the date at the top of the decision letter. Leaflet NI246 contains full details about the appeal system and what happens at the appeal hearings"
284
That is the letter which is sent out to explain the situation. In addition, at the beginning claimants receive a pack of general information which informs them about their rights of appeal against any decisions of the adjudication officer. I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am not surprised that the briefing to the Minister said "reject" because that has been the situation throughout our discussions this evening. However, I am grateful to him for the assurances he has given us this evening about the pack of information being available to claimants. I hope that adjudication officers and employment officers are trained in giving vulnerable people assistance, because that is what lay at the root of our arguments. Many people simply do not understand the procedures; they need to be told what they are and how to go about them if they are to obtain their full rights under legislation.
I do not intend to press the amendment. I shall look with interest in Hansard tomorrow to see the assurances that the Minister gave in some detail. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 50, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave withdrawn.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 51:
Line 122, at end insert:
("( ) Entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance shall not cease on any grounds related to whether a claimant is available for employment or is actively seeking employment or has failed to comply with regulations under this section unless the claimant has been notified in writing that consideration is being given that his entitlement should cease.").
The noble Baroness said: At this late hour I hope I may be able to tempt the Minister into one of the great constitutional glories of our system: that he is perfectly able to get up and refuse to take any notice of an advice which says "reject" if in his view he feels it would be politically wiser, more sensible, more imaginative and more responsive to pay no attention to what the Box advised him to do. I strongly recommend to him the extraordinary delights that that brings to one if one ever tries it.
Having said that, let me turn for a moment to the arguments. The Minister will recall that, when we discussed this matter earlier in Committee, I put forward arguments—I shall not repeat them—based upon the proportion of cases where, having been notified, people took steps to try to come within the conditions laid down which, if not satisfied, might lead them to lose benefit. At that point it seemed to me that a considerable administrative load could be lifted off the Department of Employment and the Department of Social Security if it was indicated to people that their benefit might be lost if they failed to take steps to meet the conditions.
However, during the Committee stage we had a long and bitter discussion on an earlier amendment on the issue of the payment of benefit until such time as an adjudication takes place, and this amendment would go at least a little way to bridge the gap between the two sides of the Committee on that matter. At the very least, it would draw the matter to the attention of people who had, perhaps unwittingly, failed to satisfy employment officers

285
on the issues of actively seeking employment or availability for work, although they might believe that they had taken the steps that they thought were adequate to justify the continuation of benefit. By drawing this matter to their attention it would at the very least give them notice that the issue was now before the employment officer and would go before the adjudication officer, and that some steps might be taken by the claimant before that hearing was held.
On every ground it seems to me that this would ease what was one of the acute differences of opinion within the Committee and that it would be an issue on which the Government might well be able to concede—the giving of notification to people whose entitlement to benefit was indeed at risk for the reasons given. It is perhaps all the more important because one of the arguments of this side of the Committee was that this was a particularly tough penalty to exact. However, if the Minister feels unable to concede with regard to that tough penalty, I am sure he will agree with us that at the very least the person concerned should be warned that this was the danger he might be undergoing and that this was the penalty that might come his way unless he took steps to try to deal with the matter quickly.
If the Minister reads in Hansard tomorrow what he said on that earlier amendment he will find that he said repeatedly that it was open to people to take steps to satisfy the employment officer and the adjudication officer that they were actively seeking employment and that they were available for work—it was a matter for them. In those circumstances, notifying them what is at stake is surely the very least we might ask for to enable them to take the steps that would avoid this very heavy penalty falling upon them. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I must say to the noble Baroness that time has gone very slowly today because she seems to have forgotten that at the beginning of the session I introduced three new clauses in recognition of arguments put to me by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. Indeed, I made concessions in response to the committee's arguments on affirmative orders. So I do not think I always say "resist" or "reject".
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I notice that the noble Lord has graciously conceded to the scrutiny committee. It would be very nice if he would now concede to noble Lords at the Committee stage of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall see what I can do at the next stage; but I do not think I can do that now. If the noble Baroness talks to her noble friend Lady Seear, she will find out that I made a concession to her on the Pensions Bill which quite took her breath away—the first concession she had had in 24 years, if my memory serves me right. My record cannot be bad if the noble Baroness got one out of me after none for 24 years.
To return to the amendment, I think the noble Baroness means that we should not stop payments of JSA on the grounds of doubt as to a person's availability or actively seeking unless we notify the jobseeker that consideration is being given by an adjudication officer
286
as to whether his entitlement should cease. That is precisely what we propose to do. It is what we do now. A jobseeker will always receive notification that his claim has been referred to an independent adjudication officer and, in consequence, suspended. If, on the other hand, the noble Baroness is concerned that we should notify jobseekers when an employment officer is merely contemplating whether to refer a matter to the adjudication officer, while we do not issue such notification we would not suspend entitlement either. Either way the amendment does not add anything to our proposed arrangements.
