Sitting of 15 May 1995

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

      National Lottery
      Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the sports bodies in Cheshire to which grants from national lottery proceeds have been made and the amounts given. [22464]
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): The Sports Council has made five grants in Cheshire: Mobberley cricket club, £2,524; Macclesfield tennis club, £22,200; Davenham cricket club, £16,310; Padgate sports association, £32,402; Moore rugby union football club, £93,400. I understand that a further 15 applications from sports bodies in Cheshire are currently under consideration.
      Mr. Miller: I thank the Minister for that helpful information, and I am sure that everyone in the House would want to wish those clubs every success with the use of that money. The Minister will recall that, on previous occasions, I have drawn his attention to the shortage of resources in and around my constituency, especially for junior football clubs and for athletics. Will he kindly bring
      2
      to the attention of the committee, when it considers the next tranche, the existence of that difficult position, which needs rectifying in the interests of everyone in our community?
      Mr. Sproat: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks, and I will certainly draw his comments to the attention of the Sports Council.
      Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that in Cheshire, as elsewhere, priority should be given to distributing those funds to those sporting initiatives that address as many ordinary folk as possible, rather than to focusing large amounts of money on elitist and somewhat esoteric initiatives?
      Mr. Sproat: I am sure that the Sports Council takes those matters very much into account, especially where they benefit young people and deprived people.
      Mr. Pendry: The Minister will be aware that the second round of lottery grants from the Sports Council to Cheshire sports clubs was slightly better than the first. Will he nevertheless recognise that the distribution of grants generally is erratic? For instance, the north-west, of which Cheshire is a part, received about £1.25 million in the latest round, whereas the south-west received more than £8 million; the east midlands received 15 grants, the west midlands two. Will the Minister involve himself in giving some direction to the Sports Council so that a fairer distribution may operate, and so that urban areas receive a better deal than is currently the case? Only then will the distribution of grants be considered credible by the public.
      Mr. Sproat: No. I will not involve myself in that matter, which is a matter for the Sports Council. The House rightly decided to distance itself politically from such decisions. However, I have no doubt that, as time goes by, there will be an even spread throughout the country. The Sports Council is mandated to ensure that that is so.

      Arts Funding
      Mr. Rooney: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the Association of

      3
      Metropolitan Authorities to discuss the funding of the arts by local authorities. [22465]
      The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I met the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 24 January 1995 to discuss a number of issues.
      Mr. Rooney: The Secretary of State will be aware of the increasing pressure on local authority budgets and he will be aware that, sadly, non-statutory sectors are sometimes the first to suffer. Is he not worried, especially, about the danger of charges being levied for entrance to museums and similar activities?
      Mr. Dorrell: The Government's policy has always been that it is a matter for individual museum organisations to decide whether they want to charge for entrance to museums. Regarding the pressure on local authority finance, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Audit Commission, when asked to examine the totality of local authority operations, concluded that £500 million was available to be released from excess administrative costs. I look to local authorities to release that resource to improve the quality of all the services that they are responsible for delivering.
      Mr. Clappison: When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of local authorities, will he give moral support to Hertsmere borough council in its efforts to bring the world-famous Elstree studios back into film production? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong support among all shades of opinion and all parties in Hertsmere for the idea that the present owners of the site should sell it to someone who is interested in film production?
      Mr. Dorrell: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern. I am sure that his hope that the site should continue to be used in the film industry to support the development of the British film industry is an ambition shared by many in all parts of the House. My hon. Friend's point underlines the opportunity that confronts the British film industry. I shall talk about that at greater length when I respond to the report of the Select Committee on National Heritage at the beginning of June.

      Competitive Sport
      Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what further measures he proposes to encourage greater participation in competitive sports by children in schools. [22466]
      Mr. Sproat: The participation of schoolchildren in competitive sports will be a key element in the sports policy statement paper which my right hon. Friend announced on 23 March. The policy statement will be published in early summer.
      Mr. Hawkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he give particular attention to the importance of providing sporting opportunities for schoolchildren at primary schools such as Hawes Side and Roseacre schools in my constituency? Roseacre school is an exceptionally good school, but unfortunately it has no sports field, and has never had one, as there is no land on which to build one. During his discussions about developing sports facilities for children, will my hon. Friend consider encouraging
      4
      those responsible for lottery funding to provide support for children at schools such as Roseacre to obtain facilities at secondary schools and sports centres in the area?
      Mr. Sproat: I know of my hon. Friend's energetic pursuit of the interests of Roseacre primary school and I entirely agree that everything should be done to ensure that as many pupils as possible have as much access as possible to high-quality sporting facilities. I am glad to say that, from now on, I understand that the Sports Council will consider as eligible for lottery funds the purchase of a van or a minibus to take pupils to such grounds.
      Mr. Enright: The Minister will have noticed that, under the present funding of schools, there has been a considerable decrease in the number of cricket pitches available. Cricket pitches are extremely expensive to maintain. Will the Minister make a special effort to ensure that extra funding is given to the annual maintenance of cricket pitches?
      Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. It is true that cricket is a more difficult sport to deal with because of the size of the field and the quality of treatment that must be given to the square. I hope that the point that he has raised will be dealt with in the sports policy paper.

      Cross-media Ownership
      Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to publish the results of his review of cross-media ownership. [22467]
      Mr. Dorrell: The Government are currently reviewing their policy on media ownership. I shall announce their conclusions once the process is completed.
      Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is illogical to have a system of regulation that permits one national newspaper group to have significant broadcasting interests yet bars every other national newspaper group from having more than a small stake in broadcasting interests? Will he examine that problem in his review and seek to bring cross-media ownership more within the remit of general competition policy in a way that allows British media groups to compete with their international counterparts?
      Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend raises one of the issues that has been at the core of the debate about the future of media ownership regulation. It would be wrong of me this afternoon to hint at the direction in which the Government plan to go. Our media ownership regulation must have two objectives: first, to safeguard plurality and diversity in our press and secondly, to allow media businesses the opportunity to develop viably and successfully.
      Mr. Kaufman: Has the Secretary of State taken note of the massive deal that has been made between News International and the American conglomerate MCI? Has he further noted that BT is a 20 per cent. shareholder in MCI? Does he agree that it is plain daft to have a system in which BT, the British telephone company, is allowed to broadcast television to the United States; American telephone companies, as part-owners of cable companies, are allowed to broadcast television in this country; but BT, the British telephone company, is not allowed to broadcast television in its own country? Is it not intolerable that our major

      5
      telephone company should be prevented by restrictive legislation from becoming a part of the information super-highway in Britain?
      Mr. Dorrell: The right hon. Gentleman has made that point to me before and I do not agree that it is plain daft. He cogently illustrates why the policy is right. The interests of the American consumer are served by having a choice of distributors available in the American market—that is provided by encouraging British Telecom to invest in it—and the interests of the British consumer are served by having choice in the delivery of the television signal to British homes. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made it clear that he does not propose to allow British Telecom into that market at present, in order to allow others to develop in competition with the long-term possibility that British Telecom offers.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend recall the great Ealing comedies? Will he do all he can to see that they are restored by giving support to Ealing—
      Madam Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman sought to catch my eye on an earlier occasion and was undoubtedly frustrated, but he is way out of order on this question. We shall pass on to Mr. Graham Allen.
      Mr. Greenway rose—
      Madam Speaker: Order. The question relates to cross-media ownership. I saw that the hon. Gentleman wished to intervene and was frustrated when Ealing was mentioned on an earlier question, but this is not the question to which it relates.
      Mr. Allen: It is less an Ealing comedy than a Whitehall farce. The delay in the Government bringing forward their proposals on cross-media ownership has led to all sorts of difficulties, not least in the recent Channel 5 round of bids, where bidders were completely unaware of whether they would qualify, were their bid to win. Will the Secretary of State tell the House, and all those who are interested, whether he will reach a decision on cross-media ownership in the near future? Above all, will he put his proposals to the House before we leap into the next major series of changes—digital television? Those in the House and outside need to be clear whether new rules will be in place before the digital revolution allocates new channels, or will the Minister delay and create the Whitehall farce that was alluded to earlier?
      Mr. Dorrell: I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that I hope to bring forward proposals both for the allocation of channels and ownership regulations in the digital world and dealing with media ownership issues among conventional media companies. I hope to bring forward proposals on both those matters within the next few weeks. The hon. Gentleman's charge of delay would hold a great deal more water if, at any time during the past few months, we had heard anything from the Opposition suggesting that they have reached any conclusions on those issues. They are very good at telling us that we have been delaying when we have been considering the issues in a mature fashion. However, we have had almost no advice from the Opposition about the way in which that policy should develop.

      Arts, Suffolk
      Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his assessment of the state of the arts in Suffolk. [22468]
      Mr. Sproat: It is for the Arts Council and the regional arts boards to take the lead in making assessments of this kind. I understand that Eastern Arts has a high opinion of the quality and range of arts activity in Suffolk.
      Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend will be aware of the great success of the Bury St. Edmunds festival in my constituency. Is he aware that, two weekends ago, the Newmarket festival took place, the highlight of which was a concert under the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts pairing scheme? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now possible to hear the finest music outside the metropolitan areas?
      Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the success of the Bury St. Edmunds festival, which is celebrating its 10th birthday and has been a wonderful success. In respect of the Newmarket festival, the first time that it was held, it was a great success. I agree that the ABSA scheme, or the pairing scheme, which has brought some £80 million of fresh money into arts in the 10 years that it has existed, has been great success. As something like 78 per cent. of the money goes outside London, my hon. Friend is quite right to say that it allows people all over the country to hear the finest music and see the finest performances.

      National Lottery
      Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the distribution of national lottery funds to voluntary organisations for the promotion of sports facilities. [22469]
      Mr. Sproat: I have received representations from a variety of individuals and organisations on the subject of national lottery funds for sport.
      Mrs. Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Nutbrook cricket club near Ilkeston in my constituency, which provides sports facilities for young people in particular, has recently applied to the national lottery sports fund for money to improve its changing facilities? The Sports Council has, quite correctly, asked local organisations for their views and all have been supportive except Erewash borough council, which said that the club's bid would compete with the council's own bid for sports facilities. Does my hon. Friend agree that a local authority should not be able to blight another's bid in that way? What advice can he give to Nutbrook and to the Sports Council about the matter?
      Mr. Sproat: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her persistence in the matter of the Nutbrook cricket club. She wrote to me on 16 June last year about that subject and I know that she has been disappointed in one or two of her applications to the Sports Council and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts in the meantime. I assure her that whatever Erewash borough council says or does not say

      7
      will not blight the hopes of Nutbrook cricket club. The Sports Council will make its own decision about that important matter.
      Mr. Illsley: Will the Minister bear it in mind that some organisations which provide funding for sports facilities are suffering because the money that was formerly distributed to them from pools revenue is falling as the success of the national lottery increases? The Barnsley lawn tennis club in my constituency is unable to secure a grant because of a lack of funds within the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. Will the Minister consider equal funding between the various bodies that provide money for sports facilities so as to make up the grants to those bodies which have been affected by the fall in pools revenue?
      Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer cut the duty in order that the Foundation for Sport and the Arts could continue to operate. I believe that that was the right thing to do and I hope that the sports club in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will apply for funding to the foundation, the national lottery, Sportsmatch or any of the other sources of Government sports facility funding.

      Tourism
      Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the part that tourism can play in economic regeneration. [22470]
      Mr. Dorrell: Tourism plays a key role in the local economy in many parts of the country. Successful tourist development is a powerful engine of economic regeneration.
      Mr. Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that tourism provides an opportunity for real growth and that major tourist attractions can apply for funds under the single regeneration budget in conjunction with their local authorities? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that information is made known as widely as possible, as it is a major embarrassment to the citizens of the Isle of Wight that the Liberal Democrat council did not apply for funds in the first round? That is quite extraordinary.
      Ms Lynne: Oh!
      Mr. Field: Perhaps that explains where the hon. Lady was for the first four questions of Question Time today; or perhaps the Liberal Democrats have already sold out to Wai worth road—who knows?
      Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that tourism offers the opportunity of real jobs in the United Kingdom, although the Luddites on the Opposition Benches have still not cottoned on to that fact?
      Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on both counts. It is extraordinary that the Liberal Democrat-controlled county council on the Isle of Wight is unaware of the opportunities that the single regeneration budget presents—particularly, as my hon. Friend said, the opportunities that it presents for the tourist sector. My hon. Friend is correct: the tourist sector creates real jobs. In the past 10 years, tourism in Britain has created 25 per cent. more real jobs. That underlines the extent to which the
      8
      tourist sector is one of the areas of growth in the British economy which holds out future wealth-creation opportunities.
      Mr. McAvoy: I agree with the Secretary of State's last statement. Bearing in mind the contribution that the tourist and travel industry makes to the regeneration of Britain, what is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that unfair taxation is not imposed on that industry, which far too often the Government regard as a milch cow for taxation?
      Mr. Dorrell: That is an interesting question for the hon. Gentleman to raise. If one compares the taxation imposed on a hotel operator in southern Britain with that of a French competitor, the most striking contrast that one will observe is the increased non-wage labour costs that French taxation and the social chapter impose upon the French competitor. If the hon. Gentleman were really interested in comparing the taxes imposed on British operators with those imposed on continental operators, he would make it clear to his Front-Bench team that he opposed the imposition of such an obligation on British operators.
      Mr. Forman: While it is undeniably true that tourism can economically regenerate many parts of the country, is it not also true that it can environmentally degenerate them unless it is properly controlled? For example, has my right hon. Friend any proposals to put to the Secretary of State for Transport and others about controlling the plethora of tourist buses in central London, which cause serious congestion and air pollution problems?
      Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue: the tourist industry's impact on the centres of heritage interest that attract tourists. It is obviously a short-sighted policy to promote tourism if that damages exactly the attractions that bring people to Britain in the first place. That is why the Government set up a review of exactly those issues at the beginning of the 1990s, and why my Department has followed, through the English tourist board, a programme of sustainable tourism projects, which we are in the process of assessing. The results of that will be published in the autumn of this year.

      National Lottery
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will review the criteria used for the allocation of national lottery money. [22471]
      Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will change the methods by means of which national lottery funds are allocated to good causes. [22477]
      Mr. Dorrell: I have repeatedly made it clear that the Government intend to keep the guidelines to lottery distributors under regular review. The allocation of lottery funds, however, began barely eight weeks ago, and therefore I am not yet in a position to revise the guidelines.
      Mr. Prentice: Is the Minister aware that £680,000 of lottery money has just come to my constituency to fund a sports hall, yet that marvellous news was hijacked by the Liberal Democrats, who broke a press embargo 24 hours before the local elections, distributing thousands of leaflets in the constituency and claiming the credit? Is there not a case for reviewing this matter and ensuring that these sensitive announcements are not made during election

      9
      periods, because otherwise people like the unscrupulous Liberal Democrats will hijack them and use them for electioneering purposes?
      Mr. Dorrell: In these days of propriety, it would be improper for me to intervene in the arguments between Opposition parties. What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that the announcement of the Sports Council distribution to which he referred was made not during an election period, but on the Friday after the election period was over.
      Mr. Banks: We dream of getting £680,000 of the lottery in my constituency. I do not mind if the Liberals want to make the announcement first. I am an enthusiastic lottery punter and I look forward to winning the biggy so that I can clear off to the Caribbean, but a feeling exists in the east end that Camelot is creaming off far more than we are. Would it not be possible to have local committees that could take the money that goes into the lottery locally? We could then allocate some of the resources to good causes for the localities, rather than the money coming up to central London so that a bunch of toffs can allocate it to well-heeled Tories.
      Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman's ambition to win the lottery and go to the Caribbean is widely shared on his behalf. On the suggestion that there should be local committees to distribute lottery proceeds, the different lottery distributors have set up structures to ensure that they are offered advice about the local scene before decisions are made. That is why the Arts Council takes the advice of the regional arts board, and why the Sports Council takes the advice of regional sports councils in making lottery distribution decisions. However, a national lottery needs to have a distribution process that culminates in an identifiable national distributor and that is subject, of course, to all the normal propriety disciplines imposed by the National Audit Office.
      Mr. Jopling: Is the Secretary of State aware that Cumbria, despite having 20 applications currently under consideration, has so far received nothing from the sport and arts fund? Will he draw to the attention of the great and good who distribute that money that Cumbria is not an offshore island and that it is time that something was done?
      Mr. Dorrell: My right hon. Friend is an effective advocate of his constituents' interests. I am sure that his point will be taken on board. He will understand that a precise regional balance is not sought in each month's allocation but, taking the distribution programme as a whole, my right hon. Friend is right to say that we must ensure that proper regional balance is observed.
      Mr. Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are far too many reviews? Surely there is no need for any review of the careful, and still recent, decision of the House that one quarter of the lottery's turnover should go to the five sets of good causes—the arts, heritage, sports, charities and the millennium fund. Will my right hon. Friend refuse to listen to the whiners, whingers, complainers and other small-minded and tiresome persons?
      Mr. Dorrell: I shall certainly try to avoid listening to small-minded and tiresome persons. I agree whole-heartedly with my hon. Friend that we must allow the guidelines time to work before reaching considered judgments in assessing them. I repeat my original reply—that
      10
      the Government will keep the guidelines under review. This is a new project, and clearly it is important that, as it matures, we learn the lessons of our experience.
      Mr. Chris Smith: Would it not be sensible to remove the existing requirement whereby the main distributive bodies are not allowed to seek applications but must simply sit and receive them? That system leads directly to the sort of disastrous decision taken over the Churchill papers. Surely it would be more sensible to take a more strategic approach, whereby the boards could consult widely with local authorities, business, trade unions and voluntary organisations to identify gaps and a proper pattern of provision.
      Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman seems slightly at variance with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who was anxious that there should clearly be local input in the distribution process. One of the best ways is to ensure, before a lottery award is made, that there is clear evidence that the proposal has widespread and deeply felt local support. The most effective method is to ensure that lottery money is available to support local initiatives rather than engage in a kind of "goslot", which seems to be wanted by the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement as to the way in which grants from the proceeds of the national lottery will be publicised and the speed with which grants are made by the grant-making body set up for that purpose. [22472]
      Mr. Sproat: The manner in which national lottery awards are publicised is a matter for each of the 11 independent distributing bodies. Distributing bodies are dealing with applications for funding as quickly as possible, given the need to ensure that their systems and procedures are robust and each application receives due consideration.
      Mr. Steen: I congratulate the Government on a great success story—another one. The public would like a bit more information. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider providing information about how much money has already been raised for good causes? The public would also like to know how much money has been given to good causes. Would it not be a good idea if the regulator published a list every month of all the awards made by the five agencies, so that the public could have a one-stop shop printout of all the awards made, without having to approach all the agencies that give them?
      Mr. Sproat: From memory, I can say that £495 million has been given to good causes, of which almost £60 million has already been allocated. As to my hon. Friend's interesting suggestion of collating information about the recipients of lottery awards and their value, if that were to help the House, I would certainly agree. My Department would do that, rather than the regulator. If the House wanted that information, we would certainly be prepared to place it in the Library at regular intervals.
      Ms Armstrong: Since much of the publicity surrounding the lottery and allocation from the lottery has not been helpful or in the best interests of this country and how it orders its priorities, is it not time that everything was re-examined? Many charities which have worked for years to raise money and ensure the protection of the most vulnerable in our society are now losing millions of pounds because of the way in which money is provided through the

      11
      lottery and because many people think that, instead of giving directly to charity, spending money on the lottery is okay and the charities will somehow get it anyway.
      Mr. Sproat: On the first point, it is certainly true that there are lessons to be learned from the way in which the lottery is run. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we shall certainly be reviewing that—perhaps after the first year or whatever seems a sensible time. The Charities Board is in fact a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

      Business Sponsorship of the Arts
      Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to promote business sponsorship of the arts. [22473]
      Mr. Dorrell: The Government actively encourage private sector support of the arts, particularly through their own pairing scheme, which has brought in more than £87 million in new money since 1984. The budgetof the pairing scheme was increased by £750,000 to more than £5.5 million in the current financial year.
      Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the business sponsorship incentive scheme has been a huge success for the Government, bringing new money into the arts? What steps will he take to extend the scheme and expand the number of businesses participating in it so that the true partnership between public and private sectors may flourish even more?
      Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I completely agree with the emphasis that he places on the issue. The pairing scheme, as it is now called, has brought in almost 4,000 first-time sponsors since it was launched and has been responsible for increasing business sponsorship over the 20 years of its operation from a vanishingly small sum to roughly £70 million a year. Business sponsorship is a vital source of support for the arts in Britain. I intend to continue to give active support to the development of the pairing scheme.
      Mr. MacShane: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways to get businesses interested in the arts is to give them tax breaks for investment? I refer particularly to the film industry, in which Britain is seriously disadvantaged compared with the rest of Europe and much of the rest of the world. Labour has put forward concrete proposals, and so has the film industry. Will the Secretary of State speak to that other great philistine in the Cabinet, his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and provide the British film industry—before the Cannes film festival—with the leadership that it needs so that it may develop?
      Mr. Dorrell: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in getting a film tax question into a question on the Association of Business Sponsorship of the Arts pairing scheme. As the House knows, the future of tax relief for film makers was raised in the Select Committee report on the film industry, to which, as I have already said, I intend to respond at the beginning of June.

      Tourism
      Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many tourists from abroad visited the United Kingdom for the last year for which figures are available. [22475]
      Mr. Sproat: In the 12 months between March 1994 and February 1995 there were an estimated 21 million visits to the United Kingdom by tourists from abroad.
      Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of those visitors want to visit villages around the country because they are quiet and beautiful? Does he agree, therefore, that those drawing up structure plans ought to think twice before trying to build thousands of new houses in villages such as Whittingham and Calderstones in Whalley in my constituency which would detract from their beauty? Does he further agree that another village in my constituency might now attract many more visitors because it contains the training ground of Blackburn Rovers? Will he send his congratulations to Jack Walker, Alan Shearer, Kenny Dalglish and the rest of the team on winning the championship yesterday?
      Madam Speaker: Order. The last part of that question was rather out of order.
      Mr. Sproat: If it is in order, Madam Speaker, I add my congratulations to those offered to Blackburn Rovers on winning the league after 81 years. That is a fine achievement and Blackburn Rovers deserve the credit.
      With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is extremely important, particularly in the case of the beautiful villages that he described, to ensure that the needs of housing are balanced by the benefits which accrue to the tourism industry. I am aware that my hon. Friend has followed the matter very closely over many months and I congratulate him on that. I will certainly draw the important point that he has made to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
      Mr. William O'Brien: With regard to the 21 million people who the Minister says visit these isles, will the Minister consider the importance of developing tourism in west Yorkshire, particularly in relation to the Yorkshire mining museum? Will he do all that he can to ensure that we have our fair share of tourism in west Yorkshire so that people can see the heritage of the Yorkshire region?
      Mr. Sproat: Yes, I am glad to say that the percentage of tourists travelling out of London has been increasing. I very much support the Yorkshire mining museum and I am looking forward to visiting it again very shortly.

    CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

      Pension Funds
      Mr. Barnes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what plans the commissioners have to respond to the recent report of the Social Security Committee on the operation of pension funds, the Church Commissioners and Church of England pensions. [22494]
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners if he will make a statement on the findings of the Social Security

      13
      Committee in its second report of Session 1994–95, HC 354, in respect of the operation of the Church of England pensions provision. [22497]
      Mr. Michael Alison(Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners welcome the view of the Select Committee on Social Security that a pension fund into which contributions are payable needs to be established and that that will help to protect the continuing scope of the commissioners to contribute towards the pay of clergy in the poorest parishes. That is consistent with the principles for future arrangements, on which discussions with diocesan boards of finance are well advanced. A report is to be made to the Church of England General Synod in the summer, following which the necessary legislation will be drafted.
      Mr. Barnes: The Select Committee revealed some very serious problems in terms of Church of England pensions—£800 million losses, secrecy, recklessness and foolishness. When shall we reports and accounts for the 44 subsidiary companies, all of which are loss-making? When we deal with the matter further in the House, will the right hon. Gentleman support the notion that it should be dealt with by means of a full Bill which is discussable and amendable, rather than by a 90-minute take-it-or-leave-it statutory instrument?
      Mr. Alison: On the last point, I am sympathetic towards the hon. Gentleman's idea, but it must be something to which the Church of England would agree as it has the majority interest in the issues being discussed. With regard to the pension side of the matter, I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the assets of the Church Commissioners, which are now in the region of £2.4 billion, are very comfortably able to cover the whole of the past actuarial responsibilities for pensions and future pensions up to the point which is now likely to be cut off by a new contributory fund.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to reflect on the full and searching debate which took place in the Chamber on Thursday night, in which it emerged that virtually every mistake in the book had occurred in the management of the Church Commissioners' funds? Does he agree that it is now urgent to establish a properly funded pension scheme so that past members of the clergy will be relieved of any anxiety that their pensions will not be properly paid?
      Mr. Alison: I can assure my hon. Friend that past liabilities are very comfortably covered, as actuarially computed, by the £2.4 billion of assets in hand. My hon. Friend also referred to the future pensions liability. He will be aware that we have announced that there is to be a new contributory scheme to take account of that.

      Churches
      Mr. Fisher: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what consideration the Church Commissioners give to local opinion when considering offers of purchase and change of use for churches. [22495]
      Mr. Alison: The commissioners' policy is governed by the Pastoral Measure 1983. When a Church of England church is closed for worship, the Measure lays emphasis on the diocese seeking a suitable use and that is what is most commonly achieved. Each case is decided by the commissioners on its merits, taking into account the advice of their statutory advisers—the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches—the nature of the building, the options available and the views of the diocese. Dioceses are sensitive to local opinion in seeking uses. Formal objections made to the commissioners about proposed uses are most carefully considered.
      Mr. Fisher: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent can see no evidence that the commissioners are seriously taking into account their views in relation to St John's Hanley, which the diocese wishes to sell to a company wishing to establish a climbing centre in a handsome church in the middle of the city? Whose interests are being served there? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to ensure that the local views which have been expressed coherently and sensibly with well thought out alternative ideas are taken into account?
      Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman knows that the climbing centre proposal was a good deal further ahead than the Friends of St John's community centre proposal. However, the climbing centre proposal has not gone ahead and it is still fully open to the Friends of St John's community centre project to be considered fairly alongside it. No final decision has yet been taken, and the hon. Gentleman's own preference may in the event win the day.

    LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

      Legal Aid
      Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what further measures he proposes to control the granting of legal aid to prevent those who should not be entitled to legal aid from receiving it. [22503]
      Mr. Waterson: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is proposing to exclude wealthy individuals from legal aid entitlement. [22506]
      Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received about the proposed changes in legal aid for the apparently wealthy. [22511]
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): The Lord Chancellor has announced the measures that he intends to take forward following the consultation exercise on the granting of legal aid to apparently wealthy applicants.
      Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend take further the welcome consultation on legal aid for the apparently wealthy by urging that a further look be given at cases in which legal aid is granted to those who have a long record of previous criminal convictions when those people are taking civil cases which are often entirely unmeritorious and constitute a serious nuisance to the law-abiding people who are often the defendants in those cases?
      Mr. Taylor: I shall certainly pass my hon. Friend's remarks on to the Lord Chancellor. Three of the proposals are that there should be a special investigation unit to handle complex cases, a discretionary power to include the assets of friends, relatives and children where these appear to be material to the life style of the applicant and the power to require an applicant for legal aid to transfer ownership to the legal aid authorities of any assets which he fails to declare in the application.
      Mr. Waterson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in many cases apparently wealthy people have their assets frozen by injunctions during protracted and complex litigation? Can more be done following the hopefully successful end of that litigation to extract more money back from the beneficiary of legal aid by way of a statutory charge or other means?
      Mr. Taylor: I am sure that that is a fruitful line of inquiry to pursue.
      Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is a source of great anger that wealthy parasites such as Ernest Saunders and Roger Levitt should receive legal aid while many people with more modest life styles are refused it? Any action that my hon. Friend takes on that front will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and across the country as a whole.
      Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes his point clearly, as he has done before. I am well aware of his views.
      Mr. Frank Field: Does the Minister recall a question that I asked him recently requesting that he list the top 10 barristers and top 10 solicitors' firms gaining the most from legal aid funds? As that information must exist, does the Minister think that his departmental officials are being economical with the truth when they say that they cannot produce the information for him and for the House?
      Mr. Taylor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to come and see me about that. [Interruption.] I am keen that he should be satisfied about the matter, and I shall return to the Dispatch Box to put my answer on record, as the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) would like it to be.
      Mr. Skinner: How on earth can the Government justify handing out large sums of taxpayers' money to wealthy people such as Saunders, Selig, Levitt, the Maxwell brothers and Asil Nadir, when someone in my constituency who needs to fight a civil claim in respect of an accident at work was told by one of those tinpot solicitors that he would be looked after and get legal aid, but then halfway through he was told, "Sorry, but the case is not strong enough to win"? Not only are those wealthy people making a small fortune out of the taxpayer, but barristers and all the rest of them are raking it in because they can make a ton of money backing the wealthy but they will not make a great deal looking after some poor constituent with a civil claim.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Hang all lawyers.
      Mr. Taylor: Barristers can claim what they like, but they will get what is assessed.
      Mr. Bermingham: I declare an interest as a lawyer, and I wait for my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to hang me. Will the Minister not rush headlong into what could be a catastrophic situation which will cost the country money? Much is said about large cases, but in efforts to reassess legal aid will the Minister bear in mind that it is sometimes more economical to grant legal aid at first instance in the magistrates court on the very first day of charging so that a matter is speedily disposed of, rather than to wait over several hearings for legal aid to be granted, with additional cost to the taxpayer and other sources, and achieve the same result in the end? Surely expedition is sometimes profitable.
      Mr. Taylor: But we cannot disregard the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Public Accounts Committee in determining the circumstances in which legal aid is granted in magistrates courts. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have no reputation for headlong rushing, but he need not wait long for the Green Paper on legal aid. It will be out later this week—on Wednesday.
      Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he last discussed the legal aid recovery procedure with the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board; and if he will make a statement. [22504]
      Mr. John M. Taylor: I discuss all aspects of the legal aid scheme with the board's chief executive from time to time.
      Mr. O'Brien: Has the Minister discussed the recovery of payments with the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board? Will he take on board the situation involving a constituent of mine? When the recovery people attended the home, because no one was at home they started making inquiries of neighbours and informing them of the situation. That was totally deplorable and unscrupulous of those agents who are employed by the recovery section of the Legal Aid Board. Will the Minister impress upon the chief executive that such practices must cease and that people should not be subjected to such humiliation in front of their neighbours because agents acting on behalf of the Legal Aid Board behave unscrupulously?
      Mr. Taylor: I will gladly look at that case if the hon. Gentleman will give me the details. I am not entirely sure whether he is referring to recovery by the Legal Aid Board of costs out of winnings, contribution as agreed at the onset of the grant, or the statutory charge which operates after a case has been concluded. Solicitors are under a duty to explain to their clients how the statutory charge works so that they are left in no doubt. The application form is required to be signed by both the solicitor and the applicant on that score to say that it has been explained and understood.
      Mr. Fisher: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish an analysis of the net income levels of those receiving legal aid in the last financial year. [22505]
      Mr. John M. Taylor: I have no plans to publish the analysis that the hon. Gentleman requests.
      Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister reconsider? I suspect that any analysis would confirm hon. Members' suspicions

      17
      and the suspicions put to me constantly by the citizens advice bureau in Stoke-on-Trent that a great number of applications for civil legal aid are being turned down, limited or otherwise impeded. People of quite modest means are being prevented from pursuing rightful cases because of the way in which the civil legal aid system works. That cannot be right, and I suspect that it is of general concern to all hon. Members.
      Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman refers to net income levels, but it would be very difficult to produce the analysis required because net income is disposable income and in the determination of disposable income many allowances can be made which will depend on the enormous variety of individual circumstances of applicants.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: On the other hand, has my hon. Friend observed the type of case that I have come across in my advice surgeries recently, involving people who have previously been reported to be wealthy but who have passed the income assessment and been legally aided by the Legal Aid Board for civil cases? That cannot be right.
      Mr. Taylor: If an individual case, as my hon. Friend puts it, cannot be right, anyone can challenge a grant of civil legal aid, including my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Boateng: If the Minister has no plans to analyse the income of those currently denied legal aid, does he have any plans, belatedly, to deal with the issue of restrictive practices within the legal profession? Is he aware that there has been an increase of some 600 per cent. in the cost of legal aid to taxpayers while restrictive practices within the legal profession on the part of the Law Society and the Bar Council go unaddressed? Is it not time to redress the balance of legal aid in favour of the taxpayer and the consumer?
      Mr. Taylor: That must be an ever-present intention, but the hon. Gentleman should know that the number of people helped under the legal aid scheme—3.5 million in 1994–95—will increase by 25 per cent. by 1997–98. As for restrictive practices, he will know—and I invite him to welcome the fact—that under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 monopolies of various kinds of legal practice are being steadily eroded. He will find, I dare say, that among the legal aid proposals will be that legal aid funding will be available to law centres and citizens advice bureaux supported by him. The Green Paper will be out on Wednesday—more then.

      Public Record Office
      Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the procedures and criteria by which papers are transmitted to the Public Record Office. [22508]
      Mr. John M. Taylor: The Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967 provide for the transfer, under the guidance of the Keeper of Public Records, of those public records which are to be made available at the Public Record Office normally when they are 30 years old. The procedures and criteria are detailed in the "Manual of Records Administration".
      Mr. Dalyell: May I ask a question of which I have given the Lord Chancellor's Secretary notice? As the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) certainly
      18
      acted in good faith in March 1989 when he was Secretary of State for Transport, could his background papers relating to Lockerbie be expedited to the public view, along perhaps with those of Sir Charles Powell and the then Prime Minister? Could the Lord Chancellor have a word with his colleagues in the Crown Office, who are not answerable to the House, and tell them not to be so childish in respect of the ridiculous defamation of potential witnesses?
      Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice that he wished to mention the Lockerbie bombing. However, all I can say in answer to his question is that it will be for the relevant Government Department, as advised by the Public Record Office, to decide at the appropriate time which records should be selected for permanent preservation.
      Mr. Lidington: Will my hon. Friend encourage Government Departments, through the Public Record Office, to make as many documents as possible available not only on paper but on CD-ROM, microfiche and microfilm so that researchers do not always have to travel the inconvenient distance to Kew to inspect these documents?
      Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend may like to know that by the end of last year some 25,000 additional records had been released as a result of the open government initiatives. As for the advance of information technology of the type to which he refers, it is not merely inevitable but welcome.

      Courts Service
      Mrs. Roche: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the cost of the Courts Service becoming an executive agency. [22512]
      Mr. John M. Taylor: The total cost of the Court Service's move to agency status is approximately £900,000, spread over three years.
      Mrs. Roche: At a time of crisis in the Courts Service, with long delays and more than 10,000 complaints under the courts charter, is it not a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money when there is no evidence that it is improving access to justice?
      Mr. Taylor: Far from being a scandalous waste, it is money well spent. The Government believe that generally the more businesslike focus of the agency will lead to greater efficiency, as well as higher standards of service.

      Judges
      Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what advice is offered to judges in terms of their comments made in open court. [22513]
      Mr. John M. Taylor: Each judge is independent. However, the Judicial Studies Board is responsible for the training of the judiciary. Its courses emphasise the need for care, consideration and sensitivity in court.
      Mr. Banks: Does the Minister recall a letter that I wrote to the Lord Chancellor arising out of something in

      19
      the Fleet News? A Crown court judge, Recorder Mr. Nicholas M. Atkinson, told two people who were being convicted at Winchester Crown court—I paraphrase rather than quote—"I would jail you if you were wearing Chelsea kit." That was a propos nothing because, so far as I was aware, they were not in any way connected with the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). How can a recorder say something as outrageous
      20
      and insulting to all decent Chelsea supporters as that? How does the Minister intend to call that individual to account?
      Mr. Taylor: It is indeed within my knowledge that the hon. Gentleman has raised that case with the Lord Chancellor and I read those press notices as well. I am instructed to say that the Lord Chancellor will reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Points of Order
  3.30 pm
  Mr. Paul Boateng: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister repeatedly answered my hon. Friends' questions with words such as, "Watch this space. See the statement on Wednesday," and the like. Does he intend to make a statement to the House on Wednesday? If not, why not and why does he repeatedly refer to such an announcement on Wednesday? Is it in order for him to do so when he apparently has no intention of making a statement to the House?
  Madam Speaker: It is perfectly in order for the Minister to make the comments that he has made. That is not a point of order for me because I have no responsibility for the order of business on Wednesday, or any other day.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given the announcement by the rail franchising director this morning that rail prices will be pegged to inflation-only increases or less during the next seven years, have you received a request from the Opposition spokesman on transport to apologise to the House and the country at the Dispatch Box for all the Opposition's scaremongering?
  Madam Speaker: No.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether you are aware of the fact, but the Office of the Passenger Rail Franchising Director has issued a press release that is not allowed to be taken out of this country. A note to editors says:
  "This notice must not be taken to the USA or Canada"
  or to certain other European countries. Apparently, use of the notice would make the sale of British Rail's stock and services illegal within those countries because of the level of subsidy involved. It seems extraordinary that private notes should be sent to newspaper editors about what can or cannot be exported, yet the House apparently has no prospect of hearing a statement from the Minister about exactly what he is proposing on such matters. Can you help us?
  Madam Speaker: Perhaps we shall have to wait until tomorrow to see whether a statement is to be made. As I said earlier, I have no responsibility for the business of this House. If Ministers wish to make statements, they always give me and the House notice in good time and the announcement is always on the annunciator screen by 1 o'clock.

  Orders of the Day
    Gas Bill
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    Gas Bill
      New clause 1

        COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE OR LOSS CAUSED BY PUBLIC GAS SUPPLIERS
        'Schedule 4 to the 1986 Act (Power of Public Gas Suppliers to break up streets, bridges etc.) shall be amended in paragraph (3) by inserting after the second word "shall" the words "as promptly as possible" and by inserting after the word "any" the words "loss caused or".'.—[Mr. Thurnham.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        3.33 pm
        Mr. Peter Thurnham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        I am grateful for this opportunity to move new clause 1, which stands in my name and that of a number of hon. Friends and Opposition Members. It deals with the need to provide compensation for small shopkeepers, garage owners and others whose trade is disrupted when the street is dug up in front of their premises.
        Under the Water Act 1989, compensation is already provided for water works and this new clause will simply bring the Gas Act 1986 into line with the Water Act to provide compensation in exactly the same way. We are not dealing with compensation for all the other utilities.
        It seems surprising that that anomaly should exist—but perhaps not, when we consider the bad old days when the old nationalised industries lost money hand over fist and had to be bailed out by the Treasury. No wonder the Government resisted the making of claims by traders who were losing profit. All that has now changed and the privatised industries are making substantial profits. Instead of losing £50 million a week, they pay more than £50 million a week to the Treasury in corporation tax on the profits that they make. British Gas makes nearly £1 billion profit, and the chief executive is being handsomely rewarded for his duties.
        My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy has not only duties to ensure that the gas industry and other utilities operate efficiently but much wider duties to ensure that a fair balance is struck between the needs of the industry and those of the community at large. On the one hand, we have privatised industries with their directors and shareholders, and on the other we have the customers and the wider community.
        In seeking to achieve that balance, my right hon. Friend has been kind enough to see me on two occasions. I saw him first on my own and secondly with a delegation that included my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) and my constituent, Mr. Cyril Eaton. We had with us representatives from the Forum of Private Business and the Federation of Small Businesses, from which I won a "Helping Hands" award in 1991 for providing more help to small businesses than any other hon. Member. We were also accompanied by representatives of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce.
        I note that the Leader of the Opposition was in Aberdeen on Saturday, making all sorts of statements to that organisation. I am not sure whether the old or the new

        23
        Labour party is here today. To judge from the Standing Committee report, I would say that it is the old Labour party. The delegation also included representatives of North West Water, including its insurance claims manager, Mr. Aldridge, and Jonathan Rogers, formerly of Hamptons but now of Highfield Consultants.
        At that meeting, my right hon. Friend the Minister was good enough to listen to the strength of the representations and say that he would keep an open mind in considering the issue further. He will recall that I raised the matter in an intervention on Second Reading on 13 March and, on 25 April in Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) kindly raised the issue on an amendment. I could not be there as I was on the Standing Committee that considered the Child Support Bill.
        When I read the Standing Committee report, it is apparent to me that the gas industry representatives have been lobbying hard. The speech of the Opposition spokesman suggests that he was quoting from them rather than representing the wider interests of small businesses. For instance, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce says that it has been trying to change the law for 20 years, and it is supported by the British Retail Consortium and others.
        This matter first came to my attention through my constituent, Mr. Cyril Eaton. He is the proprietor of a greetings cards stationery business, and he suffered a great loss in trade when North West Water dug up the street in front of his shop in Kearsley. Under the Water Act 1989, however, he was able to claim compensation under paragraph 1(2) of schedule 12, which calls for compensation to be paid for any loss caused or damage done. That was confirmed in a law case in 1979 between Thames Water and Leonidis, which determined that the "losses" covered economic losses and therefore losses of profit.
        North West Water says that that legislation is good legislation. It regards it as only fair that, if it causes disruption to small traders through no fault of their own, it should pay compensation for the loss of that trade. It feels that it is not only equitable but necessary to maintain good community relations. Without the legislation, it would be uncertain of its obligations. With that legislation in place, North West Water naturally tries to schedule its work to cause the minimum disruption to trade; without it, it would be under no such specific obligation.
        My right hon. Friend the Minister may remember that Mr. David Aldridge, the insurance claims manager of North West Water, said that 95 per cent. of claims are satisfactorily settled and that the company does not suffer from a mass of small claims. In his letter to me of 28 February he said:
        "The requirement to pay compensation has, to some degree, facilitated better scheme planning and the use of less invasive construction techniques. The clarity and certainty which the statutory duty to pay compensation has also brought has reduced friction and disputes about compensation with the business community.
        I should emphasise that compensation is not paid when the works are of short duration. That avoids the situation where compensation is being sought each time we carry out a small excavation in the street."
        24
        My right hon. Friend will remember that Mr. Aldridge was strongly in favour of the legislation governing the water industry and felt that it should be the rule for other utilities, certainly for British Gas.
        My constituent, Mr. Eaton, was able to recover £7,000 in compensation from North West Water. However, he was amazed to find that when his trade was disrupted once again, this time by British Gas, it was under no such obligation to pay such compensation. The Gas Act 1986 allows for compensation only for "damage done" and does not include the three words "or loss caused".
        If my constituent is entitled to compensation for the loss caused when North West Water dug up the street in front of his shop, it seems inexplicable that he should not be equally eligible for compensation when British Gas did exactly the same. Both events were totally outside his control. He has invested his hard-earned savings in a business, the rewards from which are limited by competition, only to have his livelihood threatened by a monopoly business, or near monopoly business, which does not face the rigours of keen competition. Why should he have to bear such an unforeseeable, unpredictable and uncontrollable cost when British Gas could so easily budget for such compensation claims on a nationwide basis? Where is the fairness, when the livelihood of my constituent is damaged while the directors of British Gas make handsome earnings, which are 50 times or more greater than my constituent can reasonably earn?
        I appeal to my right hon. Friend's sense of good British justice. He spoke in Committee about a possible letter of comfort from the chairman of British Gas, about ex gratia payments, but I propose that proper statutory payments should be made, so that the matter can be dealt with properly. That is how the Department of the Environment approached the matter with the Water Act. I hope that my right hon. Friend is not tempted to listen to a "not invented here" argument from officials in his Department, who may argue that line just because the precedent was set by another Department. We are talking just about the gas industry, not about the rest of the utilities industry. The gas industry should follow the example of the water industry.
        I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) has already been in touch with my right hon. Friend about a particularly vicious case involving his constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Irwin. The trade of their small shop was savagely disrupted in the 13 weeks running up to Christmas and has not yet recovered, but British Gas has arrogantly dismissed all their claims. I have seen a copy of the letter sent to Mr. and Mrs. Irwin on 22 June from the chairman of British Gas, who said:
        "I do not, therefore, consider that there is a case for compensation."
        Unless British Gas is subject to a statutory requirement, I believe that it will continue to adopt such an arrogant attitude.
        Four other cases have been brought to my attention by Mr. Jonathan Rogers of Highfield Consultants, which specialises in such claims. Johnsons garage of Gainsborough lost £2,200 profits because of water works, but it was fully compensated by Anglian Water under the terms of the Water Act. Mr. Patel of Bristol and Cairneyhill garage of Dunfermline, however, have claimed compensation for substantial losses due to disruption, but both have been dismissed by British Gas,

        25
        which said that it was not interested in making any payments in either case. The letters that I have read simply repeated time and again:
        "British Gas in common with other utilities and authorities should adopt a consistent approach to these matters within the framework of the law. Therefore I am unable in this case to agree any form of compensation".
        That is the line that British Gas takes every time.
        Further cases have been brought to my attention by the Forum of Private Business. I have three recent cases before me, including two in Hampshire. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), G. Dowling and Son of Whitchurch had access prevented for seven weeks, and claimed £2,400. In east Hampshire, work took place for three months, disrupting the business of Morgan Automation. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), who has supported me in that case, Lucas Bookshop has lost £12,000 as a result of eight months of disruption from the laying of gas pipes followed by sewerage works, and £12,000 is claimed.
        3.45 pm
        Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: For the guidance of our right hon. Friend the Minister, does my hon. Friend agree that, when British Gas produces its end-of-year profit figures, a chunk of the profit is transferred profit—that is to say, the small businesses that have been adversely affected have had their profit curtailed and transferred essentially to the gas company, which then declares it as its own? Therefore, in a sense, the gas company is declaring unfair profit—excess profit, which we could deal with today.
        Mr. Thurnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the argument as clearly as he does. There is a straight trade-off between the profits of British Gas and the profits of small traders. There would be no cost to the Treasury; at least, I do not envisage any. We are simply considering the need for fairness and equity. That already exists in the law, with the Water Act 1989, so we are asking only for the Gas Bill to come into line with the Water Act.
        Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Has my hon. Friend thought of another aspect? If the gas industry is not required to pay proper compensation for loss of business, it will have no incentive to expedite works to minimise that loss.
        Mr. Thurnham: In the correspondence that I have read, British Gas admits that it might have a liability if it were negligent, but it does not admit any liability otherwise to plan its work.
        North West Water, during its representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister, did say that it did everything in its power to minimise those disruptions. It said that it regarded the payment of that compensation as part of good community relations, which it needs.
        I am amazed that British Gas should take the attitude that it will not pay that compensation, which is only fair, when it is able to report substantial profits and its directors are able to make substantial earnings. They draw earnings that are considerably greater than those of Ministers, who bear far greater responsibilities, not only for the industries concerned, but for the wider interests of the community.
        26
        I should have thought that it would be in the interests of those executives of the utilities to ensure that they conduct their business in a thoroughly honourable way, bearing in mind the needs of the communities affected.
        I have with me letters from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which tells me that it has been trying to change that law for 20 years. It wrote to me in October, saying:
        "we would certainly wish to lend our support to any measures which might close this loophole".
        It wrote to me further on 15 March:
        "We welcome the opportunity to discuss possible amendments to the Gas Bill with a view…to pay compensation to traders for losses sustained for work on the public highway."
        The Country Landowners Association has also written to say that it believes that
        "The only way in which"
        British Gas and other utility companies
        "can be obliged to respect the legitimate interests of those who are affected by their works, is to impose a liability of this nature."
        There is therefore very broad support for the new clause.
        I am surprised that, in Committee, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), the spokesman for the official Opposition, was unable to support the amendment that was tabled at that stage, and that, in considering that, all he could refer to was the Society of British Gas Industries, Electricity Association Services Ltd. and British Gas. What has the hon. Gentleman done about all the other interests that I mentioned? Is he not interested in small business? Obviously, the old Labour party, with its corporatist interests, is not paying any regard to small business, which the Conservative party has always strongly supported.
        I trust that I shall have substantial support, not only from Conservative Members, but from Opposition Members. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend the Minister has to say.
        Mr. Martin O'Neill: The Opposition have no major objections to the new clause, but we wonder whether it is the right way to deal with the problem. We do not deny that there is a problem, but the general election will have to come and go before we are in a position to do much about it. By that time, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) will not be with us, given the size of his majority and, as far as I recall, his unwillingness to defend his seat.
        The new clause, understandably, deals with the only utility that it can deal with—British Gas; it does not take on the electricity companies. The hon. Gentleman was not altogether fulsome in his presentation of the situation. As I understand it, the Water Act 1989 emanated from the Department of the Environment, which has no responsibility for business and can impose on it whatever obligations it likes.
        I can only imagine that when the Water Act was passed, the Department of Trade and Industry was not consulted, or if it was, it felt that the burdens imposed on businesses by water boards' activities were greater than those imposed by gas companies. We believe that other utilities could be involved. The cable companies certainly have some obligations under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, but the electricity utilities are as yet unscathed. The lobby that seems to be working away in the undergrowth of British business appears to have been strangely silent at the time of the privatisation of the

        27
        electricity companies. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East could let us know whether representations were made about the electricity companies. I should have thought that they presented just as much of a problem.
        Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman said that he thought that electricity companies represented just as much of a problem. Does he not accept that the scale of disruption is generally greatest with water or sewerage works, and, secondly, with gas works? Cable laying is a quick matter, which is here today and gone tomorrow, and is unlikely to give rise to such claims.
        Mr. O'Neill: I am not competent to pass quite as swingeing a judgment as the hon. Gentleman, who may well have greater experience of the electricity industry than me. I am under the impression that the regional electricity companies and others spend a great deal of time digging up roads. If their stories are to be believed—I have no reason to doubt them—they invest a great deal of money and effort in improving the quality of electricity connections. One would have thought that they would be engaged in such activities, especially in built-up, urban areas.
        There is a legitimate case for legislation, but it would be wrong to deal with only one utility. It would be far more sensible to deal with them all at once so that they could be treated fairly and with due weight.
        Mr. Richard Shepherd: The Water Act has done that.
        Does not the hon. Gentleman feel for the small businesses and other businesses affected by a statutory undertaking with monopoly powers? Businesses are damaged—what is his remedy while we have the Bill before us?
        Mr. O'Neill: We should deal with the problem in the context of all the utilities; it is not appropriate to take one at a time. We clearly did not take one at a time in the case of water—the Water Act came from the Department of the Environment, not the Department of Trade and Industry. I suspect that the DTI was not consulted at the time. As yet, the voluminous correspondence of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East with everybody and anybody has uncovered nothing. I discovered that with some simple research.
        The Labour party is not prepared to go into the Lobby in support of the new clause, if it reaches a vote. If any of my colleagues wish to do so, that is their decision, but the Opposition do not consider that it is the right time for such a new clause.
        It would be more appropriate to deal with a number of cases together. Indeed, there is relevant legislation. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 covers certain aspects of the issue. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East, who claims credit for being the most helpful person on those matters, was involved in that legislation. That would have been the obvious time not just to take into account the important matters of the individual safety of pedestrians or of road safety, but to protect the interests of businesses.
        We are not in government—that is a pity—and the hon. Gentleman claims credit for having influence elsewhere and being able to speak to Ministers, but it seems that
        28
        Ministers are influenced by him about as much as I am. That is regrettable; perhaps it is due to the manner in which he advocates the case that he puts forward.
        The Opposition recognise that there is a problem, but we do not consider that it will be resolved to any extent by the new clause, because other industries are just as important and should be dealt with just as expeditiously. Unless they can be dealt with at one time, we not consider it necessary to deal with them at all.
        This evening, we want the Government to say something far more conclusive than what they said in Committee. Frankly, I am not prepared to advocate that my hon. Friends support the new clause, if there is a vote. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to make his own judgment as to whether he wishes to put it to a vote.
        Mr. Duncan Smith: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. In principle, he agrees with the logic of the new clause, but he cannot support it in respect of the Gas Bill. Surely the Opposition should take a position on the issue if they agree in principle, as they allege. They must seize the initiative whenever it arises, as all legislators must do, and surely this is the moment to do so. I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman can agree with something and then say that the Opposition do not support it. It makes no sense.
        Mr. O'Neill: I repeat our position. As far as we are concerned, the role of public utilities in interfering with people's businesses and the damage that that can cause businesses, especially when they dig up roads, should not be dealt with on a utility-by-utility basis. The Water Act dealt with it in that way primarily because the measure came from a different Department. Since then, there has been other legislation that the Government have singularly failed to utilise.
        It is possible that an incoming Labour Government would re-examine the matter on a comprehensive basis, but the approach of Conservative Members, in seeking to use such a narrow issue to deal with a far broader problem, is quite understandable in view of the general campaign that utilities which cause damage to businesses should be subject to the law, as they are not at present. However, we are not prepared to take one utility alone. We would want the cable industry, electricity and gas to be taken together as the three utilities that are, as yet, outside the law. Until they can all be handled at once, this is the wrong way to go about it, so we are not prepared to support the new clause.
        Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am truly confused by the speech of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). Presumably, on the basis that there was not a universal all-industry approach to the problem, we would not even have had the relevant clause in the Water Act, which is important to many small businesses.
        I must declare an interest in the debate. I was a small grocer before I came to the House, and my brother now runs the company that I founded. The Water Act saved part of our business by allowing compensation to be paid to one of our shops for the lengthy barricading of its premises.
        The public utilities—which are very much in the Opposition's searchlight as to their management, pay and the way in which dividends and shares are handed over to directors—have enormous powers. They are common-or-garden utility companies that serve local

        29
        areas as monopolies. The prices they fix, subject to the regulator, are effectively monopoly prices. They can demand all their costs back through the price mechanism, and very few competitive businesses in the world can demand the return of any level of costs through that method.
        4 pm
        We have seen how the utility monopolies look after themselves—through the boards that overpay themselves, share deals and so on. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for proposing the new clause and I commend those across the country who support it; it seems to be a case of the little people against the monopolies. Under the new clause, public utilities are asked to have regard for the way in which they conduct their business.
        In the case of the shop that I mentioned, the southern end of a major thoroughfare—Sloane street in London—was dug up in order to improve the supply of water to London. No one disputes that that action was necessary, and the water board acted in an exemplary fashion. Therefore, should there not be like treatment across the board for all statutory undertakings that have monopolies in local service provision? Why should the water industry quite rightly pay compensation for loss of business and damage done to small employers—who are often sole employers—but the gas industry be saved that expense?
        I do not believe that the Opposition are fundamentally opposed to such a payment. I did not understand the comment by the hon. Member for Clackmannan about the curious way in which the measure should be bundled up to apply across the spectrum. The House has a means of addressing the second most important issue—after water, as my hon. Friend pointed out—confronting business people in this regard. Digging up roads in front of business premises can make people bankrupt; that is the essence of the matter.
        I do not honestly believe that the Government can oppose the payment of compensation. It seems to me that it is a typical case of a monopoly utility company effectively writing a large section of its own legislation in a trade-off between Whitehall and the monopoly interests involved. That has occurred in the past. For example, British Telecom had a duopoly policy in the old days. In the early stages of the policy's development—which is all that I am alluding to—British Telecom had to fight a fierce battle for the British market. There was a secret agreement about that duopoly, whereby the second company was limited to only 3 per cent. of British Telecom's revenue. That was nonsense, so the Government developed that policy until we reached a more satisfactory arrangement.
        I cannot conceive of an argument that requires the Government to treat the new clause in any but the most sympathetic manner. I suggest that the Government do so, as millions of small business men and women and their employees are fed up to the teeth with the arrogance of the utility companies and the often incomprehensible manner in which local utility companies that provide the necessities of life treat businesses and consumers.
        There will be no cost to the Treasury. In writing legislation, the Government have the opportunity to consider very carefully whom they represent and to take amendments on board. The vitality of small businesses is crucial to the nation's vitality. That is why the
        30
        Government should listen very carefully to my hon. Friend's argument in proposing the new clause and should not pay any heed to the Opposition spokesman, who wants to postpone a remedy that can be effected immediately in the Bill.
        Mr. Peter Hain: The Conservative Members who have spoken have both made strong cases on behalf of small businesses. All of us who have experienced the difficulties faced by small businesses when confronted with works outside their premises will have a lot of sympathy with them, and I think that that sympathy crosses the House, but I want to address some specific points to those hon. Gentlemen and to ask the Minister whether the new clause is the best way to handle the matter.
        From reading the new clause, it seems that its consequences would be to impose unquantifiable risk, not so much on TransCo, which could simply pass the risk on to customers through pricing flow-throughs, but on subcontractors, who often are also, if not small businesses, at least medium-sized businesses. They would have to carry the liability, which may well be reflected in the ultimate price that we pay for gas through the pipeline.
        The way in which the new clause is phrased and its impact will impose that unquantifiable burden of risk on subcontractors in particular, who are now the norm in the competitive, deregulated regime to which the gas industry is subjected. A technical problem therefore exists in relation to the way in which the new clause has been phrased.
        Mr. Thurnham: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could just clarify his point? I am not aware that water companies, which of course use contractors, as every other utility does, face the difficulties to which he has alluded.
        Mr. Hain: The water industry legislation, as the hon. Gentleman will find when he reads it, applies somewhat differently. That underlines the point, which I repeat, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). The issue needs addressing in relation to all the privatised utilities, local authorities, and highways agencies. The impact on small businesses of such street works is significant. The problem is best dealt with in a comprehensive rather than piecemeal fashion, which could create knock-on effects that are technically flawed. We have here, as it were, a backlash from Conservative Members against the very privatised utilities for which they were responsible. They privatised gas and they are backing this flawed and fundamentally wrong competition Bill. They are the ones who initially created privatised monopolies; now they are screaming at the consequences.
        Mr. Richard Shepherd: I shall not go into the hon. Gentleman's exegesis of the Gas Bill. He makes some assumptions or hypotheses. Is he aware of any problems over the same sort of clause in the Water Act 1989?
        Mr. Hain: I am not aware of any such problems in the Water Act. I have had many experiences such as those referred to by the hon. Gentlemen in relation to the Water Act. I am simply saying that, in relation to the Gas Bill, the way in which the new clause applies will impose unquantifiable risk on subcontractors in particular. The matter should not be handled in this way. It should be addressed on a comprehensive basis. If the hon.

        31
        Gentleman and his hon. Friend persuaded the Minister to introduce legislation to deal with the problem, we would all be sympathetic to it.
        The question of cable companies should not be tossed lightly aside. They are also responsible for a great deal of disruption. Where franchises are held by cable companies—they are making great strides in the city of Birmingham, for example—there is considerable unease and impact on small businesses in particular. The issue needs to be addressed, therefore, on a general, not piecemeal basis.
        Mr. Matthew Banks: I shall speak briefly to the new clause. I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), but he did not satisfactorily explain why the burden would fall on subcontractors. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) referred to a case in my constituency, mentioning Duke street and my constituent Mr. Irwin. If British Gas had a duty placed upon it to compensate for loss of earnings in that case, I have no doubt that instead of weeks and weeks going by—during which time the British Gas contractor involved was seen spending time in the local pub—there would have been a greater sense of urgency on the part of British Gas to tackle the subcontractor, to tell him to get on with the work. The Berlin wall created around that particular business, which prevented access by the public, would have been done away with and life would have returned to normal.
        Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) felt there was some irony in Conservative Members proposing this amendment. Is not it much more ironic that Labour Members are blocking an amendment to serve the consumer—perhaps against the interests of a nationalised industry? Conservative Members are following a long and honourable tradition of making public services responsive to the public.
        Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly pertinent point in a satisfactory way. We are concerned about the individual, and those of us who put our names to new clause 1 are addressing that concern now.
        Mr. Kevin Hughes rose—
        Mr. Banks: I will not give way because I am developing my theme, and I want to speak briefly.
        The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) was ahead of his party when he replied to Royal Navy debates as Labour's defence spokesman. Labour got itself into a bit of a pickle over Trident and nuclear policy. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman, in his heart, entirely agrees with everything that he said at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. How long will we have to wait for a Labour Government? A long time, I suspect. We heard nothing from the hon. Member for Neath about his concerns for the individual and small businesses.
        In the case to which I am referring, which has endured for many months if not years, the business has virtually gone bust. The individual has almost lost his business and he may lose his home. I will briefly describe the circumstances of that case, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East touched. A major gas
        32
        main needed work and the British Gas subcontractor built what I can only describe as a Berlin wall around the business in question. I observed that over weeks because I happen to live nearby, in Duke street. The work started in the summer of 1993 and it was still continuing after a lengthy recess. When the House returned in the autumn of 1993, I took up the question of compensation with British Gas but did not get anywhere. I met yet another brick wall. Constructively, I arranged a meeting at my home across the street between representatives of British Gas, my constituent Mr. Irwin, and his accountant and legal adviser. After lengthy correspondence, I received a letter from British Gas saying that it had considered even an ex gratia payment, but the answer was firmly no.
        To cut the story even shorter, I took the matter up with head office. I was told all too often about the rights of British Gas, but there was never much mention of its responsibilities. All too little attention was paid to the rights of my constituent, who had suffered so badly. I was told clearly by British Gas that it had no liability to make reparations. In financial terms—I choose my words carefully because the last thing that I wish to do is embarrass a constituent of mine—the amount of money of which we were talking was absolutely tiny in the big swim of things. It would not matter, however, if it were £5. If somebody has not got much and is trying to keep his business together, £5—or £10,000—is everything.
        I was still not satisfied at that stage so I sought a meeting with the chairman of British Gas. Four weeks after I first contacted him, I received a reply. There would be no meeting. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East quoted from a letter of 22 June, in which Mr. Giordano told me:
        "I do not, therefore, consider that there is a case for compensation."
        Yet the subcontractor working on behalf of British Gas had ring-fenced, with the Berlin wall that I mentioned, his entire business. Nobody could get to it. None of the passing trade could stop, even though there was a large area nearby where cars could pull in. It was a disgrace.
        That is but one example in my constituency. My hon. Friends have referred to other examples and there are many other such instances in the country. The case to which I have referred is—I think—one of the worst, and I regret that it has happened in Southport.
        4.15 pm
        Even though, as Member of the House, I believe that very often we try to legislate too much—I often take the view that we should legislate a little less rather than a little more—I have no doubt whatever that at the very least a proper code of practice should be developed by British Gas to deal properly with the case to which I have referred and other such instances. At the moment, there is no statutory obligation on British Gas. It has taken a line from which it will not waver. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will accept the broad thrust of my argument. If we cannot legislate today, we need a proper, effective code of practice to help the little man in the street, my constituent, small business men and women and individuals in their homes who have suffered.
        Mr. Nick Harvey: I shall not detain the House long because the hon. Members who have put their names to new clause 1 have made their case well. Indeed, it is clear from the comments of hon. Members of all

        33
        parties that there is much sympathy for the underlying point that the new clause tries to make. I think that all hon. Members have seen people at their constituency surgeries or have been contacted through the post in connection with the sort of circumstances about which we have heard.
        I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), the Opposition spokesman. I agree that such obligation would be ideal across all the utilities, but I am surprised that he extrapolates from that the need to oppose the new clause. His argument suggests an element of two wrongs making a right. Whichever party wins the next election, legislative opportunities to address such a point will not present themselves every day. There is an opportunity here and now to do something about the wrongs that will occur in the gas industry.
        In my constituency a great deal of trade is seasonal. On occasions, the gas board has not been as sensitive as it should have been and has carried out work throughout the summer season that could have been dealt with equally well during the winter. If the Bill contained new clause 1, it would be more sensitive to such considerations in future.
        The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who suggested that resultant additional costs might end up being passed to us in our gas bills. I do not believe that, in the current circumstances, that is particularly likely, because there seems to be plenty of profit to pay for such costs. But that might not always be so. If costs were to end up on our gas bills, however, it would probably be right and just. If gas is being supplied at a price that involves small businesses being disadvantaged unfairly, it would probably be better, even if costs were passed on to the gas consumer, that consideration for small businesses ended up on our bills. In the current circumstances, however, I do not believe that that would happen.
        If the hon. Gentleman decides to press the new clause to a Division, I hope that Opposition Members will support it. As five Conservative Members have added their names to the new clause, and bearing in mind the parliamentary arithmetic as it is at the moment, we might have a very interesting vote on the new clause. I wait with interest to see whether the hon. Gentleman will press his new clause to a Division.
        Ms Ann Coffey: If the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) presses his new clause to a vote, I would be happy to vote for it. I hope that he does press for a Division, because there are probably a sufficient number of Conservative Members who have added their names to the new clause for him to win.
        We could legislate today and ensure that the proposal is accepted if the hon. Gentleman presses his new clause to a vote. I would be interested in his explanation to the people on whose behalf he has campaigned if he does not press the new clause to a vote. At the end of the day, whether the proposal is enacted depends on the attitudes and votes of hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman has an opportunity today to test that. I assure him that I would support his new clause and I look forward to his pressing it to a vote.
        The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East represents a north-west constituency, as I do. I am aware, as he is, of the problems that public utilities cause in pursuing their
        34
        improvements. Part of the problem is that the gas board can dig up a pavement or the frontage of a small shop and then be closely followed by the electricity board, British Telecom and, to finish it off, the cable companies. The argument that the proposal should be comprehensive is very good, because small shops obviously do not suffer from the problems caused by just one utility.
        I agree that a great deal of the problem relates to the supervision of subcontractors, for whom British Gas must bear the responsibility. A problem that has been raised with me in my constituency relates to subcontractors beginning work at the crack of dawn and disturbing a client's access to a shop with very little warning.
        Another problem that has been raised with me is that of reinstatement of work. Although the utility has six months in which properly to reinstate a frontage, which is the responsibility of the shop owner to maintain and not the responsibility of the highways authority, the frontage is sometimes left in a mess, which particularly deters old people from visiting the shop, and that may result in a loss of business. If British Gas had a statutory responsibility to make recompense in those circumstances, it would be a great deal more careful in organising that work and supervising its subcontractors. That would be helpful for everyone concerned.
        The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East said that the issue was backing small business against big business. I hope that the Minister for Industry and Energy has noted the hon. Gentleman's comments. I wait with interest to see whether the Minister will back small business against big business and whether, after the Minister has replied to the debate, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East will be able to back small business against big business. I hope that he will press his new clause, because it would be very welcome in the north-west.
        The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. As he made clear, he has had two formal meetings with me and several less formal meetings. In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) brought a particularly serious constituency case to my attention. I am grateful for that.
        We all recognise that the role of the utilities is extremely important. We all rely, in one way or another, on their work and we recognise that, from time to time, it will inevitably involve disruption to streets and common services. It was because of that that the Government introduced the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 which resulted in the adoption by British Gas of detailed service standards.
        It might be helpful if I describe those service standards. There should be notification of major works 20 working days in advance; pedestrian access to all premises while work is in progress; signing and guarding of the works with details of a telephone contact number should problems arise; leaving the site safe and tidy at the end of each working day; and reinstating any excavations promptly when the works are finished.
        When we considered the 1991 Act, we specifically looked at the case for a general right to compensation for economic loss which arose from street works, and we came to the conclusion that such a provision would be wrong. The main reason for that was the general principle which underlies the use of streets. Successive

        35
        Governments have taken the view that businesses should not have a right in law to any particular given level of passing trade, and that traders must take the risk of loss due to temporary disruption of traffic flows along with all the other various risks of running a business.
        That is an important principle. If one did not have that enshrined in law, where would it stop? Streets must be resurfaced from time to time, they can be made one-way and they may have to be closed. The emergency services can affect traffic also. I stand by the basic principle that the risk of disruption to access along streets must be a risk which a business runs on a normal day-to-day basis.
        Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does not the Water Act 1989 confound the very principle which my hon. Friend is enunciating? We are trying to address the present piecemeal circumstances, and the Bill will place consequential losses upon traders through loss of trade. All that the House is asking is that the Government remedy that. To talk about a general principle on street works related to an earlier Act may be an interesting sideline, but we are confronted with a real problem. How are we to address it? We think the principle adopted by my hon. Friend the Minister is wrong.
        Mr. Eggar: I understand my hon. Friend's passion. With regard to the provisions of the Water Act 1989, that is a different case which relates not just to street works but to general economic loss on land not associated with streets. It is the provisions affecting the water industry which are anomalous. My hon. Friend should know the dangers of arguing from the particular to the general.
        I stick by the principle. Nonetheless, my hon. Friends the Members for Southport (Mr. Banks) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) have said that we have a practical problem. The issue is how we address that problem. I have been prompted by the initiative set up by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), and I have been particularly influenced by the constituency case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport.
        I have been in active discussion with the chairman of British Gas to see whether we can develop a way forward which deals with the cases that bear unreasonably upon small businesses. Mr. Giordano has suggested to me in a letter—which I shall place on record through the means of a written reply—that British Gas is going to revise the existing procedures of its transportation arm with a view to improving communication and co-operation with the owners of commercial premises. British Gas will discuss with individual business owners issues such as vehicular access, customer access, special notification and any special requirements which a particular business may have.
        Beyond that, and subject to certain conditions which are laid out in the letter, British Gas has given an undertaking with regard to exceptional cases affecting businesses with a turnover of less than £500,000. That is British Gas's definition of a small business, which covers about 90 per cent. of businesses in the United Kingdom. Where such small businesses have a severe and clearly established loss of business for more than a month as a direct result of stre6t works carried out by British Gas or its agents, British Gas will sympathetically consider claims in respect of financial loss on an ex gratia basis.
        36
        4.30 pm
        Having listened to the particular cases that concern my hon. Friends the Member for Bolton, North-East and for Southport, and also taking into account cases that have been brought to my attention through other means, in particular following my discussions in a formal meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East, it seems to me that the undertaking from British Gas, to which the Government expect it to adhere in an appropriate way, will meet almost all the cases of which we are aware have caused concern on a constituency basis.
        Mr. O'Neill: From what I can gather, there will be no admission by British Gas of any liability of an ex gratia character or the rest. Will the Minister look at the draft standard conditions as they apply to public gas transporters' licences? Condition 14 of the standards of performance provides for compensation for consumers. If, in the course of the extension of the distribution system, standards are not adhered to there will be compensation.
        Will the Minister consider the licence as a means of securing an obligation? If he is not prepared to accept the "blunt instrument" of an amendment to the primary legislation, he might want to do so through the fine-tuning facility that is afforded within the conditions of the licence. That would impose an obligation upon the licensee, in this case TransCo, which is most likely to be digging up a road. The licence already contains a reference to compensation when standards are not met. I think that that is what hon. Members are talking about.
        Mr. Eggar: Without studying that condition with care, I think that I am right in saying that it does not cover that set of circumstances. This Government and previous Governments have believed that the basic principle that underlies the 1991 Act is appropriate. None the less, we recognise—this is why I have entered into discussions with the chairman of British Gas—that, in a small number of instances, the cost of those works, despite the 1991 Act and all the additional undertakings that TransCo has given, may bear unreasonably on small businesses.
        We think that the best way of dealing with that—this is why we have discussed it with British Rail—is on a case-by-case basis. In practice, the undertakings that have now been given by the chairman of British Gas, to which we expect British Gas to adhere, will deal with almost all the cases that have been brought to my attention by my hon. Friends and through other means.
        For those reasons, I cannot go along with my hon. Friends and accept the new clause. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East for the enthusiasm and dedication with which he has—
        Mr. Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. Eggar: If my hon. Friend really wants me to give way.
        Mr. Duncan Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I know that he wishes to wind up the debate, and I understand the reasons for that. However, there is a serious problem with the note from British Gas. If it has defined the size of business that it will compensate, are we not now in grave danger of shuffling off the responsibility to legislate and make that a fact, and passing it across to the courts of law? Should somebody

        37
        who has a business worth more than £500,000 turnover now wish to be compensated, he will have to take redress through the courts to say that British Gas has no right to define him out of such compensation because his loss is no less great than that of a business below £500,000. We could resolve that today by making that a certain fact in legislation.
        Mr. Eggar: I thought that I had made it clear that the Government were not prepared to move away from the basic principle behind the 1991 Act. I have sought to deal with the specific nature of the problems brought to my attention by my hon. Friends and others. I am confident that the letter from British Gas deals with almost all the practical cases that have been brought to my attention, and I am sure that British Gas will seek to live up to the spirit as well as the letter of the chairman's communication to me.
        Mr. Thurnham: I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend and thank him for the great attention that he has clearly given to the issues presented to him. I am a little disappointed that he is not able to accept the new clause, but it was always apparent that there were difficulties in his Department about accepting legislation affecting one utility which some people might then feel should be extended to further utilities.
        I have not yet had an opportunity to read the letter from the chairman of British Gas. Clearly, I should like to see it before coming to a conclusion about how the proposals would work, but I welcome my right hon. Friend's reassurance to the effect that he feels that they would deal with most of the problems that might arise. I shall, however, reserve my opinion until I have seen the letter and perhaps discussed it with those who are anxious that the new clause should be accepted. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for the matter to be discussed in the other place if it is felt that the letter does not go far enough in responding to our legitimate concerns.
        I listened with amazement to the speech of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). He seems to think that, because his party was asleep during the passage of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, he can pretend that there is nothing he can do now. He might have missed his opportunity then, but he has a perfectly good opportunity now. However, he seems to have chosen not to use it. The hon. Gentleman was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) who made an excellent speech. He spoke with great feeling as someone whose small business had been affected by street works. I am sure that the whole House sympathises with his position.
        Mr. Richard Shepherd: As I have already said, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling this important new clause. I do not think that the problem has been dealt with by a letter from Mr. Giordano or see how it places a statutory requirement on British Gas. Nor do I understand how it will lead to compensation. The House itself has wrestled with the definition of a small business, but it seems that British Gas deems it appropriate to define it as one with a turnover of £500,000, or whatever the figure was. I did not hear the figures given for the water companies or what level of compensation they have had to pay, but, if we wait on crystal mountains or behind
        38
        ministerial doors for bad news from small businesses, we shall be in some difficulty. Truthfully, I do not think that a letter from Mr. Giordano is sufficient in this instance.
        Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend makes it clear that there are still doubts. Until I have seen the letter, it is difficult to comment further.
        I think that, having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Clackmannan, British Gas shareholders will be delighted with the work done by its directors and other representatives. The hon. Gentleman could not have done better had he spoken as a representative of British Gas.
        I could make little sense of the speech of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who seems blind to the benefits of competition. No doubt if he had his way, the gas industry would still be nationalised and there would be no money with which to pay compensation anyway.
        Mr. Hain rose—
        Mr. Thurnham: I think that we have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman.
        I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) for his truly excellent speech. He put his constituent's case very well. Clearly, the case that he outlined today had struck home as my right hon. Friend the Minister had earlier considered it personally and brought it to the attention of the chairman of British Gas for a second time. Obviously, this code of practice would be one important way of dealing with the issues if we do not have legislation.
        I was pleased to hear the speech of the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), which again illustrated the benefits of competition. Clearly, the other Opposition party made a better case of addressing the issues than the official Opposition. To that extent, I wish the Liberal Democrats well and hope that they will continue to compete and to stir up some more realistic attitudes on the Opposition Benches.
        I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) and thank her for her offer of support for the new clause if it comes to a Division. I am tempted to go to that point, so that we can illustrate the extent of the support for the new clause, but in considering whether to beg leave to withdraw it, I bear in mind the need not to over-embarrass Labour Members, as it is clear that early on a Monday afternoon not many of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Stockport would be around—
        Mr. Kevin Hughes: About half an hour ago, the hon. Gentleman was championing the cause of small businesses, only to dump them and let them down 40 minutes on. He has chickened out and he will not push the matter to a vote. It is the hon. Gentleman's side that is opposing the new clause, not the Opposition.
        Mr. Thurnham: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were addressed to his Front-Bench colleagues and that they will listen to him. It is interesting that there are considerably more Conservative Members than Labour Members in the Chamber this afternoon. Obviously, the former are concerned about the gas industry and the position of small businesses when compensation is called for, whereas I can see only half a dozen Labour Members and a sole representative of the Liberal Democrats in the Chamber.
        Mr. Hain rose—
        Mr. Thurnham: We have already heard enough.

        39
        I thank the House for the opportunity to debate the issue at some length. It is now clearly on the record and there will be an opportunity for us to study the letter from the chairman of British Gas. If the concerns that we have aired still exist, I have no doubt that many people will press Members of another place to raise the matter when the Bill passes from this House.
        The Bill as a whole is excellent and in principle I wish it all possible success. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy for going as far as he did in addressing my concerns and seek your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, to withdraw the new clause.
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The hon. Member does not need my leave; he needs that of the House. Is it the House's pleasure that the new clause be withdrawn?
        Hon. Members: Aye.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New clause 2

        MATTERS TO BE TAKEN TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY DIRECTOR IN EXERCISING POWERS TO CONTROL GAS PRICES
        '(1) The Secretary of State shall from time to time issue guidance to the Director as to the matters he is to take into account in exercising any powers specified in the conditions of a licence granted under section 7 or 7A of the 1986 Act to limit, vary or otherwise control the charges set by a licence holder for the supply, transportation or shipping of gas.
        (2) Guidance under subsection (1) above shall include as one of the matters to be taken into account by the Director a reference to the extent to which the remuneration of the executive and non-executive directors of a company which holds such a licence reflects the performance of that company during the year preceding the year to which the remuneration in question relates.
        (3) In subsection (2) above—
        "remuneration" includes any salaries, fees, benefits in kind or share options; and "performance" includes increased efficiency in the carrying on of the activities to which the licence relates and improvements in the standard of service to consumers.'.—[Mr. Nigel Griffiths.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 54, in clause 8, page 12, line 41, at end add—
        '(3) Standard conditions under this section shall include a duty on the part of any company which is the holder of a licence under section 7 or 7A of the 1986 Gas Act to publish annually details of the remuneration of the executive and non-executive directors of that company, including any salaries, fees, benefits in kind and share options.'.
        Mr. Griffiths: The new clause and the amendment deal with some of the key issues that concern the public about gas and the other privatised utilities—corporate greed, boardroom bonanzas and lack of restraint, in spite of the preaching of restraint from somewhat unusual Conservative circles.
        New clause 2 would give the President of the Board of Trade powers to issue guidance to the Director General of Gas Supply. The Secretary of State shall and must take some responsibility for ensuring that payments in the
        40
        boardroom are not completely disproportionate to the performance of the company or the service to consumers. The present director general must be given powers to take certain actions with regard to the remuneration of executive and non-executive directors and the company's performance during the year.
        The definition of remuneration in the new clause includes all those things about which we have been reading—not merely at the weekend and in all the editorials today, but in months and years past—but nothing has been done. The definition includes salaries, fees, benefits in kind and share options—the raid on the bank by far too many of those executives. Just as important, performance must include the efficiency of the organisation in carrying out its duties to the public, as well as improvements in the standard of service to consumers.
        The new clause also gives the Government the power to tell the director general to take into account the level of executive pay in British Gas when fixing prices for consumers. I hope that the new clause will send a warning to the bosses of all the other utilities that Parliament will not sit back and watch them indulge themselves in the sort of boardroom greed that has brought the utilities to a level of disrepute that they have never suffered before.
        4.45 pm
        The new clause will ensure that those who complain, such as the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), who is not in his seat but who has written letters to the chairman of the company, are not powerless in the face of unsatisfactory replies. There must be a crisis of confidence in gas when it takes not a member of the public or even a Member of Parliament to get a suitable response from the chairman but the Minister responsible for key powers over British Gas. That in itself is an indictment.
        In the past four years, the performance of British Gas has not presented a glowing picture. Pre-tax profits have declined, earnings per share have been reduced from 21.7p to 13.9p, and the return on capital has reduced from 7.3 per cent. to 5.4 per cent. Indeed, as the company states in its briefings, it has lost 60 per cent. of its industrial customers; so it is not a glowing success story, but one that should be sending shivers down the spines of all shareholders.
        When I attend the annual general meeting of British Gas a fortnight on Wednesday and act as a proxy voter, I will certainly raise the sort of questions about performance that are voiced not merely by consumers but that we have heard from the now empty Conservative Benches.
        What has been the response of the British Gas board to the falling level of profits and of earnings per share—the indicators that show whether a company is in a healthy state? The chief executive, Cedric Brown, had a 75 per cent. pay rise last September and, on top of that, has been awarded 437,000 executive share options, worth more than £3 a share, and now stands to pick up a bonus of 125 per cent. of his salary, which is nearly £600,000—he is a millionaire in a year.
        Other board members who are responsible for scrutinising the workings of British Gas and perhaps for drawing to the chairman's attention any lapse in the company's performance have been noticeably silent. Norman Blacker, who holds 165,000 share options worth £500,000, has been silent. Howard Dalton, who holds

        41
        236,000 share options worth £700,000, has been silent. Russell Herbett, who holds 163,000 share options worth about £500,000, has been silent. Philip Rogerson, who holds 237,000 share options worth about £700,000, is another silent voice in the boardroom. Finally, Roy Gardener, the finance director who joined the company last autumn, has been silent—a silence bought at a price of £1.1 million in share options and a salary of £285,000.
        In addition, all those people stand to pick up bonuses: Mr. Blacker stands to pick up £984,000; Mr. Dalton, £355,000; Mr. Herbett, £210,000; Mr. Rogerson, £310,000; and Mr. Gardener, £355,000, on top of his £1.1 million in share options and his £285,000 salary. Those bonuses, payments and share options have all been earned on the back of the company's declining performance for its shareholders. However, I am more concerned about the company's performance and duties to the consumers whom it is supposed to serve.
        British Gas has made drastic cuts. If we are to believe Mr. Giordano, British Gas is the only business that can make such cuts without an impact on services. The Minister was trapped in Committee, despite, I presume, a previous briefing by Mr. Giordano that those cuts were having no impact. Given that the number of British Gas showrooms has been axed from 426 to 266 and that showrooms have been closing in high streets throughout the country, depriving people of a service that they have enjoyed for many years, it is hardly surprising that consumer dissatisfaction is on the increase. Given that showroom staff levels will have fallen from 4,000 to 1,400 by the end of this year, it is hardly surprising that the public are not getting the personal service about which British Gas was reprimanded by the Minister responsible for the charter marks.
        Home service advisers are the subject of a new clause, which we shall discuss today or tomorrow, so I shall not dwell on the matter. The number of home service advisers, who help elderly and disabled people in their homes and ensure that the arthritic and the blind receive practical assistance, cannot be cut from 136 to 78 without impacting on that service in every region that British Gas serves.
        This year, the emergency services budget of £9 million to trace gas leaks was cut to £1 million. Spare parts have been removed from the vans of engineers conducting emergency call-outs so that they are left with no choice but to cut off defective appliances at the risk of some unscrupulous landlord or criminal proprietor reconnecting a faulty gas heater or cooker and putting at risk not just themselves and their families but their neighbours. Such a policy contrasts markedly with the lavish handouts in the boardrooms.
        If British Gas is so proud of the remuneration package that it offers its key directors, and if it thinks that their performance is at the forefront of British business and an example to everyone, why has it hidden its share options schemes from its shareholders? Amendment No. 54 makes the holder of a licence under the Gas Act 1986 liable
        "to publish annually details of the remuneration of the executive and non-executive directors of that company, including any salaries, fees, benefits in kind and share options."
        On Friday, I visited one of the biggest investors in British Gas, Standard Life, and this morning I called on the Prudential, the biggest single institution that invests in British Gas. They both confirmed their surprise—I
        42
        detected a shade of annoyance—at Mr. Giordano's decision to review in secret the remuneration of directors in January 1994. The fact that that was not mentioned in the annual report in February obviously came as a surprise to them, as it would to most shareholders. The fact that it was not mentioned when the quarterly returns were signed off slightly later that spring also came as a surprise. The remuneration packages were not mentioned at the annual general meeting in April, or even in September when the company signed off the second quarter's results. Nor was it mentioned when it was employing Mr. Gardener with £1.1 million of share options and a high salary.
        It was not until the Financial Times published the information on 21 November 1994 that shareholders, even institutional shareholders, realised that they had been excluded from those critical decisions. We are talking not about a few employees who hold a few hundred thousand pounds' worth of shares but about those whom I met this morning, who hold more than £300 millions' worth of shares, and those to whom I talked on Friday, who hold some £290 millions' worth of shares. So it is no wonder that the matter is out of control, and a new clause and amendment are needed to ensure that such boardroom excesses are publicised.
        All that cosy little arrangement was presided over by a key board member, Lord Peter Walker. He was the Secretary of State for Energy who left the Cabinet on 4 May 1990 and by June—within a month—had joined the board of British Gas. The "revolving door" did not apply to Peter Walker; for him, it was an open door to the boardroom of the very company that he voted to privatise. There was no "decent interval", as Nolan has now recommended, but just an indecent haste to join the fattest cats of them all. There are no checks on them, only cheques to them.
        This may have been what the Prime Minister meant when, in response to a question in the House on 9 February, he spoke with unusual insight about peer pressure in the private sector. Perhaps he meant the peers who have left the Government and joined the boardrooms, such as the noble Lord Young, who joined Cable and Wireless having been Secretary of State for Trade and Industry responsible for privatising telecommunications, or Lord Tebbit, who was responsible for privatising British Aerospace and then joined its board. That shows the pressure of peers on the boardrooms—no restraint whatever—and why it is necessary to support the new clause.
        We need regulatory pressure on British Gas, the six bosses of which have received nearly £7 million in share options, to ensure that its performance to consumers and shareholders is improved. We need similar regulatory pressure on the water and sewerage companies, the 42 bosses of which have awarded themselves £22 million in share options, and on the regional electricity companies, the 63 bosses of which have given themselves £46 million in share options.
        The new clause is a model for exercising the minimum modest restraint on the directors of those utilities. It is no secret to the House that the Opposition have had their differences with the present regulators, but even those regulators should be allowed some discretion to ensure that, where boardroom salaries and share options hit jackpot and national lottery levels, the regulator can at

        43
        least take a step back and ask what service is being provided to consumers and whether it merits such high boardroom salaries.
        It seems obvious that, even if share values rise or remain as high, we must question the soaring number of consumer complaints, which rose by 94 per cent. in the three months from November to January compared with the same period the previous year and by 19 per cent. compared with the previous three months.
        All those figures would give any other private company pause for thought. If, for instance, Marks and Spencer or Littlewoods saw the number of consumer complaints soar, even if their share prices were rising into the stratosphere someone on the board would sit back and say, "Wait a minute, we shall lose all our customers if those consumer complaints continue." So the proposals make sound economic, shareholder and consumer sense.
        It is important also to look outside this place and beyond the Labour party's opinion. The concerns that the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), voiced at the weekend are now echoed in all the newspapers that strongly support the Conservatives. Today's Daily Mail talks about the profits made by David Jefferies, chairman of the National Grid, who—
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must caution him against going too wide of the subject. The clause deals with gas and, although a passing reference to other utilities is acceptable, I now detect a widening out, which is not acceptable.
        Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps I will be in order if I quote a better example from The Sun, which, today, specifically mentions the gas, water and power bosses. That paper arguably influenced the election and caused the swing that led the Tories to hold on to power, just. Today's editorial, entitled "Greed, Inc." states:
        "Gas, water and power bosses who leach millions from their cash-gushing monopolies are little better than licensed thieves.
        With nobody to stop them, they just keep returning to the scene of the crime and filling their pockets with extra loot.
        They've made fortunes out of pay, perks and pensions."
        5 pm
        That sums up why the clause is needed. Today's edition of the Daily Express also ran an article with the headline "Time to curb fat cat bosses". It states:
        "The energy, ingenuity and urgency with which they have arranged to line their pockets would turn the strongest stomach."
        That paper, which is not a Labour one, has seen the light. In a possible rebuke to the Minister, it states:
        "Any sixth-form economic student knows that monopolies can hardly help doing well, since they lack the competition that would otherwise squeeze profits and provide independent benchmarks of performance … the Government simply cannot afford to be passive."
        That is exactly why I am urging the Government to support the new clause. That paper also states:
        "it certainly will not do for Ministers—like Industry and Energy Minister Tim Eggar—to dismiss the fuss as Labour posturing."
        We are not posturing, because our complaint is firmly founded on the concerns of consumers as well as of shareholders.
        44
        It is important that a message goes from Parliament to the boardrooms of utilities, to reinforce the message sent by Nolan last week, to the effect that directors cannot continue to cash in their chips at an alarming rate to enrich themselves. Twelve directors of the privatised utilities have become millionaires. Those directors cannot afford to continue in that way and ignore the true needs of their shareholders, their companies and, specifically, the needs of 18 million gas consumers.
        Mr. Hain: I support new clause 2, because, for successive months, the Government have been engulfed in sleaze involving not just the behaviour of successive Ministers, as well as of certain Back Benchers, but that of the privatised utilities. The Government have been engulfed by that sleaze because of their failure to get to grips with those privatised utilities and the way in which they are taking the country for a ride. After all, the gas bills that we pay enable the gas directors and others to enjoy the life of Riley. As has been exposed in the past year, our money has paid for the successive share options that they have given themselves and their massive salary increases, which have repeatedly rained upon us, month after month.
        The new clause is a valuable vehicle because it opens the window on that aspect of Government sleaze. It is obscene that six British Gas directors have been able to award themselves £7 million of share options. They are among the top 50 directors of privatised utilities who have awarded themselves £40 million in share options. Across the board, 131 utility bosses have awarded themselves £100 million-worth of share options.
        The new clause would curb that practice, which is particularly reprehensible because it is a form of insider dealing. Those directors are not agreeing to remuneration terms and salary levels that are openly declared and accountable to those attending the annual general meetings. They are stuffing share options in their own back pockets and, at the same time, determining, according to the priorities they set for their company, the value of those shares. They have effectively created a mechanism from which they benefit. That objective is quite different from the other possible business objectives of British Gas, or any other privatised utility. Those directors' performance should be judged by much more rigorous, sensible and acceptable business targets, such as the levels of investment and productivity reached. The extent to which those targets have been met might well lead to the payment of bonuses.
        Investment is a critical target for any serious industry such as British Gas. Jacking up the share prices and benefiting from them through freebie share options is in direct conflict with investment, because the more share values are driven up, the higher the dividends that are paid to satisfy the insatiable thirst for higher returns on those shares, which, in turn, results from the short-termist economy that the Government have established. Those payments are made at the expense of the needs of British Gas.
        The practice of British Gas directors represents a microcosm of what is wrong with the British economy. The Government have created a short-term, speculative, money-for-nothing economy. The behaviour of the British Gas directors exemplifies that. That small elite, in their privileged position, think that they can simply exploit that

        45
        economy for all they are worth. The share option manoeuvre is a particularly reprehensible example of such exploitation.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) has said, it is not surprising that the share option manoeuvre is part of the wider picture of Cabinet Ministers leaving the Cabinet room for the boardroom. Lord Walker helped to privatise British Gas and he has now ended up on its board. I do not think that my constituents can understand the extent to which Members of Parliament are indifferent to the sleaze that now grips them.
        Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman has stressed how former Cabinet Ministers have joined the boards of particular companies. If there were a Labour Government at some time in the future, what would he think about sponsored trade union members acquiring ministerial responsibility for those industries by which they had been sponsored?
        Mr. Hain: I do not think that the hon. Member has the power to invite me to take on a job.
        Mr. McLoughlin indicated dissent.
        Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman is not being as charitable as I thought. Is he seriously trying to suggest that I as a sponsored Member—I represent Post Office interests—might be barred from taking up a post in the unlikely event of being offered such a responsibility? That is nothing like someone in Cabinet, responsible for a privatisation that handed millions of pounds in share options and other means to the board, being invited by that very board to serve on it. That is the old boys network in operation. Those people are systematically lining each others' pockets. That is quite different from the example that the hon. Gentleman quoted.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure that it has anything to do with new clause 2 either. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would return to the point.
        Mr. Hain: I am pleased to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your intervention was welcome—[Interruption.]—but not for the reasons about which right hon. and hon. Conservative Members are now happily smirking. I am happy to defend my argument, but the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) introduced a red herring. Without disobeying your dictum, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to say that it was interesting to note the reports in the Sunday newspapers that a number of Ministers were considering pressing the Prime Minister to dismiss them early, so that they could take early retirement and get in before—
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have exercised my judgment: the hon. Gentleman is quite out of order.
        Mr. Hain: I accept your judgment, Madam Deputy Speaker, since I have absolutely no option. I was unreasonably provoked by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire and perhaps you will bear that in mind, in mitigation.
        I return to my central argument. Many of my constituents cannot pay their gas bills because they cannot even obtain a supply of gas to their homes. The Minister may be weary of my quoting that example, but many people who live up valleys in my constituency—in the
        46
        Swansea valley, in villages such as Cwmllynfell and Rhiwfawr and, at the top of the Dulais valley, in Seven Sisters and Banwen—have campaigned for years for gas to be supplied up to their villages, and I have supported their campaign.
        Gas has been supplied, in some cases, to places less than a mile away from those villages. British Gas has informed me that the total cost of supplying those villages with gas would be less than £3 million; yet six of its directors have received £7 million in share options—more than twice the cost of supplying gas to those villagers who desperately need it. It is a straight trade-off. My constituents do not understand, and I do not understand, how the Government can possibly defend a position whereby share options are dished out like confetti raining down at a wedding or on some similar occasion, when my constituents cannot obtain a gas supply that would cost half the sum that British Gas directors have awarded themselves in share options.
        There is a straight trade-off between the creation of millionaires and the misery resulting. New clause 2 would give the Government the power to instruct the Director General of Gas Supply and ensure that that abuse—that type of insider dealing and lining of pockets by senior utility bosses, specifically of British Gas—should cease.
        The gas industry is, yes, a privatised operation now; nevertheless it should, as a national champion, set high ethical standards that are respected by customers throughout the country and that will cause low-income customers especially to understand that they are in a fair society—not an unfair society rigged against them, in which millionaires continue to make money yet, if customers cannot pay their bills, their gas supply is cut off. That type of discrimination and exploitation should end. New clause 2 may give the Government a vehicle for ending it.
        Mr. Clapham: New clause 2 and amendment No. 54 are enormously important.
        New clause 2 seeks to impose price penalties on companies where there is excessive executive pay. My hon. Friends have given many examples to show how needful that is.
        Clause 54 requires companies to publish details of executive remuneration as a standard of the licence condition. It seems perfectly fair that people should have access to information about remunerative packages paid to executives of utilities.
        In some of the press reports about what is likely to happen in the nuclear industry, it has been suggested that a provision similar to new clause 2 would be part of any new legislation for privatisation of the nuclear industry. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to whether that is correct.
        New clause 2 gives the Secretary of State responsibility for directing the regulator as to the way in which executives' salaries should be taken into account when setting maximum charges for gas supply, transportation and shipping. That gives the Government indirect power to solve the problem of excessive executive pay packages—the most prominent example being, I suppose, the doubling of Cedric Brown's basic salary at the same time as British Gas showroom staff were asked to take pay cuts.

        47
        Subsection (1) of new clause 2, makes it plain that
        "The Secretary of State shall from time to time issue guidance to the Director as to the matters he is to take into account in exercising any powers specified in the conditions of a licence granted under section 7 or 7A of the 1986 Act to limit, vary or otherwise control the charges set by a licence holder for the supply, transportation or shipping of gas."
        5.15 pm
        The Minister will be aware, from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry report on the domestic gas market, that the evidence given to the Committee showed that the cost per therm of gas left little room for competition. The report showed that the cost of gas is likely to be about 21.5p—43 per cent. of the total cost per therm. Those were the figures given by British Gas. Transportation and storage was given as 22.5p—45 per cent. of the cost per therm. The supply and trading costs were given as 6p—12 per cent. of the cost per therm, which is reckoned at 50p. That leaves very little room for any changes to be brought about as a result of competition.
        I think it is generally accepted that the cost of gas to all the companies likely to be involved in the domestic market will be very similar. Transportation and storage costs will also be very similar. That leaves only trading costs, in which there is likely to be a great deal of competition.
        Therefore, not only is it important that consumers are given the opportunity to evaluate the performance of the companies, which may be reflected in some of the price changes that come about, but it is important that they have access to the information regarding the remuneration packages paid to the directors. That is all the more important when it is obvious that the focus of competition will be on that very small part of the cost of a therm of gas.
        The powers set out in new clause 2 would allow the regulator to ensure that directors' pay not justified by performance was funded from shareholders' pockets rather than higher prices.
        Relying on the future recommendations of the Greenbury committee—to which the Minister referred during discussion in Committee—is not on, because one might liken the Greenbury committee to putting the mice in charge of the cheese. The committee is made up of millionaires, many of whom draw large salaries from their business activities. If they are to make judgments about the remunerative packages to be paid in the utilities, many Labour Members will not expect the Greenbury committee to come up with dramatic or radical changes to the remunerative packages proposed for executives in the utilities.
        The Government's response to new clause 2 will show the general public how serious they are about wishing to tackle the problem of directors who award themselves increases unjustified by performance. If the Government oppose the clause, they will demonstrate that the Prime Minister is unwilling or unable to give any substance to his claims of concern about excesses, and that the Tories remain the party of those who would turn a blind eye to the privatisation rip-off and corporate sleaze.
        I would expect the Minister to take new clause 2 and amendment No. 54 on board. As well as being necessary for the regulator to control corporate access, amendment
        48
        No. 54 is justified on its own merits. Consumers should be able to discover easily how much the directors of public utilities are paid and to assess whether it is a fair amount. Opposition to the new clause is a vote to continue to prevent the utilities from being held accountable to the public.
        Ms Coffey: The Government's response to the recent outrage over the profits that the chairmen of the public utilities have earned—or rather, not earned, for that is the problem—has been low level. The Government's response demonstrates how out of touch they are with what the ordinary member of the public feels about what is happening.
        The public do not regard gas as a just another commodity, even though the Government have been trying hard to persuade them that it is. Gas is not seen as a commodity by the public, but as an essential service for which they have to pay out of their income. Over recent years, most of the public have suffered a cut in their income. They have to manage within a limited income. Their pay may have increased minimally, in line with inflation, but they still have to pay all their bills out of a limited income.
        Gas is a service for which the public have to pay. The Government have gone to great pains to explain that the benefits of privatisation have included a decrease in the price of gas, but the decrease has affected some consumers and not others. It is not the price of the service that irritates the public beyond belief, but seeing something which belonged to them, and which was transferred to the private market for their benefit, being used by a few people to line their own pockets. That has caused public outrage.
        The money that the directors and chairman have earned is beyond the wildest dreams of most working people in this country and seems out of all proportion to anything that people could reasonably earn by the job that they do. People have rightly asked what the chairman has done to earn so much money. The answer is not that the chairman has done anything to earn the money, but that he has got the money because he is the chairman and is able to award himself the money. The ordinary people of this country—particularly those who have been asked to make sacrifices and those who work in the public sector—do not like that system.
        We can compare the earnings and the share options of the chairman of British Gas with what nurses are able to earn and what they have been asked to take in wage increases. The British public regard nurses as just as valuable as the chairman of British Gas. They see an enormous disparity between the two sets of earnings, which they believe to be inequitable and unfair. They cannot understand why the Government are unwilling to do something about that. The Government are not willing to criticise the system or to take action to ensure that the British sense of equity and fairness is not outraged.
        The British people ask why, in a privatised industry, one person's contribution should be considered so valuable that he can earn an inordinate amount of money in an annual salary and become a millionaire through the exercise of share options, while other employees who contribute to that industry are rewarded with wage cuts and, in some cases, redundancy. The British people wonder why the chairman is worth so much and an

        49
        employee is worth so little in comparison. In an industry, everyone contributes and everyone's contribution is valuable and worth while.
        The Government's argument has always been that huge salaries are paid and chairmen receive enormous amounts of money through exercising their share options because it is important that a private utility has the best possible chairman. The Government say that they are simply following the practice of the private market. The private market may adopt that practice, but there is a great deal more competition in the private market than in the public utilities.
        British Gas is a monopoly, the regional electricity companies are monopolies and the water companies are monopolies. People think that perhaps it is not so hard to manage a monopoly when consumers have no option but to buy the service being sold. The analogy between British Gas and what is happening in the private market elsewhere does not hold up. The public utilities will always be a special case because they sell essential services and they will always have to be open to regulation to ensure that they do not rip off the public through price increases. That is why we have regulation. The public know that, and they bitterly resent what is happening.
        The purpose of the new clause is to give to the regulator an opportunity to look at what is happening and to relate the remuneration of the chairman of British Gas and his executives to the company's performance. There must be some sort of performance-related pay. There must be some reason to award oneself hundreds of thousands of pounds in bonus, albeit through share options. The person involved has to have done something to earn the money—it is not just manna from heaven—and it is difficult to see what has been done for such sums to be earned in British Gas.
        People might understand the bonus or level of salary if they could see what it had been paid for. A number of criteria for measuring the performance of British Gas could be drawn up. They could include its performance in terms of customer care, in terms of helping low-income customers and in terms of ensuring that services are accessible to the public, its investment record and its relationship with its employees.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) said, in this country too much time is spent considering companies' and industries' performances simply in terms of their share prices and their dividend yield. Criteria which go beyond that should be applied in determining the quality of a company. British Gas, the regulator or the Minister could show the lead and apply such criteria to the public utilities to set an example to the rest of British industry. It could be shown that the criteria should involve not merely short-term success, but the long-term health of an industry.
        I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment. In previous debates on the subject, he has said that the Opposition have been motivated by the politics of envy and do not like people to earn too much money. We do not like people being awarded too much money when they have not earned it. The important word is "earning". In this country we believe that people should earn what they receive and we believe that everyone's contribution to an industry is important.
        50
        The Minister should recognise the public sense of outrage at what is happening. Most members of the public believe that there will be a continuing inequity, and that the gap in earnings between those who do a decent day's work and those who sit in the boardroom is becoming too big. Sitting in the boardroom and good management are important, but gas fitters and the people who do the job are also important. Those people must be justly rewarded. One man or group of people should not be rewarded far in excess of other people.
        Mr. Eggar: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), not least because she suddenly had to correct herself a number of times during her prolonged peroration to say that the Labour party is sometimes in favour of management and sometimes in favour of high pay, as if the new Labour piece was getting into her brain and she was remembering the right words so as not to undermine her credibility with the current trend within the Labour party.
        New clause 2 is extremely pernicious, for all the words uttered in particular by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) from the Front Bench. It would fundamentally undermine the basis of the regulatory system as the independence of the regulator is the cornerstone of the way in which regulation is approached, not just here but in virtually every country around the world.
        5.30 pm
        The reason for and the importance of the regulator's independence is that it removes political interference from the management of the regulated utility. New clause 2, more unashamedly than any previous amendment, seeks to reassert political control over the management of the gas industry.
        Mr. Kevin Hughes: Hear, hear.
        Mr. Eggar: "Hear, hear," says the unreconstructed hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes).
        Despite all the honeyed words of the Leader of the Opposition and occasionally other Labour Front Bench spokesmen about their dedication to make industry more effective and their commitment to competition, what they really feel in their hearts is that they want political control over the management not just of the gas industry but all parts of British industry. They have not really put their hearts into a new clause IV, it is all just part of an elaborate con.
        Mr. Nigel Griffiths: We want to know what new Conservatives are thinking and whether new Conservatives are the same as old Conservatives, backing those with their snouts in the trough, the corporate greed and the absolute abuses that have even brought The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express on to Labour's side on this issue.
        Mr. Eggar: That was a pretty feeble attempt by the hon. Gentleman. At least some of the more honourable Labour Members admitted that the Labour party wants to reassert political control of the gas industry. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) is smiling, as that is straight down his view of where the Labour party should be.

        51
        The Opposition want to go further than reasserting political control. In the terms of the new clause, they want to do it directly by reintroducing an incomes policy through the back door. That is what lies behind new clause 2.
        Neither today nor at any stage in Committee have the Opposition introduced a shred of evidence to suggest that there is any logical reason to relate price caps on the one hand to board pay on the other. The reason for that is quite clear. First, even if one takes the total remuneration package for the whole of the British Gas board, which came to some £2.3 million last year—
        Mr. Kevin Hughes: Per month?
        Mr. Eggar: No, per year. That represents a cost of about 1p per month on each gas consumer's bill.
        In addition, we heard some absolutely absurd figures from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths). If he follows the precedent of the level of research to which he has risen in the debate when he attends the British Gas annual general meeting, as he has promised to do, he really will be made a mockery. He fails to understand that the vast bulk of the share options to which he referred were offered at only 9p per share below today's price on the stock exchange. The vast sums that he mentioned bear no relation to the potential or actual profit that could be exercised today.
        Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister needs a lesson in accuracy as well as economics. The exercised price was 221p and the latest market price is just over £3—302p or 304p—so the difference is more than 9p.
        Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is following his long established tradition in misusing the Short money made available to the Opposition. The vast bulk of those share options were offered at 293.5p and today's price is 302.5p. The difference in broad sums is 9p per share. That is the reality. The hon. Gentleman should at least be honest with the House and accept that those were the terms on which the vast bulk of those share options were made available to current board members.
        Mr. Hain: The Minister pooh-poohs the impact on ordinary customers of these bloated share options for British Gas directors and says that it is matter of a few pence on bills. No doubt the arithmetic proves his point. How does he explain to my constituents—who were told that British Gas cannot afford to extend supply to the Dulais valley and the Swansea valley as it will cost about £3 million—that six directors are being offered £7 million in share options? That is not a few pence, and it is a straight comparison. How does he explain the justification for that?
        Mr. Eggar: I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his persistence on that particular issue. I assume that the voracity of his local papers is absolutely unlimited, as it is the third or fourth time that he has raised the issue. First, I do not accept his figure in regard to the share options. I suspect that he has failed to take account of the price at which the shares were offered, but that is a minor point.
        We have already discussed in Committee the particular problem that his constituents and, to be fair, the constituents of many hon. Members may have with regard to getting on
        52
        to the gas grid system. I explained in detail how the provisions of the Bill will make it possible for public gas transporters other than British Gas to access the national grid and to provide a gas grid system into areas previously been isolated from the grid. I also made it clear that the change in the ability to pay effectively by instalments for the capital works associated with the gas grid should also provide vendors of the services—the public gas transporters—and consumers with possibilities which did not previously exist.
        As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I cannot say that, as a result of the Bill, those communities will get on to the gas grid system, but there will be opportunities available which did not previously exist. That should at least be some reassurance to him and to his constituents. In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, he has most persistently opposed the Bill. He has always made it clear that he does not support it. I am not quite sure how he squares his opposition to the Bill with the advocacy of the interests of his constituents, when he has at least admitted that the Bill will make it easier for public gas transporters to bring gas to the fairly isolated communities that he represents. Perhaps he and his local paper should reflect on the level of inconsistency in his position with regard to the Bill as a whole.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the Minister that we are not dealing with the whole Bill; we are dealing with one clause and one amendment.
        Mr. Eggar: I fear that I have been led down a path that I should not have followed.
        Mr. Hain: Enticed.
        Mr. Eggar: I was enticed—to use the hon. Gentleman's word—by the nature of the intervention. I am grateful to you for setting me straight, Madam Deputy Speaker.
        In discussing the board level salaries in British Gas and other entities, an important factor is persistently overlooked. British Gas is regulated according to an RPI minus X formula—in other words, the price at which it sells is the important factor. If the industry's costs rise above the level anticipated or above those of its competitors, the impact will be felt by the shareholders and not by the customers who have the advantage of the RPI minus X formula. The idea that somehow high salaries are awarded to board members at a cost to the customer simply does not stand up against any scrutiny of the way in which the regulatory system works.
        When the level of the RPI minus X formula is reviewed, the regulator in this industry, as in others, must take account of whether she regards the level of cost in that organisation—including the total remuneration of the board—as appropriate when setting X. That normally occurs on a five-year basis, although it may be earlier in the case of gas.
        Mr. Nigel Griffiths: When my colleagues and I met the regulator, she spelled out very clearly that she did not even look at salaries in the boardroom. However, the Minister has implied that she examines that cost in arriving at an RPI minus formula.
        Mr. Eggar: It is one of the factors that the regulator may wish to take into account when setting the formula. She may choose not to do so; it depends on the way in which she approaches the issue. If new clause 2 were to be supported, it is absolutely clear that there would be political direction

        53
        of the regulator and political interference in the working of the gas industry and that, in effect, an incomes policy would operate through the back door. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South shrugs his shoulders; it seems extraordinary that the Labour party, which the shadow Chancellor claims is in favour of competition, should take that line. That cannot be the correct way to proceed.
        Kevin Hughes: The Minister has referred to an incomes policy. It seems to me that the fat cats already have an incomes policy: grab as much as they can for themselves. Does the Minister seriously think that in excess of £400,000 is a fair salary to receive for three days' work? It is interesting that the first time that Tory Back Benchers spoke in Committee was to defend their mates, the fat cats, and their fat salaries.
        Mr. Eggar: The decisions that are taken as to the level of salaries are a matter for the board and the remuneration committees. At the end of the day, the shareholders have the ultimate say about salary levels. They can exercise whatever powers they choose. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have made it clear that we will consider the recommendations of the Greenbury committee. If the committee recommends legislation in this area, we shall not hesitate to legislate if we consider that appropriate. We do not rule out legislation in this area.
        New clause 2 is fundamentally flawed. It involves the introduction of an incomes policy by the back door and political direction of the gas industry and it completely contradicts the broad thrust of Opposition policy as advanced by the shadow Chancellor.
        5.45 pm
        Mr. O'Neill: It would appear that it becomes a political direction for the regulator when the House decides that the salaries and the conditions of directors should be taken into account, yet it is not a political direction if the regulator is required to take account of environmental factors or social responsibilities in relation to the elderly. Those issues are not considered political, but directors' pay is. Somehow the whole regulatory function is transformed because the pay and conditions of a small group of full-time employees—with the exception of the chairman of the company—must be examined by the regulator when determining price levels.
        We know that in most instances salaries can be justified to a certain extent. They cannot be justified publicly because the remuneration committee does not meet in public. As I understand it, when the salary of the present chairman of British Gas was increased above the company's limit for directors' salaries, that decision was not transmitted to the annual general meeting in the year that it was made. As a result of such a lack of transparency, shareholders are unable to establish the basis on which decisions are taken. They may be able to ask questions at the AGM, but they are not told of the rationale behind the decision in the company papers or in the final accounts.
        There is no means of ensuring that shareholders are clear about why certain individuals are receiving such pay awards. The awards may be based on some kind of notional performance, but, if so, one would imagine that the stratospheric levels that have been breached by the pay rises that certain individuals have enjoyed of late would somehow be related to the company's performance. In
        54
        some instances that has been true, but when producing her figures the regulator is not obliged to separate the regulated areas of business from the unregulated areas. Therefore, she is at a certain disadvantage.
        There appears to be a link between profit, performance and pay. We know—no one disputes this fact—that the cost of directors' salaries amounts to about 12p per annum per household. It is not significant in terms of profits; we will not reduce prices significantly by cutting directors' salaries to zero. However, the public are concerned about a company that operates in almost monopoly conditions being able to afford to pay its directors salaries that are beyond the expectations and understanding of most ordinary citizens. What we find offensive is the manner in which pay awards are made and reported to the company's shareholders and the fact that the regulator is powerless to take account of them in calculating whether price rises are acceptable. An element of responsibility must be given to the regulator.
        Major investors and people representing pension funds and the like repeatedly tell us, as they told my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) just last week, that they are concerned. We must often explain to them that, when in office, the Labour party will have to recognise the protection of the consumer and of the company, its long-term future and the significance of ensuring a steady stream of investment into the company, so that its activities can be funded by means other than purely increasing its bills. We recognise that those three objectives must be balanced and that, to a certain extent at least, responsibility for doing so rests with the regulator and with the regulatory system.
        There is a lack of confidence among consumers. As publicity of the pay rises and share options given to senior British Gas executives has increased, people have said, "If they are getting such big rises and doing such a good job, how come I am not getting the service that I think I am entitled to for the whopping bills I am having to pay?" That is why, in the space of three months, the number of complaints increased by 93 per cent. and why the Cabinet has threatened British Gas with withdrawal of its charter mark.
        We find, however, that the regulator can do nothing. She cannot question the manner in which the company is being run. We want her to be given the opportunity to take note of such matters. She should be required to take pay into account, not least because of the effect of a significant pay rise on the running of a firm.
        If the public feel that executives are not ensuring a good service and are being paid far too much, someone must be able to blow the whistle. We know that not all investors, and not all those who will attend the AGM with their proxy votes, will be that concerned. Many of them have a vested interest in sustaining the remuneration system that affords directors of British Gas and of the companies that they represent the pay that they receive. This is about not the politics of envy but the politics of greed and the ability of a small coterie of interlocking directorships to scratch each other's backs and to ensure that they all get a bit of the action out of companies for which they have some responsibility.
        It is difficult for major shareholders to get on to the board and to have an influence. Attempts were made by unions such as the National Union of Mineworkers to influence the investment policies of certain companies in South Africa. They were told that they could not do so

        55
        because commercial judgments were the responsibility of investors. It was proven that sustaining investment in South Africa over the years was not the correct investment decision. The decision of investors ultimately to withdraw from South Africa was a major contributory factor in the ending of apartheid.
        I am not drawing analogies between the rate of pay for directors in the former utilities and the working of apartheid, but the same supine attitude that was adopted by people who attended board meetings of major investors in South Africa prevails today at general meetings of some of the utilities. The legitimate concerns of small shareholders and of pension fund contributors and the like are being ignored. One of the most satisfactory and easy ways to take those into account is to give responsibility to the regulator to consider remuneration when she considers price and its relationship to profit.
        Ms Coffey: Does my hon. Friend agree that there appears to be some confusion in the Minister's argument? He said that giving such a responsibility would give some political control to the regulator and that, therefore, he is not prepared to have anything to do with it, but then said that if the Greenbury committee makes recommendations the Government might legislate. In legislating, they would be prepared to take political control. Is it just that the Minister is washing his hands of the problem because it is too difficult?
        Mr. O'Neill: We shall just have to wait for the Greenbury committee's recommendations. Many of us doubt that it will produce very much. The Prime Minister said:
        "we are waiting for recommendations on that, and, when necessary, when the facts are available, we shall decide what action needs to be taken, if necessary, including legislation."—[Official Report, 2 March 1995; Vol. 255, c. 1182.]
        We all know the genesis of the Greenbury committee. It was proposed by the Confederation of British Industry. Its members include those who have benefited from the working of the system. We will all be surprised if it will be able to be sufficiently objective to make recommendations that will satisfy everyone in the House, or at least that will require the Prime Minister to introduce legislation. Most of us believe that it is a fairly cynical exercise.
        We want the Government to take this opportunity. We want the regulatory system to be revised. We have been operating under a series of regulators for about 11 or 12 years. This is the first opportunity to examine legislation on a former nationalised utility and, in the light of experience under private ownership, the effectiveness of the regulatory system. That is why we repeatedly returned in Committee to the question of how the regulatory system operates.
        We have clearly identified a major shortcoming in the regulatory system: the regulator does not have to take account of the rewards that companies pay their staff when determining prices. The new clause and the amendment would allow the regulator to take account of that, in the same way as she must take account of other issues that are deemed, in most people's eyes, to be political: the environment, the level of gas supplies and the needs of the disabled and elderly, which we recognise. If those are not political issues, heavens above, I do not know what are.
        56
        Members of the public in wheelchairs chained themselves to the gates of the House of Commons because disabled people's rights were not being properly recognised in the House. That is a matter of such controversy by dint of it being political. It is nonsense for the Minister to say that, somehow, the regulator will be drawn into politics if the new clause is accepted. If it is passed, the regulator will be drawn into the real world.
        For too long, the major energy regulators in the electricity and gas industries have regarded their areas of responsibility as some sort of free market adventure playground where they can work out their fantasies about perfect competition. That was the kind of thing in which, in the past, only academic economists were able to indulge on the blackboards or whiteboards in their lecture rooms. They were given large, expensive toys with which to play but they did not want to break those toys. They regarded them as being made of porcelain and felt that they should not touch then. Because the system has not been properly considered, it is working against the very people for whom the regulator is supposed to be responsible first and foremost—consumers and shareholders.
        6 pm
        Mr. Clapham: I mentioned a reference in the press to legislation on the privatisation of the nuclear industry containing a clause similar to new clause 2. The Minister did not refute that similarity. Would my hon. Friend like to develop that point?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not develop that point. This debate concerns the gas industry, not the nuclear industry.
        Mr. O'Neill: I will not stray, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Suffice to say that, when an industry is privatised, it is difficult to legislate beyond the point of privatisation. A free-standing, independent company is established, whose articles of association are determined not by the privatisation measure but by company law and the regulatory process. The regulatory process under which British Gas operates does not take account of the pay and conditions enjoyed by its directors. The amendment would correct that shortcoming by changing the regulatory regime.
        Mr. Hain: Does my hon. Friend agree that the regulatory system is being brought into disrepute and that many customers and citizens feel that it is not protecting them because of massive abuses caused by boardroom excess, with directors awarding themselves share options and so on? People think, "This is not for me." The regulator is supposed to protect the consumer but she is turning a blind eye to greed on a massive scale.
        Mr. O'Neill: I could not agree more, and I go further. That is a problem for not only consumers but small shareholders who, having invested perhaps most of their life savings, are asking themselves, "Have I put my money in the right company? Am I doing the right thing in associating with that company?"
        In previous debates on the gas industry, we pointed out that British Gas was once regarded second only to Marks and Spencer as the most popular company in the country. That position prevailed until publicity about the pay and

        57
        conditions now enjoyed by its directors. There has been a transformation in public esteem for British Gas. Its activities once attracted respect worldwide. When in public ownership, it carried through the changeover to North sea gas, which was one of the biggest civil engineering exercises this country and western Europe have ever seen. British Gas played on that affection, and its directors thought that they could ride to the bank with suitcases full of money from their various remunerative perks. The only way in which such an anomaly can be corrected is if the regulator can cast her eye over the situation.
        Mr. Robert Ainsworth: My hon. Friend rightly spoke about the direct consequences of excessive executive salaries, but they have a small impact on the price paid by the consumer. Are there not other consequences, such as the effect on pay in the organisation, and the demoralising effect on efficiency, when employees see the people at the top treating themselves in the way that British Gas directors do? The indirect effects on the consumer can also be substantial.
        Mr. O'Neill: I could not agree more. The argument used to be made that it was not a bad idea to pay the bosses good wages, so that everybody else would be dragged along behind them and that would reflect on the morale of the whole operation. Another company in the energy business, Scottish Nuclear, gave all its staff exactly the same pay rise for the specific purpose of improving morale. British Gas did the opposite.
        Gas showrooms were not simply high-street supermarkets but places to which consumers looked both to purchase gas appliances and to obtain advice and information on a range of equipment. If one went to a shopping mall, visited a retail outlet offering a variety of white and brown goods and asked about the energy efficiency of a particular product, it was not unusual to be directed to the gas showroom because only there was the relevant knowledge and information available. That was because gas showroom staff were trained and properly remunerated. I do not mean to speak disparagingly of other shop assistants, but British Gas showroom staff regarded themselves as people who did more than walk off the street and start work in a shop the next day. British Gas provided morale and a sense of worth that have been lost as a consequence of the changing character of its showrooms.
        Of equal importance is the obscene way in which British Gas staff pay has been cut while the pay of bosses has mushroomed and gone through the roof. We are considering not just the interests of consumers and shareholders. It is in the long-term interests of the success of British Gas that the regulator has power over those people who appear completely unanswerable to anyone. I mentioned the structure of British Gas AGMs and the votes held by people who participate in them. We in the Labour movement might identify them as being not dissimilar to the old block votes. The big companies scratch each other's backs and protect one another.
        The new clause is the best approach that we can suggest at this time. It may have imperfections but the Minister did not mention any. He said that the new clause was somehow political. A number of responsibilities already imposed on the regulator are clearly political, and the new clause is political because it attacks vested interests. It is about not the politics of envy but the politics of greed.
        I urge my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment, which can change the character of regulation in this country, restore public faith in the regulatory system and
        58
        give the regulator guidance in performing her duties—guidance that she does not seem to have at present and appears unwilling to seek. We will press this amendment to a vote, and I urge all hon. Members who believe in fair remuneration and fair reward for people working in the gas industry to accept that the new clause would achieve that, while ensuring that small shareholders in particular will be given adequate protection.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 271.