When we considered the old Clause 6 (if I may refer to it in that way) we discussed a warning letter that used to be issued by employment officers to people who it was felt were not meeting the actively seeking work condition. The warning letter was an Employment Service administrative procedure introduced after the actively seeking employment condition was introduced in 1989. Its purpose was to ensure that unemployed people understood the implications of not meeting that new condition. It was specifically intended to ensure that people were fully informed about the new condition.
In 1992, three years after the introduction of the actively seeking employment condition, we decided that it was no longer necessary to issue warning letters as unemployed people would by then be acquainted with the new actively seeking employment condition. It is discussed in detail when a person makes a new claim for benefit and at subsequent review interviews under the Restart programme. Claimants also sign a declaration fortnightly to say that they have been actively seeking work during the period that they are signing for. Also, it became increasingly evident that some claimants—I mentioned this last time—were behaving as though they needed to start meeting the condition only after they had received a letter. That certainly was not the intention. To ensure that all claimants were in practice required to seek work actively, the, logical consequence would be that we should issue a letter to that effect immediately at the start of each claim. I do not believe that that would be sensible.
The sensible approach is to ensure that claimants are fully aware of the requirement actively to seek employment from the start of their claim for benefit. The jobseeker's agreement will be of great assistance in making that clear to all. One of our main aims in introducing JSA as a whole, and one of the principal purposes of the agreement, is to ensure that jobseekers understand the conditions of receiving JSA. Of course, that includes including the requirement to be actively seeking employment.
To sum up, I do not believe we should issue warning letters to every jobseeker who is not meeting the availability, actively seeking employment or attendance requirements under Clause 6B. The requirements are made clear to all existing jobseekers when they first make a claim and regularly thereafter, and our ability to do this will be greatly enhanced by the jobseeker's agreement. If there is a genuine doubt this should be referred to an independent adjudication officer to make a decision. With

287
that explanation, including the one that I cannot either reject or anything else, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Earl Russell: Can I beg the Minister at this time of night to choose his language in a way which will not tend to prolong our discussion? He is again saying that a person who has been warned is not meeting the conditions of the benefit. Does he understand that those words are a red rag to us? Can he word it a little differently so that we can get home tonight?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before we conclude this short discussion I ask the Minister to consider two matters. First, will he consider making certain that some kind of written indication is given to those young people who come onto the employment market who will not be familiar with the actively-seeking work clause and its implications for benefit should they fail to meet it? To us it is a really serious consideration.
Secondly, I ask him to consider—I am not asking the Minister to reply right now—whether jobseeker's agreements can say on the face of the agreement, which will be a written agreement signed by both the employment officer and the claimant, specifically what will happen if these conditions are not met, and that there is a possibility that benefit will be withdrawn in those circumstances. In that event every jobseeker who signs an
288
agreement will be aware of the implications if he does not satisfy those conditions: he may lose benefit and in any event he will lose benefit until such time as the adjudication takes place. I ask the Minister to consider that before we reach Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[Amendment No. 51, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.]
Lord Swinfen: Am I allowed to ask a question at this stage? I want to know how far it is intended that we go on Monday on Report stage because some of us may wish to put down amendments to this particular clause. I understand that we have Report stage on Monday.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I would like to be helpful to my noble friend, but that is a matter for the usual channels. I do not know how far they have got in their discussions as to how far we might get on Monday evening.
On Question, Amendment No. 4 agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6A agreed to.
Clause 6B agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment in respect of Clause 6.
House adjourned at five minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Chernobyl: Disaster Costs
  Chernobyl: Disaster Costs
  Chernobyl: Safety Reports
  Chernobyl: Safety Reports
  Israel/Occupied Territories: Border Reopening
  Israel/Occupied Territories: Border Reopening
  East Jerusalem: Proposed Land Expropriation
  East Jerusalem: Proposed Land Expropriation
  EU: Role of National Parliaments
  EU: Role of National Parliaments
  NATO Enlargement
  NATO Enlargement
  Access Committee for England: Grant
  Access Committee for England: Grant
  RAF Valley: Support Services
  RAF Valley: Support Services
  Standards in Public Life: Nolan Report
  Standards in Public Life: Nolan Report
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Animal Procedures Committee
  Animal Procedures Committee
  Child Support Bill: Keeling Schedule
  Child Support Bill: Keeling Schedule
  Climate Change Programme: Promotion of Energy Efficiency
  Climate Change Programme: Promotion of Energy Efficiency