        Division No. 146]

        [6.10 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Denham, John

        Allen, Graham

        Dewar, Donald

        Alton, David

        Dixon, Don

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Dobson, Frank

        Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Dowd, Jim

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Ashton, Joe

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Austin-Walker, John

        Eagle, Ms Angela

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Eastham, Ken

        Barnes, Harry

        Enright, Derek

        Barron, Kevin

        Etherington, Bill

        Battle, John

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Fatchett, Derek

        Berth, Rt Hon A J

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Bell, Stuart

        Fisher, Mark

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Flynn, Paul

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Berry, Roger

        Foulkes, George

        Betts, Clive

        Fraser, John

        Blair, Rt Hon Tony

        Fyfe, Maria

        Blunkett, David

        Galbraith, Sam

        Boateng, Paul

        Galloway, George

        Bradley, Keith

        Gapes, Mike

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Garrett, John

        Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

        Gerrard, Neil

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

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        Burden, Richard

        Godsiff, Roger

        Byers, Stephen

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Caborn, Richard

        Gordon, Mildred

        Callaghan, Jim

        Graham, Thomas

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Cann, Jamie

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Grocott, Bruce

        Church, Judith

        Gunnell, John

        Clapham, Michael

        Hain, Peter

        Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

        Hall, Mike

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Harvey, Nick

        Clelland, David

        Henderson, Doug

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Heppell, John

        Coffey, Ann

        Hill, Keith (Streatham)

        Connarty, Michael

        Hinchliffe, David

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Hodge, Margaret

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Hoey, Kate

        Corbett, Robin

        Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Hood, Jimmy

        Cousins, Jim

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Cummings, John

        Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

        Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

        Hoyle, Doug

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Dafis, Cynog

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Dalyell, Tarn

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Davidson, Ian

        Hutton, John

        Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

        Illsley, Eric

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Ingram, Adam

        59

        Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

        Pendry, Tom

        Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

        Pike, Peter L

        Jamieson, David

        Pope, Greg

        Janner, Greville

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

        Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff'C)

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

        Purchase, Ken

        Jowell, Tessa Quin,

        Ms Joyce

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Randall, Stuart

        Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

        Raynsford, Nick

        Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

        Reid, Dr John

        Khabra, Piara

        S Rendel,David

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Robertson, George (Hamilton)

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Lewis, Terry

        Rogers, Allan

        Litherland, Robert

        Rooker, Jeff

        Livingstone, Ken

        Rooney, Terry

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Lynne, Ms Liz

        Rowlands, Ted

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Ruddock, Joan

        McCartney, Ian

        Sedgemore, Brian

        McCrea, The Reverend William

        Sheerman, Barry

        Macdonald, Calum

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        McFall, John

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Short, Clare

        McLeish, Henry

        Simpson, Alan

        McMaster, Gordon

        Skinner, Dennis

        McNamara, Kevin

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

        MacShane, Denis

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Madden, Max

        Soley, Clive

        Maddcck, Diana

        Spearing, Nigel

        Mahon, Alice

        Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

        Marek, Dr John

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Martlew, Eric

        Stevenson, George

        Meacher, Michael

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Meale, Alan

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Michael, Alun

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Timms, Stephen

        Milbum, Alan

        Tipping, Paddy

        Miller, Andrew

        Touhig, Don

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Turner, Dennis

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Vaz, Keith

        Morley, Elliot

        Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

        Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

        Walley, Joan

        Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Wareing, Robert N

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Watson, Mike

        Mudie, George

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

        Mullin, Chris

        Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

        Murphy, Paul

        Winnick, David

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Wise, Audrey

        O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

        Worthington, Tony

        O'Brien, William (Normanton)

        Wray, Jimmy

        O'Hara, Edward

        Wright, Dr Tony

        Olner, Bill

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        O'Neill, Martin

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Patchett, Terry

        Mr. Joe Benton and

        Pearson, Ian

        Mr. Peter Mandelson

        NOES

        Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

        Banks, Matthew (Southport)

        Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

        Batiste, Spencer

        Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

        Bendall, Vivian

        Amess, David

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Arbuthnot, James

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Booth, Hartley

        Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

        Boswell, Tim

        Ashby, David

        Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

        Atkins, Robert

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

        Bowis, John

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

        Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

        Brandreth, Gyles

        Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

        Brazier, Julian

        Baldry, Tony

        Bright, Sir Graham

        60

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Hargreaves, Andrew

        Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

        Harris, David

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Hawkins, Nick

        Burl, Alistair

        Hayes, Jerry

        Butcher, John

        Heald, Oliver

        Butler, Peter

        Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

        Butterfill, John

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Hendry, Charles

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hicks, Robert

        Cash, William

        Hill, James (Southampton Test)

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Horam, John

        Clappison, James

        Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

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

        Coe, Sebastian Howell,

        Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Conway, Derek Howell,

        Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

        Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Hunter, Andrew

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Couchman, James

        Jack, Michael

        Cran, James

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

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

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

        Jessel, Toby

        Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Day, Stephen

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Deva, Nirj Joseph

        Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

        Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Dover, Den

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Duncan, Alan

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Duncan-Smith, lain

        Knapman, Roger

        Dunn, Bob

        Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

        Durant, Sir Anthony

        Knight, Greg (Derby N)

        Dykes, Hugh Knight,

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

        Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

        Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

        Elletson, Harold

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Lang, Rt Hon Ian

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Lawrence, Sir Ivan

        Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

        Legg, Barry

        Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

        Leigh, Edward

        Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

        Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

        Evennett, David

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Faber, David

        Lidington, David

        Fabricant, Michael

        Lightbown, David

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Fishburn, Dudley

        Lord, Micheal

        Forman, Nigel

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

        MacGregor, Rat Hon John

        Forth, Eric

        MacKay, Andrew

        Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

        Maclean David

        Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

        McMaster, Gordon

        French, Douglas

        Madel, Sir David

        Gale, Roger

        Maitland, Lady Olga

        Gardiner, Sir George

        Malone, Gerald

        Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

        Mans, Keith

        Garnier, Edward

        Marlow, Tony

        Gill, Christopher

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Gillan, Cheryl

        Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

        Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

        Gorst, Sir John

        Mellor, Rt Hon David

        Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

        Merchant, Piers

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Mills, Iain

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

        Mitchell, Sir Daviid (NW Hants)

        Grylls, Sir Michael

        Moate, Sir Roger

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Hague, William

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Moss, Malcolm

        Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

        Needham, Rt Hon Richard

        Hannam, Sir John

        Nelson, Anthony

        61

        Neubert, Sir Michael

        Steen, Anthony

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Stephen, Michael

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Stern, Michael

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Stewart, Allan

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Streeter, Gary

        Norris, Steve

        Sumberg, David

        Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

        Sykes, John

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Ottaway, Richard

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Patnick, Sir Irvine

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

        Pawsey, James

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Thomason, Roy

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

        Thornton, Sir Malcolm

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Thumham, Peter

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

        Riddick, Graham

        Tracey, Richard

        Robathan, Andrew

        Trend, Michael

        Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

        Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

        Walden, George

        Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

        Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

        Sackville, Tom

        Waller, Gary

        Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

        Ward, John

        Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Waterson, Nigel

        Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

        Watts, John

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Wells, Bowen

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Whitney, Ray

        Shersby, Michael

        Whittingdale, John

        Sims, Roge

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Wilkinson, John

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Willetts, David

        Soames, Nicholas

        Wilshire, David

        Speed, Sir Keith

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

        Spencer, Sir Derek

        Wolfson, Mark

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Yeo, Tim

        Spink, Dr Robert

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Spring, Richard

        Sproat, Iain

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

        Mr. Michael Bates and

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Mr. Simon Burns.

        Question accordingly negatived.

      New clause 3

        DUTY OF GAS CONSUMERS' COUNCIL TO MONITOR EFFECTS ON CONSUMERS OF PROVISIONS OF THE GAS ACT 1995
        'After Section 41 of the 1986 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
        "(41A). The Council shall be under a duty to monitor and report in accordance with section 41 above on the effects of the provisions of the Gas Act 1995 on the interests of gas consumers, with particular regard to prices charged and other terms of supply, the continuity of supply, the quality of the gas supply services provided, the exercise of rights of entry to premises and the extent of universal access to gas conveyed through pipes.".'.—[Mr. O'Neill.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8—Duty of Director to prevent discrimination by gas suppliers against certain classes of consumers—
        'The Director shall be under a duty to ensure that a licensed gas supplier shall not introduce price tariffs or payment arrangements which unreasonably discriminate against consumers by virtue of the location of their home or the manner or place at which they settle their accounts.'.
        New clause 9—Duty of gas supplier to publish terms of supply—
        '(1) A gas supplier licensed under section 7A of the 1986 Act (hereafter referred to as the supplier) shall publish the prices to be charged to consumers for the supply of gas and the associated services he will provide (hereafter referred to as "terms of supply") in such a manner as, after consultation with the Director and the Council, he considers will achieve publicity for his terms of supply among all domestic gas consumers in his licence area.
        (2) The supplier shall, in the publishing of his terms of supply, not show undue preference to any person or class of person and shall not exercise any undue discrimination against any person or class of persons.
        (3) The supplier shall, on being required to do so by any potential domestic gas consumer in his area, give and continue to give a supply of gas at premises of which that potential customer is an owner, occupier or leaseholder and which is connected by a service pipe to a relevant main.
        (4) The supplier shall be required to provide the Director with any information relevant to his duties under section [Duty of Director to protect interests of consumers]
        (5) In this section, "terms of supply" may be taken to include standards of service and such other services which the supplier is obliged to provide in accordance with standard licence conditions.'.
        New clause 10—Duty of Director to protect interests of consumer—
        (1) The Director shall have a duty to protect the interests of consumers of gas conveyed through pipes in respect of the prices charged and of other terms of supply as defined in subsection (1) and (5) of section [Duty of gas supplier to publish terms of supply], the continuity of supply and the exercise of rights under this part to enter their premises.
        (2) The Director shall have a duty to secure effective choice for all classes of consumer.
        (3) In performing his duties under subsections (1) and (2) above the Director shall not grant a licence or an extension or restriction under section 7A of the 1986 Act if he is of the opinion that the description or area has been so framed as—

        (a) in the case of the licence or extension to exclude from the licence or extension; or

        (b) in the case of a restriction, artificially to include in the restriction,

        an undue proportion of consumers who are disabled or of pensionable age or who are in receipt of a state benefit or to whom he might reasonably expect to supply less than 700 therms per annum.
        (4) In performing his duties under subsection (3) above the Director shall have power to require the relevant licence applicant or holder and any body or person likely to be representative of those affected to provide him with information with regard to the customer mix of the licence applicant or holder.
        (5) If it appears to the Director that a supplier licensed under section 7A of the 1986 Act has contravened any provision of this section, the Director may impose upon the licence holder a requirement to pay to him a monetary penalty of such amount as may be appropriate, in all the circumstances of the case, in respect of the contravention in question.'.
        Amendment No. 44, in clause 1, page 1, line 29, after 'supply', insert
        'including the establishment of effective contingency plans to deal with serious breakdowns in supply.'.
        Amendment No. 48, in clause 6, page 8, leave out lines 3 to 14.
        Amendment No. 50, in clause 8, page 12, line 11, after 'modifications', insert

        63
        'including those persons or bodies appearing to the Director to be representative of consumers.'.
        Mr. O'Neill: This group of amendments, starting with new clause 3, seeks to impose a duty on the Gas Consumers Council which gives it responsibility for monitoring prices. When the legislation was being considered, it was assumed that the GCC would not survive the publication of the Bill. It was anticipated that the council's responsibilities would be overtaken by those of the regulator, that the council was merely a relic of the old days of public ownership and that there would be no reason for its continued existence.
        There was a some surprise and relief that the GCC survived in its present form. We have yet to see what impact the cuts in the council's budget will have, but the Opposition have confidence in the council, which seeks to represent consumers on gas matters, as it has perhaps more of an arm's-length relationship with the Government than Ofgas appears to have at present. It is no secret, and it is almost inevitable, that when legislation of this character is being drafted, the regulator works closely with the Department to secure a form of words that it considers appropriate for the licensing function that it has to carry out.
        We would like the Gas Consumers Council to have clear and explicit responsibilities which, in the first instance, should cover prices. An independent dispassionate body should examine the pricing system and the implications of the regulator's recommendations because, at the end of the day, the regulator is responsible for setting prices. The Government have already said this evening that they wish to interfere with—if that is the correct expression—or pass judgment on the regulator in as few ways as possible. However, we believe that there should be a body which, with status and responsibility, can command widespread respect for its role and functions. We would have thought that the Gas Consumers Council was such a body. Therefore, the purpose of new clause 3 is to impose upon the GCC a number of responsibilities. The first relates to price, while the second deals with the terms of supply and the manner in which the supply would be arranged.
        It is clear that the regulator has a number of duties to fulfil, and the determination of the terms of the licence is one of the most important. It is therefore vital that the terms of supply should be considered. The terms can cover a variety of arrangements for supply.
        Continuity of supply must be considered. One of the considerations that has been uppermost in the minds of those who have taken an interest in the Bill has been that the individuals seeking licences should have sufficient funds to conduct their business. That means not only that they have sufficient funds to pay their staff and to take account of safety obligations where appropriate, but that they are able to purchase the gas that is to be piped through the system to households. Continuity of supply must be subject to independent non-regulatory monitoring. We would want to ensure that the GCC has the resources and the remit to do that.
        6.30 pm
        We also want to look at the quality of supply services. We have discussed the problems that British Gas has encountered. A number of instances in which British Gas
        64
        has been deficient in its services have gained great publicity, but aspects of the running of British Gas, such as remuneration, have focused attention on the organisation. Individuals have now realised that there are people to whom they can direct their complaints. The Government have threatened to withdraw the charter mark from British Gas, and it sees that as a worry because it was with great pride that British Gas accepted that honour. We are not saying that a company such as British Gas cannot bounce back and produce a service that is the envy of the world.
        We must look at the potential of some of the newcomers that wish to enter the business. It is clear that there are a number of them operating in public utilities already. It has been suggested that regional electricity companies will come into the frame as new licensees, and a number of them have entered into contracts with gas suppliers. The new companies will doubtless bring to the supply of gas the same high standards that they maintained when they were publicly owned electricity utilities.
        Many of us have had opportunities to talk to local electricity companies, and they have expressed willingness to aspire to the standards that they have reached in other fields. Some companies are limited in experience and in their scale of operation, and such companies must be policed and monitored. It is our view that the Gas Consumers Council could do that, and it could inform the regulator and the Secretary of State of any deficiencies in the system. The GCC does that at the moment, but we would like to see that duty enshrined in legislation.
        I now come to one of the most sensitive areas in the supply and provision of gas—the right to enter premises. A certain number of individuals who work for the public utilities attract a great deal of affection in the eyes of the public. It is fair to say that a generation brought up on Postman Pat is less likely to question the continued public ownership of the Post Office than people who envisage a committee man or woman in a uniform delivering mail for some tinpot organisation. A degree of trust is extended to postmen. I should perhaps say postpeople, as nowadays there are as many postwomen as postmen. In America, they are called letter carriers, which seems to be a compromise that predates this age of political correctness.
        Some British Gas staff have access to people's homes, and they normally wear some form of uniform and have easily legible and intelligible forms of identification. In many instances, due notice has been given that the person would be coming to check the meter or to deal with the other problems related to gas maintenance. There are occasions when there might be an emergency, when no notice can be given before the visit, and there might be cases in which individuals use faked identification.
        There ought to be an independent body, which would be able to monitor the exercise of the right of entry to premises. That is in no way an implied criticism of the staff of British Gas. We have all experienced their courtesy when they come to read meters. I realise that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may well use coal-fired heating in your house, but I must say that the service that gas users receive is courteous, thoughtful and considerate.
        A number of people operating in the gas industry do not necessarily aspire to the high standards laid down by British Gas. One of the recurrent themes in Committee was the inadequacy of some of those who were operating

        65
        under the overall umbrella of the Council of Registered Gas Installers scheme. Individuals assumed for themselves rights of entry which, under the law, they would probably have been allowed to exercise, but which were not exercised with proper care and attention in a number of instances.
        In a deregulated gas market, we would wish a wider range of individuals to be given the opportunity to have the right of entry into premises and people's homes. As a consequence, we should be able to secure some means whereby the public can have the confidence that, should anything go wrong, they will be able to contact the GCC to register their concerns.
        As I have said, the Gas Consumers Council has carried out several of those duties in the past. In recent months, it has been extremely active in lobbying the House on several concerns that it perceives relate to consumers' rights. It has been most active in respect of universal access to gas. It has certainly been extremely concerned that one problem of the deregulated gas business is that there will be a lack of enthusiasm on the part of some suppliers to acquire customers who might be problematic—that is, people who live in awkward locations or people whom British Gas has decided are not necessarily cost-effective consumers. We want to ensure that there is someone to whom the rejected potential gas consumer can turn. It would be quite reasonable for the GCC to have the monitoring responsibility and to enshrine it in legislation.
        New clause 9 is the public service clause. It is the duty of the gas supplier to publish the terms of supply. The terms of supply relate to the publication of prices. It should be clear that it is in everyone's interests that prices are published in the press and in the areas where gas companies are operating. Prices should be publicised nationally, so that individuals can compare and contrast supply across the country.
        We also want to see in the public service clause a duty on the gas supplier not to show undue preference or discriminate against any individuals or groups. We recognise that there is what is known as discriminatory practice. By changing or arranging the terms of purchase or the terms of contract and the like, suppliers can deny certain individuals access to goods or services that should be available.
        There is also a requirement to supply those who are at present connected to the main. It should not be the right of a gas supplier to say, "We will take that household but not that household." If someone is connected to the gas supply, he should be entitled to obtain gas from any supplier that has a licence to operate in the area. There have been occasions when such entitlements have been undermined. Bodies such as citizens advice bureaux have investigated such cases. Indeed, many have been brought to our attention as constituency Members.
        Recently, the CAB in south Wales reported that British Gas refused to connect the gas supply for a client who was a single parent with three young children, including an eight-week-old baby. They had just moved into rented accommodation, and there was an existing gas supply there, but they were refused because the previous occupant had tampered with the meter. Because of such instances, it is important that a specific body has a duty to gather information and the resources to advertise.
        66
        Perhaps gas bills could state that consumers could go to the Gas Consumers Council if they felt that the public service clause was not being adhered to.
        We want to ensure not only that the Gas Consumers Council would be involved but that the gas supplier published the terms of supply and gave to Ofgas its information on consumer protection. That consumer protection facility would then be the subject of comparison between one company and another. In its annual reports, Ofgas would be able to draw conclusions as to the quality of services that were being provided. Indeed, the standard of service would always be an important consideration.
        6.45 pm
        New clause 3 places a duty on the Gas Consumers Council, and new clause 9 places a duty on the gas supplier. We would also like to see enshrined in the legislation a duty on the director general to protect the consumer. We want the Director General of Gas Supply to have a duty in respect of price and a duty to secure effective choice for all classes of customers. The director general would have to take account of the size and nature of an area to which licences applied—for example, to take into account the disabled, pensioners, people on state benefits or people who used fewer than 700 therms per annum. There would be a profile of each area, which would take account of that. It is essential to enshrine that in the legislation.
        It is stated in the licences that such duties should be imposed. We would like to think that they will be enshrined in the primary legislation and that proper account will be taken of disadvantaged individuals such as the disabled, pensioners, people in receipt of state benefit and small consumers. Those people are the least attractive and the most expensive for suppliers to serve, and the director general should have an obligation to support and protect them.
        We would also like to think that the director general would have a responsibility to ensure that those standards were upheld and that there would be punishment if they were not met. Companies could incur a financial penalty if the standards were not met over a period.
        The regulator has several duties, but the protection of the consumer, the prevention of cherry-picking and the public service obligations should be clearly included in the primary legislation. It is for those reasons that we want the new clause.
        Conservative Members have been very quick to protect small shopkeepers. Indeed, their numbers seemed to melt away as soon as the shopkeeper protection issue disappeared. However, the issues I have mentioned are at the very heart of the legislation. For example, there is the argument that, through competition, there will be an opportunity not only for lower prices but for better services. To those who back the Bill in its entirety, I stress that it is our view that such claims can be met only if we have a tough, effective and well-resourced Gas Consumers Council that has a clear duty to monitor the affairs of the companies involved, if there is a public service clause that imposes a duty on the gas supplier and if the overall director has a responsibility to ensure that those functions are carried out. The companies must be given proper incentives, in the form of the threat of financial punishment, to meet their obligations.

        67
        We hope that the new clause is of a character that will enjoy the support of all parties.
        Ms Coffey: New clause 3 is important because it would help to protect the rights of consumers. It has been said that no one knows what will happen to particular groups of consumers in a fully competitive gas market, which means that proper monitoring is essential. I am especially interested in consumers who have pre-payment meters and who already pay a higher tariff for their gas than those who pay on budget schemes, by direct debit or by cash at a post office or their local gas showroom, if they are lucky.
        It is clear from the Gas Consumers Council's statistics that there has been a huge increase in the number of pre-payment meters installed. There has been no problem with that, because having a pre-payment meter is clearly better than having one's gas supply cut off. By December 1994, 192,525 new token meters had been installed. Across the country there were 896,950 consumers with pre-payment meters, and the number of disconnections has decreased.
        At present, people with pre-payment meters are paying a higher tariff for their gas. British Gas has not made it clear whether what they pay reflects the cost of supply. In the past, British Gas said that the cost had been cross-subsidised. The question was raised whether, once a competitive gas market was in full swing, those consumers could expect their gas tariff to rise in line with what it cost to supply them. That is worrying, because it might mean that they will not benefit from competition in the way that other consumers will. A gas company could offer to supply them at a higher tariff, because the cost of supply was higher, than it would charge people who wished to pay by direct debit.
        The problem is that people with pre-payment meters are low-income customers: often, they are families on benefit or low wages and with young children; they might live on housing estates, have other debts and struggle to make ends meet. The situation merits careful monitoring because there will be pressure on people to accept pre-payment meters from the gas companies. Indeed, condition 10 of the licence says that a licensee can request
        "a deposit by way of security for the payment of charges as a condition of making a supply of gas available to the customer".
        The company itself will set the level of that deposit.
        The Minister is no doubt aware, however, that it is almost impossible for people on income support to pay a deposit. The Department of Social Security will have to pay it for them and then deduct it from their weekly benefit. If they already have deductions made from their benefits—for example, social fund payments—it will be impossible to pay a gas deposit. If they cannot pay such a deposit, the gas company will agree to supply gas, but through a pre-payment meter. The low-income family will therefore have to pay a higher tariff for their gas on a week-by-week basis.
        It is not fair that people who have little money should pay more. The problem is that they have too little money to pay a deposit and take advantage of being a direct debit customer or one who pays every three months at a post office. Careful monitoring is essential, because I do not believe that this group of customers will benefit from competition.
        68
        I think that gas competitors will fix the tariff for pre-payment customers at the level already charged by British Gas, so there will be no benefit in moving from British Gas to new gas suppliers. At the same time, competitors will offer lower tariffs to better-off customers as the cost of supplying them will be less; they know that they will not have the same problems as British Gas in supplying low-income customers or those in urban areas. There will be little incentive for new gas suppliers to offer lower terms than British Gas on pre-payment meters.
        Once the gas market has opened up, I have little doubt that some people will benefit. People like me and the Minister and those who have a bank account will benefit enormously, but I doubt that the same is true of the 896,950 customers with pre-payment meters. Their number will increase as more find that they cannot afford a deposit. That is why it is so important that the duty to monitor set out in the new clause is included in the Bill. It is unfair that poorer people will not benefit from competition relating to an essential service. I think that in two or three years it will be shown—the figures must be produced—that that is the case.
        I have no doubt that it will be said that the Government must fulfil their social responsibility by making provision through social security legislation to compensate for the fact that some people have not benefited from the competitive gas market. Any Government who are asked to do that will want to know what has happened and why. The Bill will not remove from the Government—any Government—the responsibility to ensure that people on low incomes or on benefit or young families have essential services such as gas at a price that they can afford.
        7 pm
        Ms Hilary Armstrong: I support new clause 8. The terms of the gas and electricity privatisations made it exceptionally difficult for some people who live in rural areas to gain access to basic utilities. I had hoped that the Government would have recognised the case that has been put in the years since privatisation by Members of Parliament and the rural communities' councils for studying that issue. The new clause provides the Government with the opportunity to recognise the problems that were inherent in the means of privatisation and that have made it difficult for remote villages to gain access to utilities such as gas.
        In my constituency, three or four villages and some smaller hamlets, mainly in the north Pennines, still have no gas; indeed, those hamlets have neither gas nor electricity. As we approach the millennium, surely that is something that we ought not to tolerate. Some of my constituents simply do not have access to things that we take for granted.
        The Bill deals purely with gas and I have met British Gas officials on numerous occasions since being elected and on two or three occasions in the past year to discuss the problem. The village of Whitton-le-Wear does not have gas, but its neighbouring village, Howden-le-Wear, had it put in two years ago—I lit the initial flame. Whitton-le-Wear is only a mile away, but it happens to be over a hill and much smaller.
        Gas was accessible to residents of Howden-le-Wear for less than £50 per household, but the price was to be about £2,000 per household for residents of Whitton-le-Wear.

        69
        British Gas felt that supplying the village was so out of order that it did not even circulate the proposals to every resident, as it knew that there would be uproar and people would be offended to find out that, if they had lived a mile down the road, they would have had access to gas for about £50. British Gas has, in effect, said that it believes that that village will never have gas.
        The way in which British Gas was initially privatised means that it is impossible to offset such costs or to bring together villages to offer the service at an affordable price across them all. As that has not been possible, they do not have access to gas and in future the rules will be even more difficult.
        Mr. Eggar indicated dissent.
        Ms Armstrong: The Minister denies that, but that is what British Gas officials feel. The supplement that they were able to offer will disappear under the Bill and the rules will become even more difficult, so it is even less likely that such villages will get gas.
        Burnhope is another village in my constituency that is without gas, although the next village, which is less than a mile away, has had it for some time. There is a post-war housing estate in Burnhope where the council and the local housing association have been refurbishing houses under a special Government scheme. The council and the housing association agreed to put gas into the houses being refurbished. The cost to anyone whose house was not being refurbished, or who did not live on the council estate, was to be about £1,600.
        Burnhope is one of the poorest villages in the county of Durham. I have given the House the figures before. The county now has the lowest incomes in the country, apart from an area of South Glamorgan, but incomes in Burnhope are lower than the average in Durham. If residents wanted gas but did not come under the scheme, they would have had to pay £1,500, so of course the scheme has not gone ahead in the rest of the village.
        The irony is that, once gas has been in a street for five years, other people in the street can have access to it without paying that initial cost. People on such streets in Burnhope, who have purchased their houses, will be able to have access to gas in five years' time. The company has not extended the gas supply to the rest of the village, so any extension to other streets would be inordinately expensive. That is unjust, unfair and inequitable.
        At a time when we are looking to the more efficient and effective use of gas and electricity, the House should be able to support that case and to say confidently that anyone, anywhere in this country will have a fair deal and be treated equally over access to utility services—in this case, gas.
        Mr. Hain: I must follow on from the excellent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong), who drew the attention of the House to the Bill's consequences and its failure to protect outlying and often poor villages, such as the villages in her constituency—former mining villages, I imagine, which exist in my constituency also.
        New clause 8 specifies:
        "The Director shall be under a duty to ensure that a licensed gas supplier shall not introduce price tariffs or payment arrangements which unreasonably discriminate against consumers by virtue of the location of their home",
        70
        and so forth. Under new clause 10(2),
        "The Director shall have a duty to secure effective choice for all classes of consumer."
        The great benefit of nationalisation and of the gas structure that was built up over generations was that every consumer had the right to access to gas at the same price. Universal access and uniform price were important principles, but they are both being undermined by the Bill and have been successively undermined by privatisation.
        The Minister will be relieved to hear that I will not again detain the House by quoting cases of villages up the valleys in my constituency which have been denied access to gas in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West, as I have been over that ground quite a few times.
        The Bill will institutionalise cherry-picking and social dumping, the other side of it, not by some accident but as the inevitable result of competition. Why? In this context, which is that of a vital utility service—I am talking not about competition in the ordinary exchange of consumer goods and so forth in the marketplace but about a vital service, which is what gas is to many millions of people—the competition focuses on the area in which suppliers and shippers can make money. Competitors are not going to waste their energies trying to invade markets that are not lucrative. They have a duty to their shareholders and they have to concentrate on where they can make money. Those are the areas in which prices will fall, and that will be at the expense of less lucrative markets, which will be socially dumped and where prices will rise.
        For example, British Gas is already telling customers who pay by direct debit that they will pay 5 per cent. less, which will penalise and discriminate against customers who cannot pay by direct debit. Their prices will be 5 per cent. more in real terms. That is significant because, although the proportion of households with a bank or building society account has risen steadily, 19 per cent.—nearly a fifth—of households still have no current account through which they regularly handle their money. Some 40 per cent. of that group are pensioners and a further 40 per cent. are low-income householders with an income of less than £150 a week. It is those people who will be socially dumped.
        Those statistics show that a significant proportion of the population will lose out. The regime has already discriminated against those people by denying them direct debit arrangements. A feature of that group is that it tends to be geographically concentrated. That criticism goes to the heart of the Bill, which does not afford protection to groups of householders in low-income areas such as exist in my constituency and those of many of my hon. Friends. Low-income households will be totally ignored by the competitors, which will not want to know about competition moving into such low-income areas. That has already happened in the case of direct debit arrangements, on which British Gas penalises up to a fifth of potential or actual gas consumers.
        Another interesting geographical impact is that in Wales, for example, the proportion of gas customers with direct debit arrangements is half the number in the rest of the United Kingdom. Just 15 per cent. of gas customers in Wales pay by direct debit, compared with 28 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole because Wales has a much higher proportion of low-income households. It has the lowest gross domestic product per capita in the United Kingdom and, as a result, the cherry-picking and social

        71
        dumping that will result from the Bill will significantly discriminate against gas customers in Wales. The direct debit arrangements have provided a dress rehearsal for that.
        This issue should be set against a much wider background. For example, citizens advice bureaux have already said that low-income users of gas are required to put down higher deposits or rely on pre-payment systems. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) pointed out, those are more expensive than ordinary payment arrangements. They tend to be confined exclusively to low-income households and result in the phenomenon of "voluntary disconnection", as it is euphemistically described.
        British Gas—and, once the Bill is enacted, the new suppliers—no longer breaks down people's doors to disconnect their supply. Instead, low-income householders will disconnect themselves through the pre-payment arrangement, thereby hiding a great deal of hardship. That phenomenon will increase because, under this regulatory system, increased competition is designed to lead to cost-related pricing, so those who cannot meet the terms of the competitive regime—in this case, low-income households—will be socially dumped.
        The Government have disputed British Gas's assertion that 6 million would gain from cost-related pricing and 10 million would lose. I need only rely on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the gas industry, which found:
        "Supply to low-volume users (whose use of gas may be confined to cookers and water heaters and who probably include a high proportion of elderly and poor customers) is currently unprofitable, and may require significant price rises."
        The MMC also said:
        "We recognise that, while the introduction of competition may well result in a fall in the overall level of prices, some groups may be worse off than at present".
        We thus have corroborative evidence from the MMC that cherry-picking will take place and social dumping will be the consequence.
        Large users, many of whom are affluent families in large homes, will gain because they are cheaper to serve than the average householder. Some 4 million small users—often, poor households—are more expensive to serve, so their prices could rise significantly. The side effect is that, as many low-income users are on income support, the cost may be passed on to the state.
        7.15 pm
        Against that background, it is important to bear it in mind that the family expenditure survey showed that the poorest 20 per cent. in Britain spend 10 per cent. of their weekly budget on gas and electricity bills, whereas the richest 20 per cent. spend just 3 per cent. That is before the imposition of VAT on fuel and heating, which will make the position worse. Low-income families, who spend much more of their income on gas, will be hit even harder as a result of the competitive regime.
        We should take note of evidence given by the citizens advice bureaux. For example, a CAB in Yorkshire reported that a client on income support with two dependent children, who had been paying £15 a week off arrears of £565 through the fuel direct scheme, came off income support having found a part-time job and could
        72
        no longer pay through the scheme. Although the family income was roughly the same as when the family was on income support once work-related expenses were taken into account, British Gas demanded a lump sum of £320 before coming to an arrangement to pay off arrears. That is a good example of how competition increasingly bears down on our most vulnerable citizens. Without the protection offered by the new clause, there is no guarantee that the phenomenon will not get worse.
        It is essential that every gas customer has universal choice, and that is protected under the legislation. I am concerned about the failure to protect ordinary customers, and I refer to one aspect of the licensing arrangements. Although the director general is required to secure effective competition, she has no corresponding duty to secure universal choice. That duty should be statutorily imposed on the regulator, as the new clause seeks to do, otherwise suppliers will have greater freedom to select the more profitable customers and neglect the least profitable customers.
        Standard licensing conditions 13 and 7(3) of the draft suppliers' licence could be dubbed a "cherry-pickers charter". Condition 13, which covers undue preference and undue discrimination, applies only to the dominant supplier. In this case, that is British Gas, and it will probably remain so for some time. The condition does not appear to prevent suppliers from supplying only the consumers they want to supply.
        For example, condition 7(3) could allow a supplier to refuse to supply a less attractive consumer if he "claims" that to do so would jeopardise his existing customer base, which he may have attained through highly selective marketing techniques. Although there is a duty on every householder to request supply from any supplying company, there is no duty on those companies to canvass for support and to offer genuine choice to every householder. The failure to provide a statutory right to universal choice is a severe handicap, which will increase cherry-picking. That practice will be institutionalised by the regime that will be created as a result of it.
        My suspicions were also aroused when the Minister failed to respond to an amendment tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) to extend the protection offered in proposed section 7B(4)(b) to the disabled and those of pensionable age to low-paid and low-income users. It would be easy to identify such low-income users, because they are likely to be in receipt of income support or family credit. I do not want to go into the detail of the proposed section, but it illustrates my argument about cherry-picking and social dumping. Why has protection been offered to disabled people and pensioners and not to low-income users? The answer is: one may be disabled but still be relatively affluent; one may be a pensioner but still be relatively affluent. There are rich pensioners.
        Clause 7 could have easily offered similar support to low-income families and householders. That is why the new clauses are even more necessary; they require the regulator to pay particular attention to the needs of low-income householders and to ensure that they do not suffer discrimination through social dumping, while the cherry-picking of lucrative customers goes on as a result of competition.
        I strongly believe that the thrust of the regulatory system needs radical reform. It needs to be rejigged to protect low-income users and to give them equal access

        73
        to gas supplies, to protect the principle of universality and to ensure that those do not suffer from discriminatory pricing regimes. We must have a regulatory system that is geared to the benefit of the common good, not a selected few.
        Mr. Michael Clapham: Enough has been said about new clause 8, so I should like to refer in particular to new clauses 3, 9 and 10 and to amendment No. 44. Without the new clauses and amendments, it is clear the consumer will be unprotected. The Government should focus on ensuring that consumers are protected in the deregulated industry, so the Minister should accept new clauses 8 and 3 in particular.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) has said, no one knows where competition in gas will take us. There is a danger that the Bill, unless it is amended, may create competition that focuses on supplying the most attractive customers, who tend to be those who consume a great deal of gas and pay by direct debit. Those people may well gain an advantage unless the new clauses, which ensure that all consumers benefit from the proposed changes, are accepted.
        The Minister may recall that in Committee I mentioned that I had had negotiations in my constituency, which is a rural one, with the cable companies and British Gas to see whether gas pipes could be laid at the same-time as cables. Apparently, that is not possible in certain areas of my constituency, but it may be possible in other constituencies. Has the Minister explored that possibility? Is he prepared to get cable companies with franchises together with British Gas to explore that possibility so that the gas supply can be connected to other villages? Perhaps the Minister can tell us today whether he has explored that idea.
        New clause 3 is designed to give the Gas Consumers Council a duty to monitor the impact of deregulated gas supply. Without that scrutiny, it will be difficult for the council to do its job of protecting consumers' interests. I hope that the Minister is prepared to accept the new clause. Should he feel that its current terms are not quite suitable, perhaps he would be prepared to introduce his own new clause. It is important that the Gas Consumers Council is given that duty.
        New clause 9 would ensure that all gas prices and associated services, for example, the terms for supply, are published. It would ensure that all customers have the right to a supply from any supplier and those suppliers do not unduly discriminate against any group of customers. The new clause is vital if we are to prevent cherry-picking. It also imposes a duty on suppliers to specify their standards of service as well as the price of their supply. Customers need that information if they are to make an informed choice between suppliers. I am sure that the Minister would agree that if we are to make this Bill work, customers will need to have information about the costs and prices of varying suppliers. It is important that such information, particularly about prices, is published.
        As my hon. Friends have already said, low-income customers with pre-payment meters, who consume large amounts of gas, pay far more for their gas than other customers. Some customers with arrears have requested pre-payment meters in the belief that that will save them money. They must be told that such meters tend to cost
        74
        the consumer more. Without the publication, in a standard form, of all the varying prices, including the price per therm and the standing charge, customers will be unable to make the informed choice that is necessary for the market to function effectively. I am sure that the Minister agrees, so he will obviously accept the new clauses.
        Mr. Eggar: What makes me smile is how well the hon. Gentleman has learnt the language since leaving the National Union of Mineworkers. The idea that the hon. Gentleman should argue for the market to operate effectively is amusing to say the least.
        Mr. Clapham: The Minister is aware that I am a pragmatist. Although I would like the supply of gas to remain the responsibility of British Gas, I am prepared to accept that there is little the Opposition can do to prevent the Government from enacting the Bill. I am therefore trying to do my best to help my constituents to get betterment from the Bill.
        New clause 10 aims to outlaw price discrimination against elderly people, disabled people, people who depend on state benefits and small consumers, and to create a duty on the regulator to give all customers an effective choice of supplier. It is important that all customers are given the opportunity to choose their supplier. Without legal protection, as set out in the new clauses, those groups of vulnerable people may end up paying more for their gas to fund price cuts for wealthy people. We must avoid that at all costs.
        7.30 pm
        As it stands, the Bill, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), is a cherry-pickers charter, as it places an obligation to supply customers without discrimination on British Gas only. As the Minister will be aware from some of the submissions that we received from other gas companies, many of those gas companies were content that the obligation that British Gas already accepts should be placed on them. It is important that we ensure that those standards are maintained.
        New clause 10 also provides the regulator with the power to refuse to grant or extend a licence or to fine an existing licence holder if the supplier evades supplying those less attractive customers. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux believes that, without those safeguards, competition in gas supply will fail to benefit all customers.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Neath said, when British Gas gave evidence to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission it said that there might be as many as 12 million losers. I know that, since that time, it has amended its assessment, and its assessment of losers is nowhere near the first figure that it gave the MMC. However, other independent organisations have carried out studies, which suggest that there might be as many as 4 million losers. The people who will lose are those who are the most vulnerable—people on low incomes, people on benefits and so on.
        It is important, therefore, that those new clauses are accepted, or, if they are not accepted in their entirety, that the Minister is prepared to have his constitutional draftsmen reword the clauses so that the protection that those clauses seek to provide is incorporated in the Bill.

        75
        Those amendments are important, not only to gas consumers, but to utility customers, as they set out a framework against which the utilities may be judged. Only if the utilities are credible and seen to be credible, will the market be made to work.
        Mr. Eggar: This is a large group of amendments, covering a disparate number of issues. I shall start by replying to some of the arguments that Opposition Members have made.
        First, it has been a theme of the Opposition that the Bill is a cherry-pickers charter. Ultimately, the evidence will emerge of the way in which prices feed through for different groups of consumers. In fairness to the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), she recognised that. The entire structure of the Bill is designed to ensure that there is no benefit to supplying companies in targeting consumers who are either of high or low volume in terms of the domestic spread. That has been done largely by the Director General of Gas Supply choosing the relatively low figure of the standing charge of about £15.
        The best evidence we have of what happens in a competitive gas market is the evidence of the opening up of the industrial market in excess of 25,000 therms. When we started on the exercise of opening up the market from 25,000 therms upwards, as long ago as 1988, there was much criticism. It was said that some industrial companies would gain far more than others and that the average industrial customer would lose, as against the central pricing mechanism previously put in place by British Gas.
        What has actually happened in the industrial market is that, in real terms, there has been a 35 per cent. reduction for the average industrial consumer. I have not heard of a single industrial consumer that has not benefited significantly from the introduction of competition in that market. I am the first to accept that it is not directly replicable in terms of the domestic market, but it is the best available evidence that we have.
        The hon. Member for Stockport mentioned the issue of pre-payment meters. She quoted very precisely the number of customers on pre-payment meters at present—a figure of well in excess of 850,000 customers.
        From my constituency experience, I know that quite a few consumers opt for a pre-payment meter, although they know that it will cost them slightly more, because they want the reliability of what I would call day by day, week by week budgeting instead of not knowing what the bill will be at the end of the quarter. However, we have that large number of pre-payment customers, the pre-payment meters are there, and I fail to understand why competitor companies should not be as keen to supply in a competitive way—and therefore reduce prices to—those 850,000 customers as they would other groups. They are a known credit risk because they use pre-payment meters.
        As technology develops, competitor gas companies may be able to reduce the cost of the administrative side of pre-payment meters, and the gap may therefore close between costs to pre-payment customers and to what are called traditional payment customers.
        76
        Further, of course, there are adequate provisions in the standard conditions to ensure that each supplier offers several payment methods and cannot discriminate unduly between people who use those.
        Ms Coffey: The Minister must accept that his statement that pre-payment customers should benefit and my saying that they possibly will not are, for both of us, a matter of conjecture. In that case, is it not all the more important to create a specific duty to monitor?
        Mr. Eggar: I concede the hon. Lady's first argument. It is in the nature of a competitive market that no one can be absolutely confident about what will happen in that market. The evidence of competition in other sectors is that it has done exactly what we claimed that it would in the case of pre-payment customers—reduced prices and improved the quality of service.
        However, one of the reasons why we are slowly extending the pilot area into which competition will be introduced from 500,000 customers to 2 million, then countrywide, is so that, as we go along, practical experience is gained, and everyone can evaluate the lessons as the operation proceeds in an orderly way.
        Opposition Members referred to new clause 3. As far as I can check, everything that is in new clause 3 is already covered by section 40 of the Gas Act 1986, and the new clause is therefore unnecessary.
        Regarding new clause 8, anxieties have been expressed about the possibility that competitive suppliers might discriminate in some way or other—several individual hon. Members made different arguments about that—against people, having regard to where they lived or the way in which they paid. We have given that much thought and we have explored the subject fully in Committee.
        We also explored in Committee the issue of what I would call gas access to remoter communities. In fact we had an exchange about that today with the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). As the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) raised the issue, it might be worth putting on record exactly how the Bill will help. The hon. Lady gave the impression that the Bill would work against such access. The Bill will probably favour villages such as the one she mentioned, but we will not know for certain until we see how the system evolves.
        The first way in which the new licensing provisions in the Bill will help is that long-term supply and connection contracts are permitted. There has been a hiatus during the Bill's passage, but that will disappear once the Bill is enacted. The public gas transporters—British TransCo and other suppliers—will be able to offer different approaches to payment. At present, because of the way in which the 1986 Act works, British Gas has to demand an up-front, lump-sum payment. Now, neither British Gas nor other suppliers will have to do that and will effectively be able to ask for payment for connection charges over a long period—spread over five or more years. That will help a number of people who want to convert to gas, but who cannot afford the lump sum.
        There is another provision—I do not think that it will help the constituents of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West, as she mentioned a village that was a mile away. Subject to the necessary safety provisions, it will be possible for individuals or groups of individuals to connect their properties to the mains. It is sometimes alleged that the capital costs for connection charged by

        77
        TransCo are high and that connections could be achieved more cheaply. It will now be possible to make arrangements on a communal basis and so lower costs. Consumers will not have to rely solely on TransCo; other competitors will offer the service. Agas is already doing just that and winning business from TransCo because it is able to make cheaper connections.
        New clause 9 deals with the obligation to publish prices on the face of the Bill. We accept that, at least initially, the prices should be published. We want to include that provision in the licence because we think that, at some stage in the future, by common consent, it may be appropriate for the prices not to be publicly available. It is interesting that some of the competitor suppliers to British Gas that are trying to supply the market for above 2,500 therms are already encouraging people to whom they are offering their services to negotiate prices with them as opposed to accepting a postalised price. I feel strongly that, initially at least, there should be published prices, but I want to retain the flexibility to move away from that position were it felt to be in the consumers' interests to do so.
        The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) raised the subject of rights of entry. It is adequately dealt with by schedule 2, the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954 and the terms of the licences. Those exercising rights of entry will have to be fit and proper people and there will have to be arrangements so that customers can confirm the identity of individual meter readers.
        I hope that I have covered the points that have been raised by Opposition Members in what has been a wide-ranging debate. I regret that I cannot accept the new clauses or the amendments because, in the main, those issues are appropriately dealt with in the provisions in the licence conditions.
        Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister has attempted to answer some of the points that have been made, but not very forcefully. He talked about how prices had fallen in the industrial sector after the Gas Act 1986, but there is a widely held view that the industrial sector was partially subsidising the domestic sector. That is reinforced if we consider the average consumption of between 600 and 800 therms for domestic property and the original 25,000-therm threshold.
        It is clear that, under the terms of the original 1986 Act, with the minimum threshold of gas consumption of 25,000 therms, for every 35 houses that had to be visited, every 35 meters that had to be installed and every 35 checks that had to be made every two months on those meters—for every group of 35—the gas supplier had to make just one visit to an industrial unit. It is patently obvious that it is far cheaper to deal with 35 factories all using 25,000 therms or more in one visit than it is to visit 35 houses.
        There were obvious savings to be made, and they went to the industries and the commercial ventures, with an adequate profit made by the independent gas suppliers. I am not convinced that the same sort of savings will be realised by opening up the market to individuals, when the individual meters will still have to be read.
        7.45 pm
        The Minister dwelt on pre-payment meters and their value. As a former member of a local electricity
        78
        consultative committee in the 1980s, I am aware of the tremendous technological developments of pre-payment meters. They have become an alternative to the court order and disconnection. The big problem is that there is now so much fuel poverty that self-disconnection is a risk. People are forced to take pre-payment meters or sacrifice their supplies. Once they have the pre-payment meter, they have to rationalise their spending.
        Often, modern income support benefits do not allow them enough money to keep the house warm and to do the cooking for seven days. On the sixth or seventh day, they do not boil the kettle or have hot meals. That is not an uncommon phenomenon in Britain today. The benefits of pre-payment meters should not be exaggerated. Nor should it be said that there are so many pre-payment meters because residents ask for them. Most people with pre-payment meters have no choice.
        New clause 3 places the duty on the Gas Consumers Council to monitor the effects on consumers of the Gas Act. The Gas Consumers Council has been widely praised on both sides of the House and outside the House as an independent body, despite the fact that 99 per cent. of its funding comes from British Gas and only 1 per cent. from the Government. The council has achieved the remarkable feat of establishing itself and its independence so that no one can question it.
        It is important when accepting the rationale behind new clause 3 that the list of aspects—the prices to be charged by the new companies, any other terms of supply, the continuity of supply, the quality of services and, as has been stressed by my hon. Friends, the rights of entry into premises—should be monitored, not just by the regulator, but by the Gas Consumers Council. The council is often in the front line of complaints and receives 10 times the number of complaints as the regulator, who is seen as having a firm position on regulation.
        New clause 9 involves the publication of the terms of supply. The Minister did not convince the House that placing the terms in the licences rather than in the Gas Bill was a satisfactory solution. At the end of the day, the licences will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We have in six fairly concise lines the terms that require the prices to be charged to consumers for gas supply and any other services to be published and that publication should be consumer friendly. It should be done in consultation with the Director General of Gas Supply and with the Gas Consumers Council with a view to making sure that there is local publicity—if a local area is being served—outlining the terms of supply to all the gas consumers in the area.
        We fear that, without new clause 9, there will be a tendency to opt for discriminatory marketing. Although the licensee will hold the franchise for a certain area, the licensee may choose not to market in particular areas, but rather to use what we are familiar with in terms of our own campaigning—profiling techniques to make sure that the right message is getting to the right people. When we deal with our constituents, our approach is discriminatory according to political parties and those who are doubtful.
        The problem with new clause 9 is that the companies marketing gas will decide to market only to those houses that look as though they have more bedrooms than others in the geographical area and are likely to use more gas. One meter reading will ensure that the gas supplier will make a larger profit. Therefore, although it will not breach

        79
        the licence, as the supply will be available to anyone in the licence area, it will not go out of its way to make sure that people know about it.
        New clause 10 places a firm duty on the regulator to protect the interests of the consumer and especially to monitor where there may be discrimination against consumers who are disabled, senior citizens or in receipt of state benefit. The Government and the Opposition are wholly in agreement in those aims. New clause 10 is necessary to ensure that measures outlawing discrimination are given proper effect, and we are not convinced by what the Minister told us were the safeguards in the licences.
        It is also important that the director general can impose a definite financial penalty on any new independent gas supplier who contravenes the terms that are widely shared in the House and outside.
        Amendment No. 44 outlines the need for effective contingency plans to deal with serious breakdowns in supply. Again, the Gas Consumers Council, which is the major recipient of complaints about breakdowns in supplies, if it did not write to the Minister, has taken up with the Health and Safety Executive and Director of Gas Supply the explosions that occurred during the Christmas period—fortunately without loss of life, but none the less very serious—which may have resulted from the breakdown in supply.
        It is important that the Gas Consumers Council, which has knowledge and expertise, is seen as user friendly, has its phone number on every gas bill—we proposed amendments to make sure that it is on every gas bill from any independent supplier—and can vet the contingency plans. The Gas Consumers Council should be assured from its vast database that any contingency plans do not fail due to inexperience or inadvertent omission if it can look back at other examples in its own experience where such contingency plans would not have worked. That is the value of the role of the Gas Consumers Council which can use its body of knowledge and say, "These contingency plans will not work. You may think they are good, but there is a one-in-10,000 chance that they will go wrong, as we saw in 1989 or whenever."
        For all those reasons, we have sought to press our arguments so that the Minister is aware of our concerns.
        Mr. O'Neill: My hon. Friends and I felt that it was important to give due airing to this group of amendments, which we consider lie at the heart of the Bill.
        The Bill will be severely diminished unless the consumers are afforded protection and certain clear rights, unless their mouthpiece is given clear duties and the suppliers have clear responsibilities. We introduced the amendments on the basis that we wanted to give the House an opportunity to discuss them. We have had a full and wide-ranging discussion, so with the leave of the House I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New clause 4

        DUTY OF DIRECTOR TO CONSULT ON EXERCISE OF HIS FUNCTIONS
        'After Section 39 of the 1986 Act there shall be inserted the following section—"(39A) In performing his duties under this Part, the Director shall—
        80

        (a) take all reasonable steps to consult persons or bodies appearing to the Director to be representative of persons or bodies likely to be affected by the performance of those duties; and

        (b) take all reasonable steps to explain and publicise his reasons for any decision made under this Part.".'.—[Mr. O'Neill.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 5—Grounds for removing Director from office—
        'Section 1 of the 1986 Act shall be amended as follows:
        (a) In subsection (2) by omitting from the word "years" to the end of the subsection and inserting the words "unless re-appointment can be agreed upon in conjunction with the Gas Consumers Council"; and
        (b) In subsection 3 by inserting after the word "misbehaviour" the words "or a demonstrable record of failing to exercise his responsibilities in a manner which protects the interests of consumers; and in considering whether any of these grounds have been established, the Secretary of State shall take account of an annual submission about the performance of the Director which shall be made to the Secretary of State by the Gas Consumers Council.".'.
        Amendment No. 46, in clause 1, page 2, line 27, at end insert—
        '(3A) In performing their duties under subsections (1) and (2) above the Secretary of State and the Director shall consult with persons or bodies appearing to the Director to be representative of persons likely to be affected.'.
        Mr. O'Neill: We have been talking about the role of the regulator and the accountability of the director general. Earlier in our debate, I mentioned that one important aspect of the legislation is that it provides us with the opportunity to consider the effectiveness of the regulatory regime which now applies to the gas market.
        Although we do not consider that anything produced by the House is inherently imperfect, we nevertheless believe that from time to time opportunities arise for us perhaps to improve on the work of the House.
        It is fair to say that the British political system came to regulation fairly late in life, especially when we consider the role of the utilities in other countries—particularly the United States, where the regulatory tradition has grown up certainly over the decades of this century. When we consider the regulation of the railways in the early days, it is clear that the movement for regulation came from both the right and the left of the political spectrum. On the left, there were objections to what were seen as the robber barons of the railways and the cartels that were established. On the right, there were objections to what was seen as an offence to competition and various forms of sharp practice introduced at the expense of the passengers. As a consequence, there was a somewhat uneasy consensus, as from different premises the same logic led to the view that regulation had to play a part in American commercial and business life.
        The United Kingdom stumbled on regulation almost as an afterthought, when monopolies were created following the privatisation of the former state monopolies. In a number of instances, those monopolies have existed virtually without question over the past 10 years or so. This is perhaps the first opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the regulatory regime in respect of gas.

        81
        Because of the changes in prospect for other aspects of energy provision in Britain, the other energy regulator is also coming under scrutiny.
        While I do not wish to stray beyond the bounds of order, there are occasions when analogies can be drawn or links can legitimately be made. I say that by way of prefacing my remarks; I do not wish to stray out of order. Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall try if not to catch your eye then to catch your grimace and return to the main thrust of my argument.
        8 pm
        New clause 4 seeks to impose upon the regulator a duty to consult, explain and publicise his or her activities. That duty involves accountability, openness and transparency. We believe that it is important to require the regulator to justify any modifications that he or she makes to any previous decisions. At present, the regulator is required to justify any licence modifications. We would like to think that that requirement will be extended to other activities and that a range of organisations will play a consultative role.
        In discussing the previous new clause, we referred to the significance of the Gas Consumers Council. It is clear that there is a network involving groups such as the National Consumer Council, the Consumers Association and the Gas Consumers Council. We have seen some co-ordination between those bodies in the lobbying in relation to this legislation. They all seek to represent consumer interests in a different way and we believe that they should be consulted when decisions are taken.
        At present the regulator is called to account largely by way of the annual report. We do not think that that is the most satisfactory accountability measure. Indeed, the regulator, Mrs. Spottiswoode, has said that the annual report is a most inadequate means of conveying the full burden of her interests and concerns. Perhaps we should examine the way in which other regulators operate. The chief executives of some electricity companies reported that they submit a sizeable number of papers and reports to the appropriate regulator. Presumably he digests them, meets the companies concerned and, without any real comment, subsequently distributes letters which begin "I am minded that" and contain a series of unjustified conclusions.
        I do not believe that that is a satisfactory way for a regulatory regime to operate. I think that it is important that the companies which are being regulated, the consumers whose interests are being protected by the regulator and the investors whose interests often differ from the staff of the regulated companies should be involved—not necessarily individually—in the decision-making process. They should be provided with information sufficient to inform them as to what the regulator is thinking.
        Recent changes to the system have not evoked a fulsome response from the regulator. The announcement of the direct debit discount scheme caused considerable controversy. Under the scheme, those customers of British Gas who opted to pay their gas bills by direct debit received an immediate £20 discount. That caused considerable concern among those individuals, many of whom were elderly, who paid their gas bills on time and in full and who never missed any of their instalments. I am sure that you have come across them, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have when performing my constituency
        82
        duties. They are the kind of people who like to have things in order, who do not have a lot of money and who have developed very good book-keeping habits over many years. They like to be very precise about their calculations and they never fall behind in their payments or in meeting their financial responsibilities.
        Many of those individuals do not have bank accounts—they may have money in the Post Office, but they certainly do not have cheque accounts or the facility to make direct debit arrangements. The whole business of getting a cheque book and a cheque card, trying to remember a personal identification number and so on would have been far too much bother because their system worked very well.
        Many people bitterly resented what they considered to be the discrimination that the £20 direct debit discount represented, and the Gas Consumers Council was inundated with 3,293 complaints between 17 November and 8 December. That information was transmitted to the director general and to the regulator, whose reply we are still awaiting. We believe that a controversial issue of that nature requires a more immediate response.
        The present tariff formula was arrived at in 1992. It was the subject of some consultation and in the end the RPI minus X formula was established alongside the energy efficiency factor element in the Bill. It was never put out for consideration or discussion; it was a foregone conclusion. It was felt at that time that there could have been more consultation about the matter.
        In recent months we have examined the question of the E factor involving that part of the Gas Bill which is to fund the energy efficiency schemes for which the Energy Savings Trust has been given responsibility and which we shall discuss in the context of subsequent amendments. The present regulator inherited the duty from her predecessor and she seems rather reluctant to carry it on. As a former Treasury civil servant, I think that she assumes that she is not responsible for collecting money from companies; she considers that to be a tax-collecting role.
        We are very conscious that there has been some difficulty because the regulator was not instructed properly and therefore was reluctant to carry out her duties as she perceived them. She did not consider them to be legitimate duties. We do not believe that there was a clear chain of regulator responsibility or accountability. There have been similar instances recently involving changes in the price formula.
        As I said earlier, the price formula is calculated on the basis of the rise in the cost of living less a certain figure. For a number of years, the X in the RPI minus X formula represented five. However, when British Gas had to change its organisation as a consequence of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report and the new arrangements came into play, the X factor fell from five to four. It was assumed that that was to compensate British Gas for the expense of changing its internal organisation, but that was never made specific or clear.
        No means exist, at least at present, whereby the regulator can be called to account and asked in an open way, "Why have you done this?" That lack of transparency and accountability diminishes the regulator's authority. It is fair to say that openness leads to better decision-making. Accountability means that a range of views are seen to be taken seriously by the regulator.

        83
        There is some debate about whether the passage of the legislation will result in the continuance of regulation. It is assumed among some of the more exotic plants in the free market garden that, once perfect competition has been established, we will no longer need regulation. That is reminiscent of the arguments that Lenin put forward about the role of the state when he said that, once communism had been achieved in its pure and perfect form, no need would exist for the dictatorship of the proletariat or for the state. Experience has shown that that idealism was misplaced.
        The same sort of thinking in relation to perfect competition is probably equally misplaced. That is one of the problems with affording to academics the opportunity of putting their academic ambitions on to the blackboard. Allowing them to put their ideas into practice lends scope for massive errors of judgment. We shall have a regulatory system and regulators for some considerable time and it is important that regulators are accountable and are seen to be open and transparent in the way in which they carry out their duties.
        It is equally important that other ways exist of calling regulators to account. There are three standard means of dealing with a regulator, if I may put it that way. The first is to seek a judicial review. That is expensive and often time-consuming. The Minister looks dubious. I suspect that he was a solicitor in his previous incarnation and that he is therefore not so aware as many of us are of the public's anxieties about paying his profession any more money. On the grounds of expense or delay, judicial review is a dubious method of calling regulators to account. It is effective, but it can be dear.
        Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend might note that, as the Minister is likely to lose his Brecon and Radnor seat to a Labour candidate at the next general election, he will be looking for work as a solicitor, so judicial reviews may come in handy.
        Mr. O'Neill: I should like to think that, when the Minister leaves the House, he will be able to earn a crust, but we do not want him to earn a cake on the scale that some lawyers seem to earn at present.
        A judicial review is one option. The second is a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The third is a regulator's failure to be reappointed to the job. Those sanctions are not sufficient. A clearer indication should be given of the grounds on which an individual who is not fulfilling his responsibilities could be removed. The Gas Consumers Council, which we have already spoken about as the most effective monitor and recipient of information about the working of the gas market, should be consulted. That is the burden of new clause 5.
        If a demonstrable record exists that an individual has failed to exercise his responsibilities to consumers, that should be grounds for his removal. We should like to think that the Gas Consumers Council report would be given due weight by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the possibility of removal were to arise. I do not consider those remarks to be a reflection on the activities of the present regulator, who has not blotted her copy book in ways that would be grounds for removal under new clause 5.
        84
        8.15 pm
        On the other aspect of the accountability of the regulator to which we want to draw attention, amendment No. 46 states that the Secretary of State and the director should consult
        "with persons or bodies appearing to the Director to be representative of persons likely to be affected."
        The emphasis there is slightly different from the emphasis that I placed on the bodies which are deemed to be the natural representatives of consumers—the Gas Consumers Council and the Consumers Association. On occasions, local authorities may be the most appropriate organisation to consult. Where we were dealing with fairly small groups of residents, tenants and housing, residents associations may be the appropriate body. One can envisage local authorities providing gas heating arrangements, which might have to be taken into account.
        We are concerned about providing a means whereby the regulator should be more answerable to Ministers and to the community. As I said earlier, regulators will have a role in the British political and economic framework for many years to come. The provision of basic services such as water, electricity and gas have of necessity to be regulated because they are of such significance in the lives of ordinary citizens. As a consequence, we want to ensure that the gas regulation system, which is as far as our remit extends, has within it a degree of accountability, both to the Secretary of State and to consumers, individuals and the bodies that represent them. This group of amendments would extend and lend credibility to the functions of the regulatory process in Britain, and would contribute to the proper working of the gas energy market. For those reasons, we are happy to commend the amendment and new clauses.
        Ms Coffey: I suppose that the central issue is who regulates the regulator. At present, under the Gas Act 1986 and the proposed Bill, the regulator has a duty to pay special interest to the disabled and pensioners. I understand that it would be difficult for a group of people—perhaps a pensioners group or the Gas Consumers Council—to hold the regulator to account if they felt that she had not paid them special interest, as laid down in her duties to customers. I understand that a pensioners group could not refer the regulator's action to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
        The only course of action open to it would be to take the regulator to a judicial review, which is an expensive process. Although there is an existing legislative duty on the regulator to consider the needs of those two groups, if he or she failed in that respect, how would those groups challenge the regulator except by the expensive process of judicial review? The market has no conscience, and the gas market will be no different. Conscience is provided by the regulator and the interests of consumers being part of his or her duties.
        In Committee, the Minister refused to accept an amendment which would have instructed the director general to take into account not only the disabled and people of pensionable age but consumers on low incomes. That group, to which everyone has referred during the Bill's progress as of particular concern, appears to be missing from the regulator's social conscience role. The regulator has no duty to protect that group.
        Because there is no duty on the regulator to protect low-income customers, pressure to do something about British Gas standing charges has not been exerted. I

        85
        understand that those charges have decreased, but it would be perfectly possible for British Gas not to impose them at all but to incorporate them into the cost of supply, then produce a tariff that was the same for each customer. Standing charges act to the detriment of low-income customers because they account for a disproportionately large part of their bills. If the regulator had a duty to protect low-income customers, there might have been more pressure to abolish standing charges. As that duty does not exist, the regulator cannot be held to account for the problems that have arisen with standing charges. They will continue to pose a problem to low-income customers, who will not benefit from gas competition in the way that other customers will benefit.
        The Minister will say that the regulator's role is to be independent, but no regulator is that. The individual regulator has beliefs and experience, and his or her actions have political implications. The intent may not be political, but sometimes the consequences are political. There is no independence from political beliefs—with a small "p"—in the regulatory system, even though there may be independence from party political beliefs.
        Accountability therefore becomes crucial. The only way to ensure real accountability is to specify precisely what is expected of the regulator, then hold the regulator to account as to whether he or she has satisfactorily discharged their duties. No such mechanism currently exists. Parliament cannot do that. The regulator is not accountable to Parliament. She may appear before a Select Committee and account for her actions, but she is not accountable to the Committee, to Parliament or to the Minister. Neither is she accountable to consumer groups. If they believe that the regulator has failed in her regulatory duties to protect particular groups, they cannot call her to account, except through expensive judicial review.
        Everyone should be accountable. Being accountable to a is another. The new clauses seek to ensure such accountability.
        Mr. Hain: New clauses 4 and 5 propose increased accountability for the gas regulator. I shall put the arguments in a broader philosophical framework because it is necessary to understand how the Government's approach to regulation differs from that of Labour.
        The Government endorse the free market as the agency by which equilibrium will be created and everyone will broadly benefit. Regulation is an afterthought grafted on to that system—from the point of view of the free marketeers, something that started as a monopoly needed regulation. The Governmen0000 believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said, that, as competition gradually grows more dominant and universal, regulation should wither on the vine. That is one model of regulation—not a principle dynamo of Government policy but a necessary adjunct to the competitive market.
        The second approach to regulation—the one that socialists adopt—is quite different. Instead of favouring a free market economy, it favours a democratic economy in which market forces play an important role. An interventionist regulatory mechanism would seek, clearly and deliberately, to promote social good, common good, economic efficiency and strategic interests rather than competition and expecting those social and common goods to spill out as a consequence.
        86
        The growing debate on regulation is informed by both perspectives. The existing regulatory system enjoys little support, except from Ministers and their cohorts. Labour spokespersons, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, National Power's chairman, John Baker, and the gas regulator, Clare Spottiswoode, have all argued for reform of the regulatory system. It has grown like Topsy in the past 10 years. It is now ad hoc, complex, over-technical and deeply flawed. There is no consistency in the decision of regulators as between one industry and another. The regulators within any one industry—and gas is a good example—are not necessarily consistent. Decisions made by Clare Spottiswoode do not necessarily stand in line with those made by her predecessor, Sir James McKinnon. I will return to Sir James, because he is a good example of why the system needs reforming.
        It is also important to note—this is why the two new clauses are very important—that the regulatory system in the gas privatisation programme in particular was largely an afterthought. It was the bait to catch the privatisation fish. When the Government realised that they could not privatise monopolies without placing some check on them, they hastily thought up a regulatory system, which was rushed in and ill-thought-out, and which developed under its own momentum rather than being strategically planned from the outset.
        In the process of that development, competition has been obsessively elevated above all other possible objectives of the regulator. For example, at a meeting in the Palace of Westminster some months ago, the gas regulator, Clare Spottiswoode, said:
        "Regulators can never do as well as competition."
        That is very interesting because it informs us about how she sees her role: to promote competition, virtually at all costs, and over and above other strategic or social objectives that a regulator should have responsibility for promoting. If the regulator were subjected to proper accountability under the two new clauses, she would have to have more regard for other matters.
        In short, competition drives the regulatory system. The gas regulator sees it as her job to make changes to the pricing formula, to conditions for new market entrants or to the regime under which they operate so as continuously to promote competition and thereby—she believes and the Government obviously accept—create a situation from which gas customers will benefit. Such benefits have clearly not followed. Certainly there is no logical reason in principle why they should, as we heard in the previous debate on cherry-picking and social dumping.
        Although competition has been put above all other objectives, it was not the primary objective in the privatisation legislation, such as the Gas Act 1986. Competition was one of a series of other objectives, above which it has been elevated, with the Government's blessing and under the regulator's ideological remit. To that extent, the idea, as the Minister said and as the gas regulator has been heard to argue, that regulators are non-political is total nonsense. They make decisions that advantage certain groups and disadvantage others. That is politics. They are just as political as any Back Bencher—and a lot more powerful to boot. They are political animals. Their decisions are highly political. The idea that, by hiving off regulation to an independent appointee, decisions and policy consequences become non-political is nonsense and a contradiction in terms. I repeat: their

        87
        decisions are highly political in their impact on energy policy, because they benefit certain social groups and disadvantage others.
        In that context, a particular feature of this regulatory system, which the new clauses would at least go some way to address, is a compartmentalised type of decision making, in which the gas regulator, for example, makes decisions about gas competition while being quite oblivious—at least apparently oblivious—to the consequences for energy policy. I say energy policy, but there is no energy policy. Competition is energy policy, which means we do not have one. All sorts of anomalous consequences result. Within five years, we will have gone from nil to 25 per cent. gas-generated electricity. That will be achieved only by closing pits, at an estimated cost of £1 billion to the taxpayer in unemployment benefit and other costs. That is a consequence of the promotion of competition in gas and of allowing competition in the electricity industry to use gas, for which it is not really suitable.
        British Gas has consistently—I do not think that it bothers any more—made clear its opposition to using gas for power station baseload, for which gas is not suitable. Such use will diminish the life of gas reserves in the North sea by 15 years and divert those reserves away from their much more efficient use as an on-the-spot domestic and industrial fuel. Gas should be used like that, yet we are blowing it away.
        8.30 pm
        When I asked the gas regulator to address that issue, she said that it was nothing to do with her. She has an interest only in promoting competition in gas. Indeed, her decisions have virtually forced British Gas to sell more gas to power stations, which is against the long-term interests of Britain, the gas industry, energy policy and gas customers. It is against our long-term national interest because UK dependence on energy from overseas suppliers raises important strategic issues, about which the regulators do not believe they must be bothered. We already have a big balance of payments burden as a result of importing coal and other energy sources. That will be increased by imports of gas in future, including from very unstable regions in Asia and the middle east.
        If the gas regulator were more accountable to public, to Parliament and perhaps to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and if she were required to give reasons for her decisions, the use of gas for power stations might have been included in the debate. We could have questioned whether burning it away in power stations was a sensible use of gas or whether we should conserve it and thereby make us less dependent on foreign suppliers.
        The gas regulator has—apparently—neither the power, the will nor the interest in intervening to protect the common good as opposed to the private good of the competing gas companies. The promotion of competition in the gas sector has been oblivious to the knock-on consequences for other energy sectors and for the wider industrial structure and economic interest of Britain. It is also interesting to note—I shall not develop the point, because we shall cover it later—that promoting competition in such a way has relegated conservation and the entire environmental agenda to second place at best. There is a crying need to reform the regulatory system to ensure that wider social and strategic interests are met.
        88
        It is also important to recognise that the gas regulator, in common with other regulators, has enormous personal discretion.
        Mr. Simon Burns: That is right.
        Mr. Hain: One of the Government Whips mutters from a sedentary position, "That is right." The gas regulator has considerable discretion, which the Government have encouraged. Indeed, they praise it because they say that it removes decisions from the political arena, from Parliament. What are we here for, if it is not to have some influence, as Members of Parliament, over crucial public policy areas such as gas supply and the wider energy context in which that operates?
        In considering the degree of discretion, I need quote no more relevant a figure than the previous gas regulator, Sir James McKinnon, who developed a personality cult in the industry, using his discretion to an enormously egotistical degree. In successive press releases, he even described himself as the Santa Claus of the gas industry. Industry commentators started to refer to regulation by press release, counting how many times his name and picture appeared in Ofgas publications. During his tenure, Ofgas performed a series of U-turns on successive issues. He changed his mind three times on the structure of the industry. He veered from supporting the integrated nature of British Gas one year to its complete destruction the next and he finally opposed the limited break-up suggested by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
        Such policy gymnastics were very destabilising. Perhaps that is why Sir James McKinnon went—perhaps the Minister will reveal all. Clare Spottiswoode has been a much more admirable gas regulator, which is welcome, but there is enormous scope for discretion, which was abused by Sir James McKinnon and could be abused by any other gas regulator.
        In that regard, I need seek no greater confirmation than the behaviour of the electricity regulator and the recent intervention of Professor Stephen Littlechild on prices in the power share sales. That discretion challenged the heart of democratic politics. Decisions are being hived off to independent appointees that should properly be brought within the system of political accountability. That should not be confused with operational responsibilities.
        I am not arguing that the regulator should be held accountable or forced to consult in respect of every detail of regulatory policy, but I am concerned that the broad political and public policy trajectory of regulation should be much more accountable.
        There is no real transparency, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan so eloquently said. Effectively, the regulators are the high priests of public policy. They make significant decisions and they are more powerful than almost all Back Benchers. They are even more powerful than collective groups, such as Select Committees, with regard to the impact of their decisions.
        There is a need for greater accountability. The objectives of the regulators should be changed so that they are given much more responsibility for the social consequences of their decisions and for the strategic implications of regulatory decisions, especially with regard to energy policy and the need for international competition.
        At the moment, the regulator's decisions favour domestic competition. They pay very little regard, if any, to the need for international competition. At the moment,

        89
        just about every foreign-owned or controlled gas supplier is being invited to clean up the British market, but British Gas—the national champion—cannot enter foreign markets on a reciprocal basis. Indeed, under its current structure, the European Union specifically prevents British Gas from getting into Europe in the way that European companies can enter our markets.
        Why is the gas regulator not addressing that problem? Why is she not banging on the Minister's door saying, "I want to change the regulatory system in order to make international competition a much greater priority than it is under the present regime"?
        8.45 pm
        We have become the laughing stock of the international gas community. Our competitors, NOVA in Canada, Gaz de France, American-owned Enron, Italgas, Ruhrgas, Tractebel, Gas Natural, the Russian company Gazprom and BHP in Austria, many of which are state-owned, are gaining a massive world lead at the expense of British Gas. We are not concerned with international competition as the regulator is so obsessed with promoting pygmy competition in the domestic market. There is no regard for the industrial and strategic interests of the British economy, which would be advanced by the promotion of international competition and in respect of which British Gas would be able much more effectively to conquer the world markets and become a world leader and one of the top four or five global gas players, which I believe will happen when the market shakes out.
        For those reasons, the regulatory system is fundamentally flawed. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) asked a question that is becoming increasingly important: who regulates the regulators? No one other than the Government and the existing regulators—and not even all of them—defends the existing system. There should be radical reform, and the new clauses would go some way towards achieving that.
        Mr. Eggar: We have had another wide-ranging debate. The first issue to be raised was that of the direct debit discount. As is now fairly well known, British Gas, I am told, is planning to introduce a new scheme later this year which will give direct discounts to prompt payers who choose not to pay by direct debit. It justifies the current direct debit discount by arguing that the discount reflects the lower average cost of serving direct debit customers as against other customers.
        The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said that the regulator had not responded to several letters on that issue. It is my understanding that it is her provisional view that the discount does not involve undue discrimination. That is obviously what she has to consider—[Interruption.]The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) has a marvellous mouth, but to look at it in a totally uninterrupted way is slightly taxing on the eyes.
        According to the regulator, the discount does not involve undue discrimination. However, the director general is considering representations, including several letters to the contrary, and at the moment she is not satisfied that there has been any contravention.
        We did not spend much time on new clause 5. The implication of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Clackmannan is that even the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) recognises that that new clause goes a little too far. The evidence for that is that
        90
        not even the Gas Consumers Council, which would be given the powers, actually wants them. It does not believe that it is equipped for that or that that is its role. I enjoyed the elegant way in which the hon. Member for Clackmannan trotted around new clause 5.
        It is fair to say that most of the debate has revolved around new clause 4, and in particular the accountability issue alluded to in it. There is perhaps a fundamental difference between the Government and the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) because, as I listened to him, I could not make up my mind whether he was saying that the regulator should have more powers to take into account issues like international competition, or whether she should have fewer powers because she was not democratically accountable. I was not clear what he meant by democratic accountability.
        There is clearly a difficult balancing act. If we are to have a proper system of regulation, it must not be at the beck and call of political intervention by whoever happens to be the Minister of the day. Whether that applies from the Opposition Benches—for example, to ensure that the hon. Member for Neath's valley gets gas, which was the argument he made in Committee—or from the Government Benches to achieve an objective which we felt was particularly attractive from our constituency point of view, any system of regulation must be properly independent from the political process in terms of direct intervention.
        Obviously Ministers will be accountable to this place for certain policy issues. An example of that which relates to the structure of the Bill is the standard conditions. We regard the standard conditions as absolutely essential to the structure of the licence because a veto is vested in the Secretary of State. I believe very strongly in the principle of the independence of the regulator, but that independence must lie in a framework, which ultimately must be decided by Ministers.
        The judicial review cannot be dismissed lightly. From a Minister's point of view and the exercise of discretion that he may have—not in this respect, but in others—and from a regulator's point of view, judicial review is a very important aspect of accountability. That is not always recognised, because it is not often that there are judicial reviews of Executive decisions. The regulators and I both find that power to be a significant form of accountability. Reference was also made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and the issue of how individual decisions are reached was also raised. I referred to that in terms of the standard conditions. We exercise a veto in that area.
        Further scrutiny is afforded by Select Committees, and that is an issue for the House to consider carefully. We must look at the way in which the Select Committees on Trade and Industry, the Environment and Employment have called the gas regulator to account. I am a believer in Select Committees, and I think that the House should use them more effectively. The House should reflect on the relationship between Select Committees and the regulators, although there is no obvious prescription as to how that can be done. Select Committees, like the National Audit Office, provide an important form of accountability.
        Ms Coffey: The Minister is suggesting that the Select Committees have not held the regulators to be sufficiently accountable. However, the gas regulator said that although the Select Committee can hold her to account—as the

        91
        Committee can hold to account a Minister—the regulator is not accountable to the Select Committees. She is accountable in the sense that she has to give an account of her actions, but she is not accountable in the sense that the Select Committee has any direct influence or control over her actions. That is the key point.
        Mr. Eggar: The hon. Lady and I part company there. She is arguing for politicians—in this case an all-party Select Committee—to have the power to instruct or direct the regulator, whereas I believe strongly in the independence of the regulator. I was not being critical of Select Committees. I was simply saying that that is an issue for the House, because the regulators could be made more accountable to the Select Committee system if a little more thought was given to doing so. I do not see that essentially as a matter for the Government.
        I hope that my answer has been useful. I am afraid that, for the reasons I have given, I certainly cannot recommend that new clause 5 be agreed to. I do not think that the Opposition want to press it to a Division. On the other points in the debate, they got the balance right.
        Mr. O'Neill: The discussion has contained the germ of a good debate. Most of the speeches of my hon. Friends, while emphasising slightly different elements, dealt with the general approach to regulation, which has produced a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. The Minister has, for once, avoided bluster and has endeavoured to engage in a genuine debate. It is regrettable, therefore, that no other Conservative Member has sought to contribute. A couple of individuals have come into the Chamber as our debate has come to a close, but no one from the Opposition Back Benches has been prepared—
        Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Government Back Benches.
        Mr. O'Neill: I am getting into a habit, but that description will be appropriate before too long.
        The point is that no one from the Government is not so much prepared to defend the regulatory system but to discuss it. To that extent, the Minister's remarks are evidence of a lack of thought and discussion. He went through the standard means of accountability of the regulator, including a judicial review. I know that that is a hobby-horse of the Minister's, and we have debated that matter in Committee. His experience is greater than ours, and he believes that the threat of a judicial review is of no small significance in concentrating the minds of individuals.
        We have seen references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission used in much the same manner of megaphone diplomacy in the past. Where we part company with the Minister is on his touching faith in Select Committees. If there is a fundamental flaw in the Select Committee system, it is that it has been grafted on to the House of Commons without a proper separation of powers. Those countries in which the committee system operates most effectively use committees as a check on bodies in which those involved have no direct interest.
        Our Select Committees contain individuals who wish to join the Executive at some stage, or those who have been on it and are embittered or indifferent. I do not think that there is a correct relationship between our Select
        92
        Committees and the Executive. I am not sure if it would be within the bounds of the proceedings of the House—although given the flexibility of our Standing Orders, pretty well anything is possible—if we were to have a mechanism whereby individuals who were nominated to become regulators could be subject to an interview before their appointment. They would then have to be confirmed in the post by the House. That is not the way in which the House operates at the moment.
        During our debates on the Coal Industry Act, we suggested that the chief executive of the Coal Authority would have to be confirmed or interviewed by the Select Committee. In some respects, that was the kind of thing that one does in a Standing Committee—flying a kite. Our Select Committee system is useful for collecting information, but it is never very good at drawing conclusions, because the conclusions tend to be the ultimate compromise.
        Some Select Committee conclusions and recommendations are eventually taken on board. Sometimes, in the longer term they have a role in establishing a consensus, but, as a means of dealing with the serious political problems to which my colleagues and I have alluded—for example, the direct debit issue, the establishment of the price formula and so on—if there is to be immediate action, Select Committees are not good at getting the message across. They can inform debate, but ultimately they do not play a conclusive role.
        I take the Minister's point about the National Audit Office. Indeed, the Public Accounts Committee can look retrospectively at matters, but it cannot be proactive. In the regulatory sector there might be occasions when proaction is appropriate.
        We have had the beginnings of a good debate. I do not suggest that we go on any longer, because we have other business to attend to. It is unfortunate that no Conservative Back Bencher was prepared to take part in the debate. However, the matter has been ventilated. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New clause 6

        DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE AND DIRECTOR TO CONSULT WITH HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE ON SAFETY QUALIFICATIONS OF GAS CONTRACTORS
        'The Secretary of State and the Director shall each have a duty to consult with the Health and Safety Executive with the objective of securing that any public gas transporter, retailer, shipper or supplier who may have cause to undertake work on any gas supply meter, gas fitting or appliance shall ensure that—

        (a) any employee or third party contractor is suitably qualified in the relevant aspects of gas distribution, installation or service;

        (b) any third party contractor undertaking such work is registered with an appropriate recognised trade body approved by the Health and Safety Executive.'.—[Mr. Nigel Griffiths.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        New clause 6 deals with critical safety issues. The House will be aware of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on gas under the Fair Trading Act 1973. The report, published in August 1993, stressed that safety was a major consideration in the removal of the

        93
        monopoly. If electricity is switched off, it leaves no problems behind. If gas is switched off, pilot lights can remain on. Gas requires greater skill and vigilance.
        9 pm
        Fortunately, gone are the days when there was widespread fear of gas and when the consequences of gas explosions were felt by all. None the less, there is an alarming number of gas incidents. I am a founder member of Consumer Safety International, which assists people who have lost relatives or suffered injuries abroad because of gas, particularly in Spain, and of CO-GAS, which is a British-based organisation that campaigns for safer gas appliances.
        New clause 6 gives the Health and Safety Executive an overview. It would make the Secretary of State and the Director General of Gas Supply duty bound to consult the HSE, to ensure that gas transporters, retailers, shippers or suppliers were suitably qualified.
        The Government have had a big drive to encourage people to register with the CORGI scheme. I appreciate the work of CORGI and of its skilled engineers, but there are various estimates—none is below several thousand—of unqualified, unregistered people installing gas supplies in highly dangerous circumstances.
        I notice from the Government's statistics that a large number of appliances still have dangerous gas fittings. In 1993–94, for example, 445 dangerous boilers, 44 dangerous water heaters, 330 dangerous gas fires and 112 dangerous cookers were identified. There were a total of 1,467 dangerous appliances, which was an increase of more than 200 on the previous year, and that was an increase of almost 500 on the year before. In the past three years, there has been a trend of a steady increase in the notification of dangerous gas fittings, when the gas for domestic premises was supplied by one gas supplier.
        As the market opens up, it is very important that proper safeguards are in place, to ensure that the domestic gas consumer is not put at risk. There are many reasons for faults, and again the available statistics are helpful. For example, in 883 cases, the manner of installation was deemed to be dangerous. Modifications and alterations caused danger in 259 cases. Servicing and maintenance problems occurred in 87 cases and design problems occurred in 32 cases out of the total of 1,467. Far too many dangerous fittings required attention. Once the Bill has been passed and the market has been deregulated, we do not want an alarming upward trend, which is the primary reason why we have tabled the new clause.
        The Gas Consumers Council has made representations and runs campaigns for the register of Corgi installers to be made available to consumers and for the literature and leaflets to be user friendly. However, it also wants a proper register established to ensure that third-party contractors or employees of the new independent gas companies are suitably qualified in all aspects of gas distribution, installation and service.
        There is a general fear that the installation of gas may become deskilled. Certainly, in the past, gas engineers were not only highly trained, as they still are, but worked to tolerances that did not allow the possibility of accidents in any number. Anyone who talks to gas engineers these days knows that cuts by British Gas, in the face of private sector competition, have meant that, whereas engineers were trained to work to tremendously fine tolerances, standards have slipped a little. I do not intend to alarm
        94
        the public—I believe that there are still adequate safeguards—but we do not want any further slippage, and we certainly do not want the new third-party contractors employing unskilled and unqualified people.
        I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in defence of not ensuring that any third-party contractor is using suitably qualified personnel. The Government joined us in supporting the CORGI scheme, but we want to ensure that the several thousand people who are currently practising unregistered and unqualified are driven out of business—and quickly.
        We know of the tremendous risks not only of explosions but of carbon monoxide poisoning caused by fumes from faulty gas appliances and flues. We want to be sure that, once the gas market has opened up, Ministers, the regulator and the Health and Safety Executive are convinced that companies that succeed in getting a licence and that are involved in the installation and repair of appliances and the distribution of gas are suitably qualified and do not pose a risk to themselves or, more important, to the public.
        Mr. Kevin Hughes: I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate the safety aspect of the Bill, which is probably one of the most important aspects for the consumer. Safety is probably uppermost in people's minds when gas appliances are installed in their homes. I should like to think that the Government will support new clause 6, but I doubt that they will. The fact that they will not is very unfortunate.
        Mr. Eggar: How does the hon. Gentleman know?
        Mr. Hughes: It is a guess, but we shall see at the end of the debate. I would not be able to bet on it at William Hill; the odds would certainly not be good anyway.
        It is a pity that the Government will not support the new clause because it is fundamentally about protection and safety. It is designed to secure safety standards and service for consumers in future, under arrangements similar to those enjoyed in the present system, under British Gas. That means that appliances will have to be repaired by fully qualified and trained installers. Preferably, they should be properly registered and be able to provide expertise equal to that provided by TransCo and British Gas at present.
        The new clause deals with the proper training of installers who carry out appliance repairs. Under the Bill, TransCo will be called out to deal with any difficulty with supply and will have responsibility for making an appliance safe. The repairs will not be carried out by TransCo, however, which will be responsible only for safety upstream of the meter. Consumers will be left with a list of CORGI-registered suppliers, and will have to arrange for the repair themselves.
        There is concern about what the fragmentation of the repair service will mean in practice. Consumers will be left to take pot luck with the list of contractors that is handed to them. At present, British Gas engineers can make arrangements for appliances to be repaired and can leave temporary equipment, such as electric heaters, on loan to customers who may be vulnerable to cold and who do not have any other source of heating. Under the new system, that sort of comprehensive service and the benefits that it brings to consumers might be lost as householders are left to fend for themselves.

        95
        The annual report of the Gas Consumers Council this year pointed out that a register of competent installers that is both accessible and meaningful to domestic consumers and advice agencies has not yet been produced. The Health and Safety Executive is considering that matter as part of its review of the CORGI registration scheme, which is welcome news.
        The GCC has consistently pressed for such a register to be made available to gas consumers. At present, such information is not published. The council wants information on the hours and type of work that an installer has CORGI registration to undertake, which is particularly important. When competition is introduced, it is vital that such information is published in an accessible format and is readily available to both suppliers and consumers.
        The Minister will remember that in Committee we discussed training for some CORGI scheme members compared with that for TransCo engineers at present. Unfortunately, not all CORGI-registered engineers will be trained in all types of gas appliances. Different levels of registration will apply for CORGI installers, and they may not always have the experience or expertise that British Gas engineers have. That is of concern, because a number of cases were raised in Committee in which mistakes had allegedly been made by CORGI-registered firms, which is deeply worrying.
        CORGI-registered installers who work outside the competence for which they are registered are breaking the law, but customers may not know the level of competence of an installer, so adequate information must be available to consumers on that issue. At present, the business rather than the individual is given CORGI registration, which is a further potential source of confusion for the public in the light of the new circumstances that are proposed.
        In the event of contracting out and even subcontracting, the parent company is sometimes not aware of who is carrying out the work. In some circumstances, it seems to lose control of who is handling the screwdrivers, spanners or whatever tools are needed to do a particular job. In this case, it could be dangerous if the parent company were not fully aware of who was carrying out repairs to appliances in people's homes.
        As the Minister knows, I worked in the mining industry for a long time—
        Mr. Eggar: How long?
        9.15 pm
        Mr. Hughes: Too long for me to remember, but more than 20 years. The Minister is probably aware of the number of accidents that occurred when outside contractors came to work in the industry. I shall not develop this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is worth noting that the safety record of outside contractors was far worse than that of British Coal. I am worried that, if we start to contract out, as is almost inevitable, a similarly poor safety record may apply to those sent out to fix people's gas appliances. We should make it clear that only CORGI-registered engineers may carry out work on gas appliances. The Health and Safety Executive is looking into that matter in the context of its review.
        In Committee, hon. Members expressed concern about the loss of expertise that may result from the fragmentation of repair work. Through working together
        96
        and sharing experiences, British Gas engineers have been able to identify potentially dangerous design faults and installation problems and report them to manufacturers when necessary. That good feature will probably be lost. Their combined pool of experience has been valuable and the potential loss of that exchange of information is worrying.
        The Health and Safety Commission recognises that problem in its safety framework document and proposes that the Health and Safety Executive discuss with the industry and other parties arrangements for effective investigation into incidents downstream of the meter and for the dissemination of lessons learnt, such as on design faults in appliances.
        What I have said shows that much more work will be placed on the Health and Safety Executive as a result of the Bill and how much the Bill's safety aspects depend for their implementation on the HSE's ability to cope with that new work. Opposition Members have consistently pressed the Government to provide additional funding for the Health and Safety Executive, to help it to carry out its responsibilities.
        I understand from a letter that was left for me on the board this afternoon that the Minister proposes to provide more than £2.5 million to enable the HSE to carry out that work. The caveat is that that sum is for only three years. While I welcome the fact that the Government have come forward with that sum, which is warranted and necessary, I am concerned about what will happen when it runs out after three years. Will the Health and Safety Executive be forced to cut back or will the Government provide further funding? I hope that the Minister will address that matter when he responds.
        I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider the new clause, which aims to ensure that safety and standards of service are maintained for gas consumers in their own homes. The issues that I mentioned must be addressed, to guarantee that good safety standards are achieved once the Bill is enacted. Not least, the good work of the HSE must continue. I hope that the £2.5 million will not dry up after three years, because we would then have a serious problem. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will respond to those important points, which are of particular concern to people because of their effect on their homes.
        Mr. Eggar: I always listen with particular respect to contributions from the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) on safety. Because of his particular experience in the mining industry, I recognise that safety, of which he has a great deal of knowledge, is close to his heart.
        Although the hon. Gentleman would be misguided to put money on whether I would accept new clause 6, I would not have hesitated to do so if I thought that it was necessary to provide a thoroughly safe regime in the new competitive gas market. Clause 2 will insert section 4A(2) in the Gas Act 1986, which places a specific duty on the Secretary of State and the director to consult the HSE on all safety matters and to take into account any advice that it offers. In addition, sections 4A(3) and 4A(4) provide that the director must prepare and lay before the House a memorandum of understanding with the HSE, with the aim of securing co-operation and exchange of information and that, therefore, she must act in accordance with that

        97
        memorandum. Those provisions cover the vast bulk of the concerns relating to hon. Members' insistence, quite rightly, that the HSE should be involved effectively.
        I welcome the slightly grudging praise for the fact that we have produced the necessary funding for the HSE. It does not go beyond three years because the public expenditure system works on a three-year period. We shall address the needs for the fourth year and so on as they come up in the normal cycle of events.
        Mr. Kevin Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman will probably not have to do that, because we shall be in government by then.
        Mr. Eggar: Illusions, illusions. I shall allow the hon. Gentleman that little flight of fantasy because I do not want to disappoint him about that at least.
        The other matters that the new clause would regulate are dealt with in existing regulations, in particular, the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994. They require that only competent persons may do work on any gas fitting. That definition of gas fitting includes all appliances and pipe work downstream of the meter and the meter itself. In effect, the regulations mean that the people who do that work must be members of CORGI. Under the Bill, responsibility for safety upstream of the meter lies with the public gas transporter. At present, that operates under the general provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The HSE is, however, currently preparing draft regulations on more explicit rules in relation to gas pipelines.
        Mr. Clapham: What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that there is a national register of CORGI-qualified engineers? Many hon. Members know of cases that have caused great concern, because engineers who were not CORGI qualified fitted installations at people's homes. Local authorities, which are particularly relevant because of their housing stock, have no access to a national register to see whether a man contracted by them is CORGI qualified.
        Mr. Eggar: That matter was mentioned in Committee, and there is anxiety about it. The HSE has responsibility for that, as one would expect. It is important that the independent agency, the tripartite body under the HSE, looks after those matters. It is reviewing the CORGI scheme at present, and I am sure that it will take into account the anxieties that were expressed by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members.
        In other words, I am convinced that the arrangements that we propose will meet the necessary requirements for safety. That is not only my opinion but that of the HSE. I wish to repeat, for the record, that we regard safety as paramount, for all the reasons mentioned by Opposition Members. We shall not compromise on that. We believe that the present systems and the present proposals in the Bill strike the right balance and will go as far as it is humanly possible to go to achieve the right type of safety regulation in that important industry.
        Mr. Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) speaks with great feeling on this subject, and he made a forceful case. The Minister has not reassured us satisfactorily, so we are especially keen to ensure that the other place has a chance to consider the issue, as it often does, in a less politicised atmosphere.
        98
        I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 1

        GENERAL DUTIES UNDER 1986 ACT
        Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
        '(2A) The Director, in performing his duty under subsection (2)(c) above shall—

        (a) have regard to official estimates of the amount of discovered and recoverable reserves of gas, from onshore and on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf;

        (b) have regard to the target reductions in carbon dioxide emissions agreed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992;

        (c) in conjunction with the Secretary of State, support an energy savings trust for the promotion and monitoring of energy efficiency.'.

        Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 51, in clause 8, page 12, line 41, at end add—
        '(3) Standard conditions for gas suppliers shall included a duty on licence holders to ensure that details of how to obtain free energy efficiency, bill payment and gas appliance servicing advice is clearly displayed on all written material produced by a gas supplier for use by its customers.'.
        Mr. O'Neill: The two amendments were in some respects mentioned in Committee, when we discussed matters relating to energy efficiency and conservation. We considered that it would be useful to bring the matter back to the House.
        We realise that the hour is somewhat against us, but we want our responsibility for conservation matters and energy efficiency to be more explicitly expressed than the legislation does. It is important that the Director General of Gas Supply has regard to the amount of recoverable reserves of gas offshore and onshore.
        The figures on gas reserves are produced annually in the Brown Book. They appear in several categories: proven, probable, proven plus probable, possible and then a maximum. We can sum up the position briefly in respect of gas reserves. The consensus is that between 20 and 35 years' supply of gas is available to us.
        It is often said that, in the past 20 years, people have always assumed that there was only 20 years' supply left. That assumption has been due partly to the ingenuity of explorers and partly to the efficiency of companies in extracting gas, but we cannot always assume that there will be an infinite supply of a finite resource simply because of what has happened in the past 20 years. We therefore consider it important that the director general take account of those reserves of gas when advising on specific schemes or when considering systems of generation and the like.
        Recently, in the case of electricity, when insufficient attention was given to the construction of gas-fired power stations, some of our coal reserves were lost to the extent that, when certain power stations that depended on specific coal mines closed, the mines in turn closed and we were denied access to supplies of coal. There is a link between the regulatory function and the conservation function. We would like to think that the director general

        99
        would have an explicit duty to take account of the estimates that are produced annually in what has become known as the Brown Book.
        There is also the environmental consideration required of us by the Rio summit. We are committed to reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide. One of the major factors in the production of carbon dioxide is the pattern of our energy consumption. It would be appropriate for the director general to take account of the success or otherwise of our attempts to meet our internationally agreed targets for emissions.
        9.30 pm
        The issue of most basic concern to energy consumers in the United Kingdom is probably the establishment of an Energy Saving Trust that has some legislative basis. At present, the Energy Saving Trust exists in a sort of vacuum. It has been created and is the recipient of moneys, but it does not have the proper status that it merits. The amendment is an attempt—perhaps not a wholly adequate attempt—to give proper legislative recognition to the trust.
        It is important to have a national agency that gives leadership on the promotion and monitoring of energy efficiency. If we were to have a competitive market and prices were to fall, it would matter little to those who did not have proper access to information about energy efficiency. We know from the experience of many of our constituents that living in draughty houses that are not properly insulated means that much of the money that residents lay out on electricity bills follows the heat out of the windows into the cold and the money is wasted. It is vital that the Energy Saving Trust enjoys enhanced status, which is why we have referred to such a body in the amendment. There is a clear link between the director general's responsibility for energy efficiency and the trust's work.
        Amendment No. 51 states that, in the standard conditions for gas suppliers, the licence holders should be required to provide information on energy efficiency, bill payment and gas appliance servicing advice. That information should be available and should be included in all written materials. We know that certain steps have been taken. British Gas has often given information and sources of information, but that information should be in the standard conditions and should be part and parcel of the companies' responsibility, even if they themselves do not provide that information. It could be argued that, if they do not provide the information, that is all the more reason why organisations such as the Energy Saving Trust and neighbourhood energy action should be drawn to the attention of gas consumers.
        Energy efficiency and conservation measures should lie at the heart of the new energy market which is developing. It is not enough merely to deal with matters of price. We should be considering environmental considerations and issues involving energy efficiency—one of the best ways of improving our constituents' quality of life.
        100
        I am happy to propose the two amendments in the hope that the Minister will give greater weight to the energy efficiency and conservation responsibilities that he carries, but that really should be shared between him and the director general and her staff.
        Mr. Eggar: The director general and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State already have a duty to exercise their functions in the manner that is best calculated to promote the efficient use of gas. The director general also has a specific power to set standards of performance for gas suppliers in connection with the promotion of the efficient use of gas. The licence also sets out minimum requirements for the provision of energy efficiency advice to consumers.
        We believe, as distinct from Opposition Members, that the introduction of competition will itself provide a spur to the promotion of energy efficiency, because different suppliers will want to supply gas in the most appropriate way and many consumers will want to buy that gas in an energy-efficient mode; in other words, suppliers will be competing to supply warm houses as against merely therms of gas.
        On the specific points that have been raised, the United Kingdom CS point, or the reserve, is fine. In practical terms, the effect of the amendment would be completely to disregard energy efficiency, because gas reserves have gone up year on year. Gas discovered on a proven basis has exceeded gas consumed. We do not believe, therefore, that it is an appropriate factor that the regulator should take into account.
        The hon. Gentleman referred to the Energy Saving Trust. He did not say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced last week that his Department was making available an additional £25 million a year to the Energy Saving Trust to promote energy-efficient measures. Had he focused on that, he would have welcomed that move.
        Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He referred earlier to the fact that the director general should not have to concern herself with gas reserves. Given that we are using more gas for energy production, and that by the end of century we are likely to be using 40 million tonnes of coal equivalent, will there not be more pressure on prices and, therefore, should the director general not be concerned with these matters?
        Mr. Eggar: It is true that the domestic consumption of gas is rising; so is the amount of success with gas discoveries. Imports of gas are near their lowest level since we first started importing from Norway. Gas prices are probably at their lowest level in real terms, but we cannot be confident that will continue.
        The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) raised the issue of what would be disclosed on bills for domestic customers. The list of disclosures required is long, going far beyond what British Gas is required to do or does as a matter of practice. However, it is reasonable to expect that when gas suppliers are competing for customers they will wish to make people fully aware of the services that they offer. It is best to leave it up to them to decide the best way to do that. For those reasons, I feel unable to accept the amendment.
        Mr. O'Neill: The Minister has had a brief run around the track, and we recognise the points that he has made. We feel

        101
        that there is some complacency about the view that, simply because we are getting more gas into Britain and because prices are cheaper, somehow the regulator should not take account of the levels of supply and the reserves.
        We do not wish at this stage to push the amendment to a vote. We raised the matter in Committee. Everyone in the House will be grateful that money is now being put in the way of the Energy Saving Trust, because we recognise that it is an important body. I hope that the legitimacy that the funding will afford the trust will be only the first stage of putting it on a proper footing.
        The Government have spent a lot of time attacking quangos, although they have created many of them. I am not sure whether the Energy Saving Trust is a quango in the true sense of the word, because it does not have a statutory basis. Although it is vaguely answerable to the Secretary of State for the Environment, a more appropriate person for that role might be the President of the Board of Trade, with his responsibility for trade and industry. However, I do not think that we need to debate that matter this evening. To avoid any further temptation to do so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 5

        LICENSING OF PUBLIC GAS TRANSPORTERS
        Amendments made: No. 1, in page 5, leave out lines 13 and 14 and insert—
        '(b) the conveyance of gas through pipes which—

        (i) are situated in an authorised area of his; or

        (ii) are situated in an area which was an authorised area of his, or an authorised area of a previous holder of the licence, and were so situated at a time when it was such an area; or'.

        No. 2, in page 7, line 1, at end insert—
        '() references to the carrying on of activities authorised by a licence under this section shall be construed without regard to any exception contained in Schedule 2A to this Act;'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

      Clause 6

        LICENSING OF GAS SUPPLIERS AND GAS SHIPPERS
        Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 8, line 29, at end insert—
        '(2A) In the period before the relevant date the Director shall:
        (a) monitor the effect of the granting of a licence under subsections (3) to (5) below on such persons as in his opinion are appropriate; and
        (b) consult such persons and organisations as appear to him to represent the interests of persons affected by the granting of a licence under those subsections, and such other persons as he considers appropriate, on the effects of granting such a licence.
        (2B) No licence shall be granted under section 7A(1)(a) of the 1986 Act (other than by virtue of subsections (3) to (5) below) until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament indicating—

        (i) the results of the monitoring and responses to the consultation referred to in subsection (2A) above;

        (ii) the effect, in his opinion and in the opinion of the Director, of the granting of licences under subsections (3) to (5) below and Schedule 5 to this Act in the period before the relevant date; and

        (iii) the reasons why, in his opinion, it is in the interests of all persons affected that licences under section 7A(1)(a) of the 1986 Act should be granted.'.

        In some respects, the amendment is one of the most pertinent with which we shall deal because it relates to what has become known as the pilot areas—those areas in which the competitive gas market will be tested. The amendment is an attempt to require the director general to monitor the effect of granting a licence and to consult organisations and people who appear to represent the interests of the persons affected by the granting of the licence. The amendment also states that no licence shall be granted until a report has been laid before both Houses of Parliament indicating the result of the monitoring and the responses to the consultation.
        The only other example of a deregulated gas market comes from Canada and it must be said that the Canadian experience was not wholly successful. As a consequence, many people are anxious about the exercise, and that is evidenced by the Government's testing the water. We welcome the attempt to choose areas in the south-west of England that are among the most controversial. If the exercise is to have any worth, it is vital not only that the pilot areas are studied properly but that the House has the right to pass judgment on whether the scheme should proceed once the pilot has been completed.
        Some of my hon. Friends may take the view that it does not really matter because, by the time the reports are completed, there will be another Government and we will take the decisions about those matters. That is as may be, but we must ensure that proper monitoring techniques are put in place and that the director general is able to take full account of them. As I have said, the experience in other countries has not been wholly satisfactory. The Canadian experience caused great difficulty, but perhaps that will not be replicated here with such ferocity in view of the differing climatic conditions in that country.
        Nevertheless, the experience could create anxiety among communities who, even now, are extremely vulnerable. Therefore, we believe it is important to ensure that proper monitoring takes place and that the monitoring is reported correctly. At the end of the day, the House should be able to pass judgment on the findings of the report and decide whether we wish to proceed to grant the rest of the licences across the United Kingdom. That approach has wide support. A number of consumer groups—containing people who are in touch with gas consumers—have heard of and are conscious of the problems that could arise; therefore, it is essential that a proper assessment is made of the monitoring process.
        I can do no more than quote paragraph 60 of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry report, which states:
        "It would be pointless to have a transitional period unless there is a full assessment of its consequences and wide consultation, including parliamentary scrutiny, before further steps are taken."
        That is what the amendment would achieve. We want that in relation to the designated pilot areas. That is why the House should have the right to stop and take stock before it takes this big step for the whole British energy market. For those reasons, we are happy to table amendment No. 49.
        9.45 pm
        Mr. Harvey: I support the amendment. I moved one along similar lines in Committee. The amendment is a welcome, if overdue, innovation in Government practice that the .Government have chosen to run a pilot scheme.

        103
        If they had done so in relation to many other areas of legislation, it would have saved them and the public a great deal of pain.
        It would serve the Government's purpose far more comprehensively if, having taken the decision to run a pilot scheme, their assessment criteria went far wider than simply technical aspects, which seem to be the scope of their intention to date. The amendment's proposal of giving both Houses a chance to scrutinise the pilot scheme and to assess it is much to be applauded.
        Mr. Eggar: The Government have previously made it clear that the phased transition to a nationwide competitive system will provide an opportunity to test the necessary technical and administrative systems for the balancing of gas and the transfer of customers. That is essentially a technical operation. That is why we are starting with an area of 500,000 customers in the south-west and moving up to one of 2 million. We want to find out whether additional problems exist as we expand and go nationwide.
        The purpose of the pilot scheme and then of the expanded pilot is to allow British Gas TransCo and competing gas suppliers to iron out any problems with their systems while they are still operating on a relatively small scale. That relates particularly to computer and other such systems.
        We must be clear, however, that the pilot is not an attempt to test the principle of whether competition will go ahead. That decision has already been made, on Second Reading. An approach that left the question of principle in doubt would cast a shadow of uncertainty over the industry, both onshore and in the North sea. That would be in no one's interests because it might mean that suppliers would not make the investment needed for competition to be a success. The scheme must be planned with a degree of certainty.
        In particular, such an approach would make the necessary adjustment of North sea supply positions and contracts impossibly unpredictable. It would be wrong to try to reopen the principle of competition through what I would call the back door, as it would bring in considerable uncertainty, which is the last thing that we need in terms of planning large investments.
        Of course, the director general will clearly wish to monitor the progress of competition and expect to seek feedback from consumers and suppliers of their experience of competition during the transitional phase. That was one of the criteria that we asked the areas to comment on when they applied to be pilots. If that monitoring showed that licence conditions were not having the desired effect, the director general could make proposals to change them. The on-going monitoring process will enable Ministers and the director general to report appropriately to the House and to the other place about progress. It is certainly my intention to do just that.
        Mr. O'Neill: That answer was wholly unsatisfactory. The Minister said that ultimately it is all down to computers and a few pipes, and that if the report is disastrous only a little fine tuning will be required and everything can be changed. We are discussing the big step of reconstructing the energy market and a potentially
        104
        dangerous fuel, using a number of companies untested in the UK, and many untested worldwide, in the selling of gas.
        We are told that if the House had the right to veto further developments until it was satisfied that necessary changes and improvements had been made, that would create such a shadow of uncertainty that there would be fear of investing and an adjustment to North sea contracts. I imagine that we will be debating amendments Nos. 40 and 41 to schedule 5 tomorrow, relating to the consequences of changes to North sea contracts. The Minister will be playing a different tune then.
        If monitoring is not undertaken effectively, reports are not presented in the appropriate way and the House is not given the opportunity to pass judgment, the deregulation of the gas market could founder. If the proposal is to survive and is to command the respect and support of both sides of the House and, more important, command consumer confidence, it is essential that monitoring in pilot areas assumes greater significance than simply suggesting that the tweaking of a computer or changing a piping system will resolve all problems.
        This matter is of the utmost importance and I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment. We will press the amendment to a Division because, in essence, the House has the right to be able to say, in a matter which is in many respects a leap in the dark, that if we get it wrong with the pilot projects, the proposal should not proceed. The amendment is of sufficient significance for the House to have the opportunity to vote on it. I urge my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby to support it.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 269.

        Division No. 147]

        [9.53 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Allen, Graham

        Clapham, Michael

        Alton, David

        Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Clelland, David

        Austin-Walker, John

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Coffey, Ann

        Barnes, Harry

        Cohen, Harry

        Barron, Kevin

        Connarty, Michael

        Battle, John

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Bell, Stuart

        Corbett, Robin

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Cousins, Jim

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Cummings, John

        Benton, Joe

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

        Berry, Roger

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

        Betts, Clive

        Dafis, Cynog

        Blunkett, David

        Dalyell, Tam

        Boateng, Paul

        Davidson, Ian

        Bradley, Keith

        Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

        Denham, John

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

        Dewar, Donald

        Burden, Richard

        Dixon, Don

        Byers, Stephen

        Dobson, Frank

        Caborn, Richard

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Callaghan, Jim

        Dowd, Jim

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Cann, Jamie

        Eagle, Ms Angela

        105

        Eastham, Ken

        McNamara, Kevin

        Enright, Derek

        MacShane, Denis

        Etherington, Bill

        Madden, Max

        Fatchett Derek

        Mahon, Alice

        Faulds, Andrew

        Mandelson, Peter

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Marek, Dr John

        Fisher, Mark

        Martlew, Eric

        Flynn, Paul

        Meacher, Michael

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Meale, Alan

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Michael, Alun

        Fraser, John

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Fyfe, Maria

        Milburn, Alan

        Galbraith, Sam

        Miller, Andrew

        Galloway, George

        Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

        Gapes, Mike

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Garrett, John

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Gerrard, Neil

        Morley, Elliot

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Morris, Rt Hon Alfred

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Godsiff, Roger

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Gdding, Mrs Llin

        Mudie, George

        Gordon, Mildred

        Mullin, Chris

        Graham, Thomas

        Murphy, Paul

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        O'Brien, William (Normanton)

        Grocott, Bruce

        O'Hara, Edward

        Gunnell, John

        Olner, Bill

        Hain, Peter

        O'Neill, Martin

        Hall, Mike

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Paisley, The Reverend Ian

        Harvey, Nick

        Patchett, Terry

        Heppell, John

        Pearson, Ian

        Hill, Keith (Streatham)

        Pendry, Tom

        Hinchliffe, David

        Pike, Peter L

        Hodge, Margaret

        Pope, Greg

        Hoey, Kate

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

        Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

        Hood, Jimmy

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

        Purchase, Ken

        Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Hoyle, Doug

        Radice, Giles

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Randall, Stuart

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Raynsford, Nick

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Reid, Dr John

        Hutton, John

        Rendel, David

        Illsley, Eric

        Robertson, George (Hamilton)

        Ingram, Adam

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

        Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

        Rooker, Jeff

        Jamieson, David

        Rooney, Terry

        Janner, Greville

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

        Rowlands, Ted

        Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

        Ruddock, Joan

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Jowell, Tessa

        Sheerman, Barry

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

        Short, Clare

        Khabra, Piara S

        Simpson, Alan

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Skinner, Dennis

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

        Lewis, Terry

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Litherland, Robert

        Snape, Peter

        Livingstone, Ken

        Soley, Clive

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Spearing, Nigel

        Lynne, Ms Liz

        Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Steinberg, Gerry

        McCartney, Ian

        Stevenson, George

        McCrea, The Reverend William

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Macdonald, Calum

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        McFall, John

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Timms, Stephen

        McLeish, Henry

        Tipping, Paddy

        McMaster, Gordon

        Touhig, Don

        106

        Vaz, Keith

        Worthington, Tony

        Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

        Wray, Jimmy

        Watson, Mike

        Wright, Dr Tony

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

        Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Winnick, David

        Mr. Dennis Turner and

        Wise, Audrey

        Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

        NOES

        Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

        Dunn, Bob

        Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

        Durant, Sir Anthony

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

        Dykes, Hugh

        Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

        Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

        Amess, David

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Arbuthnot, James

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

        Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

        Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

        Ashby, David

        Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

        Atkins, Robert

        Evennett, David

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

        Faber, David

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Fabricant, Michael

        Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Baldry, Tony

        Fishburn, Dudley

        Banks, Matthew (Southport)

        Forman, Nigel

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

        Bates, Michael

        Forth, Eric

        Batiste, Spencer

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Bellingham, Henry

        Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

        Bendall, Vivian

        Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        French, Douglas

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Gale, Roger

        Booth, Hartley

        Gardiner, Sir George

        Boswell, Tim

        Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

        Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

        Garnier, Edward

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        Gill, Christopher

        Bowis, John

        Gillan, Cheryl

        Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

        Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

        Brandreth, Gyles

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Brazier, Julian

        Gorst, Sir John

        Bright Sir Graham

        Grant,Sir A (SW Cambs)

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

        Grylls, Sir Michael

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Burns, Simon

        Hague, William

        Burt, Alistair

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Butcher, John

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Butler, Peter

        Hannam, Sir John

        Butterfill, John

        Hargreaves, Andrew

        Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Harris, David

        Carrington, Matthew

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Carttiss, Michael

        Hawkins, Nick

        Cash, William

        Hayes, Jerry

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Heald, Oliver

        Clappison, James

        Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Hendry, Charles

        Coe, Sebastian

        Hicks, Robert

        Conway, Derek

        Hill, James (Southampton Test)

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Horam, John

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Couchman, James

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Cran, James

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

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

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

        Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Day, Stephen

        Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

        Deva, Nirj Joseph

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

        Hunter, Andrew

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Dover, Den

        Jack, Michael

        Duncan, Alan

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Duncan-Smith, Iain

        Jenkin, Bernard

        107

        Jessel, Toby

        Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

        Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Sackville, Tom

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

        Knapman, Roger

        Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Knight, Greg (Derby N)

        Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

        Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Shersby, Michael

        Lang, Rt Hon Ian

        Sims, Roger

        Lawrence, Sir Ivan

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Legg, Barry

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Leigh, Edward

        Soames, Nicholas

        Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

        Speed, Sir Keith

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Spencer, Sir Derek

        Lidington, David

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Lightbown, David

        Spink, Dr Robert

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Spring, Richard

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Sproat, Iain

        Lord, Michael

        Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Steen, Anthony

        MacKay, Andrew

        Stephen, Michael

        Maclean, David

        Stern, Michael

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Stewart, Allan

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Streeter, Gary

        Madel, Sir David

        Sumberg, David

        Maitland, Lady Olga

        Sykes, John

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Malone, Gerald

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Mans, Keith

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Marlow, Tony

        Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

        Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Thomason, Roy

        Mates, Michael

        Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Mellor, Rt Hon David

        Thornton, Sir Malcolm

        Merchant, Piers

        Thurnham, Peter

        Mills, Iain

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

        Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

        Tracey, Richard

        Moate, Sir Roger

        Trend, Michael

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Moss, Malcolm

        Viggers, Peter

        Needham, Rt Hon Richard

        Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

        Nelson, Anthony

        Walden, George

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Walker, Bill

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Waller, Gary

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Ward, John

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Norris, Steve

        Waterson, Nigel

        Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

        Watts, John

        Ottaway, Richard

        Wells, Bowen

        Patnick, Sir Irvine

        Whitney, Ray

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Whittingdale, John

        Pawsey, James

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Willetts, David

        Pickles, Eric

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Wolfson, Mark

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Wood, Timothy

        Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

        Yeo, Tim

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Mr. Sydney Chapman and

        Robathan, Andrew

        Dr. Liam Fox.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Conway]
        Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.
        Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some days ago, I tabled a series of questions to the Home Secretary about a contract issued in respect of a computer for the probation service. Those questions were duly accepted, and are listed as Nos. 186, 198, 209 and 231 on the Order Paper today.
        It is now after 10 o'clock and, in accordance with the normal conventions, those questions which were due for answer today should have been notified to me either by way of a written answer or by being tabled for the press. Neither has happened. It is clear that the answers to those questions will be in Hansard tomorrow, and it is also clear that the Home Office—officials of which I have been trying to contact all night—has deliberately avoided answering the questions on the named day. The reason it has done so is undoubtedly suspicious. We are talking here about a £20 million computer contract which may well be—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. He must take the matter up with the Minister concerned, as it is not a matter for the Chair at this stage.
        Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled on the hon. Gentleman's point of order.
        Mr. Bermingham rose—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled on it, and there can be no further points of order on that matter.
        Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
        Mr. Bermingham: No. Several times in the past, the Chair has ruled that it is the convention that Members—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has just ruled, and there can be no further points of order on that subject.

    Legal Services
    10.8 pm
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move,
    That the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 20th April, be approved.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
    That the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 20th April, be approved.
    Mr. Taylor: The order and regulations will bring into force the conditional fee provisions of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The scheme will greatly widen access to justice by enabling lawyers to act on a "no win, no fee" basis. To reflect the risk that that entails, lawyers will be able to charge an uplift on their normal fees if the litigation is successful. The Courts and Legal Services Act provides that the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the designated judges and the profession, should prescribe the types of proceedings in which conditional fee agreements would be allowable, the maximum percentage uplift that would be permitted and any other requirements that he considers necessary. Those matters are set out in the draft order and regulations.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: The Lord Chancellor, with his great expertise in Scottish law, will no doubt have considered the success of similar arrangements that have been available in Scotland for some time. What has been the uptake of those arrangements in Scotland, and how successful have they been?
    Mr. Taylor: I will come back to that matter, but I can say that an uplift of 100 per cent. is exactly what has been allowed since 1992 under the Scottish speculative fee scheme. [Interruption.] I will answer at the end of the debate.
    Personal injury litigation would seem particularly well suited to conditional fee agreements because although the uplift or "success fee", as it is often called, is not directly related to the amount of damages recovered, the fact that there will be a monetary award in successful cases will give the litigant the means to pay his lawyer's fees.
    In the light of representations made during the consultation exercise to which I have referred, the Lord Chancellor decided to include insolvency proceedings and cases before the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. The Lord Chancellor has set the maximum uplift at 100 per cent. That will encourage lawyers to accept cases with a 50:50 chance of success which, if the uplift were lower, they might not be inclined to take. The whole purpose of the new arrangement is to extend access to justice.
    I consider that the proposals will prove a valuable addition to the judicial system in this country, and I commend them to the House.
    10.10 pm
    Mr. Paul Boateng: The Minister's failure to respond to the query of my—he is not an hon. Friend yet—the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) speaks volumes. Was his reticence due to a lack of information on his part? Will it
    110
    soon be remedied by a flurry of notes and interest from the silent ones, or was it unlikely and, in my respectful submission, unhelpful reticence on the point? Perhaps the response will come any minute now, so I shall of course give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Perhaps the Minister's reticence is due to the fact that in Scotland the self-same regulations—or at least regulations of a sort upon which the measures are based—have not produced any appreciable benefit to the consumer of legal services. It is by those criteria that the Opposition judge the measures. What will be the benefit not to the lawyer but to the consumer of legal services? On that issue, the jury is out.
    Mr. Taylor: Actually, it is not. I have a letter dated 11 May from Meriel Thorne, the parliamentary officer of the Consumers Association. She states:
    "As we made clear in our response to the various consultations from the Lord Chancellor's Department, we warmly support this provision. We support the new arrangements for the improved choice and access to justice they will provide for the large number of people currently prevented from enforcing their legal rights. We welcome"—
    this is the Consumers Association—
    "the means of support they will offer for those who would otherwise be deterred from pursuing their legal rights by the fear of legal costs."
    The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Greg Knight): Withdraw.
    Mr. Boateng: I hear a cry of "Withdraw" from the usually silent one, but I have no intention of doing so. I repeat, the jury remains out, and the Minister's attempt to rely on a specious majority verdict with the numbers made up by the National Consumer Council is not going to work.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence rose—
    Mr. Boateng: I shall give way in a moment, but I fancy that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be making his own contribution in due course.
    Why is it that, despite his intervention, the Minister has failed to answer the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery?
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: What is the hon. Gentleman doing talking about juries? The order will not apply to jury trials.
    Mr. Boateng: That contribution speaks for itself. Even at this late stage of the evening, one would hope for better from the hon. and learned Gentleman. Still, one lives in hope.
    It is not good enough for the Minister to pray in aid the National Consumer Council. He is not alone in having letters from the council—we can all produce and refer to them. The regulations fail to deal with the council's concerns about the particular arrangements for the conditional fees proposed by the Minister and the issue of the 100 per cent. uplift.
    The council is not alone in expressing concern about the extent of that uplift. It commends to the Minister that the Law Society should encourage solicitors to put a voluntary cap of 25 per cent. of the total damages as the amount that they take in success fees, even if it is less

    111
    than the agreed success fee. Is that something which the Minister will join the National Consumer Council and the Opposition—
    Mr. John M. Taylor: At least for the correction of Hansard, I repeat that I am reading a letter of unqualified support not from the National Consumer Council, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but from the Consumers Association. The record should be clear on that.
    Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to the Minister for that because it did surprise me that he should suggest that the consumers spoke with one voice on this issue. He admits by that intervention that the National Consumer Council's doubts about the measures remain, and they remain unanswered by the Minister.
    Is the Minister prepared to join the National Consumer Council in calling on the Law Society to encourage solicitors in every way to impose a voluntary cap? Does he think that that is desirable? The Minister remains silent, so we must conclude that he is not prepared to put the authority of his office and that of the Lord Chancellor behind that modest proposal as a way of safeguarding the consumer.
    Mr. Edward Garnier rose—
    Mr. Spencer Batiste rose—
    Mr. Boateng: I am glad to see such a flurry of interest from the Conservatives. It is welcome on a matter of such importance. We all look forward to the speeches that they will no doubt make on the issue.
    Will the Minister deal with the following matter on behalf of consumers? In 1994, the National Consumer Council's research into client care found communication about costs—even in ordinary arrangements—to be a problem. About one third of privately paying clients surveyed did not receive adequate information about likely costs. Given the greater potential for misunderstanding between client and solicitor over the highly complicated terms of agreement and the variety of possible outcomes envisaged in these regulations, what steps will the Minister undertake to take, here and now, to ensure that the potential for misunderstandings between solicitors and clients is reduced in that regard, as without that Conservative Members and many others will continue to fear the impact of the arrangements on consumers and on their welfare?
    Mr. Batiste: I am a little confused by what the hon. Gentleman said. It appeared to be self-contradictory. From his early comments on the Scottish experience, I thought that he was saying that conditional fees should be encouraged, but that they had been relatively unsuccessful in capturing the public imagination in Scotland. Yet, by his subsequent proposal that only a 25 per cent. uplift should be allowed, is he not in effect saying that it is unlikely to be successful anywhere, as few people will be prepared to take the risk at those levels?
    Mr. Boateng: There is no contradiction. Our concern—it must be one that is shared by all people of good will—is that every effort should be made to encourage and support arrangements that improve and enhance the consumer's access to justice. We take that as read. These proposals
    112
    have been much vaunted by the right hon. Lord Chancellor and, indeed, by the Minister as an important response to the problem of access to justice.
    Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Boateng: Not at the moment.
    The Opposition are pointing out that, in the light of the Scottish experience, it would be wrong for us to see these arrangements as some sort of panacea for the problems that exist in promoting access to justice. Now that the regulations have been laid before the House, our concern is to ensure that every encouragement is given to ensure that they work in the interests of the consumer. Hence the concern about the cap, and a recognition of the role of a voluntary cap in some cases, but also, and importantly, the concern about ensuring that consumers of legal services who enter into such agreements with their solicitors are fully aware of all the implications for their relationship with their solicitor. We regard that as important.
    Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Boateng: No, not at the moment.
    We are anxious to receive assurances from the Minister on a further matter—the potential, which the National Consumer Council has pointed out, for solicitors to exaggerate the difficulties of winning to justify a high success fee, even if it is an open and shut case. Where they can, clients must treat conditional fees like any other business transaction and must be in a position to shop around to get the best deal. That is why we urge the Government to ensure that safeguards are in place for the consumer. As the arrangements are put in place for the first time, we also want the Government to keep them under constant review to ensure that consumers get the best possible deal and to avoid some of the potential dangers that have been identified.
    It is important that the Government respond to the concerns about the proposals expressed in the other place and elsewhere by the judiciary. The criticisms of Lord Justice Steyn, Lord Ackner and Lord Simon of Glaisedale in particular require the Government's consideration. I would welcome a sign from the Minister that Lord Steyn's urgings that officials in his Department rethink the proposals have had some effect. It would be wrong of the Minister to ignore the concerns expressed by Lord Steyn, not least the warning that, under the present arrangements, litigants might find all their damages swallowed up in increased fees. Lord Steyn's committee said that the risk applies even if those are increased by only 50 per cent. The risk is that much greater if they are increased by 100 per cent.
    Mr. Garnier: I am diffident about interrupting the hon. Gentleman because I know that for some years he was a solicitor and for some little while has been a barrister, but will he tell the House what is the Labour party's policy on that measure? Does it support it or not?
    Mr. Boateng: I had hoped that it would be possible to discuss this measure, raising, as we are bound to raise, the concerns on the part of consumers but, at the same time, not ignoring the importance of exploring, by all

    113
    reasonable means, the opportunity to give consumers greater access to justice and legal services. I hope that that sets the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind at rest.
    Mr. Garnier indicated dissent.
    Mr. Boateng: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is unduly exercised by the fact that he may be required to wait a little longer to see whether we divide the House on this issue. If that is his concern, as I suspect it may be, I have no intention whatever of putting him out of his misery. He can wait just a little longer.
    Mr. Garnier rose—
    Mr. Boateng: I do not intend to give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman again.
    Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman is frightened.
    Mr. Boateng: I think not.
    Our purpose in ensuring that we had a full debate on the issue on the Floor of the House tonight was to seek from the Minister the reassurances that I have outlined. We feel the need to do that given the absence of reassurances so far. When the Lord Chancellor and the Minister were advised about the concerns expressed by the higher judiciary about the proposals, far from saying that they had rethought the scheme, they expressed their determination to persist with it, come what may. That is not the attitude for which we would have hoped from the Minister and the Lord Chancellor. We can only hope that the Minister will be able to offer us some of the reassurances that we seek.
    We also seek some assurances about the Law Society's proposals for insurance. It has apparently proposed a scheme under which some clients, but not all, can protect themselves against paying the legal costs of their opponents if they lose. Lord Steyn has said that such a scheme is of great importance, but the Law Society has been singularly unforthcoming in producing the detail about its provisions that one would want. It is by no means clear whether everyone litigating under the no-win, no-fee arrangements would be able to obtain cover.
    Has the Minister's Department met representatives of the Law Society to discuss the scheme? What advice has the Law Society been given about the scheme? Will it cover all those who seek to avail themselves of its benefits? Our decision on whether to divide the House on the proposals will depend upon the Minister's responses to those questions. Hope springs eternal—
    Mr. Alex Carlile: They have all gone home.
    Mr. Boateng: I am surprised at the hon. and learned Gentleman, whom I sought to support in his earlier humble contribution. It just shows that it would be premature to regard him as a friend. I am surprised that he should make such an unkind remark from a sedentary position, suggesting that all my hon. Friends have gone home. That is far from the truth. Not all of them have—
    Mr. Carlile: Just two others are here.
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has done distinguished service on the matter. If pushed, I can assure the Minister and
    114
    Conservative Members that my hon. Friends will come out of the woodwork to do their duty by the consumers of legal services.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: What normally comes out of the woodwork is sap and creepy-crawlies.
    Mr. Boateng: We look forward to yet more comments from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that we will be treated to speech from him, because, given his current position, it would be a shame if he did not share his wisdom with a wider audience.
    We will determine whether to divide the House once we have heard the Minister's response to our queries.
    10.32 pm
    Mr. Spencer Batiste: I shall speak briefly, in deference to colleagues and the hour of the night.
    Given the potential importance of the subject, it is important that certain things are placed on the record. I speak as a solicitor. Although I have not practised in litigation for many years, I have watched closely developments in the law.
    The justice system is currently prone to serious problems, particularly in relation to civil litigation. They relate basically to access to justice and the cost of it. The proposals seek to address those two elements.
    The problem that faces most people is that, if they do not qualify for legal aid, they can barely afford litigation. A large proportion of the population is therefore precluded from civil litigation.
    There is an even worse injustice. An individual who is sued by a person who has legal aid is in an unenviable position even if he wins. It is often the case that the person being sued—the defendant—is only slightly wealthier than the person who sues him. Those problems must be solved if we are to have a modern justice system.
    In the United States, there have been many pitfalls and abuses that do nothing to enhance the United States justice system, but bring it substantially into disrepute. The Government must be congratulated on striking a balance, in the legislation before us, which avoids the pitfalls of the United States and tries to divine the best of the lessons that must be learnt from the American experience while adapting them to the United Kingdom's specific institutions.
    It seems to me that many practitioners in the law will be prepared to take on conditional fee litigation in the types of cases where the odds of success are roughly 50:50. It seems to me that they should not take up cases where the odds are significantly less than that, because that tends to lead to the vexatious litigation that takes place extensively in the United States.
    However, there are an awful lot of people who, if they are told by their lawyers that they have a 50:50 chance of winning, simply cannot afford to take the risk of litigating. The regulations that we are discussing tackle that problem. In giving an uplift to fees rather than giving a share of damages, one avoids the excesses of the United States, where lawyers have a direct stake in the amount of damages that will be won.
    The controls and caps that have been introduced, which will be introduced in detailed regulations by the Law Society and, potentially, by the Government, will avoid the abuses that have been described by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).

    115
    However, it is important that that type of litigation is widely used and available for people who at the moment feel that they have no recourse to justice. If the terms and conditions of the order are made more restrictive than they are now, they will not be used. I believe that the balance is right, and that the legislation should be passed as it is. Obviously, it should be kept under close surveillance. If further adjustments are necessary in future, so be it, but it is an excellent first attempt at what should be an important step in modernising justice in Britain.
    10.36 pm
    Mr. Alex Carlile: I should start by declaring an interest, as a practising barrister who does a certain amount of personal injury litigation in the course of my practice.
    There is no reason why new systems should not be introduced which increase the availability of justice and access to justice, as the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) said. If that system will work on that basis, it should be welcomed. The question is, will it work and what will it replace, if anything?
    As to whether it will work, the Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough to give way to me during his opening speech, but his response was an extraordinarily skittish one for a Minister speaking from the Dispatch Box. The usual purpose of asking questions of Ministers in the early stages of a debate is so that the debate can be informed. The Parliamentary Secretary deliberately chose not to inform the debate.
    Mr. John M. Taylor rose—
    Mr. Carlile: I will give way in a moment.
    The Minister deliberately chose not to inform the debate during his opening speech in such a way that his answer could be considered during other speeches in the debate. He told us that he would inform the debate of the answer to my question when he came to reply to the debate—if that happens.
    I will give way to the Minister in a moment, but I would ask him to tell us what the uptake has been in Scotland. I suggest to him that the uptake in Scotland has been disappointing. Conditional fee arrangements have hardly been used in civil litigation in Scotland. It is incumbent on the Minister to tell the House what the Lord Chancellor's Department has done to try to ensure that the measures are not simply a paper tiger, as they are in Scotland, but bring more people into the courts with their claims.
    Now I will give way to the Minister, if he will answer the question.
    Mr. Taylor: I invited the hon. and learned Gentleman to give way to me a moment ago because I did not want to leave him with the impression that I had sidestepped his question, at the time when he posed it, out of any disrespect for the House or any unwillingness to answer his question. From time to time, there is a place in the House for candour. I did not answer the question at the time because I did not know the answer. I have no statistics in front of me, but I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman put his question in a statistical form and I will not reply in a statistical idiom.
    116
    I understand, upon advice, that the Scottish experience has been that the take-up of what I think is called the speculative fee system in Scotland has been fairly limited. It has not been overwhelming or encouraging—those involved have not been run over by the weight of the business. But I also say in precisely the same spirit—again, not statistically, but in good faith to the hon. and learned Gentleman—that there is quite a body of anecdotal evidence that there is a willingness in England and Wales to take up the scheme with some enthusiasm. As the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) asked, am I—the Minister—and the Lord Chancellor's Department prepared to keep matters under review? We certainly are—but we have got to give the scheme a try.
    Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his candour. But it seems extraordinary that the Government have brought forward an order and regulations for conditional fee agreements without inquiring fully into the way in which the system works in Scotland and making adjustments to the English and Welsh situation to take into account Scottish experience.
    The position is even more dramatic than the Parliamentary Secretary's anecdotal answer suggested. In Scotland, speculative fee agreements are hardly used at all. One could probably count up the number of such agreements that there have been since they were introduced on the fingers of two people's hands.
    Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Carlile: I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment. It is a pleasure to see him present. He is to be congratulated on having recently been admitted to silk. The hon. and learned Gentleman is an expert—indeed, a foremost expert, as has recently been confirmed—in the law of defamation and specialises in that sphere of practice.
    One matter which concerns many is that the conditional fee arrangements do not apply to defamation actions of any sort. Legal aid is not available for defamation cases. Many people of modest means find it impossible to bring proceedings, particularly against big guns such as newspapers, when they have been seriously defamed, because legal aid is not available and they cannot find a generous backer for their claim. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that is an aspect of the regulations which needs to be reconsidered?
    Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind words, but the question that I want to ask him does not relate to defamation. He has clearly studied the Scottish position with some care. Can he tell the House, from his studies, what is the position where a lawyer acting for a contingency fee plaintiff is unsuccessful? What happens to the successful defendant? From whom does he recover his costs? Does he recover his costs from the effectively maintained plaintiff, from the maintaining lawyer or not at all?
    Mr. Carlile: My understanding of the situation in Scotland is that he recovers his costs, and that where he recovers them from depends on the nature of the agreement entered into.
    I must reflect a little disappointment that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not answer the question about defamation with which I tempted him.

    117
    The agreements referred to in the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 1995 are both complex and far from what I think was originally in mind when the Lord Chancellor introduced the proposals which eventually formed the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The agreements that will be permitted will not be conditional on the case being successful, either by judgment or by settlement out of court. The agreements include a situation in which the litigant will have to pay certain fees to his or her lawyer in any event. That is clear from regulation 3(c), which provides for payment
    "upon partial failure of the specified circumstances…irrespective of the specified circumstances…and upon termination of the agreement for any reason."
    That will put rather unequal power in the hands of lawyers entering into conditional fee agreements because litigants who can find no assistance elsewhere might well find their lawyers placing agreements in front of them that will require payment of the lawyers' costs in part in any event. One does not have equal bargaining power.
    I do not know what consultations the Lord Chancellor's Department has had with the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar on these matters, but it is extremely important that the enthusiasm of the Consumers Association should be tempered by such considerations. It is vital that such agreements should be entered into at arm's length, under strict controls and in fair circumstances.
    Before I give way to the Minister, I will ask him another question. Can he confirm that, if a plaintiff enters into a conditional fee agreement—for example, in respect of a medical negligence action which may involve enormously expensive expert witnesses, and these days good experts attending court tend to ask for at least £1,000 a day—and that plaintiff wins his case, he will be able to recover all his costs, including the uplift from the other side? If that is the case, and it seems right from the plaintiff's viewpoint that that should be the position, how does the Minister justify to the defendant's side that they may be paying double the costs in such an action? What is the solution to that conundrum?
    Mr. John M. Taylor: I shall need to reflect on the last point that the hon. and learned Gentleman put to me. On the first point, about the mismatch in bargaining between the lawyer and the client, the hon. and learned Gentleman needs no law lectures from me. His attainment as a lawyer is probably well beyond mine, but he will be familiar with those relationships known as uberrimae fidei, or of the utmost good faith, in which the doctrine of undue influence comes into play. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know from his learned studies that, if a solicitor exploits the relative weakness of his client in those circumstances, the outturn will be determined contra preferentem, or against the person advantaged, or in other words against the solicitor.
    Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman, from his experience as a high street solicitor—[Interruption.] I believe that the address of his office was the high street in Walsall. He will know from his considerable experience and expertise—and it happens to all Members of Parliament—that allegations of undue influence are extremely difficult to prove, although many of us come across them on a regular basis in respect of probate matters which are brought to our constituency surgeries.
    118
    The doctrine of uberrimae fidei will not give a great deal of comfort to ordinary litigants. In the fastnesses of Montgomeryshire, people think of nothing but uberrimae fidei as they drink their tea and enjoy the Barra Bridd.
    I also suggest to the Minister that there is real concern that proceedings before the civil courts are to be consigned to conditional fee arrangements as civil legal aid is allowed to wither on the vine. Will he give a commitment on the part of the Government that such agreements are not intended to deal with everyday run-of-the-mill cases? Those arrangements are intended to deal with the residue of cases where legal aid may not be available or where the litigant may be just above the legal aid means test limit and is thus deprived of that remedy unless some other mechanism is found.
    I turn to proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. The Minister will know that that is a very specialised and difficult field of practice. It is also a potentially very expensive field of practice because one pays the price for the expertise that one receives. Very few lawyers in this country—I doubt whether there are any in the House—can claim to be expert in those matters, other than possibly the Attorney-General, whose services are not available to the ordinary litigant. I believe that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General have appeared before the European Court of Human Rights from time to time.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: And lost.
    Mr. Carlile: And lost occasionally, as the hon. Gentleman—who cannot wait to have a go at the lawyers in his usual fashion—says from a Sedentary position.
    It seems to me that the best and soundest route politically to the European Court of Human Rights is through legal aid rather than a conditional fee arrangement. There is a real risk that conditional fee arrangements will prove a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with such complex matters. Surely our society should be prepared to extend legal aid to those very few cases which make their way to the European Commission and to the even fewer which make their way to the European Court.
    In conclusion, I wish to address the types of lawyers—particularly the types of solicitors—who will take on those arrangements. There are some excellent solicitors, some very bad solicitors and a great mass of competent solicitors in the middle. All those who have practised at the Bar over the years will know of the existence of what one might loosely call the "dodgy solicitor".
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Or dodgy barrister.
    Mr. Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman wish me to give way or will he withdraw that remark, which I understand was directed at me?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not hear the remark as I was speaking to the Clerk at the time. I do not know what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) is alleged to have said.
    Mr. Carlile: I will not pursue the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

    119
    There is a real fear that dodgy solicitors, and perhaps occasionally the odd dodgy barrister, may be more prepared than others to take on this type of agreement, and there is thus a risk that lawyers of lesser quality will build practices in this area. I ask the Minister to assure the House that the issue has been or will be discussed with the Law Society as well as the General Council of the Bar.
    Despite the criticism which is sometimes very justifiably levelled at lawyers, we are quite proud of the quality of the legal system in this country. The American lawyers who came in droves to advise us about the then Courts and Legal Services Bill which was before Parliament strongly recommended against conditional fee arrangements. Will the Minister give an assurance that the quality issue will be addressed so that real scrutiny can take place and we may ensure that, when the agreements are used, they are used properly?
    10.53 pm
    Mr. David Harris: As a layman, I hesitate to rush in where my honourable and learned colleagues fear to tread. However, I share some of the apprehensions that have been expressed during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) put it well when he said that no hon. Member wishes to rush down the American road in this area. We do not want to see litigation multiply at an alarming rate on the basis that, if a lawyer does not win the case, he or she will not receive a fee. As constituency Members—that is how I approach the issue—we have all come across constituents who believe that they have a right to justice, that they must therefore be supported, usually through legal aid or some other means, and who want to take their case to the ultimate body, which normally means the European Court of Human Rights or the European Court of Justice. They do not know the distinction between the two.
    This is my fear about the order. We may end up with litigation which will bog down our courts and buoy up people's expectation that they will win, when they probably will not. We must guard against that danger. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) fairly said however, some people have an absolute right, as we would all agree, to pursue their case, but for one reason or another they cannot do so. That is the dilemma facing the House.
    I am minded to vote for the order because the Government have approached it with due caution and have probably struck the right balance in a difficult situation, but I should hate the outcome of the debate to be that the House encourages people to go to a lawyer, saying that perhaps there are dodgy solicitors and barristers—I would not know about these matters—who will take up their case and fight it to the ultimate. As the hon. and learned Gentleman warned, however, there may be a downside and those people may have to pick up part of the bill. We must be careful about that.
    I shall vote for the order, but I do so with some trepidation because I do not want us to go down the American road, which has led to increasing litigation, with everyone feeling that they have a right to go to the courts at someone else's expense, although it might be at
    120
    their own expense. I do not want that to happen. I shall vote for the Government's proposals, but on the basis that real dangers exist in pursuing the American example.
    10.57 pm
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I speak as a non-lawyer who takes a close interest in these issues. The danger with all legal service matters, particularly here, is that policy and legal services will be formulated exclusively by lawyers, who have a vested interest in maintaining their income. The voice of the consumer—the people—is never heard. That domination by lawyers is damaging.
    Admittedly, tonight many lawyers have spent most of their time criticising dodgy lawyers—they should know their own trade. Lawyers always safeguard themselves against each other, but never take account of people's interests, which should be dominant when we approach this important issue.
    Tonight, we are expanding the range of available legal services in a way that does not cost much and that will introduce an element of competition to serve the people. In some respects, I am qualified to speak because I have a history in the argument. This debate is like a class reunion of those who attended the debate on the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Five years on, the class is as old and as repellent as ever, but it brings together the arguments. The order results from that Act.
    When some of us argued for contingency fees on the American pattern, the Lord Chancellor proposed this canny Scottish idea. He said that it would be an alternative to the full flowering of contingency fees and that we should build on the Scottish precedent. I am happy to go down that road. The fact that we first took that road in 1990 but only now are considering the order shows the slowness of change. What the hell has been going on? Why has it taken so long? I can imagine all the grudging discussions and the acquiesence in getting these measures past the judges, but this incredible series of delays shows how difficult it will be to bring the full flowering of legal services to the people.
    I argued for contingency fees. When I visited the United States to lecture for the English Speaking Union, I was impressed by the effectiveness of contingency fees in the hands of crusading lawyers. I know that they are much criticised as ambulance chasing but I saw, particularly in the southern states, crusading lawyers who were prepared to push cases at enormous risk and expenditure to themselves, on the basis of contingency fees. Without those fees, the cases would not have been pursued. We need similar endeavour in this country, because that would bring legal services to the people in a way that nothing else can.
    We will never return to the days of wide-ranging legal aid services of a few years ago. The Lord Chancellor began brilliantly—and I am still a strong supporter of his—but increasingly he is becoming Treasury-driven. That means meanness towards legal aid. We must accept as a fact of life that legal aid provision will decrease. Legal aid can never work as a full and adequate form of funding as long as it is drained off into the bottomless pit of private practice. As long as we support private practice, it will be expensive to provide legal services to the people. I hope that Labour will spend more on legal aid and will

    121
    commit itself to wider provision. However, even Labour will never attain the full range of legal services that would obviate the need for some kind of additional service
    Legal aid will never be adequate, so we need measures to defend the causes, interests and concerns of the people. The legal system is pricing itself out of the market. It will never be adequate until we have an employed legal service—a public defender service for criminal matters and an employed legal service at law centres for civil matters. I would like law centres to participate in conditional fee arrangements.
    Until we have full provision of legal services, these measures are a beneficial step towards the American system. We have not yet tackled the costs problem. If we are going down the American path, I see no reason for not pursuing the same path in respect of costs. Why should they be allocated against the losing side? A sensible compromise has been reached—to allow a case to go forward without the risk of costs—with which I am happy.
    I am happy with the range of uplift, because, since there is a range of cases, a degree of risk and a range of possibilities, it is sensible that fees should approximate to that gradation of risks. I should like all cases to be pursued. I do not see why only those with a 50:50 chance of success should be considered because the boundaries widen all the time. Until we extend those boundaries by taking more risks, we shall never know what cases will be successful or not. Why stop at 50:50? Why not include 60:40 or 70:30 cases? All such cases need pursuing.
    I like the word "uplift" in respect of lawyers' fees. The next time that I meet members of the Law Society I shall ask them specially about their uplift. It makes me think of the Church of England, which is a very uplifting institution. The Law Society will clearly become a much more uplifting institution under this new system. It is fair that the uplift is gradated as the regulations provide. The uplift has to be agreed by the client and, indeed, it is subject to an appeal—ultimately, effectively, by the client.
    I am worried, however, by the telling point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). When I consider such matters, my test is, "How will it work in Grimsby?" When people want to pursue a case against a hospital, a medical practice or whatever, they shop around among solicitors. If there is provision for the charging of fees in such cases and if there has to be an agreement, not only on the level of uplift but on what fees are charged, a conspiracy—a ring of lawyers—could develop. Solicitors could say, "Let's charge them this. Let's charge them that. Let's not take any case below a certain level of uplift." That is the danger.
    How will the provisions work in a town such as Grimsby? In such a scenario, the less power given to solicitors to increase the uplift and the charges to the client, the better. We must have and encourage full and free access for the people of Grimsby to the legal services they need to defend themselves against powerful major institutions. The more the system becomes one of haggling and quibbling, the greater the potential of a conspiracy against the public and the people of Grimsby.
    Mr. Michael Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he does an injustice to the solicitors of Grimsby? Does he accept that competition between
    122
    solicitors is very fierce indeed and that, in fact, it is driving charges to the consumer down almost to the point at which some legal practices are becoming non-viable?
    Mr. Mitchell: There is a conspiracy against people in many respects. There was clearly a conspiracy on fees for conveyancing until it was broken by ending the conveyancing monopoly and introducing fair competition. As long as lawyers have a monopoly, there is danger of a conspiracy. I might be exaggerating, but I do not want to give them any leverage that might enable them to conspire against the people.
    In a big city, there is more competition and solicitors might be prepared to stand up and say that they are willing to take a risk, but I do not want the people of Grimsby to have to go to Leeds or Sheffield for legal advice because only there can they find an independent, determined solicitor who will take on the system and exact less demanding terms from them than a local conspiracy of solicitors. Small towns lead to conspiracy. I am afraid that that is true of so many professional services and I do not want to give the legal system any cause to follow suit. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was quite right to raise that point.
    The system will bring a better legal service to ordinary people than legal aid. Legal aid is, in any case, contracting. It is becoming less adequate and it often tends to be the sort of provision which has fallen off the back of the practice. I am perfectly happy to accept 100 per cent. uplift, if it would mean that cases were pursued which would not otherwise be taken on. That is the important point.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Mitchell: No. I am, believe it or not, grinding to a conclusion.
    The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that the process was little used in Scotland. Scotland does not have a system that provides for costs like the insurance system in this country. In addition, the system will be used increasingly as the boundaries of legal aid contract. The system will be an attractive alternative and I am happy to support it.
    With the right degree of muscle, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said that we would wait for the Minister's reply. I will not anticipate his reply and I will support the measure whatever the Minister says because it is a step on the way to solving the desperate need to bring more effective legal services to the people of this country.
    I do not want the measure to be unduly restrictive, and I am worried about the restrictions that it contains. I regard it not as the end, but as the beginning. It is only a step on the way, but it will allow people to advance cases that would not otherwise be taken up. It is a step on the way to a paid legal service which will reach the parts that conditional fees cannot reach. I still want to move down that track. There is still a need to adopt the full American system of contingency fees where they take a slice of the winnings. Why not do that if it brings legal services to the people?
    On the basis that the proposal is an advance and something that can be built on, improved, expanded and developed, we should support it.
    11.10 pm
    Mr. John M. Taylor: If there is a Division tonight, it will be interesting to see whether the Labour party fields one Member in each Lobby and, if so, where the Lib-Lab accrual will take place.
    On a more serious note, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), who summed matters up so neatly and eloquently that I shall take Hansard tomorrow to read his in-a-nutshell treatment of what the Government are trying to do.
    The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) extended to me the courtesy of endeavouring to deal with some of his questions in interventions during the debate. He also asked me to reassure the House that conditional fees are not intended to supplant legal aid and I am very pleased to do that on behalf of the Government: They are not intended to replace legal aid in any way. They are intended to complement legal aid, to provide an extra choice to the consumer, a greater versatility and a variety of options to people who find it hard, difficult and expensive to go to law.
    With regard to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery about whether clients would be advised fairly in those circumstances, I draw his attention to the narrow point, which is squarely met however, by regulation 4(2)(a) of the regulations, which states that one of the things that the client must be advised on is whether he or she
    "might be entitled to legal aid in respect of the proceedings".
    That is, as it were, built into the script.
    The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery told us of his experience of American lawyers coming to this country and advising against contingency fees in 1990. He is right. American lawyers advised against contingency fees where the reward to the lawyer is based on the damages. In advancing conditional fees, we are promoting a scheme where the reward to the lawyer is proportionate to the fee agreed with the client or awarded against the other side by the court.
    The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) quite rightly deployed arguments in favour of the protection of the client. While waiting to reply to this debate, I considered whether I should answer his questions by reading a substantial passage from the longer speech that I had thought of using tonight. On reflection, I think that the regulations are far more specific than my text, and I therefore commend to the hon. Gentleman regulations 3 and 4, which set out definitively the protection of a client who is entering into an agreement.
    At the risk of saying this twice, I advise the hon. Member for Brent, South and the House of the
    124
    long-standing doctrine of undue influence, whereby in cases where one party's solicitor is in a greatly advantageous position against the client, the rules of interpretation favour the weaker party, as they should. I have said that we will keep the matters under review.
    I was requested to comment on the insurance arrangements. The Lord Chancellor's Department has discussed the insurance scheme with the Law Society, which has made it clear that it is willing to provide details of the scheme to anyone who is interested in it.
    My hon. and good Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) usefully made the distinction between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice—a distinction that is often overlooked. The different roles, constitutions and cultures of the courts are not widely known.
    My hon. Friend also referred to the "American road" down which he feared we were going, and that qualified his welcome for the measure. I understand that, and I thought that he spoke fairly, but the American example is of lawyers' rewards that are geared to damages. We eschew that, and are interested in lawyers' rewards geared to the original base fee agreed, or to the costs awarded in the case by the court.
    The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is a member of the class of 1990, as I am, and he has a record in these subjects as long as your arm. He possesses creditable form in the issue, and always enlivens these occasions. I am glad that he felt able to support the measures, because in the name of fair play he has been one of the agents of reform. He says that reform has gone too slowly, and that it has taken since 1990 to get to where we are tonight. I understand his taking that view, because he was never content with the pace of progress.
    I find myself criticised in some quarters for haste, and in some other quarters for leaden-footedness. I cannot win, which probably means that I will not get a fee. I would like to make secure the order and the regulations tonight.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 20th April, be approved.
    Resolved,
    That the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 20th April, be approved.—[Mr. John M. Taylor]

    Employment (Waveney)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
    11.12 pm
    Mr. David Porter: I would like to thank Madam Speaker for the opportunity to raise the matter of employment in Waveney, in particular the barriers to employment. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), is unwell and cannot reply to the debate, as he knows something of my constituency in addition to what his officials tell him. I am delighted, however, that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is here to reply, and I am grateful to her.
    Clearly, unemployment nationally is falling, but the perception in Waveney is that we are still in dire straits economically. Unemployment in Waveney from March 1994 to March 1995 fell by 3 per cent., but that is not the perception locally. Politics is all about perception, and that is why I want to bring to the attention of the House some aspects of Waveney's particular circumstances. I do not want to be guilty of the same charge that I sometimes level at my local authority of running my area down, but some unique circumstances need attention.
    My constituency association recently did a survey in a residential area, and the overriding concern on the doorsteps was local employment. When I visit schools, the overwhelming issue for all youngsters approaching school-leaving age is local employment and the inevitability of having to move away to work. In a constituency where the majority of people are still native born and bred, that is a serious factor in the political equation.
    SCEALA, the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities, found last year that the region is beginning to recover from recession, but the Henley centre for forecasting put Waveney among the worst economic prospects for Britain, along with Liverpool, Gateshead and south Tyneside.
    Historically, Waveney developed around the fishing industry at Lowestoft and agriculture in the hinterland. By the 1970s, the whole economy had become dependent on oil and gas offshore, shipbuilding, fishing, food processing and tourism. By 1981, we were the most industrialised district in Suffolk. Since then, there has been a 19 per cent. reduction in the proportion of the work force employed in manufacturing nationally, but a 26 per cent. reduction in Waveney.
    We know that no one owes the country a living, so it certainly does not owe Waveney a living. We know that. We know the stark modern facts on industries—that, in general, the time between the sunrise and the sunset of an industry is getting smaller. We know that. We know the reality on national manufacturing figures—7 million jobs in 1979 and 4 million today, but the 4 million make more than the 7 million did, and all because of technology, which we cannot uninvent or even slow down. We know that. But Waveney's dependence then and still on a declining manufacturing base makes prospects seem much bleaker.
    The UK national average of manufacturing employees in the work force is 22 per cent.; in Waveney it is 27 per cent. There has been some service and high-tech industrial
    126
    development, and some firms are doing very well. I should list some of them for the record. They are SLP,
    Kvaerner Oil and Gas, Birds Eye, Clays of Bungay, Harrod's of Lowestoft, Sanyo, Adnams of Southwold, Bernard Matthews, M and H Plastics, Fibernyle of Beccles, and a host of smaller firms. We know that.
    We know that in a vibrant economy, businesses collapse and are taken over, and new ones are born. We know that. Recent contracts won by SLP Engineering and Kvaerner Oil and Gas are very encouraging and welcome, but they cannot solve the problem of the economy being dependent on a small handful of sectors. Help for diversity and training and retraining to diversify is what is needed now.
    We also know that we are the most easterly point of the United Kingdom, yet we are only 120 miles from London. In some ways, it might as well be 1,000. I have said that before many times in the House, and the previous time I said it, I was rewarded with a cartoon in the Lowestoft Journal portraying me as Indiana Jones trying to get from there to the House.
    That is part of the charm of the area—I accept that—but the lack of reasonable roads, either the A12 north to south or the A47 upgraded as a major European route east to west, and the want of the third crossing at Lake Lothing at Lowestoft, all combine to hamper economic growth, compared with other parts of the country. That is the perception of businesses, and of people in the tourist and job-creating sectors of the community whom I talk to and whom I represent in the House.
    We have fallen victim to a freezing of the roads programme and a changing of policy on roads, which might be right in national terms, but it is welcomed only by areas that already have reasonable roads. We are just 26 miles from Norwich, which is our regional and economic centre. Norwich itself has suffered enormous job losses recently. Norwich Union is to cut 20 per cent. of its work force during the next 12 months. The Nestlé Rowntree factory is closing, with 900 jobs going. Colemans of Norwich is up for sale.
    I do not say that all the Norwich economy is bad—it certainly is not. Again, the picture in Norwich is much the same as that which I have portrayed in Waveney—a host of firms are doing well—but it is the perception that all are not doing well that does not help to boost business confidence. In a sense, the whole of Norfolk and north Suffolk belies the image of prosperous East Anglia which so many people from outside the area have. That is perhaps why many people in the area are unfortunately voting Labour, tragic though that is.
    Jonathan Sisson, the president of the Norfolk and Waveney chamber of commerce and industry, recently launched a debate about our local economy. He centred it on two arguments. The first was that it was time to lower the drawbridge on Fortress Norfolk and Waveney and end the view that the isolated nature of the area and the quality of our life compensate for economic stagnation. The second was that the road and rail infrastructure needs to be dealt with. He understands, as we all do, that growth is as essential for the economy locally as it is nationally. When we do not achieve that growth, commensurate with our location, population and assets, something is wrong. When we are 80 miles from the motorway network, and when it is quicker to get to Amsterdam than to London or Birmingham, all is not quite right.

    127
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will consider what I am saying from an economic and employment point of view and pass those thoughts to the Department of Transport when the roads programme is reviewed again next year, not so that East Anglia is covered in roads, but to put what we have got on the competitive level of other parts of the country.
    From her position, my hon. Friend the Minister will know of the decline in employment. In 1991, the Rural Development Commission identified Waveney as an area likely to suffer further agricultural job losses. She may also realise how much fishing has suffered, too. One hundred years ago, there was a fleet of 500 boats; today, there are fewer than 20 beam trawlers. One thousand jobs have been lost in the fishing industry in the past 12 years alone. I do not blame the Government alone for that. It is part of the global decline of the fishing industry as technology and mechanisation have improved. However, the common fisheries policy, as my hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say, has failed to conserve fish stocks. I believe that it should be scrapped so that we can start again.
    Worse than that for Lowestoft is the fact that a plaice swap has been imposed by the Government, which will take £1 million-worth of plaice out of the fish market and run the fleet out of quota by the autumn. As a consequence of the CFP, to which the Government are so wedded, there will be no fishing industry left before long—or perhaps I should say that there will no British fishing industry left before long. It is a further barrier to employment, economic development and business confidence and contributes in many people's minds to the feeling of a spiral of decline and decay. The much-vaunted decommissioning scheme encourages owners to make fishermen redundant and puts merchants into bankruptcy.
    Waveney failed to win assisted area status, whereas neighbouring Great Yarmouth succeeded. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) here tonight. I do not complain about Great Yarmouth's success in this instance, because, on the day the figures were set, Great Yarmouth's unemployment was greater than that of Waveney. However, my hon. Friend and I put it to the Minister that the areas should have been treated equally—both, or neither, should have received assisted area status. We have, however, been awarded objective 5b money, which could be a very big boost. To be fair, the local authorities, the training and enterprise council and the private sector are coming up with ideas for the money.
    The sad thing is that it is now necessary to have that money, that kind of life support. We are pleased that the Government have approved it—the European Union will now give some British taxes back to us—but it would not have been necessary had the Government funded our infrastructure improvements at the same time as those of other parts of the nation.
    There is much that we can do to help ourselves, and it is being done. The trade unionists to whom I talked last week, the local authorities, the major employers and the smaller job creators are all singing from the same hymn book, although I wish that our local authorities spent less time employing people on poverty strategies and concentrated more on driving down the council tax.
    128
    There is a determination locally to use our natural assets better. Kvaerner has come only recently to Waveney because of its location and the quality of the work force. The Government can lend two helping hands. First, they can keep inflation down, keep interest rates stable and business taxes low, deregulate and privatise, help with training and retraining and resist the minimum wage. All that they are doing but, secondly, they could remove the extra barriers that we have and that other areas of structural decline do not have. I have already mentioned poor road and rail links and the common fisheries policy, but additional barriers are the special assistance schemes to our competitors at our expense and excessively zealous bureaucratic enforcement of rules and regulations. No magic wands are asked for or expected, only a fair deal.
    The area is almost the closest part of the United Kingdom to the rest of the single market. We should be able to use that advantage our way. Nobody predicted 25 years ago that tourism would be the great job creator that it is today. In Waveney, about 3,800 jobs—10 per cent. of the work force—are in tourism-related work, even though it is sometimes seasonal, short-term, part-time or low-paid. No one can predict how the future will produce the work that the country needs, including the 4,500 new jobs that Waveney needs in the next 10 years to stand still.
    In the meantime, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do her best to help Waveney to pull down some of the barriers to employment that need not be there, so that we can fight fair.
    11.29 pm
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on securing the debate. I thank him for raising the issue of employment in his constituency. It is only right to record the interest shown in the debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) and for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). The defence of the British fishing industry by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives has commanded much respect in the House.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney knows, the number of people out of work fell again in March, to its lowest level since June 1991. That was the 19th month in a row when there had been a fall. Furthermore, throughout the country employment is growing. Nearly 300,000 more jobs were created in the past year, and over 200,000 were in full-time positions. In the United Kingdom as a whole, unemployment has fallen by over 600,000 in the past two years. East Anglia has shared strongly in that improvement. Indeed, it has the lowest unemployment rate of all UK regions.
    My hon. Friend paid tribute to the attractive areas of East Anglia, including Waveney, the constituency which he represents. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has sadly been prevented from replying to the debate due to a dislocated shoulder. He is familiar with the area and I cannot compete with his familiarity with it. He assures me that it is an area that provides a wide range of wildlife habitats, waterways and tourist attractions, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney referred.
    I recognise that Waveney has some special difficulties, and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has eloquently described them. At the same time, many

    129
    positive things can be said about the district in economic terms, to which I shall return to focus upon if time permits.
    I know that, for many years, agriculture has been the staple industry in the area. I am aware also that the fishing industry has traditionally played a major part in the prosperity of the local coastal towns. Tourism is also important. I am sure that the seaside resorts on the East Anglian coast are beginning to see the holiday makers emerge as the weather becomes warmer and brighter.
    Even in a prosperous region such as East Anglia there will still be areas of high unemployment if the traditional local industries decline, especially if they decline more quickly than new ones grow to replace them. Similarly, all industry needs to modernise and invest to compete at a European and world level. That means that many traditional, existing industries, such as fishing and farming, cannot always be sustained with the same employment levels that they have enjoyed in the past. I am pleased that those problems have been recognised in the granting of assisted area status to Wisbech, Harwich, Great Yarmouth and Clacton. That entitles them to apply for regional selective assistance.
    I am sorry that Lowestoft was not successful in its bid for assisted area status. I can assure the House, however, that my Department is aware of the employment situation in the area. There is no single factor that determines eligibility for assisted area status. Decisions on the map were not taken on the basis of an automatic statistical process. Current employment, as well as the unemployment rate over the past five years and the level of long-term unemployment, were taken into account, along with several other factors.
    More recently, Lowestoft and parts of the Waveney valley, and three rural areas—the Fens, central rural Norfolk and rural east Suffolk—have been awarded European Union objective 5b status, which will entitle them to £46 million of extra resources over five years for projects to diversify their economic base. I understand that a wide range of organisations in the area, including the TEC and district council, recently submitted bids to make best use of that newly available funding. The European programme PESCA will also assist the fishing industry in Lowestoft to cope with the current structural difficulties by diversifying coastal regions.
    We all appreciate that economic change brings difficulties for industries and those who work within them, but change should not always be portrayed as a negative process. The business community in East Anglia and Waveney is resourceful and enterprising and, over the years, a broad economic base has developed with a wide variety of industries, including a high number of manufacturing industries, particularly in the Waveney area. Those are not only vital for local prosperity, which so concerns my hon. Friend, but important for the economy of the UK as a whole.
    That is undoubtedly why the region has one of the highest rates of employment in the country. I prefer to say "employment", as my hon. Friend did in his title for this debate. We should all talk much more about employment. That is the important issue, whether it be in Waveney or elsewhere in the country.
    We take the problem of long-term unemployment very seriously and it is worth pointing out that between January 1994 and January 1995, the latest period for which we
    130
    have statistics, the number of people out of work for more than a year fell by 19 per cent. in the eastern region, compared with 15 per cent. across the UK as a whole.
    The Government have a number of initiatives to help long-term unemployed people, in addition to the wide-ranging support offered by the Employment Service. For example, we have job plan workshops, work trials and the jobfinder's grant, which we announced in the last Budget. The training for work programme offers more than 1 million training opportunities every year. It is worth mentioning that many of those made unemployed in the eastern region as a result of redundancies in manufacturing, the vehicles industries, and the financial and banking sectors are extremely well qualified and would be in demand by businesses requiring high skills. That is good news for the region's economy as it returns to growth.
    My hon. Friend rightly raised the issue of transport infrastructure. We are well aware of the importance of economic growth and the relationship between transport infrastructure and competitiveness. We understand that companies move 90 per cent. of their products by road, and they do it in lorries, rather than buses, trams or on bicycles. The Highways Agency has the task of delivering the roads programme, but I understand that the recent transport supplementary grant settlement for the county is perfectly fair, with 14.8 per cent. of its bid being accepted.
    Substantial investment has been made in improving the major routes to and through East Anglia in view of its importance as a region in its own right but also as a major gateway to Europe. Those improvements and the Government's future proposals are an important element in improving the attractiveness and competitiveness of the area for economic development. I understand that Suffolk county council will make a package bid for Lowestoft in this year's transport plans and policies round. It has already been successful with an Ipswich package bid, and substantial progress is being made.
    Perhaps I should mention some of the good economic news of which I am aware in the Waveney district. Despite its difficulties, unemployment has fallen in the Waveney constituency and 194 fewer people are registered unemployed than a year ago. We acknowledge that unemployment in the Lowestoft travel-to-work area is still too high. The Employment Service and the TEC will do all that they can to promote enterprise and help local people get back to work. The unemployment rate, which is down 1.1 per cent., has fallen across the East Anglian region and 11,359 fewer people are now registered unemployed than a year ago. As I said, the unemployment rate in the region is the lowest in the country at 6.8 per cent.
    New jobs have been created in the region. For example, a multi-million pound offshore contract to design and build a 2,000 tonne accommodation module has been secured by SLP Engineering, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend. That will secure the jobs of 225 workers at Lowestoft and could create new jobs. The Norwegian offshore giant, Kvaerner, is bringing new jobs to its Lowestoft-based operation with a construction contract worth more than £1 million. Around 25 jobs will be created as Kvaerner Oil and Gas services works on a major contract for the port of Felixstowe. Lowestoft-based graphics firm, Supersine, is to become a centre of

    131
    excellence for screen printing. The recently launched Enterprise 2000 will also help 1,000 people to become their own bosses in the region.
    During the past decade, the Rural Development Commission has been actively involved in the Waveney area. It has promoted development so that rural businesses and services can prosper and provide for the varied needs of rural communities. For example, the RDC provided £40,000 in grant aid last year to encourage the refurbishment of 14,000 sq ft of redundant buildings, which is likely to accommodate 40 jobs. That has been a typical level of grant aid.
    Since the launch of Norfolk and Waveney TEC's "Train and Gain" initiative in October 1993, 727 people have been placed back in work. It offers training grants to employers taking on people who have been registered unemployed for six months or more. There are also extra
    132
    payments to encourage national vocational qualification take-up. The TEC is also operating a business expansion loan scheme, in partnership with the Midland bank. The scheme allows small companies to borrow up to £15,000 at low rates to encourage expansion and, with that expansion, new jobs.
    We can concentrate on our achievements nationally, regionally and locally. There will always be room for improvement in certain areas, but the way forward to prosperity in every area of the country is through sustainable economic growth. That means the encouragement of employment policies that are not just short-term expedients but long-term solutions with long-term benefits to meet the nation's current and future needs. I believe that Waveney and Great Yarmouth will benefit from the prosperity generated.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Twelve midnight.

TRANSPORT

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the report of the Highways Agency reviewing the options for the Newbury bypass. [23867]

  Mr. Watts
  The Highways Agency has yet to report the final outcome of its review of the Newbury bypass to my right hon. Friend.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to introduce new measures to reduce fatal and serious accidents caused by bull bars, including lower speed limits. [23794]

  Mr. Norris
  We are taking steps to quantify the effects of bull bars in terms of actual accidents on the road. We have no plans to reduce the speed limit of vehicles fitted with bull bars.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which non-departmental public bodies within the responsibility of his Department are subject to scrutiny by(a) ombudsmen, (b) the National Audit Office, (c) the Audit Commission and (d) other monitoring officers; which are covered by citizens charters; in which performance indicators apply; and in which members are liable to surcharge. [23952]

  Mr. Norris
  For(a), (b), (c) and points covering citizens charters and performance indicators, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) on 25 April 1995, Official Report, column 505.

  For tribunal and advisory bodies within my responsibility not covered by that reply, the answers are, for (a) none and for (b) and (c) none; all are encouraged to follow citizens charter principles: none are subject to performance indicators.

  For (d), the answer is that none has a monitoring officer such as that designated by a local authority, but advisory bodies and the traffic commissioners are subject indirectly to scrutiny by the Comptroller and Auditor General as their expenditure arises in my Department. My Department has a monitoring role for bodies that are subject to quinquennial reviews.

  No body has members who are liable to surcharge.

  Travelcard
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it the policy of his Department fully to support and develop London Transport's travelcard; and if he will make a statement. [24148]

  Mr. Norris
  Yes. The Government already recognise the importance and value of the London travelcard and have taken steps to ensure its continued availability.

  Interdepartmental Group
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the membership of the interdepartmental group of officers chaired by the Minister for Transport in London. [21585]

  Mr. Norris
  The membership of the group has not yet been finalised. A further statement will be made shortly.

  Goods Service Operators
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money has been paid to goods service operators since 5 November 1993 under provisions of section 137 of the Railways Act 1993. [21658]

  Mr. Watts
  None as yet. Eleven applications are under consideration.

  Motorways
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the issues other than environmental issues that his Department takes into consideration when considering the routes of new motorways. [21672]

  Mr. Watts
  The objectives of the road building programme are to assist economic growth, conserve and improve the environment, enhance road safety and make better use of the existing road network. We are no longer making larger-scale additions to the network. The current programme is carefully targeted to focus on improvements to existing road corridors and building bypasses for towns and villages.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, which four lane stretches of motorway in the United Kingdom do not have lighting. [23857]

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked its chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 15 May 1995:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about lighting on four lane motorways.
  Road lighting has been installed on all four lane motorways except for a short length on the southbound M6 motorway between junctions 3 and 4 in Warwickshire.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [22982]
  3
  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport and its agencies accept NVQ qualifications at the following recruitment levels:

  Administrative Assistant: Level 1 in Business Administration.

  Administrative Officer: Level 2 in Business Administration.

  Personal Secretary: Level 2 in Business Administration.

  Executive Officer: Level 3 in Business Management and Levels 4 and 5 in Management.

  A wide range of academic and vocational qualifications are accepted as meeting initial entry requirements. NVQs are not normally specifically listed in recruitment advertising but reference is made to acceptable alternative qualifications. In five campaigns in the past three years for eight personal secretary posts, NVQs were specifically mentioned as a suitable qualification.

  Road Works (London)
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of current arrangements for co-ordinating road works and other road openings in London; and what plans he has to review the situation. [23951]

  Mr. Norris
  Under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 co-ordination on publicly maintained local roads is the responsibility of the local highway authority, while for trunk roads the responsibility rests with the Highways Agency. A code of practice issued under the Act gives practical guidance on the co-ordination of street works and works for road purposes and related matters; we are currently reviewing this and the other codes of practice and regulations governing street works in the light of responses received following a public consultation.

  Road Pricing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is his policy on road pricing; [23859]

  (2) when he intends to introduce motorway tolls. [23858]

  Mr. Watts
  As far as policy on road pricing in urban areas is concerned, the Government are considering the report that the Transport Select Committee issued on the subject in April and will respond in due course.

  Policy on tolling the motorway network remains as set out by the then Secretary of State for Transport on 2 December 1993, Official Report, column 646–49. Its introduction is subject to the availability of suitable technology, which we are assessing, and Parliament's approval of the necessary legislation.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Appeal Listings
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what notice is normally given by his Department-to prisoners of the listing of their appeal. [22509]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In the Crown court, a minimum of 10 days' notice is usually given to prisoners; in the Criminal Appeal Office, the notice given is normally 10 days but can, on occasions, be less.

  Immigration Appeals
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the total number of appeals awaiting processing by the immigration appeals office. [22514]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As at 31 March 1995, there were approximately 13,500 appeals waiting to be heard. In about 25 per cent. of these cases, the immigration appellate authorities were awaiting an indication from the parties that they were ready to proceed before being able to list them.

  Judicial System (Modernisation)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review court practices and procedures with a view of the modernisation of the judicial system. [22515]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There is a continuing programme to review court practices and procedures. The Royal Commission on criminal justice reported in July 1993 and many of its recommendations are being taken forward. In addition, Lord Justice Woolf is undertaking a comprehensive review of the civil justice system.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement as to the operation of the legal aid system in civil cases. [22516]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The civil legal aid scheme is administered by the Legal Aid Board. The Lord Chancellor will shortly issue a Green Paper making proposals for reforms to the legal aid scheme.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people would have been likely to qualify for legal aid if they had a case in the courts in(a) 1979, (b) 1985, (c) 1993 and (d) 1995. [22517]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is not possible to say. Legal aid is available subject to the applicant's financial circumstances and the merits of the case. There is no upper limit for financial eligibility for criminal legal aid.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the workings of the legal aid system. [22510]

  Mr. John M. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor will shortly issue a Green Paper making proposals for reforms to the legal aid scheme.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which non-departmental public bodies within the responsibility of his Department are subject to scrutiny by(a) ombudsmen, (b) the National Audit Office, (c) the Audit Commission and (d) other monitoring officers; which are covered by citizens charters; in which performance indicators apply; and in which members are liable to surcharge. [23953]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for two executive non-departmental public bodies: the Legal Aid Board and the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. However, the latter has been inactive since March 1992
  5
  when the Lord Chancellor announced his decision to postpone implementation of the authorised practitioners scheme.

  The Legal Aid Board is not subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission or other monitoring officers and members are not liable to surcharge. It is subject to scrutiny by the Parliamentary Commissioner and the National Audit Office. It is covered by provisions under the citizens charter and performance indicators apply.

  The immigration appeal tribunal and adjudicators, the lands tribunal, the pensions appeal tribunal, the value added tax tribunal and the transport tribunal are subject to the scrutiny of the ombudsman and the National Audit Office, to the extent that the courts are. Tribunals have performance indicators.

  The Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct is subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office. For other advisory committees, and the tribunals, the expenditure which is incurred forms part of the Department's total expenditure. The Department's accounts are subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office.

PRIME MINISTER

  Government Announcements
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the Cabinet Committee on policy co-ordination and presentation in supervising Government announcements, irrespective of department; and how a distinction is made between the objective presentation and timing of these announcements and their use for party political benefits. [24325]

  The Prime Minister
  I published the terms of reference of the ministerial committee on the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy on 21 March 1995 Official Report, column 112. The committee's terms of reference make it clear that the committee's role is to consider the co-ordination and presentation of Government, as distinct from party, policy. It is therefore subject to the published conventions relating to Government publicity.

  No. 10 Downing Street
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he takes to ensure that the address No. 10 Downing street is not used in connection with private business activities. [22899]

  The Prime Minister
  I know of no reason to believe that the No. 10 Downing street address has been improperly used.

  Churchill Papers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the state papers donated to Churchill college, Cambridge, in each case giving the date the item was donated. [24074]

  The Prime Minister
  The Churchill archive comprises many thousand documents. It would be disproportionately costly to list the state papers in the archive individually.
  6
  The papers relating to Sir Winston Churchill's ministerial and prime ministerial appointments, claimed by the Crown as state papers, were transferred to Churchill college on the same day as the agreement to purchase the non-state papers was concluded. The effective date of transfer was 26 April 1995.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the current President of the European Commission. [24149]

  The Prime Minister
  I last saw Mr. Santer in Paris on 8 May, and will see him for substantive talks about when he comes to London on 17 May.

  Official Gifts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister who is responsible for maintaining the official inventory of gifts given to the office of the Prime Minister and kept at No. 10; and what additions have been made to the list since 1979. [23782]

  The Prime Minister
  The inventory is maintained by staff within No. 10 in accordance with the rules in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and is subject to the normal audit procedures. The details of gifts received are not made public.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what official gifts have been received by officials travelling with him abroad during the last 12 months. [23786]

  The Prime Minister
  Gifts received by officials are dealt with in accordance with the official rules. The details are not made public.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how much has been donated to charity arising from the sale of official gifts given to Prime Ministers since 1979. [23788]

  The Prime Minister
  I have made it a practice to donate to charity all the proceeds from sales of gifts which I have retained under the guidelines set out in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers".

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the total value of gifts to Prime Ministers since 1979 sold from the official inventory. [23787]

  The Prime Minister
  Sales from the inventory have been carried out in accordance with "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". It is not the practice to publish details.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what record is kept official gifts given to business representatives travelling with him on official visits abroad. [23789]

  The Prime Minister
  No gifts are given by the British Government. Gifts by foreign Governments are a matter for them.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will acquire for the video library of No. 10 Downing street the video of Alan Francovitch's film. "The Maltese Double Cross". [23721]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason Her Majesty's Government declined to allow Chief Superintendent Gilchrist of Dumfries and Galloway police to interview Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Tuzcu, baggage handlers
  7
  at the Rhein-Main airport in Frankfurt, when they were brought to the United Kingdom in connection with the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [24009]

  The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government did not and would not interfere in decisions regarding the conduct of the Lockerbie investigation.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions Gibraltar's status within the European Union has been raised formally in the Heads of Government Council of Ministers since he became Prime Minister. [24470]

  The Prime Minister
  I do not recall any such occasion.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions Gibraltar's status(a) within the European Union and (b) with Spain has been raised by him since he became Prime Minister at his meetings with the Prime Minister of Spain. [24471]

  The Prime Minister
  I last discussed Gibraltar in detail with the Prime Minister of Spain in May 1991.I have met him since on a number of occasions, but have not discussed the points mentioned by the hon. Member.

  Royal British Legion
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met representatives of the Royal British Legion to discuss the establishment of a ministry of veterans affairs; and if he will make a statement. [24073]

  The Prime Minister
  I have not personally met representatives of the Royal British Legion to discuss a ministry of veterans affairs but my noble Friends Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Henley did so on my behalf on 23 November 1994. My view remains that such a Ministry would add an extra layer of bureaucracy without necessarily resulting in a better service for ex-service men and women. The Government's continuing commitment is to improve standards for every citizen.

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the application of the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to Scotland, by comparison to how they apply in England; and if he will make a statement. [24079]

  The Prime Minister
  The provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 apply equally to all parts of the United Kingdom.

  Departmental Seminars
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Prime Minister whether departmental seminars have been organised under the auspices of the Cabinet Office with the aim of taking the presentational initiative away from the Government's critics. [24324]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  No. 10 Policy Unit
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the No. 10 policy unit and its head, Norman Blackwell, have any party political responsibilities; and what rules exist on the subject. [24451]
  8
  The Prime Minister
  The members of the policy unit are either career civil servants or employed as special advisers, and are subject to the general rules applicable to those groups. They have no party political responsibilities at national level. The rules on political activities for special advisers are set out in the model appointment letter for special advisers, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. I refer the hon. Member to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 24 April 1995,Official Report, column 373.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Prime Minister what functional relationship exists between the Cabinet committee on policy co-ordination and presentation and the No. 10 policy unit; and how this is discharged. [24323]

  The Prime Minister
  The Prime Minister's policy unit contributes to the work of the Cabinet committee on policy co-ordination and presentation as appropriate. The head of the policy unit attends meetings of this and other Cabinet committees as required.

  World War Two
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his statement on 25 April,Official Report, column 667, if he will list the 18 hon. Members who saw active service in world war two; and if he will also list those who served in the Merchant Navy during the war. [23010]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 May]: The figure to which I referred on 25 April derived from information provided by the House of Commons authorities. I understand that they now believe that a least 20 hon. Members saw active service in world war two, including those who served in the Merchant Navy. It is a matter for hon. Members whether they wish to make their war record known.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the applications she has received to establish(a) groups and (b) clusters of grant-maintained schools. [23723]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Although we have not yet received any formal applications to establish clusters of grant-maintained schools under the group or joint scheme arrangement, there has been a steady interest in the initiative since it was launched last year.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which non-departmental public bodies within the responsibility of her Department are subject to scrutiny by(a) ombudsmen, (b) the National Audit Office, (c) the Audit Commission and (d) other monitoring officers; which are covered by citizens charters; in which performance indicators apply; and in which members are liable to surcharge. [23963]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is shown, for the Department's executive non-departmental public bodies, in the table.
  9

  Name of body

  Parliamentary Commissioner

  National Audit Office

  Audit Commission

  Other monitoring officers1

  Citizen's charter

  Performance indicators

  Members' liability to surcharge

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research (CILT)

  no

  yes

  no

  yes

  yes

  yes

  no

  Education Assets Board (EAB)

  yes

  yes

  no

  yes

  yes

  yes

  no

  Funding Agency for Schools (FAS)

  no

  yes

  no

  yes

  yes

  yes

  no

  Further Education Funding Council (FEFC)

  no

  yes

  no

  yes

  yes

  yes

  no

  Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

  no

  yes

  no

  yes

  yes

  yes

  no

  National Council for Educational Technology (NCET)

  no

  yes

  no

  yes

  yes

  yes

  no

  National Youth Agency (NYA)

  no

  yes

  no

  yes

  yes

  yes

  no

  School Curriculum Assessment Authority (SCAA)

  no

  yes

  no

  yes

  yes

  yes

  no

  Teacher Training Agency (TTA)

  no

  yes

  no

  yes

  yes

  yes

  no

  1 Monitoring by the sponsor Department.

  Publicity
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the expenditure on publicity by her Department for each year since 1979 broken down into spending on(a) television, (b) radio, (c) newspaper and (d) other. [24389]

  Mr. Forth
  The expenditure figures for advertising and other promotional material by this Department for the financial years 1979–80 to 1994–95 are given in the table. Final decisions on media in the current financial year have not been taken.

  Year

  TV £000

  Radio £000

  Newspaper £000

  Other £000

  1979–80

  —

  —

  91.6

  12.2

  1980–81

  —

  —

  8.9

  58.3

  1981–82

  —

  —

  86.9

  49.9

  1982–83

  —

  —

  6.0

  33.7

  1983–84

  —

  —

  9.6

  74.9

  1984–85

  —

  —

  18.5

  150.6

  1985–86

  —

  —

  14.8

  184.1

  1986–87

  —

  —

  532.0

  533.0

  1987–88

  —

  —

  280.0

  1,459.0

  1988–89

  —

  40.0

  475.0

  1,156.0

  1989–90

  —

  11.8

  238.0

  1,150.0

  1990–91

  1,100

  97.0

  1,470.0

  1,916.0

  1991–92

  800.0

  —

  2,237.9

  5,842.7

  1992–93

  —

  —

  1,086.4

  5,800.1

  1993–94

  —

  29.2

  1,413.0

  8,551.3

  1994–95

  —

  —

  159.3

  117,929.0

  1 Estimated.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list each public opinion survey commissioned by(a) her Department and (b) her agencies for each year since 1992, showing for each the subject, the cost and the organisation from which it was commissioned. [23689]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has carried out the following public opinion surveys since 1992:

  Subject: National Curriculum leaflet for parents

  Date: March and December 1992

  Company: British Market Research Bureau

  Subject: School Performance Tables

  Date: December 1992 and January 1994

  Company: Taylor Nelson

  10

  Subject: Grant-Maintained Schools

  Date: July 1992, May 1993, October, 1993, February 1994 and February 1995

  Company: Audience Selection

  Subject: National Curriculum testing of 7, 11 and 14 year olds

  Date: April 1993

  Company: British Market Research Bureau

  Subject: National Curriculum testing of 7, 11 and 14 year olds

  Date: May 1993

  Company: Bulmershe Research

  Subject: Publicity campaign for parents on National Curriculum testing of 7, 11 and 14 year olds

  Date: January 1994, July 1994

  Company: British Market Research Bureau

  Subject: DFE Exhibitions—DFE Touring Roadshow

  Date: October 1992, July 1993, July 1994

  Company: 1992, 1993 Martin Hamblin; 1994 Alpha Research

  Subject: Further and Higher Education Charters

  Date: September 1993, November 1993

  Company: Martin Hamblin

  Subject: Educational Provision for Under 5's

  Date: April 1994

  Company: Bulmershe Research

  Subject: Updated Parent's Charter

  Date: June 1994, August 1994

  Company: Research Society for Great Britain

  Subject: School Performance Tables

  Date: November 1994, February 1995

  Company: Audience Selection

  Subject: Publicity campaign for parents on National Curriculum testing of 7, 11 and 14 year olds.

  Date: February 1995, April 1995

  Company: British Market Research Bureau

  Subject: Parent's Information Needs

  Date: March 1995

  Company: Research Surveys of Great Britain

  11
  Information about the Department's agencies and other related bodies is not held centally. One item of research of which the Department is aware was commissioned by the School Curriculum Assessment Authority and is as follows:

  Subject: Public perception of the National Curriculum and the relative priorities of National Curriculum subjects

  Date: June 1994

  Company: Gallup

  To give the cost of the research surveys carried out by the DFE and its agencies would compromise confidential tendering procedures.

  Year

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil Cash terms £

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil 1995 prices £

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil excluding staffing costs Cash terms £

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil excluding staffing costs 1995 prices £

  Nursery primary

  1979–80

  429

  1,074

  108

  272

  1980–81

  546

  1,157

  133

  281

  1981–82

  621

  1,198

  151

  291

  1982–83

  682

  1,229

  168

  303

  1983–84

  732

  1,260

  184

  317

  1984–85

  767

  1,257

  190

  312

  1985–86

  817

  1,270

  201

  312

  1986–87

  905

  1,366

  218

  329

  1987–88

  1,006

  1,441

  239

  342

  1988–89

  1,101

  1,479

  254

  340

  1989–90

  1,210

  1,519

  294

  369

  1990–91

  1,339

  1,555

  347

  403

  1991–92

  1,469

  1,606

  364

  398

  1992–93

  1,583

  1,664

  364

  383

  1993–94

  1,637

  1,670

  385

  393

  Secondary

  1979–80

  607

  1,520

  162

  405

  1980–81

  765

  1,618

  191

  405

  1981–82

  865

  1,668

  213

  411

  1982–83

  942

  1,696

  235

  424

  1983–84

  1,014

  1,745

  255

  439

  1984–85

  1,086

  1,780

  273

  447

  1985–86

  1,177

  1,829

  291

  452

  1986–87

  1,340

  2,021

  334

  503

  1987–88

  1,517

  2,172

  376

  538

  1988–89

  1,692

  2,272

  410

  550

  1989–90

  1,858

  2,332

  472

  593

  1990–91

  2,019

  2,346

  541

  629

  1991–92

  2,145

  2,345

  520

  569

  1992–93

  2,256

  2,372

  503

  528

  1993–94

  2,252

  2,297

  517

  527

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what was the average unit cost per pupil for 1994–94 in(a) each local education authority and (b) nationally for (i) provision in nursery schools and nursery classes, (ii) provision in reception classes in primary schools and (iii) all under-fives provision; [23639]

  (2) what was the average unit cost per pupil for 1993–94 of educating four-year-olds in (a) each local education authority and (b) nationally, (i) in nursery schools and nursery classes, (ii) in reception classes in primary schools and (ii) overall. [23638]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The average unit cost per full-time equivalent pupil in 1993–94 for those categories of

  Pupil Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the expenditure per(a) primary school and (b) secondary school pupil in real and constant price terms in every year since 1979; and what are the corresponding figures excluding staffing costs. [23395]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows net institutional expenditure per pupil including and excluding staffing costs, in cash terms and in 1994–95 prices, on LEA-maintained nursery and primary and secondary schools in England from 1979–80 to 1993–94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available. The primary figures include expenditure on nursery provision which cannot be differentiated.

  under-fives provision for which estimates are available nationally are given below:

  1993–94 estimates (provisional)

  £

  Nursery schools

  3,250

  Nursery classes in primary schools

  2,660

  Primary classes including under 5s

  1,590

  Average

  2,040

  Figures for each local authority are not separately available; nor are figures for four-year-olds only.

  Stratford School
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what payment the newly appointed governors at Stratford grant-maintained school will receive for their work; and what brief they will be working to. [23855]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend announced on 5 May four new appointments to the governing body of Stratford school. Governors of publicly maintained schools do not receive payments for their services, although they may be refunded travel and subsistence expenses.

  My right hon. Friend expects the newly constituted governing body as a whole to begin work immediately on a range of strategies to improve the standard of education on offer.

  Autistic Children
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  to ask the Secretary of State for Education which authorities provide specialist facilities for the education of austic children; and if she will make a statement. [23680]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available centrally. However, information provided by the National Autistic Society suggests that a third of LEAs in England and Wales maintain specialist units for autistic children. In addition, LEAs may place autistic pupils at independent schools, including those run by the NAS. The majority of autistic children receive provision in accordance with statements of specialist educational need in other special or mainstream schools.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to revise the enrolment targets for further education colleges. [23538]

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend does not set college targets for enrolment in the further education sector. The Government's planning assumptions continue to imply a significant increase in student numbers between 1993–94 and 1997–98.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the Government's assessment of the effect of increased enrolments on teaching loads at further education colleges in terms of teaching standards and levels of stress among lecturers. [23541]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government have not conducted a formal assessment of the effect of increased enrolment in the further education sector. The issue of teaching standards in the sector is the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to monitor teaching standards at further education colleges. [23539]

  Mr. Boswell
  The responsibility for ensuring quality in FE sector colleges in England rests with the Further Education Funding Council (England). I have asked Sir William Stubbs, its chief executive, to write to the hon. Member.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 25 April,Official Report, column 487, what assessment she has made of the reasons why the average size of single-teacher classes is
  14
  increasing, while the pupil-teacher ratio is decreasing; and if she will make a statement. [23408]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Pupil-teacher ratios are calculated by dividing full-time equivalent pupil numbers by the total number of full-time equivalent qualified teaching staff. Many teachers are not engaged full-time in classroom teaching; these include head teachers and others with management and planning responsibilities, as well as teachers allocated "non-contact" time during the school day for work to support their own teaching. Average class sizes therefore reflect decisions taken at school level about how to allocate available staff time.

  PTRs in January 1994 were slightly below those in 1979, while average class sizes were slightly higher. This is because the proportion of teachers' time allocated to activities other than teaching has increased over the period.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the pupil-teacher ratio in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in each year since 1979. [23624]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Pupil: Teacher Ratios in maintained schools in England 1979–1994 position in January each year

  Primary

  Secondary

  1979

  23.1

  16.8

  1980

  22.7

  16.7

  1981

  22.6

  16.7

  1982

  22.5

  16.7

  1983

  22.3

  16.6

  1984

  22.1

  16.4

  1985

  22.2

  16.3

  1986

  22.1

  16.1

  1987

  21.9

  15.8

  1988

  22.0

  15.5

  1989

  22.0

  15.4

  1990

  22.0

  15.4

  1991

  22.2

  15.7

  1992

  22.2

  15.9

  1993

  22.4

  16.2

  1994

  22.7

  16.4

  Schools, Ealing
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 4 May,Official Report, column 288, what is the total amount spent per pupil in (a) primary and (b) secondary locally managed schools in Ealing other than that allocated to schools. [23618]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The figures are £517.33 for primary and £923.45 for secondary schools. These are derived from the Budget statement for 1995–96 published by the local education authority under section 42 of the Education Reform Act, and relate to all planned expenditure on mandatory and discretionary "excepted items".

  Further Education
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the Government's assessment of the trend in the percentage of pupils staying on to continue education and training. [23540]
  15
  Mr. Boswell
  The trend in the proportion of 16-year-old pupils who stay on in full-time or part-time education, including those who attend college while undergoing training, is as follows:

  Percentage of 16-year-olds

  Academic year

  Full time education

  Part time education

  Total

  1983–84

  47.8

  16.5

  64.3

  1984–85

  46.7

  17.8

  64.6

  1985–86

  47.3

  17.7

  65.0

  1986–87

  46.8

  17.9

  64.7

  1987–88

  48.5

  17.2

  65.7

  1988–89

  51.5

  18.4

  69.9

  1989–90

  55.0

  15.9

  70.8

  1990–91

  59.3

  13.3

  72.6

  1991–92

  66.6

  9.7

  76.3

  1992–93

  69.9

  7.9

  77.8

  1993–94

  72.5

  7.5

  80.0

  School Leavers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of school leavers has attained no academic qualifications in each year since 1979. [23389]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The proportion of school leavers, excluding special schools, in England who attained no academic qualifications in each year since 1979 is as follows:

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  12.8

  1979–80

  12.2

  1980–81

  11.4

  1981–82

  10.6

  1982–83

  9.6

  1983–84

  9.5

  1984–85

  9.4

  1985–86

  9.6

  1986–87

  9.4

  1987–88

  9.5

  1988–89

  7.9

  1989–90

  7.6

  1990–91

  7.0

  Data on school leavers was collected on a reduced sample in 1991–92 and not collected at all after 1992. However, data from the school performance tables for 1992, 1993 and 1994 show that the percentage of 15-year-old pupils attaining no academic qualification was 8.4 per cent. in 1991–92, 7 per cent. in 1992–93 and 7.7 per cent. in 1993–94.

  Higher Education
  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(a) higher and (b) further education in (i) whole-time equivalents and (ii) cost terms. [23636]

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of hours spent on higher education issues is estimated to be just over 4,000 and on further education issues just under 4,000 per working week. The estimated salary costs are £2.47 million on higher education and £2.33 million on further education in the financial year 1995–96.

  Review Groups (National Curriculum)
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the merits of establishing long-term review groups in each of the national curriculum core subjects of mathematics, English and science; and what plans she has to introduce such groups. [23156]

  Mr. Forth
  The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is responsible for advising the Secretary of State on the national curriculum. To that end, it will be monitoring the new curriculum, which will be introduced from September 1995. Precisely how it does so is a matter for the authority itself, and I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Dr. Ishan Barbouti
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the status in the United Kingdom of the late Dr. Ishan Barbouti. [22664]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Records relating to individual overseas nationals are held in confidence by the immigration and nationality department and it is not our normal practice to divulge them to third parties.

  Rape in Marriage
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for reviewing the law in respect of rape in marriage. [22507]

  Mr. Maclean
  Under the law as it stands at present, a man may be convicted of raping his wife. The Government have no plans to review the law on this subject.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which non-departmental public bodies within the responsibility of his Department are subject to scrutiny by(a) ombudsmen, (b) the National Audit Office, (c) the Audit Commission and (d) other monitoring officers; which are covered by citizens charters; in which performance indicators apply; and in which members are liable to surcharge. [23961]

  Mr. Howard
  In respect of the executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by the Home Office I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) on 1 May, at column 100. NDPB members are not subject to surcharge but the Alcohol Education and Research Council and the Community Development Foundation are charities and as such the trustees have potential financial liabilities under the Charities Acts 1992 and 1993. The information requested in relation to the 154 non-executive NDPBs sponsored by the Home Office, including 130 boards of visitors, is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will acquire for the video library of the Home Office the video of Alan Francovitch's film, "The Maltese Double Cross." [23720]

  Mr. Howard
  No.

  Political Refugees, Visitors and Students
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applicants, including dependants from Bosnia, have been granted entry into the United Kingdom since 1992 as(a) political refugees, (b) visitors and (c) students; and how many have subsequently returned to that country; [23419]

  (2) how many applicants, including dependants from Somalia, have been granted entry into the United Kingdom since 1992 as (a) political refugees, (b) visitors and (c) students; and how many have subsequently returned to that country; [23418]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 10 May 1995]: Information on nationals of the former Yugoslavia and Somalia given leave to enter as visitors, students and "refugees, exceptional leave cases and their dependants" in 1992–93 are given in table 3.1 of "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom, 1992", Cm. 2368, and the corresponding publication for 1993, Cm. 2637, copies of which are in the Library. Data for 1994 are given in the table. The data exclude persons granted temporary admission before the resolution of their case. The data available for the new countries of the former Yugoslavia are incomplete because many passengers still have Yugoslav passports. It is not known how many nationals of the former Yugoslavia and Somalia subsequently returned to their home country.

  Persons given leave to enter the United Kingdom in 19941

  Number of admissions

  Nationality

  Visitors

  Students

  Refugees, exceptional leave cases and their dependants2

  Former Yugoslavia

  38,800

  5,370

  1,270

  Somalia

  1,780

  20

  980

  1 Data are provisional.

  2 Persons who applied for asylum at a port and were subsequently granted refugee status or exceptional leave to enter the United Kingdom—and their dependants.

  Prisons
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the figures for the number of prison governors by grade and ethnic origin. [23085]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 15 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prison governors by grade and by ethnic origin.
  18
  On 1 May 1995 there were 1,020 staff employed in governor grades; 46 at Governor 1 level, 75 at Governor 2 level, 126 at Governor 3 level, 309 at Governor 4 level and 464 at Governor 5 level. Our database of staff ethnic backgrounds, covering 97 per cent of non-industrial staff in the Prison Service, indicates that four members of staff in the governor grades registered that they were members of ethnic minorities. To protect those individuals' privacy, and as the numbers are so small I have not broken down the figures by grade or by ethnic origin.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy on the recruitment of ethnic minority prison officers; and what action he is taking to further this policy. [23091]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 15 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the recruitment of prison officers from the ethnic minorities.
  The Prison Service is an equal opportunities employer and equality of opportunity is one of the values set out in the Statement of Purpose, Vision, Goals and Values.
  Individual prison establishments assumed responsibility for recruiting prison officers in April 1993, (before this there was a centralised system with continuous recruitment). All appointments to the Prison Service are (and must be) made on the basis of merit and fair and open competition. When recruitment was devolved, comprehensive guidance on recruitment procedures was issued to each establishment.
  The guidance included specific guidance on recruitment of members of the ethnic minorities. It pointed out that positive discrimination in favour of women or members of the ethnic minorities is unlawful, but the Sex Discrimination Act and Race Relations Act do permit positive action to encourage under represented groups to apply for jobs. Governors, therefore, are expected to take positive action to redress the current under representation of people from the ethnic minorities in the prison officer grades. The guidance suggested various means—such as presentations to local religious and community groups, encouraging ethnic minority groups to attend prison events, development of links with local Race Equality Councils and the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service—by which governors could raise awareness of the work of the Prison Service and encourage members of the ethnic minorities to apply for jobs.
  All recruitment is continuously monitored and further advice is issued to Governors in response to any problems or difficulties highlighted by that monitoring process.

  Visitor Passports
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 12-month visitor passports were issued in 1992, 1993, 1994 and this year to date. [23676]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  A total of 212,552 British visitor's passports have been issued up to 22 March this year—the latest date for which confirmed figures are available. For the numbers issued in 1992, 1993 and 1994 I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt) on 2 February, at column 807.

  159 Grove Green, Leytonstone
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who was present at the meeting on 1 December 1994 at which the operational decision was taken to take physical possession of 159 Grove Green road, Leytonstone; and whom they represented. [23545]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that the county court made an order for the possession of this property on 11 July 1994 and that the Metropolitan police were requested to be present on 1 December 1994 when the bailiffs executed the order, to prevent a breach of the peace.

  This was an operational matter for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

  Police Operational Duties and Training
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how many hours per day, on average, a police constable(a) performs operational duties, (b) receives training and (c) works on other matters in the latest year for which statistics are available, by police forces. [23599]

  Mr. Maclean
  The only information available relates to the average number of days spent in training by police constables, including probationers, during 1992–93.

  Forces

  Training days

  Average number of days per PC

  Avon and Somerset

  37,194

  16

  Bedfordshire

  16,717

  18

  Cambridgeshire

  14,056

  15

  Cheshire

  20,773

  14

  City of London

  6,688

  12

  Cleveland

  14,149

  13

  Cumbria

  17,674

  20

  Derbyshire

  30,721

  22

  Devon and Cornwall

  44,487

  20

  Dorset

  15,987

  16

  Durham

  10,614

  10

  Dyfed Powys

  10,241

  14

  Essex

  45,804

  20

  Gloucestershire

  11,930

  13

  Greater Manchester

  65,586

  13

  Gwent

  n/a

  n/a

  Hampshire

  n/a

  n/a

  Hertfordshire

  18,222

  14

  Humberside

  n/a

  n/a

  Kent

  50,259

  21

  Lancashire

  35,215

  15

  Leicestershire

  25,175

  18

  Lincolnshire

  14,391

  16

  Merseyside

  53,859

  15

  Metropolitan

  230,627

  11

  Norfolk

  15,987

  14

  North Wales

  10,829

  11

  North Yorkshire

  20,257

  19

  Northamptonshire

  22,062

  25

  Northumbria

  48,274

  17

  Nottinghamshire

  34,977

  20

  South Wales

  33,019

  14

  South Yorkshire

  36,666

  16

  Staffordshire

  23,603

  14

  Suffolk

  11,940

  13

  Surrey

  n/a

  n/a

  Sussex

  n/a

  n/a

  Thames Valley

  47,442

  16

  Warwickshire

  8,599

  11

  20

  Forces

  Training days

  Average number of days per PC

  West Mercia

  26,279

  17

  West Midlands

  105,198

  20

  West Yorkshire

  40,936

  10

  Wiltshire

  19,139

  22

  Campsfield House
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home department what is the average weekly cost of detaining a person at Campsfield house. [23358]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The average weekly cost is currently estimated at £413, excluding immigration service and escorting costs.

  Historical Documents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what special training is given to persons who have responsibility for assessing the historical significance of documents held by his Department. [23285]

  Mr. Howard
  The staff involved receive desk training, carried out under the guidance of the Keeper of Public Records, and are provided with written guidance prepared within the Department and by the Public Records Office. Staff also attend conferences and seminars arranged by the Public Records Office, and are encouraged to attend Civil Service College and Public Records Office courses.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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 NVQ's 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. [22974]

  Mr. Howard
  Information is not readily available about vacancies advertised by Prison Service establishments. In the remainder of the Home Office no vacancy advertised in the last three years has specifically listed the attainment of NVQs as an acceptable entry requirement. In both areas, however, NVQs are accepted as a recognised equivalent to the entry qualifications of certain grades.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Registered Medical Practitioners
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many appeals from decisions of the General Medical Council(a) heard, (b) which were successful against removal from the list of registered medical practitioners consequent to proceedings in its professional conduct committee, and how many other appeals were (c) heard and (d) successful since the coming into force of the Medical Act 1983.
  21
  Mr. Newton
  Since 26 October 1983, when the Medical Act 1983 came into force, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has heard 33 appeals, of which three were successful, from decisions of the professional conduct committee of the General Medical Council directing the erasure or suspension of a doctor's name from the register. Over the same period, the committee has heard seven appeals against decisions of the health committee of the General Medical Council of which none was successful.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Military Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, between December 1984 and August 1990, exporters were required to obtain end user certificates for the export of goods, licensed under the military list, to(a) Thailand, (b) Singapore, (c) Pakistan, (d) Portugal, (e) Cyprus and (f) Hong Kong. [19402]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Where goods were to be exported to a Government Department of the countries listed no end-user certificate was required by the DTI export licensing unit, although a copy of the contract or purchase order was requested. For military list exports to companies and other private consignees, exporters were required to submit sufficient information to enable the ELU to assess the export licence application. The guidance note on filling out an export licence application form said that exporters should supply an end-user certificate, or an end-use statement or an international import certificate, but this was not insisted upon in all cases.

  Richard Budge
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what account was taken of the role of Richard Budge as a director of AF Budge (Mining) when awarding the franchise to mine coal in the three English coal regions; [22706]

  (2) if the Government were aware of the concerns raised by Coopers and Lybrand, officers in the insolvency unit of his Department and the official receiver about the actions of Richard Budge as a director of AF Budge (a) when the shortlist of companies to be considered for the coal franchise was agreed and (b) when RJB (Mining) was awarded franchises; [22707]

  (3) what consideration Ministers gave to monitoring the concerns being expressed by Coopers and Lybrand, officers in the insolvency unit of his Department and the Official Receiver over the actions of Richard Budge as a director of AF Budge when making statements to the House about the shortlist of firms to be considered for coal franchises and the awarding of franchises to RJB (Mining); [22708]

  (4) what stage had investigations into the actions of Richard Budge reached (a) when RJB (Mining) was shortlisted as a franchisee and (b) when it was given the coal franchises. [22709]
  22
  (5) what consideration was given to the questions still surrounding Richard Budge as a director of AF Budge when deciding not to choose a second, back-up, franchisee for the coal franchises awarded to RJB (Mining). [22712]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: The Department and its advisers undertook a careful assessment of each of the bids for the regional coal companies and care and maintenance collieries when tenders were submitted in September 1994. Bids were assessed on their merits, including the prospects for the long-term viability of the industry and value for money for the taxpayer.

  The preferred bidders for the regional coal companies and care and maintenance collieries were announced on 12 October. As envisaged when bids were invited, a single preferred bidder was identified for each regional coal company, with whom detailed negotiations were to take place. It was made clear to the preferred bidders that their identification as preferred bidders did not commit the Government to a sale if the detailed negotiations did not reach a satisfactory conclusion. The position of each of the preferred bidders was kept under close review throughout the course of the negotiations.

  Decisions in relation to disqualification were taken on 21 November 1994. The decision not to take proceedings against Mr. Richard Budge and some other former directors of AF Budge Ltd. and related companies was made after careful consideration of the circumstances of the failure and in the light of legal advice.

  In the light of consideration of the conduct of Mr. Richard Budge in the context of the failure of the AF Budge companies, as well as the decision on proceedings, the Department reviewed RJB (Mining) plc's status as preferred bidder for the English coal companies, having regard to Mr. Budge's position as chief executive of RJB (Mining) plc. The Department concluded that RJB (Mining) plc should properly continue as preferred bidder.

  The contract for the sale of the English Regional Coal Company was signed on 9 December and the sale was completed on 30 December 1994.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investigations are pending or being considered into loans made to Richard Budge as a director RJB (Mining). [22710]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: It is not our practice to comment on the affairs of individual companies.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what involvement and knowledge he and his Department had about the agreement reached between Sheffield development corporation and Budge which divided responsibility for providing the infrastructure for an airport at Tinsley, Sheffield, and the authority for opencasting the site. [22714]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: The agreement between Sheffield Development Corporation and AF Budge (Mining) Ltd. is a matter for the Department of the Environment and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government on 9 May 1995, Official Report, column 421.
  23
  The agreement was disclosed to the official receiver in relation to the subsequent failure of AF Budge Ltd. and related companies.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the role of Ministers in deciding not to disqualify Richard Budge as a director following his actions as a director of AF Budge. [22715]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Decisions in relation to the disqualification of directors of failed companies are taken on behalf of the Secretary of State by the Insolvency Service which has operational responsibility. Those decisions are based on statutory provisions, on criteria agreed by Ministers, informed by developing case law, and legal advice where necessary; and the likelihood of a court making a disqualification order. Ministers were advised of the Insolvency Service's decisions on disqualification proceedings relating to the failed AF Budge companies and endorsed them.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date his Department received the Coopers and Lybrand report into the collapse of AF Budge; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library. [22582]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 4 May 1995]: The insolvency service received the report on AF Budge Ltd. on 28 September 1993. Such reports are confidential between the Secretary of State and insolvency practitioners.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who took the decision, and on what date, to bring disqualification proceedings against former directors of AF Budge; what criteria were used in selecting the directors; and if he will identify those former directors against whom disqualification proceedings have not been taken. [22584]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 4 May 1995]: Decisions in relation to the disqualification of directors of failed companies are taken on behalf of the Secretary of State by the Insolvency Service which has the operational responsibility. Those decisions are based on statutory provision, criteria agreed by Ministers, informed by developing case law, and legal advice where necessary; and the likelihood of a court making a disqualification order. Ministers were advised of the Insolvency Service's decisions on disqualification proceedings relating to the failed AF Budge Group and endorsed them. In this case decisions were made on 21 November 1994.

  Given the number of companies comprised in the AF Budge Group and the large number of directors, it is not practical to list all former directors from the incorporation of the earliest company in 1967. The following were returned as directors in the three years prior to the first appointments of administrative receivers to AF Budge companies in December 1992, and against whom proceedings have not been taken in relation to the relevant companies:

  Name

  Ceased to act (if applicable)

  J. R. Bower

  28 February 1992

  R. J. Budge

  22 February 1992

  G. W. Jarrett

  20 February 1992

  G. Muir

  7 January 1993

  D. T. Threadkell

  7 January 1993

  S. S. Clarke

  15 December 1992

  A. A. Mackintosh

  13 January 1993

  M. A. Connolly

  —

  24

  Name

  Ceased to act (if applicable)

  R. V. Sallis

  18 December 1992

  J. E. Greenhalgh

  11 December 1992

  D. T. Trewick

  —

  M. Wainwright

  18 January 1993

  C. A. Walton

  22 February 1992

  K. Jarrett

  22 February 1992

  M. Chick

  —

  D. Cowlinshaw

  1 October 1990

  G. B. Cowlinshaw

  1 October 1990

  P. M. Annington

  —

  R. S. Allan

  —

  E. Bruce

  —

  C. H. Coward

  —

  M. R. Hampton

  —

  M. Shield

  —

  S. G. Mort

  8 January 1993

  J. A. Buck

  18 December 1992

  N. J. Teal

  16 December 1992

  M. F. Vasey

  31 March 1993

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates in 1994 his Department's insolvency service interviewed Mr. Richard Budge; and on what date the Service reported on the conduct of the former directors of AF Budge. [22585]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 4 May 1995]: The official receiver reported initially on the affairs of AF Budge Ltd. and related companies on 25 July 1994. Following further investigations into those affairs Mr. R. J. Budge and two other directors of the AF Budge Group were interviewed by him on 11, 14 and 15 November respectively and he reported the outcome of those interviews on 15 November 1994. The official receiver's report to the court under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 was made on 7 December 1994.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make available to the National Audit Office investigators into the privatisation of the coal industry the Coopers and Lybrand report into the collapse of AF Budge and the report from the insolvency service into the conduct of Mr. Richard Budge as a director of AF Budge. [22583]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 4 May 1995]: The insolvency service will co-operate fully with the National Audit Office.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Ministers in his Department in the last five years have been a member of a group considering the energy industry policy which had Mr. Richard Budge as one of its members. [23018]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: As far as I am aware, no Minister in this Department, or in the former Department of Energy, in the last five years has been a member of a group considering energy industry policy which had Mr. Richard Budge as one of its members.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates in 1992, 1993 and until 12 October 1994, Ministers in his Department met Mr. Richard Budge to discuss the privatisation of the coal industry. [23016]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

  My right, hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy discussed coal privatisation with a number of industry figures in this period. At meetings with

  25
  Mr. Richard Budge on 17 June 1992, 29 June 1992, 1 March 1993, 26 March 1993, 15 April 1993, 15 June 1993 and 7 July 1994 a range of issues were discussed. Mr. Budge met the Minister for Industry and Energy both in his capacity as chairman of the trade association Coalpro, and as chief executive of RJB (Mining).

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if any Ministers in his Department since April 1992 have been on trips overseas in which Mr. Richard Budge was in the party. [23017]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: No DTI Minister has been on an overseas visit with Mr. Richard Budge during this period.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions between 1989 and 1992 advance payments for ordinary soil extraction were made to AF Budge; and what was their total value. [22818]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation.

  Cottonware Ltd.
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take against the directors of Cottonware Ltd. for not filing their company accounts within the legal deadline. [23970]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  There is no company registered with that name on the public record held at Companies House.

  Oil and Gas Pipelines
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what proposals he has to modify the Petroleum Act 1987 in relation to the dismantling and removal of redundant offshore oil and gas structures and submarine pipeline networks; and if he will make a statement; [24032]

  (2) if he will list (a) the redundant offshore oil and gas installations which have been dismantled and removed from their sites and (b) the redundant submarine pipeline networks which have been dismantled and removed from their sites in accordance with the relevant provisions contained in the Petroleum Act 1987; and if he will make a statement; [23033]

  (3) how many programmes of (a) abandonment of redundant offshore oil and gas structures, (b) abandonment of submarine pipeline networks, (c) dismantlement and removal of redundant offshore oil and gas structures and (d) dismantlement and removal of submarine pipeline networks he has approved in each of the past seven years; and if he will make a statement; [24034]

  (4) if he will list (a) the number and location of redundant offshore oil and gas installations which operators have been allowed to abandon and (b) the redundant submarine pipeline networks which operators have been allowed to abandon in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Petroleum Act 1987; if he will detail what measures have been taken, in relation to such programmes of abandonment, to protect the safety and commercial interests of other parties engaged in maritime industries; and if he will make a statement; [23036]

  (5) what advice is given to commercial fishermen who fish nearby fishing grounds and other users of the local marine environment in relation to the dismantlement and removal of redundant offshore oil and gas structures and redundant submarine pipeline networks; [23037]
  26
  (6) if he will list the regulations governing the maintenance and inspection of abandoned offshore oil and gas structures and redundant submarine pipeline networks; and if he will make a statement; [23038]

  (7) when Shell UK Exploration, Shell Expro, was given approval under part I of the Petroleum Act 1987 for its abandonment proposal for the Brent Spar, which at present is located in the Brent field; and if he will make a statement; [23377]

  (8) what discussions have taken place with Shell UK Exploration and Production, Shell Expro, concerning the removal and disposal of the decommissioned Brent Spar under part I of the Petroleum Act 1987 which at present is located in the Brent field; and if he will make a statement; [23378]

  (9) if it is his policy in relation to the Petroleum Act 1987 to allow offshore oil and gas operators to dispose of redundant oil and gas structures and pipeline networks by way of deep-water sinkings; and if he will make a statement; [23379]

  (10) how many redundant, or decommissioned, offshore oil and gas structures and pipeline networks have been disposed of under the Petroleum Act 1987 by way of (a) onshore scrapping, (b) deep-water sinking or (c) left in situ in each of the past seven years; and if he will make a statement; [23380]

  (11) if he name those persons and companies against whom he has initiated court proceedings in each of the past seven years in relation to offences they were alleged to have committed under sections 2, 5, 9 or 10 of the Petroleum Act 1987, of those so proceeded against how many were found guilty; what were the penalties imposed upon them by the law courts; and if he will make a statement. [24210]

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his predecessor the Secretary of State for Energy have approved the following abandonment programmes for offshore installations and pipelines:

  Year

  Facilities

  1988

  Piper Alpha

  1991

  Crawford1

  1992

  Argyll, Duncan and Innes Blair1

  1993

  Angus

  Forbes

  Part of Staffa—Ninian pipe-line

  1994

  Fulmar single anchor leg mooring (SALM) buoy Brent Spar oil storage and tanker loading facility

  1 Includes pipe-lines.

  In each case, except Piper Alpha, two Blair pipelines, a redundant part of the Staffa—Ninian pipeline, and the Argyll Base Manifold, the abandonment programme provided for the complete removal of the facilities. The Crawford, Argyll, Duncan and Innes, and Angus floating production facilities have been re-used elsewhere. The Forbes topsides have been sold for re-use and the jacket has been sold for possible re-use or scrapping onshore. The Fulmar SALM buoy has been removed from the field and the disposal options are under consideration.

  In accordance with section 4 of the Petroleum Act 1987 the President of the Board of Trade approved the Brent Spar abandonment programme on 20 December 1994.

  27
  That programme provides for disposal of the Spar in the deep waters of the north-east Atlantic. That decision was taken following a comparative assessment of the options including an analysis of the best practicable environmental option. My Department had extensive discussions with Shell UK Exploration and Production during the consideration of the abandonment programme and consulted others in Government with an interest in protection of the marine environment and fisheries. Apart from environmental considerations and possible interference with navigation and fisheries, the comparative assessment also examined risk, technical feasibility and cost. Our decision fully meets our international obligations and has been communicated to other countries under the procedural requirements of the Oslo convention.

  No regulations have been made in respect of the abandonment provisions of the Petroleum Act 1987. Inspection and maintenance requirements are decided on a case-by-case basis in the light of the circumstances of each abandonment proposal and after consultation with other Government Departments.

  In each case, the President of the Board of Trade has required consultations to be carried out with interested parties, including representatives of fishermen's organisations, and that the results of the consultations be reported in the abandonment programme.

  Abandonment programmes are considered on a case-by-case basis and their approval must be consistent with our international obligations including the International Maritime Organisations's guidelines and standards for the removal of offshore installations and the London and Oslo conventions.

  While decommissioning operations are being undertaken, mariners are advised by notice to avoid the area. An installation which is only partly removed will not be allowed to endanger navigation. The Government are currently considering whether further measures need to be taken to ensure that mariners, including fishermen, are aware of any remains of installations.

  Guidance notes for the abandonment of offshore installations and pipelines were issued for consultation on 4 May 1995. A copy of the guidance notes is available in the Library of the House.

  I have no proposals at present to modify the Petroleum Act.

  I have not initiated any court proceedings in respect of offences under sections 2, 5, 9 or 10 of the Petroleum Act.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions in each of the past seven years he has used his powers, contained in section 4 of the Petroleum Act 1987, to reject an abandonment programme submitted by offshore oil and gas operators; in how many such cases the programmes were replaced by an abandonment programme prepared by himself; and if he will make a statement. [24204]

  Mr. Eggar
  No abandonment programmes have been rejected under section 4 of the Petroleum Act 1987.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he plans to issue the authorisation anent the laying of the gas pipeline to Premier Transco Ltd. between Scotland and Northern Ireland; when he expects the work to(a) commence and (b) be completed; and if he will make a statement. [24181]
  28
  Mr. Eggar
  The authorisation under the Pipe-lines Act 1962 for the onshore section of the pipeline was issued on 27 February this year. It is expected that the authorisation for the offshore section required under the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 will be issued shortly. Work has already commenced on the onshore section and work on the whole pipeline is expected to be completed by October 1996.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the responsibilities of(a) the fire service and (b) the trading standards officer for enforcing the law relating to the purchase of fireworks by children under the apparent age of 16 years in Metropolitan areas; and what changes have been made since March. [22819]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Prior to the revocation of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1986, trading standards authorities had responsibility for enforcing those regulations relating to the supply of fireworks to children apparently under the age of 16. The fire service had no such responsibility. Since the coming into force of the Fireworks (Safety) (Revocation) Regulations 1995, section 31 of the Explosives Act 1875, as amended, prohibits the sale of fireworks to those apparently under 16 years of age and the police remain the appropriate enforcement authority.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what body will be responsible for enforcing section 31 of the Explosives Act 1875, on the sale of firearms to children under 16 years after the coming into force of the Fireworks (Safety) Revocation Regulations 1995. [23009]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 5 May 1995]: Following the coming into force of the Fireworks (Safety) (Revocation) Regulations 1995, the police remain the appropriate authority to enforce section 31 of the Explosives Act 1875, as amended, which prohibits the sale of fireworks to children apparently under 16 years of age.

  MGM Cinemas
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what reassurances he has sought from the Office of Fair Trading to ensure that the position of the independent cinema owners is protected in the sale of MGM cinemas by Credit Lyonnais; [24430]

  (2) what steps he has taken to ensure that competition in high street cinemas is not reduced as a result of a takeover of MGM cinemas by the Rank Organisation; [24432]

  (3) what guarantees he has sought from (a) Credit Lyonnais and (b) the various bidders for the MGM cinema chain being sold by Credit Lyonnais that they will endeavour where possible to keep open the maximum number of high street and multiple cinemas; [24431]

  (4) what steps he has taken to ensure that competition in multiplex cinemas is not reduced as a result of a takeover of MGM cinemas by Time Warner. [24433]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  If the sale of MGM cinemas results in a qualifying merger under the Fair Trading Act 1973 it will be for the Director General of Fair Trading to advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade whether to refer the merger to the Monopolies
  29
  and Mergers Commission. In giving his advice, the DGFT will take account of all relevant factors including the impact on competition in the cinema industry and the views of third parties. If appropriate, the DGFT will also advise about possible undertakings which might be given to remedy any adverse effects resulting from the merger.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the latest trade balance of(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany, (c) France and (d) Korea with (i) Poland, (ii) Hungary, (iii) the Czech Republic and (iv) Russia. [23708]

  Mr. Needham
  Information on the topic is regularly published in the "IMF Direction of Trade Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the replies received from the Official Receiver as part of the consultation process for the privatisation of the insolvency service; and if he will consult the official receiver on the detailed specifications for the contracting out of the insolvency service. [24154]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  A digest of official receivers' responses to the consultation process was published and laid in the Libraries of the House and the Vote Office on 3 May 1995. The views of the official receivers have been sought on the draft technical specification and their comments are being considered.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the potential change in public expenditure arising from the proposed privatisation of the insolvency service. [24375]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  It is too early to form any assessment of the effect on public expenditure of the possible contracting out of official receivers' functions. This information will not be available until final bids have been received from the private sector and compared to the benchmark costs of the service. The evaluation of tenders is due to be completed by early December 1995.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the 30
  potential effect of the privatisation of the insolvency service on fraudulent bankruptcy. [24377]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Stoy Hayward reported that the contracting out of official receivers' case administration functions upon the making of an insolvency order would enable them to concentrate on their investigatory role.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the proposed privatisation of the insolvency service. [24376]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I have received substantial correspondence concerned with contracting out certain of the official receiver's functions; originating from official receivers staff, members of the public, and members of professional bodies. The official receivers, as statutory office holders, have been formally consulted on proposals for contracting out.

  Convention on Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the United Kingdom to deposit the United Kingdom's instrument on ratification for the convention on nuclear safety which was signed on 20 September 1994 with the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency. [24292]

  Mr. Page
  Deposit of the United Kingdom's instrument of ratification for the convention on nuclear safety is expected to take place before the end of 1995.

  Overseas Projects Board
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will instruct(a) the overseas project board and (b) the regional industrial development board to issue an annual report before Parliament. [24190]

  Mr. Needham
  I shall ensure that any annual report published by the overseas projects board is made available in the Library of the House.

  There are seven regional industrial boards covering the 10 English regions. They are non-statutory boards but by tradition each board contributes an annual commentary for inclusion in the annual reports of the Industrial Development Act 1982, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fish Hatcheries
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when permission was granted for the operation of a hatchery at Killylough lough, Maghera, County Londonderry; what is the consent discharge number or reference number for this project; and what public notification or consultation took place prior to authorisation for the Killylough lough hatchery, Maghera, County Londonberry, being given. [23306]

  Mr. Ancram
  There is no fish hatchery of this name and neither has permission been granted for the operation of one at this location. A small unauthorised hatchery was detected and closed in January 1989. In anticipation of an authorised fish hatchery development a consent, No. 89/90, to the discharge of effluent was issued by the Department of the Environment under the terms of the Water Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. The application was not pursued and, as no authorisation was issued for the operation of a hatchery, public notification and consultation procedures were not instigated.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if employees of the Fisheries Conservancy Board are required to register an interest when a close relative operates a hatchery or fish farm within or outside the jurisdiction of the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland. [23305]

  Mr. Ancram
  No.

  Stevens Report
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 160, if Mr. John Stevens succeeded in identifying those responsible for the killings which were the subject of the shoot to kill inquiry. [23122]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Mr. Stevens conducted no such inquiry. He conducted an inquiry into allegations of collusion and submitted a report on that inquiry. He conducted further inquiries into the purported activities of Brian Nelson and certain members of the Army. As stated in my reply of 2 May,Official Report, column 160, a direction of no prosecutions was issued on 17 February 1995.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 160, on what grounds the direction of no prosecution was issued on 19 February following the report by Mr. John Stevens; and if he will make a statement. [23121]

  Sir John Wheeler
  In respect of the supplementary reports which were forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) on 25 April 1994, 18 October 1994 and 24 January 1995, the director concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant prosecution of any persons. A direction of no prosecution was issued on 17 February 1995.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 160, if he will place in the Library a survey of the
  32
  supplementary reports by Mr. John Stevens to his shoot to kill inquiry on 25 April and 18 October 1994 and on 24 January 1995. [23123]

  Sir John Wheeler
  No. Police reports remain confidential.

  Reservoirs
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on public access to ownership of water reservoirs in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the Annalong reservoir. [23153]

  Mr. Moss
  Ownership of reservoirs used for public water supply purposes is vested in the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. Access is granted for specific recreational purposes such as angling, or for general recreation dependent upon consideration of safety, water quality and the nature of the environment. There is no Annalong reservoir. The nearest reservoir is at the Silent valley and the public enjoy full access there. There are no plans to alter these arrangements.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research he has conducted into the effectiveness and fairness of the local management of schools formula for the delegation of school budgets; and what proposals he has to change it. [23390]

  Mr. Ancram
  The effects of the local management of schools formula have been closely monitored by the five education and library boards and by the Department of Education. The Department has also commissioned the University of Ulster to undertake a survey of the impact of LMS on school. I have no proposal for changes at this time.

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what cash settlement was paid to the former chief executive of the Industrial Development Board to terminate his contract; and if he will make a statement. [23078]

  Mr. Ancram
  The former chief executive of the Industrial Development Board expressed a wish to return to his private sector business and the Department agreed that he could be released from his contract from 31 March 1995. As his departure was by mutual agreement, no cash settlement was paid.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of Industrial Development Board sponsored potential investor visits in each of the past five years; and for each year if he will give details of the number of visits to(a) Armagh city, (b) Newry town, (c) Armagh district council area, (d) Newry and Mourne district council area, (e) Craigavon district, (f) Belfast, (g) Derry city and (h) Antrim borough. [23722]

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of potential investor visits for the years in question together with the breakdown by district council area are as follows. Information relating to Armagh city and Newry town is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  33

  Total inward visits to Northern Ireland

  Total

  1990–91

  231

  1991–92

  240

  1992–93

  216

  1993–94

  229

  1994–95

  254

  Total visits by potential investors in the following district councils areas

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Armagh

  3

  2

  3

  —

  2

  Newry and Mourne

  4

  4

  10

  9

  19

  Craigavon

  14

  12

  15

  6

  24

  Belfast

  188

  213

  141

  125

  138

  Derry

  23

  28

  23

  30

  31

  Antrim

  61

  81

  38

  55

  40

  Historical Documents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what special training is given to persons who have responsibility for assessing the historical significance of documents held by his Department. [23281]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Assessments of the historical significance of departmental records held in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland. I have asked its chief executive, Dr. Malcomson, to arrange for a reply to be given about the training of his staff.

  Assessment of the historical significance of departmental records held in London is done in consultation with the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland. The staff responsible for this work attend courses, conferences and seminars arranged by the Public Record Office, Kew.

  Letter from A. P. W. Malcomson to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 5 May 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question Number 797 enquiring about the training given to persons who have responsibility for assessing the historical significance of documents held by the Department of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  Documents of historical significance originating in the Northern Ireland Departments are transferred to the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) when they have ceased to have recurrent administrative value—usually at twenty years. By this stage, the

  Department

  Number of mobile phones

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Education

  4

  154

  335

  468

  361

  450

  1,214

  2,346

  2,807

  Agriculture

  69

  nil

  110,000

  110,000

  111,000

  111,500

  13,600

  16,000

  22,400

  Finance and Personnel

  38

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1,670

  8,095

  9,490

  17,303

  16,972

  Environment

  235

  2Approximately £50,000 pa operating cost excluding call charges

  Economic Development

  59

  nil

  500

  2,781

  4,077

  5,935

  12,611

  17,552

  19,909

  Health and Social Services

  34

  This information is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Northern Ireland Office

  19

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15,893

  13,761

  11,434

  1 Estimated expenditure.

  2 Annual breakdown and call charges not available.

  3 Records do not show when mobile phones were first introduced—last three years given only.

  34
  assessment of their historical significance will have been carried out by curatorial staff of PRONI, who are all graduates (often in history) and are given a two-year training period before being allowed to make independent, but still supervised, decisions.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Police Complaints
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to give powers to the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland to allow it to supervise inquiries of its own volition. [23600]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There are at present no plans to allow the commission to instigate the supervision of the investigation of a matter which is not the subject of a complaint. However, my right hon. and learned Friend announced on 29 March,Official Report, columns 659–61, that the commission will have the power to draw a non-complaint matter to his attention: he will then have the responsibility to refer appropriate cases to the commission for supervision. Draft legislation to give effect to this new power, the Police (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order, was published for consultation on 25 April 1995.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many mobile telephones being utilised by his Department have been cloned during the last 12 months. [23435]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Three.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [23441]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Within the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office, hand-held and car-based mobile telephones are used by senior management, private office staff, security personnel, press officers, car pool/official drivers and other staff whose duties require them to be frequently absent from their base and who are required to maintain contact.

  The cost of these phones and the number currently in use are as follows:
  35
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [23481]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: None. Unauthorised calls on cloned phones are not paid for by the Department.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of school leavers has attained no academic qualifications in every year since 1979. [23393]

  Mr. Ancram
  The proportion of school leavers attaining no academic qualifications from 1979–80 is as follows:

  Per cent.

  1979–80

  27.0

  1980–81

  No survey

  1981–82

  24.3

  1982–83

  No survey

  1983–84

  21.1

  1984–85

  No survey

  1985–86

  19.5

  1986–87

  17.7

  1987–88

  16.4

  1988–89

  12.7

  1989–90

  10.0

  1990–91

  8.6

  1991–92

  7.4

  1992–93

  4.9

  Consultants
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what contracts have been awarded to Capita Management Consultants Ltd. for consultancy work in the Northern Ireland civil service since January 1990; and if he will list the cost of each consultancy to date. [23661]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Northern Ireland Departments maintain records of consultancy expenditure on a financial year basis. The provision of information from 1 January 1990 to 31 March 1990 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. During the period 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1995, payments totalling £546,738, excluding VAT, were made by Northern Ireland Departments in respect of consultancy work undertaken by Capita Management Consultants Ltd. Details of the value of individual contracts cannot, however, be released as this would breach commercial confidentiality.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which non-departmental public bodies within the responsibility of his Department are subject to scrutiny by(a) ombudsmen, (b) the National Audit Office, (c) the Audit Commission and (d) other monitoring officers; which are covered by citizens charters; in which performance indicators apply; and in which members are liable to surcharge. [23959]
  36
  Sir John Wheeler
  In Northern Ireland, the Commissioner for Complaints investigates complaints of alleged injustice in consequence of maladministration by local and public bodies. The current list of non-departmental public bodies within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Complaints is as follows:

  Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

  Education and Library Boards

  Enterprise Ulster

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland

  Industrial Training Boards

  Labour Relations Agency

  Laganside Corporation

  Livestock and Meat Marketing Commission for Northern Ireland

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for

  Northern Ireland

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  Northern Ireland Local Government Officers Superannuation Committee

  Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment

  Northern Ireland Sports Council

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  Office of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  Trustees of the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  Trustees of the Ulster Museum

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland

  There are no non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland which are subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission.

  The following non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Northern Ireland Office are subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office:

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland

  Independent Commissioner for Police Complaints

  Training Schools Management Board Rathgael and Whiteabbey

  The responsibility of the National Audit Office does not extend to the six Northern Ireland Departments, which have their own similarly appointed body—the Northern Ireland Audit Office. The following non-departmental public bodies are subject to scrutiny by the NIAO:

  Belfast Education and Library Board

  Northern Education and Libary Board

  South Eastern Education and Library Board

  Southern Education and Library Board

  Western Education and Library Board

  Enterprise Ulster

  Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland

  Executive of the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland

  Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland

  Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland

  Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland

  Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum Examinations and Assessments

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  37

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  Ulster Museum

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland

  The following non-departmental public bodies are subject to scrutiny by the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland:

  Public authorities for the purposes of sections 27 and 42 of the Fair Employment Act of 1989

  Any agency established under article 4(1) of the Health and Personal Services (Special Agencies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 before the coming into operation of this order

  Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland

  Arts Council for Northern Ireland

  Belfast Harbour Commissioners

  British Broadcasting Corporation

  Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary

  Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland

  Citybus Ltd.

  Coleraine Harbour Commissioners

  Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

  Any district council

  Any education and library board established under article 3 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986

  Enterprise Ulster

  Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland

  Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland Flexibus Ltd.

  Foyle Fisheries Commission

  General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland

  Any health and social services board established under article 16(1) of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972

  Any health and social services trust established under article 10(1) of the Health and Personal Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 before the coming into operation of this order.

  Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland

  Any industrial training board established under article 14(1) of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984

  Labour Relations Agency

  Laganside Corporation

  Livestock and Meat Commission

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland

  Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners

  Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland

  Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland

  Northern Ireland Central Services Agency for the Health and Social Services

  Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints

  Northern Ireland Community Relations Council

  Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment

  Northern Ireland Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education

  Northern Ireland Economic Development Office

  Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  Northern Ireland Local Government Officers Superannuation Committee

  38

  Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

  Northern Ireland Railways Company Ltd.

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company

  Pigs Marketing Board (Northern Ireland)

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  Post Office

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland

  Rathgael and Whiteabbey Schools Management Board

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  Sports Commission for Education and Library Boards

  The board of governors of Stranmillis college of education, Belfast

  Trustees of the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  Trustees of the Ulster Museum

  Ulster Sheltered Employment Ltd.

  Ulsterbus Ltd.

  Warrenpoint Harbour Authority

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland

  The Fire Authority for Northern Ireland is subject to scrutiny by the Home Office fire service inspectorate.

  All non-departmental public bodies are subject to internal departmental scrutiny. All executive non-departmental public bodies listed in the publication "Public Bodies 1994" are subject to performance indicators. Information on advisory non-departmental public bodies is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The following non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland have published charters:

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive tenants charter

  Northern Ireland railway passengers charter

  Ulsterbus/Citybus passengers charter

  The following non-departmental public bodies have published charter standard statements.

  Eastern health and social services board

  Northern health and social services board

  Southern health and social services board

  Western health and social services board

  Each document sets out the rights and standards of service people can expect.

  As part of the charter, Northern Ireland Railways operates a compensation scheme whereby passengers receive discount vouchers or refunds if services are delayed.

  In respect of members being liable to surcharge, the education and library boards attract the provisions of sections 31 to 33 of the Local Government Act Northern Ireland 1972 which relate to fraudulent activity.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the wage-setting role of the Agricultural Wages Board. [23710]

  Mr. Jack
  Under the provisions of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, as amended, the Agricultural Wages Board has the power to make orders:

  (a) fixing minimum rates of wages;

  (b) directing holidays to be allowed;

  (c) fixing any other terms and conditions of employment;

  for workers employed in agriculture.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the net annual financial saving, or cost, of his Department's submission for the proposed White Paper on the rural economy. [24334]

  Mr. Jack
  Proposals for the rural White Paper remain subject to continuing collective consideration and discussion. The costs of measures contained in the White Paper will be taken into account in the public expenditure survey.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to make it a statutory requirement for(a) the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, (b) the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, (c) the Food Advisory Committee and (d) the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee to lay an annual report before Parliament. [24178]

  Mr. Jack
  The answer to (a), (b), (c) is no. These non-departmental public bodies already produce annual reports, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House.

  The answer to (d) is no. This NDPB produces periodic rather than annual reports and these are placed in the Library of the House.

  Intervention Stores
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when(a) butter and (b) cheese was last distributed on a (i) national and (ii) local basis from intervention stores. [24289]

  Mr. Jack
  Butter released from intervention stores was last distributed during the period September 1992 to March 1993, as part of the 1992 surplus food scheme arrangements. The scheme applied throughout the UK and distribution was undertaken by 1,367 designated organisations. Cheese has never been distributed in the UK from EC intervention stocks.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when and where there have been any distribution of Intervention Board(a) butter, (b) cheese and (c) wine in the UK in the last 12 months. [24288]

  Mr. Jack
  There has been no distribution by the Intervention Board of butter, cheese or wine in the last 12 months.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Investments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what new proposals he has to improve the return of the investments of the Church Commissioners. [22496]

  Mr. Alison
  DTZ Debenham Thorpe advised on our property investment strategy in March 1994 and is in the course of updating this advice. The commissioners have embarked upon a strategic programme of property sales 40
  to rebalance their investment portfolio in the light of that advice.

  Our consulting actuaries have advised on our asset allocation strategy. This advice was recently considered at length by the assets committee and has influenced the committee's aim to combine the maximisation of investment return with an acceptable level of risk and diversification in those investments.

  Staff (Dismissals)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners when a member of the commissioners' staff was last dismissed. [22498]

  Mr. Alison
  The most recent dismissal of a member of the commissioners' staff took place last April, and before that in August 1992.

  Pensions
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby as representing the Church Commissioners what discussions the commissioners have had concerning the recent second report of the Social Security Committee on the Church Commissioners and Church of England pensions; and if he will make a statement. [22499]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners if he will make a statement on the recommendations contained in the second report of the Social Security Committee of Session 1994–95, HC 354, on the operation of Church of England pensions. [22501]

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what action has been taken to carry out the recommendations of the second report of the Social Security Committee, HC 354, in respect of the past use of Church Commissioners' pension fund money. [22502]

  Mr. Alison
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier to day to the hon. Members for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), and Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown).

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners how many wives have been divorced from their clergy husbands for each of the last 30 years; and if he will make a statement on the impact of these numbers on pension provision. [22500]

  Mr. Alison
  Neither the Church Commissioners nor the pensions board holds this information. It is possible that Broken Rites, which, as the hon. Member knows, is an independent association of divorced and separated wives of clergy, may be able to provide certain information.

  A survivorship pension is payable to a legal widow—the wife to whom the clergyman was married at the time of his death. No such pension is payable in respect of the ex-wife of a divorced clergyman unless he remarries. In that event, and if he is survived by the second wife, she would receive a pension.

  The pensions board makes discretionary grants to a former wife, after the death of her ex-husband, if her total income from all sources is below a certain figure.

ENVIRONMENT

  G7 Meeting, Hamilton
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals were put forward by the United Kingdom and what decisions taken at the meeting of G7 Environment Ministers in Hamilton from 29 April to 1 May; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the communiqué from the meeting. [22927]

  Mr. Gummer
  The meeting of G7 Environment Ministers was concerned to prepare the response of the most prosperous world economies to the major environmental challenges we face.

  We stressed the need to maximise our efforts to implement the biodiversity and climate change conventions. On climate change, we emphasised the importance not only of meeting our targets for the year 2000 but of taking forward the mandate negotiated at the Berlin conference of the parties to consider the position beyond 2000. The UK was able to take the lead in these discussions, and our firm proposition of the need to cut developed country greenhouse gas emissions by the between 5 and 10 per cent. from 1990 levels by the year 2010 is becoming an increasingly important signal as to the direction of the climate change debate.

  We discussed the role of international environment institutions, on which we broadly endorsed the conclusions reached at the informal meeting of Environment Ministers, which I hosted at Brocket hall in February. We looked forward to the governing council of the United Nations environment programme in Nairobi next month as an opportunity to confirm the mandate of UNEP as the world's environment voice.

  These and other results of the meeting were reported in the form of chairman's highlights, a copy of which I have placed in the Library. I will be reporting the outcome of the meeting to the Prime Minister, as will my G7 colleagues to their Heads of Government. The results will thus feed into the discussions by Heads of Government at the Halifax summit in July.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what cost 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; [23484]

  (2) 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;

  (3) how many mobile telephones being utilised by his Department have been cloned during the last 12 months; [23432]

  (4) 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; [23461]

  (5) what representations his Department has made to the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the need for the legislation to prevent the cloning of mobile telephones. [23473]
  42
  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Mobile telephones are used by Ministers and officials who, by virtue of their work, need to speak to colleagues when not in the office. The Department does not keep central financial records for mobile telephones but there are currently 230 mobile telephones in use in my Department, of which 16 are car based, at an estimated cost of £74,000 for the rental per annum.

  The information that we have suggests that 11 mobile telephones have been cloned in the last 12 months. Service providers have identified incidents of cloning and the Department has not been charged for the calls.

  It is difficult to prevent the cloning of analogue mobile telephones but the Department will be discussing this issue with the mobile phone industry and will consider the further use of digital mobile telephones which are not easily cloned.

  No Government Departments or official agencies have made representations to the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the need for legislation to prevent the cloning of mobile phones.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment wht consultations with local communities have taken place in regard to opencast mining in south Yorkshire. [23532]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There has been no consultation with local communities by my Department regarding opencast mining in south Yorkshire, but local planning authorities and site operators would have been consulted as part of the planning application process.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many compulsory land purchase orders have been exercised by opencast mining operators under the Coal Industry Act 1994; and in what locations. [23536]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No compulsory land purchase orders have been confirmed under the 1994 legislation.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the response of south Yorkshire local authorities to his Department's MPG3 guidance note on opencast mining. [23534]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department has not received any correspondence from south Yorkshire local authorities on the MPG3 guidance note, which was published in July 1994.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will introduce an environmental test for opencast mining planning applications. [23535]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Procedures for environmental assessment of new development already exist in compliance with a European directive which came into force in July 1988. Mineral extraction qualifies under the legislation as a schedule 2 project, with respect to which the requirement for environmental assessment depends on a prior assessment of whether the project in question is likely to give rise to significant environmental effects.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sites where permission for opencast mining has been given in the Rotherham metropolitan borough council area. [23544]
  43
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following opencast coal sites have been given permission in the Rotherham MBC area:

  Round wood Phase 1, Rotherham (site now in restoration stage)

  Roundwood Phase 2, Rotherham

  Cortonwood, Wentworth (site now restored)

  Pithouse West, Rother Valley Park (restoration under way)

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate has been made of increased heavy lorry traffic in Rotherham as a result of proposed opencast mining. [23533]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No estimate of increased heavy lorry traffic in Rotherham has been made by my Department. However, this matter is one that should have been considered by the local planning authority in its determination of applications for opencast mining permissions.

  Year

  Total number of complaints

  Number of authorities receiving notices

  Total number of notices

  Number of authorities given directions

  Total number of directions

  1990–91

  59

  6

  6

  3

  3

  1991–92

  41

  6

  7

  2

  2

  1992–93

  70

  8

  9

  5

  6

  1993–94

  110

  12

  13

  6

  6

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many complaints his Department received alleging anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities in England 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; and how many local authorities were subsequently issued with a section 19A notice or 19B direction as a result. [23339]

  Year

  Number of complaints

  Number of authorities receiving notices

  Total number of notices

  Number of authorities given directions

  Total number of directions

  1990–91

  21

  —

  0

  —

  0

  1991–92

  15

  3

  3

  0

  0

  1992–93

  36

  2

  3

  3

  3

  1993–94

  40

  5

  6

  6

  8

  City Pride Initiative
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend the city pride initiative; and if he will make a statement. [23422]

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 11 May 1995]: Three cities, Birmingham, London and Manchester, are currently taking part in the city pride initiative, and have all made excellent progress in drawing up a prospectus setting out their vision for the future. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in the House on 4 November 1993, Official Report, column 516, these are the pilot areas on which city pride is currently concentrated. We will wish to assess progress with the city pride initiative in these areas before any extension.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department has taken

  Complaints
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many complaints his Department received alleging anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities in England under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988 for the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94; and how many local authorities were subsequently issued with a section 19A notice or 19B direction as a result. [23340]

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 11 May 1995]: The table gives, for the years in question, the number of complaints received by the Department of the Environment alleging anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities under the Local Government Act 1988. It also indicates the number of authorities on which notices were served under section 13 and to which directions were given under section 14, and the total numbers of notices and directions.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 11 May 1995]: The table gives, for the years in question, the number of complaints received by the Department of the Environment alleging anti-competitive behaviour by local authorities under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. It also indicates the number of authorities on which notices were served under section 19A and to which directions were given under section 19B, and the total numbers of notices and directions.

  to improve public information on air pollution following the survey on air quality and smog awareness commissioned by his Department last July. [23670]

  Mr. Atkins
  I shall shortly publish a consultation paper, proposing changes to our public information system. I will also announce a major upgrade to the free telephone service which provides the public with continuous access to information about pollution levels and health advice.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which non-departmental public bodies with in the responsibility of his Department are subject to scrutiny by(a) ombudsmen, (b) the National Audit Office, (c) the Audit Commission and (d) other monitoring officers; which are covered by citizens charters; in which performance indicators apply; and in which members are liable to surcharge. [23968]
  45
  Sir Paul Beresford
  Details of non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my department are listed in the Cabinet Office publication, "Public Bodies 1994". A copy is available in the House of Commons Library. In respect of executive NDPBs, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) on Tuesday 25 April,Official Report, column 474–75.

  In respect of the advisory and tribunal NDPBs, the Local Government Commission is subject to scrutiny by the Parliamentary Commissioner. It is also intended to introduce an Order under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1994 to extend the commissioner's jurisdiction to the Department's tribunals.

  The Local Government Commission and departmental expenditure in respect of advisory bodies and tribunals are subject to inspection by the National Audit Office.

  The Local Government Commission, the valuation tribunals and the rent assessment panels are expected to abide by the provisions of the citizens charter. Key performance measures and targets are set for the Local Government Commission, while the tribunals have key objectives or benchmarks.

  No members of any NDPBs are liable to surcharge.

  Air Pollution (Bexley)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to visit the London borough of Bexley to discuss the problems of air pollution in the area. [23729]

  Mr. Atkins
  I have no plans at present to visit Bexley to discuss matters related to air pollution in the area.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for improving air quality and reducing air pollution in the London borough of Bexley. [23730]

  Mr. Atkins
  I intend shortly to table amendments to the Environment Bill to implement the proposals on air quality management announced in January.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about air pollution in the London borough of Bexley. [23731]

  Mr. Atkins
  My officials are in regular contact with local government officers in Bexley in connection with the operation of air quality monitoring facilities in the borough.

  Annual Reports
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to make it a statutory requirement for(a) the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, (b) the Radioactive Waste Management Committee and (c) the Royal Commission on environmental pollution to lay an annual report before Parliament. [24174]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I see no need to introduce such legislation. The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee already produce annual reports which are placed in the House of Commons Library and the Royal Commission on environmental pollution presents all its reports to Parliament.
  46
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will instruct the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council to lay an annual report before Parliament. [24185]

  Mr. Atkins
  The Transport Act 1968 established the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council to advise the British Waterways Board and the Secretary of State on the amenity and recreation aspects of the board's network. Apart from the part-time chairman's salary, which is paid by DOE, IWAAC's expenses are met by the British Waterways Board and recorded in the board's annual report and accounts, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House. Additionally IWAAC carries out regular reviews of its activities, reports of which are made freely available to interested parties.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the planned spending on(a) task forces, (b) compacts, (c) teacher placements, (d) education business partnerships, (e) TEC challenge, (f) section 11, (g) ethnic minorities grant, (h) safer cities and (i) GEST 19 under the single regeneration budget for 1995–96 and 1996–97. [24388]

  Mr. Curry
  Provisional allocations for these programmes are as follows:

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  (a) Task Forces

  13.0

  9.6

  (b) Compacts

  4.3

  1.1

  (c) Teacher Placement scheme

  2.0

  2.0

  (d) Education Business Partnerships

  <0.1

  0

  (e) TEC Challenge

  0

  0

  (f) Section 11 (part)

  37.3

  27.4

  (g) Ethnic Minorities Grant

  2.3

  0

  (h) Safer Cities

  5.4

  6.1

  (i) GEST 19

  0.4

  0

  These allocations reflect on-going commitments on programmes that now form part of the single regeneration budget. They do not take into account approvals for new schemes under the SRB challenge fund.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the net annual financial saving, or cost, of his Department's submission for the proposed White Paper on the rural economy. [24335]

  Mr. Atkins
  Proposals for the rural White Paper remain subject to continuing collective consideration and discussion. The cost of measures contained in the White Paper will be taken into account in the public expenditure survey.

  Cable Communications Installers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment if he will make it his policy to require cable
  47
  communication installers to restore all pavements and roads to their former standard and to replace trees which die within five years of the installation work. [22730]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  Cable operators' streetworks are already subject to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, and its associated regulations. The Act requires that reinstatement following street works must be carried out to a specified standard, and any defects remedied at the operator's expense. Failure to reinstate is an offence under the Act, as is failure to comply with the prescribed reinstatement standards.

  Cable operators are committed to ensuring that the potential for any tree damage is minimised by following best practice when trenching in the vicinity of trees. The cable industry supports the guidelines, published last month by the national joint utilities group, which promote the use of trenchless technology or else hand digging around trees.

DEFENCE

  Base Purchasers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 May,Official Report, columns 234–38, if any of the purchasers listed have as directors or employ as consultants, present or former hon. Members. [23523]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not held by my Department.

  Northern Ireland Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated gross cost of British defence policy in Northern Ireland for 1994–95; and what percentage this constitutes of the total defence budget. [23398]

  Mr. Soames
  The current estimate of costs incurred by the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland in 1994–95 on personnel, stores, services, lands and works is some £510,000,000. This amounts to about 2 per cent. of the total estimated expenditure on the defence budget.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated additional cost of the Army's work in Northern Ireland compared with its standard deployment elsewhere; and what percentage this additional cost forms of the total defence budget. [23399]

  Mr. Soames
  The cost of deploying the Army varies according to its location around the world and the task it is undertaking; there is, therefore, no standard deployment to form the basis of such a comparison.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which non-departmental public bodies within the responsibility of his Department are subject to scrutiny by(a) ombudsmen, (b) the National Audit Office, (c) the Audit Commission and (d) other monitoring officers; which are covered by citizens charters; in which performance indicators apply; and in which members are liable to surcharge. [23964]
  48
  Mr. Soames
  Although none of my Department's executive non-departmental public bodies is subject to scrutiny by the ombudsmen or the Audit Commission, they are subject to citizens charter and performance indicators. All MOD NDPBs are liable to scrutiny by the National Audit Office and my Department also maintains a monitoring role under which NDPBs are subject to a comprehensive review every five years. None of the MOD's NDPB board members is liable to surcharge.

  Trident
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the statement on the defence estimates, page 38,(a) if HMS Vanguard is deployed with significantly fewer than 96 warheads, (b) under what circumstances Trident submarines may deploy with significantly fewer than 96 warheads and (c) if his Department will seek to publicly announce any future decision to deploy significantly fewer than 96 warheads per submarine. [23994]

  Mr. Soames
  We will deploy on Trident submarines only the minimum nuclear capability, within our declared ceiling of 96 warheads, which we judge necessary to provide an effective deterrent. It is not our practice to release details of the number of warheads actually carried.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), on 2 May,Official Report, column 164, (a) when his Department first revealed that the Trident warhead has a lower yield than that of Polaris (b) to what extent the yield of the Trident warhead is smaller than the Polaris warhead and (c) if the yield of the Chevaline warhead is smaller than that of the Polaris warhead. [23993]

  Mr. Soames
  The first explicit comparison of the yield of Trident and Polaris or Chevaline warheads was made in the answer to which the hon. Member refers. The yield of the Chevaline warhead is much the same as that of the Polaris warhead. It is not our practice to comment in more detail on the yield of nuclear warheads.

  Tornado Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tornado aircraft based at RAF Coningsby were grounded last year for checks after sand was found in the fuel bowsers; what was the cause of this damage; who was responsible for this damage; which company has the contract to maintain the Tornado aircraft at RAF Coningsby; and if he will make a statement. [23946]

  Mr. Soames
  Twenty-eight Tornado aircraft were grounded as a precaution when a routine check discovered that fuel in a bowser had been contaminated with grit. The contamination was due to residue remaining after a grit blasting technique had been used to remove the lining from part of a bulk fuel installation. The investigation into the responsibility for this contamination is still under way. The majority of the maintenance of Tornado aircraft at RAF Coningsby is carried out by service personnel; very occasionally, some tasks are undertaken by contractors.

  Training
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the distance from (i) RAC Bovington,
  49
  (ii) RAF Netheravon and (iii) RAF Swanton Morley to the nearest facilities suitable for armoured reconnaissance vehicles for (a) live firing, (b) off-road rough training, (c) off-road paved track training, (d) major overhaul of vehicles, (e) training with heavy armour, (f) training with infantry, (g) training on vehicle maintenance, (h) training for drivers, (i) port facilities designed to support loading armoured vehicles, (j) training with signals and (k) training with helicopters. [24468]

  Mr. Soames
  For RAF Bovington, Netheravon and RAF Swanton Morley, the information requested is as follows:

  (a) Each armoured unit is obliged to fire at Castlemartin in Wales. Distances are 250 miles from Bovington, 200 miles from Netheravon and 340 miles from Swanton Morley. Movement will usually be by rail.

  (b) Training will be at Salisbury Plain for units from Bovington, 60 miles and Netheravon, three miles; training will be at Stanford for units from Swanton Morley, 20 miles.

  (c) There is a good but heavily used facility at Bovington. There is no access to a facility at Netheravon, Swanton Morley has exclusive use of the on-site airfield perimeter track.

  (d) Repairs will be carried out on site. Major overhaul for CVR(T) vehicles from all three sites, which would take place about every eight years, would be at Donnington in Staffordshire.

  (e and f) There is no mandatory requirement for such training,

  (g) this is provided before joining units, and then continuation training is conducted within the regiment, wherever based,

  (h) Basic training is provided before joining the unit. Continuation training is carried out on local roads and nearby training areas,

  (i) Armoured recce vehicles do not require specialised loading facilities. Nearest port facilities are Marchwood for Bovington, 50 miles, and Netheravon, 40 miles, and Felixtowe for Swanton Morley, 80 miles. Vehicles can also be transported through the channel tunnel.

  (j) This is provided before joining units, and then continuation training is conducted within the regiment, wherever based.

  (k) There is no mandatory requirement, but training can be carried out on most training areas—see answer to (b). In addition, Swanton Morley is close to Wattisham where two Army Air Corps Regiments are based.

  Stanley Barracks, Bovington
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a study has concluded that there is space at Bovington to locate the Third Armoured reconnaissance regiment; and what is the current area occupied by(a) Stanley barracks and (b) the area owned by his Department that abuts the barracks. [24467]

  Mr. Soames
  Studies show that the Stanley barracks site at Bovington does not have the capacity to accommodate all the regiment, and that it would therefore be necessary to split the regiment between two sites, Stanley barracks and the gunnery school, Lulworth, which would have to accommodate garaging, workshops, and stores as well as living accommodation for one squadron.

  The current area taken up by Stanley barracks, mess accommodation, married quarters and other buildings is 329 acres. Adjacent training land, which is very heavily utilised, occupies 2,150 acres.

  RAF Swanton Morley
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings have been estimated in running 50
  costs by closing (a) RAF Swanton Morley and (b) RAF Northavon; and what was the estimate of the capital value of these sites. [24469]

  Mr. Soames
  The annual running cost savings resulting from the closure of RAF Swanton Morley are £6,729,000. There are no plans to close Netheravon camp—there is no RAF Northavon—but savings from ceasing Army Air Corps flying activity at the site are expected to be £1,404,000.

  As it may be possible to sell Swanton Morley, it is not appropriate to disclose the estimate of likely capital value. Such estimates have, however, been taken into account in the cost appraisal for the options for the future location of the third reconnaissance regiment.

  Sound of Jura Mines
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the mines have not been recovered from the medium mine field in the sound of Jura; what arrangements have been made to pay compensation to fishing vessel owners and crews in the event of gear being fouled and damaged by such mines; and if he will make a statement. [24180]

  Mr. Soames
  The practice mines which were laid in the sound of Jura, all of which are inert, could not be recovered as planned because the special clearance vessel which was to have carried out the task had to be diverted to look for the wreckage of a crashed Tornado. This had to be recovered as soon as possible to assist a board of inquiry. The mine clearance operation has, however, now been undertaken.

  In the event of gear being fouled and damaged by practice mines, any claims should be submitted to my Department in the usual way through the local Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency fisheries officer.

  Nuclear Committees
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will introduce legislation for make it a statutory requirement that(a) the nuclear powered warships committee and (b) the nuclear weapons safety committee lay an annual report before Parliament. [24186]

  Mr. Soames
  I have no plans to do so.

  Dartmoor Steering Group
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration led to the decision not to release externally the annual report of the Dartmoor steering group and working party. [24188]

  Mr. Soames
  None, as no such decision has been taken. A copy of the 13th annual report of the Dartmoor steering group, December 1994, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Detention Facilities
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what considerations led to the decision not to release externally the annual report of the independent board of visitors for the military corrective training centre and royal naval detention quarters. [24187]

  Mr. Soames
  The reports rendered by the independent board of visitors for the military corrective training centre and the royal naval detention quarters comprise accounts
  51
  of their visits to the service detention facilities and are employed as an internal management tool to preserve an impartial overview of the running of the facility. There has previously been no indication of any interest in these reports outside my Department, but consideration will now be given to a formal, wider distribution of them.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the net annual financial saving, or cost, of his Department's submission for the proposed White Paper on the rural economy. [24327]

  Mr. Soames
  Proposals for the rural White Paper remain subject to continuing collective consideration and discussion. The cost of measures contained in the White

  Main management areas

  Outcome for staff win posts proposed for reduction

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  I

  J

  Royal Navy

  1,017

  236

  41

  0

  476

  11

  19

  241

  1

  0

  Army

  1,891

  529

  14

  11

  157

  14

  875

  285

  1

  5

  Royal Air Force

  942

  120

  83

  19

  691

  12

  9

  12

  1

  15

  2nd Permanent Under Secretary of State

  948

  860

  50

  0

  36

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Vice Chief of the Defence Staff

  307

  7

  2

  0

  121

  0

  2

  175

  0

  0

  Chief of Defence Procurement

  7,920

  869

  8,500

  0

  14

  0

  28

  509

  0

  0

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

  1,529

  792

  0

  0

  0

  587

  43

  107

  0

  0

  Meteorological Office

  146

  120

  0

  0

  15

  4

  0

  0

  18

  0

  Total

  14,700

  3,533

  6,670

  30

  1,512

  630

  976

  1,329

  21

  20

  Notes:

  A. Number of posts in activity before testing.

  B. Number of posts in activity after testing.

  C. Transfer to new employer under TUPE.

  D. Transfer to new employer not under TUPE.

  E. Redeployed within the Department.

  F. Voluntary early retirement/redundancy.

  G. Compulsory redundancy.

  H. Outcome not yet decided.

  I. Other (Aga/Medical retirement, End of fixed term and casual service).

  J. Outcome not known.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 April,Official Report, column 226, on the Defence Exports Services Organisation, how many applications to engage in work for the private sector have been made in the last 10 years; how many were refused; and if he will make a statement. [23996]

  Mr. Freeman
  The records available show that in the last 10 years one such application was received and approved from an individual seconded to DESO.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 April,Official Report, column 227, if the current offset adviser and international finance adviser of the Defence Export Services Organisation have made applications to engage in work for outside companies. [23998]

  Mr. Freeman
  The international finance adviser, who is employed on a part-time short-term contract has been granted permission to work for a company in the civil sector when not employed by the MOD. The offset adviser, who is seconded full-time to DESO, has made no application of this kind.
  52
  Paper will be taken into account in the public expenditure survey.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 403, if he will give a breakdown of the 11,167 posts proposed for reduction. [23992]

  Mr. Soames
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement made clear in his answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 403, details of the categories of those posts proposed for reduction, by ranks and grades, are not held centrally. A breakdown of the total number proposed for reduction, by main management areas, and showing the likely outcome for the postholders involved, is as follows:

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 April,Official Report, column 226, on the Defence Exports Services Organisation, if he will list the applications made in the last five years to work for or offer consultancy services to companies int he private sector. [23997]

  Mr. Freeman
  The records available show that, within the last five years, the only secondee granted permission to work in the private sector was the former head of Defence Export Services who accepted a non-executive directorship in a civil sector company in 1994.

  Private Detective Agencies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the activities for which Brays Detective Agency has been retained in each of the last three years for which information is available; and if he will give the cost for each year. [23995]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to the hon. Member for Southampton,
  53
  Itchen (Mr. Denham) on 23 March 1995, Official Report, column 309.

  Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the subjects currently studied by those on the Sandhurst standard military course; and if he will provide an estimate of the time spent on each subject as a proportion of the whole. [23999]

  Mr. Soames
  The commissioning course at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst is made up of three 14-week terms with one week of adventurous training in each of the two recesses. The subjects studied and the percentage time spent on each of them, based on the number of periods allocated, are as follows:

  Subject

  Percentage

  Practical exercises

  22.5

  Leadership

  4.1

  Organisation and concepts

  1.2

  Tactics

  8.3

  Training a platoon

  1.0

  Skill at arms/craft/range management

  8.4

  Map reading

  2.4

  Signals

  3.4

  First aid

  1.1

  Nuclear biological chemical

  1.3

  Physical training

  5.6

  Administration

  2.3

  Drill

  6.3

  Communication studies

  2.4

  Contemporary affairs

  1.4

  War studies

  1.4

  Adventurous training instr

  0.2

  Adventurous training

  4.4

  Battlefield technology

  0.6

  Military law

  0.1

  Combined arms training

  0.5

  Information systems

  0.4

  Course administration

  7.5

  Female (separate) training

  0.6

  At college disposal (lectures/discussions etc).

  4.5

  Sport

  8.1

  Land Mines
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 202, how many projector area defence land mines were produced for his Department by Royal Ordnance factories in 1986; when the research was undertaken that revealed that a command detonated point defence weapon such as a projector area defence weapon fell within the standard NATO definition of a land mine; and if he will list the numbers of (a) anti-tank, (b) anti-personnel, (c) area denial and (d) any other type of land mine stockpiled by any organisation or body responsible to his Department. [23120]

  Mr. Freeman
  The research which revealed that the projector area defence weapon falls within the NATO standard definition of a land mine was undertaken as part of the preparation for my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member, answered on 2 May 1995,Official Report, column 202.

  It is our established policy for security reasons not to reveal quantities of munitions held.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid Programmes
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the bilateral aid programme budget was allocated to the aid and trade programme for 1994–95. [23182]

  Mr. Baldry
  The original 1994–95 allocation for ATP was set at £100 million, or 9.6 per cent. of the bilateral aid programme. However, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced on 13 December 1994, the cost of four ATP projects—two soft loans and two mixed credits—in 1994–95 and 1995–96 will be met from outside the 1980 Overseas Development and Cooperation Act. As a result, the ATP allocation for 1994–95 was revised to £67,984 million, or 6.1 per cent. of the bilateral aid programme.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries eligible for support under the aid and trade programme. [23181]

  Mr. Baldry
  The list of low income countries eligible for ATP based on GNP per capita of $700, at 1989 prices, is:

  1. Low income countries where export credit cover is available Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Ghana, Indonesia, India, Lesotho, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Zimbabwe

  2. Other low income countries

  Afghanistan, Angola, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Eq. Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Kenya, Kiribati, Laos, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, Yemen, Zaire and Zambia.

  Aid Donors (Kenya)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the next meeting will take place of Kenya's major aid donors, including Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement. [23609]

  Mr. Baldry
  The World bank has invited the Government of Kenya, Her Majesty's Government and other donors to a meeting to discuss Kenya in Paris on 24 July. We welcome this and will attend.

  Goldenberg Affair
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Kenya about the Goldenberg affair; and to what extent the treatment of that issue by the Kenyan Government has strengthened its eligibility for aid under the good governance criteria. [23610]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have expressed our concerns about the Goldenberg affair to the highest levels of the Kenyan Government. We welcome their recent public commitment to expedite police investigations. Action by the Government of Kenya on corruption is an important factor in determining the level of British aid to Kenya.

  Aid (Kenya)
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about British bilateral and multilateral aid to Kenya. [23356]

  Mr. Baldry
  British bilateral aid to Kenya amounted to £31.3 million in 1993–94, We also make substantial contributions to several multilateral organisations which provide aid to Kenya.

TREASURY

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what requirements there are for officials in his Department to introduce a compliance cost assessment for all rules and regulations coming before him and his Ministers; and how many compliance cost assessments have been issued in his Department in the first three months of this year. [19356]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: The Chancellor's departments issued 10 compliance cost assessments in the first three months of 1995. Officials will introduce a compliance cost assessment in all the circumstances set out by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in his answer of 19 April at column 190.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many rules and regulations he repealed in the first three months of 1995; and how many new rules and regulations were introduced in that period by way of statutory instruments, motions or orders. [19372]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Thirteen rules and regulations were repealed in the first three months of 1995. In the same period, 31 rules and regulations were introduced, not including commencement orders, Orders in Council and instruments not subject to parliamentary procedure. However, most of the new regulations were deregulatory in nature: for example, two orders widened the range of activities exempt from the Financial Services Act 1986. Only one introduced new requirements with any costs for business, and even these costs are small.

  Of the 31 regulations:

  —10 replaced existing regulations;

  —15 amended existing regulations;

  —6 were new regulations.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost of mortgage interest tax relief for the financial year 1995–96. [22275]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 2 May 1995]: In 1995–96, the estimated total cost of mortgage interest relief is about £2.8 billion.

  This figure is based on the assumption, by convention, of no change from the current estimated average building society interest rate of 8.1 per cent. The rate of relief is 15 per cent.

  Married Couple's Allowance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost of the married couple's allowance tax relief for the financial year 1995–96. [22274]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 2 May 1995]: The estimated full-year cost in 1995–96 is £3.1 billion. This includes the cost of allowances related to the married couple's allowance—the additional personal allowance and the widow's bereavement allowance.

  European Monetary Institute
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the work being undertaken by the EMI; and what part the United Kingdom plays in determining its policy. [22549]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 4 May 1995]: The objectives and the tasks of the European monetary institute are set out in articles 109f and 109j, paragraph 1, of the treaty establishing the European Community and the protocol on the statute of the European monetary institute annexed to the treaty. The EMI annual report 1994, published in April 1995, which reports on the activities of the EMI up to 31 December 1994, is available from the House of Commons Library.

  The Governor of the Bank of England is a member of the EMI council. Like the central banks of all the other member states, the Bank of England is participating in the EMI's work.

  Uniforms
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees who have to wear a uniform at their place of work as part of their contract of employment are currently paying tax because their uniform is counted as a benefit in kind. [23315]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: None, if the clothing is agreed to be a uniform that must be worn as part of the duties of the employment.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Inland Revenue has to tax, as receiving a benefit in kind, those employees who have to wear uniforms at their place of work as part of their contract of employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: None. Although a tax charge can arise where employees are provided with clothing, the Inland Revenue accepts that no tax is due if the clothing is a uniform and the wearing of that uniform is a necessary part of the duties of the employment.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [23466]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: The Treasury has made no representations to the Department of Trade and Industry.
  57
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what costs his Department 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; [23490]

  (2) how many mobile telephones being utilised by his Department have been cloned during the last 12 months. [23426]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Two of the Treasury's mobile telephones have been cloned during the past 12 months. No costs were incurred in consequence, all unauthorised calls having been removed from the bill by the mobile telephone's airtime supplier.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [23450]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Mobile telephones are used by Treasury Ministers, senior officials and other staff whose duties regularly take them out of their offices but who still need to be contactable. Information relating to rental and call costs is available only for 1993–94 and 1994–95 and amounted to £13,100 and £14,400 respectively, excluding VAT. There are 32 mobile telephones currently in use in the Treasury.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [23457]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: The Treasury is moving away from the use of analogue to the use of digital mobile telephones due to the greater protection against eavesdropping offered by the latter. Digital mobile telephones are thought to be immune to cloning; the matter has not been discussed with any official agency.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what dates the Chief Secretary to the Treasury submitted written evidence to the Scott inquiry; and what areas were covered in his evidence. [24156]

  Mr. Aitken
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 9 May.

  Hand-rolling tobacco

  (b) Cigars

  (c) Other smoking tobacco

  (i) Excise Duty

  (ii) VAT

  (i) Excise Duty

  (ii) VAT

  (i) Excise Duty

  (ii) VAT

  Austria

  47 per cent. of RRP

  20.00 per cent.

  13 percent. of RRP

  20.00 per cent.

  34 per cent. of RRP

  20.00 per cent.

  Belgium

  37.55 per cent. of RRP

  20.50 per cent.

  10 per cent. of RRP

  20.50 per cent.

  37.55 per cent. of RRP

  20.50 per cent.

  Denmark

  £31.78 per kg

  25.00 per cent.

  £22.88 per 1000 + 10 per cent. of RRP

  25.00 per cent.

  £40.44 per kg

  25.00 per cent.

  Finland

  48 per cent. of RRP

  22.00 per cent.

  20 per cent. of RRP

  22.00 per cent.

  48 per cent. of RRP

  22.00 per cent.

  France

  56.38 per cent. of RRP

  19.50 per cent.

  29.26 per cent. of RRP

  19.50 per cent.

  47.14 per cent. of RRP

  19.50 per cent.

  Germany

  £13.80 + 18.12 per cent.

  15.00 per cent.

  5 per cent. of RRP

  15.00 per cent.

  £2.51 per kg + 22 per cent. of RRP15.00 per cent.

  Greece

  57.50 per cent. of RRP

  18.00 per cent.

  26 per cent, of RRP

  18.00 per cent.

  57.5 per cent. of RRP

  18.00 per cent.

  Ireland

  £70.82

  21.00 percent.

  £83.93 per kg

  21.00 per cent.

  £58.22 per kg

  21.00 per cent.

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what facilities are provided and arrangements made for the well-being and comfort of staff who(a) smoke and (b) do not wish to be affected by smoking at (i) the work station and (ii) rest, recreation and refreshment facilities at the Treasury, Parliament street, London. [24176]

  Mr. Nelson
  The policy on smoking in the Parliament street building has recently been revised to provide a better balance between smokers and non-smokers. Smoking is prohibited in all common areas, including the staff restaurant and recreation rooms. Smoking at work stations is allowed only with the consent of all the occupants of the room. Designated smoking rooms have been set aside for the use of smokers including an area within the coffee lounge in the staff restaurant. The smoking rooms include smoke extraction and air filtering designed to protect non-smokers working in close proximity.

  International Derivative Trading
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the supervision exercised by the Bank of England and its agencies over international trading in derivatives. [21140]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Bank of England has made clear, on a number of occasions, the risks involved in derivatives and in trading activities more generally. Banks are expected to hold sufficient capital against these risks and to maintain appropriate systems and controls. The supervision of banks is conducted by the Bank of England, where appropriate in collaboration with other regulators in the UK or overseas.

  Tobacco Duty
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of sterling equivalent and/or percentage rate levied on(a) hand-rolling tobacco, (b) cigars, (c) other smoking or chewing tobacco in (i) excise duty and (ii) VAT or other sales tax in each country in (1) the European Union and (2) the Group of 7. [22966]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information for European Union member states is given in the table. The information, requested is not readily available for the G7 countries in the form required.
  59

  Hand-rolling tobacco

  (b) Cigars

  (c) Other smoking tibacco

  (i) Excise Duty

  (ii) VAT

  (i) Excise Duty

  (ii) VAT

  (i) Excise Duty

  (ii) VAT

  Italy

  54.28 per cent. of RRP

  19.00 per cent.

  23 per cent. of RRP

  19.00 per cent.

  54 per cent. of RRP

  19.00 per cent.

  Luxembourg

  31.50 per cent. of RRP

  12.00 per cent.

  10 per cent. of RRP

  12.00 per cent.

  £14.54 per kg + 31.5 per Cent. of RRP12.00 per cent.

  Netherlands

  £14.34+16.53 per cent. of RRP

  17.50 percent.

  5 per cent. of RRP

  17.50 per cent.

  16.1 per cent. of RRP

  17.50 percent.

  Portugal

  30 per cent. of RRP

  16.00 per cent.

  26.21 per cent. of RRP

  16.00 per cent.

  30 per cent. of RRP

  16.00 per cent.

  Spain

  30 per cent. of RRP

  17.00 per cent.

  10 per cent. of RRP

  17.00 per cent.

  20 per cent. of RRP

  17.00 per cent.

  Sweden

  £32.56 25.00 per cent.

  £29.68 per 1000

  25.00 per cent.

  £6.36 per kg

  25.00 per cent.

  UK

  £85.94 per cent.

  17.50 per cent.

  £85.61 per kg

  17.50 per cent.

  £37.64 per kg

  17.50 percent.

  RRP—Recommended Retail Price.

  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) 250g of hand-rolling tobacco, (c) packet of five cigars and (d) 250g of pipe tobacco; and what it has been in each year since 1965. [22964]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Information based on actual purchase prices for average cigarettes or other tobacco products is not readily available. Information in the form requested is given in the table based on manufacturers' recommended retail prices during the period 1965–95 for the current leading brands of tobacco products. I regret that the figures for hand-rolling tobacco, cigars and pipe tobacco between 1965 and 1976 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Total tax (Excise and VAT) as a percentage of retail price

  Cigarettes

  HRT

  Cigars

  Pipe

  1965

  77

  —

  —

  —

  1966

  77

  —

  —

  —

  1967

  69

  —

  —

  —

  1968

  70

  —

  —

  —

  1969

  71

  —

  —

  —

  1970

  71

  —

  —

  —

  1971

  67

  —

  —

  —

  1972

  66

  —

  —

  —

  1973

  64

  —

  —

  —

  1974

  70

  —

  —

  —

  1975

  69

  —

  —

  —

  1976

  70

  —

  —

  —

  1977

  77

  27

  18

  21

  1978

  70

  72

  44

  68

  1979

  70

  70

  43

  66

  1980

  71

  69

  44

  65

  1981

  74

  69

  46

  65

  1982

  75

  72

  51

  68

  1983

  74

  71

  51

  67

  1984

  75

  70

  50

  65

  1985

  75

  71

  52

  63

  1986

  75

  71

  50

  61

  1987

  74

  72

  49

  59

  1988

  75

  71

  49

  58

  1989

  74

  71

  45

  57

  1990

  74

  69

  44

  55

  1991

  76

  69

  44

  53

  1992

  76

  71

  47

  55

  1993

  76

  71

  48

  54

  1994

  76

  69

  47

  53

  1995

  77

  73

  51

  57

  Using price at 1 Janury

  Tax (Retail Prices)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current total tax as a proportion of retail price on(a) cigarettes, (b) beer, (c) whisky, (d) wine, (e) leaded petrol and (f) DERV; and what it has been in each year since 1965. [22968]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested is given in the table. I regret that the figures for wine, leaded petrol and DERV between 1965 and 1978 could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Total tax (Excise and VAT) as a percentage of retail price

  Cigarettes per 20

  Beer (per pint)

  Spirits (per 70cl bottle)

  Wine (per 75cl bottle)

  Leaded petrol (per litre)

  DERV (per litre)

  1965

  77

  42.1

  72.4

  —

  —

  —

  1966

  77

  44.3

  72.7

  —

  —

  —

  1967

  69

  44.3

  77.2

  —

  —

  —

  1968

  70

  47.0

  80.1

  —

  —

  —

  1969

  71

  43.5

  82.9

  —

  —

  —

  1970

  71

  40.2

  83.2

  —

  —

  —

  1971

  67

  39.2

  81.2

  —

  —

  —

  1972

  66

  36.2

  81.5

  —

  —

  —

  1973

  64

  31.2

  78.4

  —

  —

  —

  1974

  70

  32.6

  81.9

  —

  —

  —

  1975

  69

  35.5

  81.1

  —

  —

  —

  1976

  70

  33.6

  80.0

  —

  —

  —

  1977

  77

  32.4

  80.0

  —

  —

  —

  1978

  70

  30.5

  78.5

  —

  —

  —

  1979

  70

  33.9

  81.9

  49.3

  50.76

  54.85

  1980

  71

  33.7

  79.3

  49.1

  43.74

  46.14

  1981

  74

  37.7

  77.9

  50.6

  47.47

  45.62

  1982

  75

  38.1

  74.8

  51.7

  52.51

  47.18

  1983

  74

  37.8

  74.2

  52.8

  55.39

  48.5

  1984

  75

  36.4

  73.4

  46.4

  53.44

  50.62

  1985

  75

  36.2

  73.3

  49.1

  54.35

  48.72

  1986

  75

  35.1

  71.9

  48.3

  56.14

  49.88

  1987

  74

  34.1

  70.7

  47.1

  63.49

  59.87

  1988

  75

  33.8

  68.7

  47.9

  65.72

  61.33

  1989

  74

  32.5

  66.2

  47.0

  68.08

  63.64

  1990

  74

  31.9

  65.9

  46.6

  62.99

  57.14

  1991

  76

  33.0

  64.8

  47.7

  62.86

  65.96

  1992

  76

  32.6

  65.5

  48.1

  69.98

  65.53

  1993

  76

  32.5

  64.3

  49.1

  69.10

  63.46

  1994

  76

  31.1

  64.8

  49.7

  74.61

  68.45

  1995

  77

  31.0

  66.5

  51.1

  75.65

  72.63

  Taxation (Leaded Petrol)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on the taxation of leaded petrol. [22969]
  61
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Over recent years Government policy has been to charge duty on road fuels at rates which will not only raise sufficient revenue but take account of the need to conserve finite stocks of fossil fuels and protect the general environment. In 1993 we announced that we would raise road fuel duties on average by at least 5 per cent. in real terms in future Budgets. This commitment forms an important part of the Government's strategy to reduce UK greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels in the year 2000.

  A duty differential in favour of unleaded petrol was introduced in 1987 to discourage the use of leaded petrol. Unleaded petrol became liable to a rebated rate of excise duty while leaded petrol remains liable to the full rate of light oil excise duty. The rebate now stands at 4.82 per litre.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each 5p between 5p and £1 his estimate of the effect on the retail prices index of an increase in excise duty on an average(a) packet of 20 cigarettes, (b) 250g of hand-rolling tobacco, (c) packet of five cigars and (d) 250g of pipe tobacco, if such increases were to be fully reflected in price. [22957]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information is as follows:

  Pence

  Cigarettes 20 king size Per cent.

  Cigars 5 small cigars Per cent.

  Hand rolling 250 grammes Per cent.

  Pipe tobacco 250 grammes Per cent.

  5

  0.091

  0.003

  0.000

  0.000

  10

  0.182

  0.007

  0.000

  0.000

  15

  0.273

  0.010

  0.000

  0.001

  20

  0.364

  0.014

  0.001

  0.001

  25

  0.455

  0.017

  0.001

  0.001

  30

  0.546

  0.021

  0.001

  0.001

  35

  0.637

  0.024

  0.001

  0.001

  40

  0.728

  0.028

  0.001

  0.002

  45

  0.819

  0.031

  0.001

  0.002

  50

  0.910

  0.035

  0.002

  0.002

  55

  1.000

  0.038

  0.002

  0.002

  60

  1.091

  0.041

  0.002

  0.002

  65

  1.182

  0.045

  0.002

  0.003

  70

  1.273

  0.048

  0.002

  0.003

  75

  1.364

  0.052

  0.002

  0.003

  80

  1.455

  0.055

  0.002

  0.003

  85

  1.546

  0.059

  0.003

  0.003

  90

  1.637

  0.062

  0.003

  0.004

  95

  1.728

  0.066

  0.003

  0.004

  100

  1.819

  0.069

  0.003

  0.004

  Monetary Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the effect of the statements made by the Governor of the Bank of England in respect of tightening monetary policy on the willingness of British manufacturers in the import-competing and export industries to invest in increased capacity. [23675]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government can best encourage investment in all sectors by consistently following stable macroeconomic policies, including ensuring that inflation remains permanently low. Over the last year manufacturing investment rose by more than 8 per cent. and investment by machinery and equipment industries was up almost 18 per cent.
  62

  Temazepam
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers HM Customs and Excise have to monitor and control the import and export of the drug temazepam; what is his latest estimate, expressed in kilogrammes, of the quantities imported and exported in the most recent five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [24161]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Temazepam is not subject to importation or exportation controls under the Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971; therefore, HM Customs and Excise currently has no powers to monitor or control its import or export.

  The integrated tariff of the United Kingdom does not separately identify temazepam under a specific heading and commercial importations therefore cannot be identified. Exportation procedures also do not allow the quantity of consignments to be determined.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Mathew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the recent spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World bank.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I attended the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World bank on 26 and 27 April.

  In the interim committee of the IMF, I spoke mainly about the quality of surveillance by the IMF, its finances and the need for further action on developing country debt.

  Consideration of the IMF's surveillance of its members' economies was timely given recent events in Mexico. I welcome the IMF's intention to learn lessons from this experience. I made four proposals: first, for a greater frankness by the IMF in its assessment of members' economies; secondly, a better flow of information from countries both to the IMF and financial markets; thirdly, greater selectivity by the IMF in which economies to subject to close and continual monitoring; and, fourthly, the establishment of an independent evaluation unit at the IMF. The first three of these points were reflected in the committee's communiqué.

  On IMF finances, I said that the IMF should have sufficient resources to use its existing facilities at agreed access limits. Resources should not be provided in advance for exceptional circumstances such as Mexico, but where necessary the IMF's first recourse should be activation of the established credit line of the general arrangements to borrow. I did not rule out an increase in IMF quotas if and when justified.

  I welcomed the agreement of the Paris Club to offer "Naples Terms" to the poorest countries on bilateral official debt along the lines set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in 1990. I noted that implementation was now the key issue. I also followed up the initiative I launched last autumn on debt owed to multilateral institutions. The committee agreed to a further study of the IMF's enhanced structural adjustment facility. I will press for greater certainty and increased concessionality of lending for the poorest most indebted countries financed by sale and investment of the proceeds of a small amount of the IMF's gold stocks.
  63
  I also took part in the interim committee's discussion of the world economy and looked forward to the review of international institutions at the forthcoming G7 summit in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

  In the development committee of the IMF and World bank, in addition to elaborating on my proposals on debt owed to the World bank, I noted the potential that exists for increasing the proportion of infrastructure in developing countries financed by the private sector, drawing on the UK's experience of privatisation and the private finance initiative.

  As is customary, there was a meeting of G7 Finance Ministers and central bank governors prior to the spring meetings. Copies of the G7's communiqué and of the interim and development committee's, as well as my speeches to the committees, have been placed in the Library of the House.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent discussions he has had with Oflot regarding the distribution of national lottery proceeds. [22476]

  Mr. Dorrell
  None. The Office of the National Lottery has no responsibility for the distribution of national lottery proceeds.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his most recent estimate of the extent of fraud in the national lottery procedures. [22482]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Fraud relating to the handling and sale of national lottery tickets is a matter for Camelot and the relevant authorities. I understand that a few instances of apparent fraud have come to light and that these are being dealt with.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the use of national lottery funds to purchase the Churchill papers. [22487]

  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 are taken entirely independently of Government.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National heritage what plans he has to review the expenditure plans of the national lottery. [22481]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).

  Film Industry
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to encourage the United Kingdom film industry. [22479]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The National Heritage Select Committee published its report on the British film industry on 4 April. I shall set out the Government's approach to the industry in my response to the Committee's findings.

  European Football Championships
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for National heritage what meetings he has had with local authorities with a view to exploiting the cultural potential of Euro '96, the European football Championships. [22480]

  Mr. Sproat
  My officials have had several meetings with local authority representatives to discuss a supporting programme of cultural events.

  Mrs. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assistance he is providing to local authorities with their preparations for the Euro '96 football championships. [22488]

  Mr. Sproat
  My officials have met local authority representatives several times, and arranged a meeting of local authorities and interested parties to encourage the development of supporting cultural events of match venues.

  National Collection of Fine Art
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to expand the national collection of fine art heritage objects. [22483]

  Mr. Sproat
  It is for the trustees of individual museums to decide on acquisitions. The Government have a number of measures which help to develop the national collections. These include the funding of the national heritage memorial fund, the Waverley system of export controls and important tax concessions. The national collections may also benefit from the net proceeds of the national lottery.

  Tourism
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures his Department is taking to help tourism; and if he will make a statement. [22484]

  Mr. Dorrell
  On 1 March, my Department published "Tourism: Competing with the Best" which set out an action programme for Government and the tourist boards aimed at revitalising the accommodation sector and improving marketing effectiveness. We are making good progress and I intend to make announcements at key stages on all of the initiatives we are pursuing.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment his Department has made of the effect of the United Kingdom's VAT rate on tourism. [22491]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am not aware of any conclusive evidence that the UK's VAT rate places the tourism industry at a competitive disadvantage. The report on VAT published by the British Tourist Authority on 1 May does not take account of all the different costs to tourism business in other EU member states.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures he is proposing to encourage domestic and inbound tourism; and if he will make a statement. [22492]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien).

  Sporting Provision
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to encourage local authorities' sporting provision. [22486]

  Mr. Sproat
  It is for local authorities to determine their level of expenditure on sporting provision, in the light of their own priorities. The Department recognises the important role that local authorities play in this area and the Sports Council will continue to work closely with them, as appropriate, in pursuing its objectives.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the most suitable national proposal arising from the consultation on the distribution of the Millennium Commission. [22489]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I understand that the closing date for the first round of applications to the Millennium Commission was Monday 1 May. Around 550 applications have been received, details of which will be published later this month. Successful applicants will be announced in July this year.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the applications received to date by the Millennium Commission; and if he will place the list in the Library on a monthly basis. [22944]

  Mr. Sproat
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I understand that information on proposals and applications received by the Millennium Commission will be made available by the end of May, and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House. The Millennium Commission will run a series of time-limited application rounds, and similar information will be made available at the end of each round.

  Churchill Papers
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will state the latest position over the Churchill papers. [22490]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The non-state papers have been purchased through lottery proceeds awarded by the national heritage memorial fund and are now held at Churchill college, Cambridge. The state papers have been transferred to Churchill college by the Government to ensure the archive remains intact. The entire archive is therefore secure for the future.

  Team Games
  Mr Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussion he has had with the Department for Education and with the Treasury with regard to improving the provision of team games in schools; and if he will make a statement. [22850]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department is working closely with the Department for Education on a major policy paper on sport, including sport in schools, which will be published in early summer. Other Government Departments with an interest, including Her Majesty's Treasury, are in touch with progress.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many public library authorities there are in England; how many of these have subscribed to the ProdCom statistics; and what assessment he has made of why the other authorities have not subscribed. [22533]

  Mr. Sproat
  There are 108 public library authorities in England. Information about which statistical publications each authority subscribes to is not held centrally by my Department.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his policy for ensuring the availability of statistics through public and other libraries. [22534]

  Mr. Sproat
  The responsibility for providing public library services, and for choosing their stock including sources of statistical information, rests with local library authorities.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Historical Documents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Attorney-General what special training is given to persons who have responsibility for assessing the historical significance of documents held by his Department. [23242]

  The Attorney-General
  Training is provided under the guidance of the Keeper of Public Records. It includes desk training, regular meetings between departmental reviewers and officials at the Public Record Office and attendance at conferences and seminars and on courses arranged by the Public Record Office.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Payment Card
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what savings he expects will arise from the introduction of benefit payment cards; and if he will set out the basis on which this calculation is made, together with the multiplier used. [23007]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Annual savings will comprise both administrative savings and programme savings.

  The administrative savings comprise costs associated with certain aspects of the order book and girocheque payment systems which would no longer be incurred, or would be significantly reduced, once card payment replaces them. These include administrative procedures associated with the loss of theft of instruments of payment and the actual production of order books and girocheques. The feasibility study estimated savings to be £60 million per annum.

  The programme savings are those resulting from a reduction in fraudulent encashments of instruments of payment. Our estimate of the level of this type of fraud is not by use of a multiplier but rather from sampling of encashed order book foils and girocheque reconciliation. Once fully implemented the new payment system is expected to eliminate fraudulent encashment estimated in the feasibility study at £140 million per annum.

  National Insurance Computer Contract
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to ensure that the bidding process for the national insurance computer contract was fair, allowing no one bidder an undue advantage. [23634]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The contract for the national insurance computer replacement system was awarded following a procurement through a competitive tendering exercise, undertaken in accordance with EC regulations governing the award of public service contracts (Public Service Contracts Legislation 1993). Due to the novel nature of the arrangement through the private finance initiative, DSS independent audit carried out surveys at various checkpoints to ensure that suppliers were content with the process and its fairness. None of the three suppliers made any criticism of the Department's efforts to create an unbiased and fair procurement process.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of the companies that bid for the national insurance computer contract had previously been involved in drawing up the business case for outsourcing the contract. [23633]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The business case for outsourcing was produced soley by civil servants of the Contributions Agency and the Information and Technology Services Agency with legal and financial guidance from external advisers who had no links with any of the companies involved in the bidding process.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has, after October, to protect mortgagors who become eligible for income support, but who because of their health status have been refused insurance to cover their mortgage repayments, during those months when, under the new arrangements, such mortgagors will be ineligible for mortgage interest payments from the Benefits Agency. [23360]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The social security advisory committee has consulted widely on the proposals for changes to assistance with mortgage interest payments, and I expect to receive its report shortly. The effects of those who are refused insurance cover because of their health status will depend on the details of the scheme, which will not be concluded until I have studied the report.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost of extending access to free school meals to children whose parents are in receipt of family credit. [23622]

  Weelky income for various family types at different hours of work

  Hours of work

  Gross earnings

  Tax and national insurance contributions

  Take Home pay

  Unemployment benefit

  Income support

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Housing benefit

  Council tax

  Council tax benefit

  Total tax income

  Net income after rent and council tax

  Single person—aged 25 or over

  8

  28.00

  0.00

  28.00

  38.71

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  21.02

  6.60

  3.56

  91.29

  53.78

  16

  56.000

  0.00

  56.00

  30.97

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  7.85

  6.60

  0.00

  94.82

  57.31

  24

  84.00

  7.00

  77.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  14.34

  6.60

  1.50

  92.84

  55.33

  68
  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 16 March,Official Report, column 698. The figure relate to 1993 and are the most up to date available.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total number of people in receipt of(a) state retirement pension as single persons, (b) state retirement pension as married couples and (c) adult dependant's pension. [23690]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table gives the number of persons receiving each category of state retirement pension. Details of marital status are available only where shown.

  Category of state retirement pension

  Number of recipients

  Category A Men1

  3,576,660

  Category A Women1

  2,565,280

  Category BL Wives (married)

  1,397,960

  Category ABL Wives (married)

  720,120

  Category B Widows (single)

  1,862,290

  Category B Widowers (Single)

  840

  Graduated retirement benefit only Men1

  3,450

  Graduated retirement benefit only Women1

  126,960

  Additional pension only category A Men1

  1,330

  Additional pension only category A Women1

  11,690

  Additional pension only category B Widows (single)

  2,570

  Adult dependent's pension1

  91,800

  Note: 1 Marital status not known.

  Source:

  Retirement Pension biannual enquiry—September 1994.

  Social Fund Commissioner
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has appointed a new social fund commissioner to succeed Mrs. Rosalind Mackworth who retires on 31 May. [24567]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I am pleased to announce that Mr. John Scampion has agreed to serve as social fund commissioner for a period of three years from 1 June. Mr. Scampion is currently town clerk and chief executive officer of Solihull metropolitan borough council.

  Weekly Incomes
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 4 April,Official Report, column 1074, on weekly incomes, if he will update the table to show the position in 1995–96. [23796]

  Mr. Burt
  Pursuant to the reply by my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security of 4 April,Official Report, columns 1074–76, the table reflects changes to tax, national insurance and social security benefits from last April. Rent and council tax are for 1994–95, the latest year for which information is available.
  69

  Weekly income for family types at different hours of work

  Hours of work

  Gross earnings

  Tax and national insurance contributions

  Take home pay

  Unemployment benefit

  Income support

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Housing benefit

  Counci tax

  Council tax benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and council tax

  Married couple— non earning partner

  8

  28.00

  0.00

  28.00

  62.58

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  25.98

  8.60

  7.08

  123.64

  84.13

  16

  56.00

  0.00

  56.00

  50.07

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  15.91

  8.60

  3.99

  125.97

  86.46

  24

  84.00

  3.76

  80.24

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  30.91

  8.60

  8.60

  119.75

  80.24

  Married couple—non earning partner with two children aged 4 and 6 years

  8

  28.00

  0.00

  28.00

  62.58

  10.72

  0.00

  18.85

  36.42

  36.42

  11.00

  11.00

  167.57

  120.15

  16

  56.00

  0.00

  56.00

  0.00

  0.00

  67.90

  18.85

  36.42

  24.98

  11.00

  7.48

  175.21

  127.79

  24

  84.00

  3.76

  80.24

  0.00

  0.00

  62.83

  18.85

  36.42

  12.52

  11.00

  3.65

  178.09

  130.67

  Notes:

  1. Earnings for 8 hours assumed to represent one days employment. Earnings for 16 hours assumed to represent two days employment.

  2. All the examples shown assume take-up of full entitlement to the income-related and contributory benefits that would be most advantageous.

  3. All the family types shown are assumed to live in local authority accommodation and be liable for average council tax and local authority rent.

  4. Earnings are assumed to be £3.50 per hour.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which non-departmental public bodies within the responsibility of his Department are subject to scrutiny by(a) ombudsmen, (b) the National Audit Office, (c) the Audit Commission and (d) other monitoring officers; which are covered by citizens charters; in which performance indicators apply; and in which members are liable to surcharge. [23957]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested, in respect of those bodies listed in "Public Bodies 1994", is as follows:

  (a) The administrative function of the Independent Tribunal Service and Central Adjudication Services is subject to such scrutiny.

  Arrangements to bring the Occupational Pensions Board within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are well advanced.

  (b) All bodies are subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office.

  (c) None.

  (d) All bodies are subject to the financial and resource controls set by the Accounting Officer for the Department.

  The Occupational Pensions Board is committed to the principles of the citizen's charter, and has published its own charter standard statement and code of practice.
  The Independent Tribunal Service and Central Adjudication Services have set performance indicators.
  No member of any body is liable to surcharge.

  Residential Care and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to give a higher level of support to elderly people in residential homes who need nursing care as well as residential care. [24362]

  Running costs on mobile telephones and pagers

  £

  Year

  Benefits agency

  Information technology services agency

  Contributions agency

  Child support agency

  War pensions agency

  Resettlement agency

  1992–93

  339,891.87

  2283,000.00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94

  625,738.94

  3278,000.00

  194,183.18

  —

  2,350.00

  —

  1994–95

  11,098,227.88

  4218,000.00

  210,050.00

  —

  2,375.00

  —

  Notes:

  1Provisional.

  2Includes Child Support Agency, Contributions Agency and DSS HQ.

  3Includes Child Support Agency and DSS HQ.

  4Includes DSS HQ.

  70
  Mr. Roger Evans
  Higher levels of income support are available to people with preserved rights who are resident in residential care and nursing homes. These amounts are linked to the category of care a home is registered to provide and are higher for nursing homes in order to reflect the increased costs of personal care provided.

  These higher levels of income support increased last April. This uprating targeted extra help on high dependency cases in both residential care homes and nursing homes. The income support limits will be reviewed later this year as part of the annual uprating exercise.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [23439]

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Mobile telephones are widely used across the Department. They help to reduce delays for peripatetic staff, and assist with safety where staff may be placed in potentially difficult situations.

  All procurement of mobile telephones must be through the departmental information technology authority procurement services, and procurement guidance and processes have been developed to help managers make informed decisions as to the correct equipment to procure.

  Available figures are in the tables.
  71

  Number of mobile phones

  Benefits agency

  Information technology services agency

  Contributions agency

  Child support agency

  War pensions agency

  Resettlement agency

  DSSHQ

  1994–95

  1 n/a

  413

  1 n/a

  1 n/a

  95

  3

  94

  Notes:

  1 Budgets for mobile phones and pagers are delegated to individual agency district managers. Details could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  n/a = not available.

  Vaccine Damage
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been made under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979; and how many of the cases have(a) have been successful or (b) still under review since 31 May 1991. [21419]

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of the vaccine damage payment scheme is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Barry Field, dated 15 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about claims made under the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme since 31 May 1991.
  Since that date a total of 216 claims have been received, 13 of which have been successful. There are a further 21 cases under consideration and awaiting a decision on entitlement.
  In addition, since 31 May 1991 there have been 19 awards made relating to applications made prior to that date.
  32 cases are awaiting a review by the independent Vaccine Damage Tribunal and there are 10 requests for a review which are currently being processed for submission to the Tribunal.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

EMPLOYMENT

  Refractory Ceramic Fibre
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he is making to DGXI, Brussels with regard to its proposals to label a refractory ceramic fibre with a skull and crossbones; if he will ensure that the European commission working party meeting at Ispra on 20 and 21 April considers whether the dangerous substance directive represents a suitable forum for the classification of fibres; and if a fiche d'impact has been completed on the cost to business in each EEC country so affected. [20014]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  At the meeting on 20 to 21 April, the refractory ceramic fibre industry was given an ample opportunity to present its case. There was sympathy for the UK suggestion that RCFs be uncoupled from other fibres under consideration, to enable their hazard classification, and its implications, to be considered at more length.

  The UK will be continuing to explore with the European Commission ways of ensuring that no unintended consequences arise for the RCF industry, and will ask the Commission to complete a fiche d'impact in the event that it presses ahead with a classification proposal.

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in the brewing industry in(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) 1994. [23272]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information on employment in the brewing industry is available from the periodic censuses of employment and is as follows:

  Number of employees in employment in the brewing industry1 in Great Britain, September of each year

  Year

  Number of employees

  1981

  62,100

  1984

  49,600

  1987

  43,200

  1989

  40,800

  1991

  44,500

  1 Group 427 of the standard industrial classification 1980.

  Asbestos
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will ask the Health and Safety Executive to conduct an inquiry into school teachers or caretakers exposed to asbestos. [23362]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  No. Recently completed research indicates that school teachers and caretakers are not in occupations with a raised risk of contracting asbestos-related diseases. However, caretakers in all industry sectors, including schools, would be well advised to take the precautions recommended by the Health and Safety Executive when carrying out routine building maintenance and repair work that may involve asbestos materials.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many asbestos removal licences have been removed from companies operating in this industry in each year since 1983. [23364]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The number of asbestos removal licences removed from companies operating in the industry in each year since 1983 are shown in the following table:

  Year

  Licences revoked

  1983

  0

  1984

  0

  1985

  1

  1986

  2

  1987

  2

  1988

  1

  1989

  4

  1990

  0

  1991

  0

  73

  Year

  Licences revoked

  1992

  0

  1993

  0

  1994

  3

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many asbestos removal companies were inspected by the Health and Safety Executive in each year since 1983. [23370]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information is not available on the number of asbestos removal companies inspected by Health and Safety Executive inspectors since 1983. The following table shows the total number of visits for each year since 1985 to companies or contractors licensed at that time under the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983. Information is not available for visits made in 1983 or 1984 as the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 did not come into force until August 1984.

  Number of visits

  1985

  2,709

  1986

  1,654

  1987

  941

  1988

  533

  1989

  677

  1990

  401

  1991

  385

  1992

  373

  1993

  399

  1994

  805

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many licensed asbestos removal companies are currently operating in the United Kingdom. [23381]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There are currently 768 asbestos removal companies licensed to operate in Great Britain. The Health and Safety Executive does not record comparable information for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many asbestos removal companies have been prosecuted in each year since 1983; what was the average fine; what was the lowest and highest fine; and what offences were committed. [23365]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Statistics relating to the prosecution of licensed asbestos removal contractors are laid out in the following table. The figures relate only to offences by licensed asbestos removal contractors under the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 and the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 and the Asbestos Regulations 1969 which CAWR replaced. No information is readily available on the specific offences. There were no prosecutions in 1983; the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 did not come into force until 1 August 1984.

  Year

  Number

  Highest fine(£)

  Lowest fine (£)

  Average fine (£)

  1984

  3

  1,500

  200

  733

  1985

  31

  4,500

  150

  843

  1986

  13

  3,750

  100

  800

  1987

  8

  2,000

  100

  810

  1988

  6

  1,500

  100

  583

  74

  Year

  Number

  Highest fine(£)

  Lowest fine (£)

  Average fine (£)

  1989

  8

  9,000

  250

  3,237

  1990

  3

  2,000

  650

  1,117

  1991

  6

  3,000

  250

  1,348

  1992

  1

  150

  150

  150

  1993

  4

  3,000

  530

  1,570

  1994

  2

  8,000

  150

  4,075

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) improvement and (b) prohibition notices have been served on asbestos removal companies each year since 1983. [23369]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The following table gives the available information on the number of improvement and prohibition notices issued to licensed asbestos removal companies under the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 and the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 and the Asbestos Regulations 1969, which CAWR replaced.

  Year

  Number of improvement notices

  Number of prohibition notices

  1983

  Not available

  Not available

  1984

  Not available

  Not available

  1985

  9

  71

  1986

  5

  40

  1987

  1

  15

  1988

  1

  11

  1989

  3

  14

  1990

  2

  12

  1991

  Nil

  6

  1992

  1

  13

  1993

  Not yet available

  Not yet available

  1994

  Not yet available

  Not yet available

  Note:

  Figures for 1983 and 1984 are not available because these years precede the collection of data on prohibition and improvement notices.

  Manslaughter
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many cases the Health and Safety Executive has referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for potential manslaughter charges in each of the last five years; and how many were accepted. [23366]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Since April 1992, 26 cases which the Health and Safety Executive has investigated have been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration of possible manslaughter charges, as follows:

  Year

  Number of cases referred to CPS

  Prosecutions for manslaughter started by CPS

  Cases still under consideration by CPS

  1992–92

  12

  2

  —

  1993–94

  5

  1

  —

  1994–95

  9

  2

  3

  Information for previous years is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Health and Safety Executive Inspections
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many registered workplaces the Health
  75
  and Safety Executive has been responsible for, for each of the past five years; and what proportion each year has received an inspection-type visit from a Health and Safety Executive inspector in (a) the past year and (b) the past five years. [23368]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  It is estimated that some 650,000 premises are registered with the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE's systems are designed to record all

  Number of planned inspections completed or planned by HSE operational divisions

  1989–90 Outturn

  1990–91 Outturn

  1991–92 Outturn

  1992–93 Outturn

  1993–94 Outturn

  1994–95 Planned

  Field Operations Division planned inspections

  164,122

  165,198

  168,865

  157,426

  152,014

  157,000

  Mines Inspectorate planned inspections

  6,290

  3,064

  2,462

  2,190

  1,707

  1,290

  Offshore Safety Division planned inspections (1)

  —

  —

  359

  405

  467

  370

  Railway Inspectorate planned inspections (2)

  —

  —

  2,306

  1,452

  1,482

  2,080

  Technology and Health Sciences Division planned inspections

  348

  243

  285

  459

  563

  480

  Notes:

  1. HSE assumed responsibility for offshore safety on 1 April 1991.

  2. The Railway Inspectorate transferred from the Department of Transport on 3 December 1990.

  Safety Regulations
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many improvement and prohibition notices have been served under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations 1977 for each year since 1978; [23372]

  (2) how many prosecutions there have been under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations 1977 for each year since 1978. [23371]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  According to available information, the Health and Safety Executive's field inspectorates issued one improvement notice under these regulations, in 1984. They did not issue a prohibition notice or initiate a prosecution during the period. Details of enforcement action by other inspectorates and by local authorities are not readily available on a regulation-by-regulation basis, and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Workplace Accidental Deaths
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for how many workplace accidental deaths in each of the past five years there were Health and Safety Executive or environmental health officer prosecutions. [23367]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Except for the Health and Safety Executive offshore safety division, the information requested is either not available or available only at disproportionate cost:

  Year

  (OSD) Prosecutions arising from workplace fatalities

  1989–90

  0

  1990–91

  3

  1991–92

  2

  1992–93

  2

  1993–94

  3

  Total

  10

  76
  those premises in which it has an active interest. It does not readily provide historical data, which could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The average numbers of planned inspections completed by each of the HSE's operational divisions, for each of the financial years 1989–90 to 1993–94, are set out in the following table. The table also indicates the numbers of planned inspections that divisions expected to achieve in 1994–95.

  Family and Working Lines Survey
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the value and duration of the contract awarded to Research Services Ltd. Harrow, Middlesex to undertake the family and working lives survey. [23643]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 10 May 1995]: The cost of the working lives survey is £1,231,928, including VAT.

  The contract for the project started on 14 October 1993 and is scheduled for completion at the end of September 1996.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements there are to sub-contract any of the interview work being carried out by Research Services Ltd. as part of the family and working lives survey to other organisations and colleges; and what are the minimal levels of qualifications required of the sub-contractors to undertake direct market research. [23645]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 10 May 1995]: Research Services Ltd. has not sub-contracted any of the interviewing for the family and working lives survey.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by what method Research Services Ltd. was awarded by the contract to undertake the family and working lives survey; and how the contract was advertised. [23647]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 10 May 1995]: The contract for the family and working lives survey was awarded by competitive tender. Tenders were invited from four leading social research organisations.

  The research was advertised in the Department's "Annual Report on Research" in 1992.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the sample size of the family and working lives survey being carried out by Research Services Ltd.; and how many people are being interviewed in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland. [23644]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 10 May 1995]: The survey aimed to interview 12,000 respondents and their

  77
  partners where appropriate. Fieldwork is sill in progress. To date 9,248 have been interviewed in England, 533 in Wales and 976 in Scotland.

  The survey does not cover Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the sampling techniques, including the form of sampling and the sampling frame, being used by Research Services Ltd. in conducting the family and working lives survey. [26346]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 10 May 1955]: The sampling technique used for the survey was stratified random sampling of census enumeration districts selected with probability proportional to size. All EDs in mainland Britain were included. Islands, such as Jersey and the Scottish islands, were not included and neither was Northern Ireland. Addresses were drawn from the postcode address file with equal probability in the selected EDs. At each address, one adult was selected at random from all those eligible. If this person had a partner living in the same household, a shorter interview was conducted with the partner.

  International Labour Conference
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the delegation representing the United Kingdom at the forthcoming international labour conference. [23711]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The UK will, as in previous years be sending a tripartite delegation. Members of the delegation are as follows:

  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE
  (82nd Session, Geneva, 6 to 23 June 1995)

  MEMBERS OF UK DELEGATION

  MINISTER ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE

  Miss Ann WIDDECOMBE, MP
  Minister of State for Employment
  She will be accompanied by her Private Secretary, Mr. Simon WOOD, and Mr. Clive TUCKER, Head of International Division, Employment Department.

  GOVERNMENT DELEGATES
  Mr. Mark WESTON, Head of International Relations Branch, Employment Department.
  Ms Shan MORGAN, Grade 7, Employment Department

  Advisers and Substitute Delegates
  Mr. Edward G. M. CHAPLIN OBE, Deputy Permanent Representative, United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations Office and other International Organisations in Geneva
  Mr. Keith ANDREWS, Senior Executive Officer, Employment Department

  Advisers
  Mr. Nigel WILLIAMS CMG, Permanent Representative, United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations Office and other International Organisations in Geneva
  Mr. Geoff GREEN, HM Principal Inspector of Mines, Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Alistair KENNARD, Grade 7, Employment Department
  Mr. Philip SCOTT, Field Operations Division, Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Tim SIMMONS, First Secretary, United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations Office and other International Organisations in Geneva
  78
  Miss Sarah BOARDMAN, Third Secretary, United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations Office and other International Organisations in Geneva
  Mr. Herbert LYSK, Head of Industrial Relations Division, Department of Economic Development (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Johnathan CLAGUE, Higher Executive Officer, Department of Industry, Isle of Man
  Mr. Stephen IP, Commissioner for Labour, Labour Department Hong Kong
  Ms Angella BLAGGROVE, Executive Officer, Employment Department

  EMPLOYERS' DELEGATE
  Miss Anne MACKIE OBE, CBI Consultant on International Employment Affairs; Member, Governing Body of the International Labour Office

  Adviser and Substitute Delegate
  Miss Deborah A. FRANCE, Head, International Social Affairs, Confederation of British Industry

  Advisers
  Mr. Alan WILD, Employee Relations Director, Guinness Brewing Worldwide
  Mr. Rod STACE, Mining Engineer, Operations Department, British Coal Corporation
  Mr. David EVANS, Confederation of British Industry
  Ms Petunia OGUNLEYE, Employee Relations Adviser, Shell UK Exploration and Production
  Mr. Sai-chu HO, Employers' Representative, Labour Advisory Board, Hong Kong

  WORKERS' DELEGATE
  Mr. Bill BRETT, Vice-President, Governing Body of the International Labour Office, General Secretary of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists

  Adviser and Substitute Delegate
  Mr. Simon STEYNE, International Officer, International Department, Trades Union Congress

  Advisers
  Mr. Chris GIFFORD, Mine Health and Safety Consultant, National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers/NUM
  Mr. William MORGAN, Member of the Executive Council of Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union; Member of the TUC General Council
  Mr. Gus BOATENG, Unit Representative and Unit Equal Opportunities Representative, Communication Workers' Union; Member of the TUC General Council
  Ms Ina LOVE, Member of the National Executive Committee of UNISON; Member of the TUC General Council
  Mr. Ken THOMAS, Former General Secretary to the Civil and Public Services Association; Former Member of the TUC General Council
  Mr. Ming CHU, Employees' Representative, Labour Advisory Board, Hong Kong

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what instructions his Department gives to jobcentres on the circumstances in which they can advertise job vacancies that exist at employment agencies. [23682]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  79
  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 15 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about what instructions people in Jobcentres follow when handling vacancies on behalf of employment agencies.
  You may be aware of the long standing agreement we have with the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services (FRES). This enables my Jobcentres to accept individual vacancies for display from an employment agency or business recruiting people to be sub-contracted to companies.
  Following a review last year of our vacancy handling policy with agencies, we reached a new agreement with FRES on co-operation between Jobcentres and private employment agencies. Under the new arrangements, agencies may use Jobcentres to advertise vacancies which they have been contracted to fill.
  We are keen to introduce jobseekers to all the options available to help them in their search for work and we believe that the new arrangements give unemployed people access to wider range of opportunities.
  Further information is included in our publication, Helping People into Jobs, The Guide to Job Broking, copies of which are available in the Library.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Fourth World Conference on Women
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what public consultations are planned with(a) women's bodies and (b) other interested representative bodies prior to deciding United Kingdom policy in regard to the UN's fourth world conference on women in Beijing. [23699]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Throughout the preparatory process for the fourth UN world conference on women, the Government have been in continuous dialogue with women's non-governmental organisations and other interested groups. We consulted widely on the UK national report for the world conference which was released last September, and have invited comments on the draft global platform for action. Members of the delegation to the recent preparatory meeting of the commission on the status of women are meeting NGOs this week to discuss the outcome of that meeting.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which non-governmental organisations have been in contact with the Government in respect of the UN's fourth world conference on women in Beijing this year. [23696]

  Miss Widdecombe
  A wide range of non-governmental organisations have contacted the Government regarding the fourth UN world conference on women.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimate of the amount that will have been spent on 1994–95 under objective 3 of the European structural funds; what amount has been applied for in 1995–96; and on what date the application was made. [24155]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The European Commission works on a calendar year cycle for its financial commitments. In 1994, 478 mecu, about £368 million, has been committed to European social fund objective 3 projects in Great Britain. The actual expenditure will not be known until later this year, when our final claims for 1994 are submitted.
  80
  In 1995, 497 mecu is available. This is drawn down from the Commission in a series of tranches. The first 50 per cent., 248.5 mecu, was requested on 21 April 1995.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's response to the report of the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy on the conference on the extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, adopted by the European Parliament on 5 April. [22350]

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 4 May 1995]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will make a statement about the nuclear non-proliferation treaty after the review and extension conference has taken place.

  Mr. Nick Leeson
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits have been made to Mr. Nick Leeson in Frankfurt by United Kingdom consular staff. [23709]

  Mr. David Davis
  Our vice-consul saw Mr. Leeson immediately after he was stopped at Frankfurt airport on 2 March. The vice-consul visited him in Hoechst prison, Frankfurt, on 10 March. He will be visited again within the next three weeks. Mr. Leeson is free to contact our consulate at any time.

  Fourth World Conference on Women
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances have been obtained from the Chinese Government in respect of participation by non-governmental organisations in the UN's fourth world conference on women in Beijing this year. [23695]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In accordance with standard UN practice, non-governmental organisations will be admitted as observers at the fourth world conference on women in Peking. Under the terms of the host country agreement, China has agreed to issue visas to all non-governmental organisations properly accredited by the United Nations.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees the United Kingdom has obtained from China to the effect that all British-based journalists seeking to cover the UN fourth world conference on Women in Beijing will be granted accreditation. [23698]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Press accreditation for the fourth world conference on women will be arranged by the United Nations. The Chinese have confirmed that they will issue visas to all those so accredited.

  Mr. Macshane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the UN fourth world conference on women in Beijing. [23700]
  81
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment on 16 March,Official Report, column 648.

  Argentine Postage Stamps
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration Her Majesty's Government have given to making representations to the Universal Postal Union in respect of postage stamps issued by the Argentine postal authorities bearing the words "Islas Malvinas"; and if he will make a statement. [23714]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have not made representations to the Universal Postal Union about the stamps in question. However, we have protested to the Argentine Government about the issue, reiterating our sovereignty over the Falklands Islands, and informing the Argentines that they have no right to issue such stamps.

  British Diplomatic Staff
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries where the British ambassador, high commissioner or charge is female; and in how many countries there is British diplomatic presence. [23785]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The countries where the head of post is female are:

  Irish Republic

  Lebanon

  Costa Rica

  Ivory Coast

  Uzbekistan

  Zaire

  Diplomatic or consular relations are maintained with 183 countries, although in some cases the accredited diplomatic staff reside in a third country.

  Cannes European Council
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government expect to publish their specific proposals for reform of the European Community for intergovernmental conference; and if they will be in the form of a White Paper. [23719]

  Subject to:

  Investigation by Parliamentary Commissioner (a)

  Scrutiny by NAO (b)

  Scrutiny by Audit Commission (c)

  Other Monitoring Officers (d)1

  Citizen's Charter

  Performance Indicators

  Members Liable to Surcharge

  Diplomatic Service Appeals Board

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Wilton Park Academic Council

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Wilton Park International Advisory Council

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Advisory Committee on Overseas Economic and Social Research

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  82
  Mr. David Davis
  We do not expect the Cannes European Council to consider proposals for the IGC, which will not meet until next year. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have set out the Government's approach to the IGC on a number of occasions, including in the Opposition day debated on Europe on 1 March,Official Report, columns 1060—74 and 1138–15.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates he approved the use by the Indonesian Government of British-supplied defence equipment against(a) the GAM: Aceh, (b) the OPM: West Papua/Irian Jaya; and (c) FRETLIN: East Timor. [23865]

  Mr. Goodlad
  We would not approve the export of defence equipment likely to be used for internal repression in Indonesia or East Timor.

  Mrs. Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates he protested to the Government of Indonesia about the use of British-supplied defence equipment against(a) the GAM: Aceh, (b) the OPM: West Papua/Irian Jaya and (c) FRETLIN: East Timor. [23866]

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have no evidence that British-supplied defence equipment has been so used.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which non-departmental public bodies within the responsibility of his Department are subject to scrutiny by(a) ombudsmen, (b) the National Audit Office, (c) the Audit Commission and (d) other monitoring officers; which are covered by citizens charters; in which performance indicators apply; and in which members are liable to surcharge. [23967]

  Mr. Goodlad
  For executive non-departmental public bodies I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 25 April to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright),Official Report, column 428, on such bodies sponsored by the FCO (Diplomatic Wing and Overseas Development Administration). Only members of the boards of the British Council and the Britain-Russia Centre are liable to surcharge. For advisory non-departmental public bodies the information requested is shown in the following table.
  83

  Subject to:

  Investigation by Parliamentary Commissioner (a)

  Scrutiny by NAO (b)

  Scrutiny by Audit Commission (c)

  Other Monitoring Officers (d)1

  Citizen's Charter

  Performance Indicators

  Members Liable to Surcharge

  Indian Family Pension Funds Body of Commissioners

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Overseas Service Pensions Scheme Advisory Board

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Know-How Fund Advisory Board

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  1 All non-departmental public bodies are subject to regular review by the sponsoring FCO department.

  Mercenaries
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government intend to sign and ratify the United Nations international convention against the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries. [24293]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 27 March,Official Report, column 443.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions Gibraltar's status(a) within the European Union and (b) with Spain has been raised by him at his meetings with the Foreign Minister of Spain over the past two years. [24473]

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs meets the Spanish Foreign Minister regularly. Detailed discussions on Gibraltar are held under the auspices of the Brussels process. The last such meeting was on 20 December 1994 in London.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions British citizens using the border between Gibraltar and Spain have been subject to delays initiated by the Spanish authorities during the past 14 days; and if he will make a statement. [24474]

  Mr. David Davis
  British citizens have been subject to some delays on each of the past 14 days. As we have repeatedly made clear, we consider the delays caused by the Spanish controls at the Spain-Gibraltar frontier excessive and unjustified. We have protested vigorously to the Spanish authorities.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions Gibraltar's status within the European Union has been raised formally in any of the Council of Ministers other than the Heads of Governments Council, over the past two years; and if he will make a statement. [24472]

  Mr. David Davis
  Gibraltar is within the European Union as part of the United Kingdom by virtue of article 227(4) of the EC treaty, although Gibraltar remains outside certain areas of Community policy. These issues have not been formally raised in EU Council of Ministers' meetings over the past two years.

  Gun Running (Rwanda)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to Zaire about gun running in Rwanda and other central African countries. [23615]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no evidence on which to base formal representations to the Government of Zaire about the illegal supply of arms to Rwanda or other central African countries.

SCOTLAND

  A1 Dual Carriageway
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on proposals by the Miller Amey consortium to depart from certain aspects of the confirmed plan for the A1 dual carriageway between Tranent and Haddington, and if he will require the contractor to design and construct this section of road in accordance with the confirmed plan. [21813]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The contract awarded to Miller/Amey joint venture was on a "design and build" basis. This form of contract encourages the contractor to optimise the design, thus bringing benefits in which both the taxpayer and the industry can share. The amended proposals are subject to completion of their statutory procedures, including consultation, in the normal way. It is too early to say at this stage what the final outcome will be.

  The Scottish Office has found that alternative proposals by contractors can often deliver improved value for money. This, of course, means that the funds voted by Parliament for trunk roads in Scotland will be able to purchase more new construction than would otherwise be possible using traditional tendering methods.

  Gemini Housing Association
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what records are kept at the Glasgow office of Scottish Homes of the numbers of hours staff spend with Gemini Housing Association Ltd; and if he will make them available for public inspection; [23111]

  (2) which officer in Scottish Homes is empowered to give leave of absence to those employees of Scottish Homes who wish to participate in the activities of Gemini Ltd; [23112]
  85
  (3) on what terms the Gemini Housing Association is allowed to use office equipment and stationery belonging to Scottish Homes at its Glasgow offices; and what charge is made; [23113]

  (4) what method is used to fill vacancies which occur on the steering committee of Gemini Housing; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the constitution of the Gemini Housing Association; [23114]

  (5) if he will list the members of Gemini Housing Association and those who have resigned since it was formed; [23115]

  (6) what is the monthly rent and rates that Gemini Housing Association pays to Scottish Homes for use of their Glasgow offices; [23116]

  (7) if the officers of Scottish Homes who attended the Gemini meeting at Campsie street on 28 April were paid from Scottish Homes' budget; [23117]

  (8) to what extent resources given by the chief executive of Scottish Homes to Gemini Ltd exceed the normal start up grants given to newly formed housing associations; and when approval was given by the Scottish Homes Board. [23118]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is a matter for Scottish Homes. I have asked its chairman, Sir James Mellon, to write to the hon. Member.

  Historical Documents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what special training is given to persons who have responsibility for assessing the historical significance of documents held by his Department. [23279]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Office documents of historical significance are transmitted to the Keeper of the Records of Scotland, whose staff are responsible for selection on historical grounds. These members of staff—curatorial officers of the Scottish Record Office—are qualified archivists, trained by the SRO itself and, increasingly nowadays in possession also of a diploma in archive administration. In addition, they are supervised in the early stages of their work on these records by senior colleagues to ensure that they

  Scotland

  England

  Number of places

  Places per 1,000 population aged 75+

  Number of places

  Places per 1,000 population aged 75+

  Local authority

  8,356

  26.0

  67,401

  19.9

  Private

  4,693

  14.6

  163,202

  48.3

  Voluntary

  4,139

  12.9

  39,359

  11.6

  Total

  17,188

  53.5

  269,962

  79.9

  Long-stay NHS Patients
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the numbers of beds available in each region for long-stay NHS patients in 1995; what is his estimate of the number in 2000; and if he will make a statement. [23160]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 May 1995]: The latest available information is as follows:
  86
  follow consistently general guidelines laid down over the 25 years or so that the present system has been in operation.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of people likely to be living in Scotland aged (i) 65, (ii) 75 and (iii) over 85 years in(a) 1996, (b) 2000 and (c) 2005. [23157]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Projected population figures are given in the table.

  Year

  Age

  1996

  2000

  2005

  65

  50,600

  49,000

  49,800

  75

  38,600

  36,100

  37,300

  85 and over

  82,600

  92,100

  96,400

  Residential Care
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of private sector long-term residential places for elderly people in Scotland in 1995 and in 2000; and if he will make a statement. [23159]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: The number of private sector residential care home places which will be required for elderly people in the year 2000 cannot be estimated as it will depend on a number of factors. These include not only the numbers of elderly people at that time and their state of health but the extent to which this form of care is available in other sectors. Cost and quality of residential care will influence the distribution between sectors. At present, the cost of care in homes run by local authorities is substantially more than in homes in the private and voluntary sectors. However, there is no indication that the quality of local authority care is higher. The numbers of residential care home places for elderly people in each sector in Scotland and England at 31 March 1994 are set out in the table below.

  Average available beds by Health Board area of treatment; quarter ending 31 December 1994 1 2

  Geriatric long-stay beds

  Young chronic sick beds

  Psychiatric speciality total beds

  Mental handicap total beds

  Scotland3

  7,393

  290

  10,964

  3,398

  Argyll and Clyde

  614

  38

  1,094

  226

  Ayrshire and Arran

  460

  —

  651

  132

  Borders

  141

  3

  239

  5

  87

  Average available beds by Health Board area of treatment; quarter ending 31 December 1994 1 2

  Geriatric long-stay beds

  Young chronic sick beds

  Psychiatric speciality total beds

  Mental handicap total beds

  Dumfries and Galloway

  256

  —

  367

  86

  Fife

  432

  12

  685

  302

  Forth Valley

  506

  —

  612

  523

  Grampian

  742

  24

  1,041

  296

  Greater Glasgow

  1,392

  131

  2,117

  660

  Highland

  308

  7

  399

  106

  Lanarkshire

  699

  19

  990

  440

  Lothian4

  1,080

  33

  1,658

  435

  Orkney

  49

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  81

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  587

  22

  1,059

  186

  Western Isles

  44

  —

  51

  —

  Notes:

  1 Provisional.

  2 Includes Joint User and Contractual hospitals.

  3 Health Board totals may not tally with Scotland totals due to the effects of rounding.

  4 Average available staffed beds. Includes all beds whether classified as long-stay or otherwise.

  Source:

  Information and Statistics Division.

  There are no centrally imposed targets for long-stay bed provision in the NHS for the year 2000. The pace of change in the number of long-stay NHS beds is directed by patient needs and by the rate at which alternative provision becomes available in the community. The organisation of long-stay care and care services in the community are determined by continuous joint assessment of local needs involving health boards and local authorities. The aim is to secure the most effective package of services, both in hospital and the community, that meet the specific needs of patients and carers.

  University Entrance
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the appropriate age group has attained university entrance standards in each year since 1979. [23386]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The previous general entry requirement of the Scottish Universities Council on entrance was of three or more SCE higher grades at A-C lapsed in 1993. Minimum entry requirements for all ages of applicants are now at the discretion of individual institutions.

  The percentage of Scottish school leavers gaining three or more higher grades at A-C is given in the table. Information is not available on the same basis for years earlier than 1981–82.

  Scottish school leavers by highest SCE qualification

  Academic year

  Number of leavers

  Percentage with three or more higher grades (A-C)

  1981–82

  88,607

  21

  1982–83

  90,988

  21

  1983–84

  89,737

  21

  1984–85

  85,819

  21

  1985–86

  83,076

  21

  1986–87

  80,356

  21

  88

  Scottish school leavers by highest SCE qualification

  Academic year

  Number of leavers

  Percentage with three or more higher grades (A-C)

  1987–88

  76,059

  23

  1988–89

  72,695

  24

  1989–90

  67,900

  26

  1990–91

  62,072

  27

  1991–92

  60,596

  28

  1992–93

  57,796

  29

  1993–94

  58,194

  30

  Irvine Housing Association
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement indicating the latest position in respect of the bid by Irvine Housing Association to take over some of the housing stock of Irvine development corporation in advance of the general disposal of the corporation housing stock. [23493]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: I understand that Irvine Housing Association has yet to finalise its funding from the private sector. I have asked the development corporation to advise the hon. Member with the transaction has been concluded.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the pupil-teacher ratio in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in Scotland in each year since 1979. [23603]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested, for education authority primary and secondary schools, is given in the table.

  The figures for the years 1985 and 1986 are estimates due to industrial action by teachers during those years. The figures for 1994 are provisional.

  Pupil-teacher ratios at September

  Year

  EA Primary

  EA Secondary

  1979

  20.3

  14.4

  1980

  20.3

  14.4

  1981

  20.3

  14.4

  1982

  20.4

  14.3

  1983

  20.3

  14.0

  1984

  20.4

  13.7

  1985

  20.4

  13.5

  1986

  20.4

  13.2

  1987

  20.4

  13.0

  1988

  20.3

  12.7

  1989

  19.7

  12.4

  1990

  19.5

  12.2

  1991

  19.5

  12.4

  1992

  19.3

  12.6

  1993

  19.5

  12.8

  1994

  19.3

  12.9

  School Leavers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of school leavers has attained no academic qualifications in each year since 1979. [23387]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The proportion of school leavers who have attained no academic qualifications has dropped from 28 per sent. in 1981–82 to 9 per cent. in 1993–94. The table below covers the
  89
  period from 1981–94. Information prior to 1981–82 is not available on a comparable basis. The percentages listed do not include school leavers with English GCSEs or A-levels, nor do they include pupils who have attained SCOTVEC modules while at school.

  Scottish school leavers with no SCE qualifications

  Academic year

  Number of leavers

  Percentage with no SCE qualifications or none found

  1981–82

  88,607

  28

  1982–83

  90,988

  26

  1983–84

  89,737

  26

  1984–85

  85,819

  25

  1985–86

  83,076

  24

  1986–87

  80,356

  19

  1987–88

  76,059

  15

  1988–89

  72,695

  12

  1989–90

  67,900

  11

  1990–91

  62,072

  10

  1991–92

  60,596

  10

  1992–93

  57,796

  10

  1993–94

  58,194

  9

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaths were attributed to epilepsy in Scotland in each year since 1990 in each health board area for which information is available. [22842]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 May 1995]: The information is given in the table.

  Epilepsy1 recorded as underlying cause of death

  Health board area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  21994

  Argyll and Clyde

  8

  8

  7

  8

  11

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3

  7

  3

  11

  10

  Borders

  1

  1

  2

  0

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Fife

  3

  6

  5

  2

  6

  Forth Valley

  7

  5

  3

  4

  5

  Grampian

  13

  12

  9

  12

  13

  Greater Glasgow

  26

  27

  20

  13

  18

  Highland

  4

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Lanarkshire

  15

  10

  9

  6

  7

  Lothian

  15

  16

  14

  11

  7

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Shetland

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tayside

  12

  7

  15

  9

  7

  Western Isles

  2

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Scotland

  114

  101

  88

  77

  89

  1 International Classification of Diseases (9th Revision) Codes 345.0–345.9.

  2 1994 figures are provisional.

  Epilepsy1 mentioned on death certificate but not as underlying Cause of death

  Health board area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  21994

  Argyll and Clyde

  19

  21

  15

  19

  22

  Ayrshire and Arran

  13

  11

  11

  18

  18

  Borders

  4

  5

  1

  0

  5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  8

  4

  2

  5

  3

  Fife

  11

  10

  10

  7

  8

  Forth Valley

  11

  10

  8

  7

  6

  Grampian

  10

  16

  9

  13

  17

  Greater Glasgow

  29

  30

  31

  43

  40

  Highland

  6

  8

  8

  4

  7

  Lanarkshire

  14

  12

  26

  25

  27

  90

  Epilepsy1 mentioned on death certificate but not as underlying cause of death

  Health board area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  21994

  Lothian

  28

  23

  29

  20

  37

  Orkney

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  Shetland

  3

  2

  1

  1

  0

  Tayside

  17

  18

  19

  16

  10

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  Scotland

  174

  171

  173

  178

  204

  1 International Classification of Diseases (9th Revision) Codes 345.0–345.9.

  2 1994 figures are provisional.

  Cultybraggan Civil Defence Facility
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a list of(a) Ministers (b) civil servants who are entitled to use the civil defence facility underneath Cultybraggan training camp, near Comrie, in the event of it having to be used as an emergency centre of Government in time of war; and if he will make a statement. [23188]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 May 1995]: Arrangements for designating individuals to be deployed to regional Government headquarters have been discontinued and lists of such individuals are no longer maintained.

  It is anticipated that formal arrangements for the deployment of designated staff to regional Government headquarters would be reintroduced only in the event of a return to a threat situation such as that which existed during the cold war.

  Fatal Accident Inquiries
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fatal accident inquiries are to be held in the current year in relation to the deaths of hospital patients in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole; and if he will make a statement. [23374]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 May 1995]: It is for the Lord Advocate to determine in the light of the circumstances in individual cases whether a fatal accident inquiry is appropriate. It is not possible to estimate how many fatal accident inquiries will be held in any particular year.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fatal accident inquiries are to be held in the current year in relation to the deaths of hospital patients in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole in each of the past 10 years; how many of these cases led to disciplinary action being taken against medical practitioners and other parties; and if he will make a statement. [23375]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 May 1995]: The Crown Office does not hold records centrally of the number of hospital patients whose deaths were subsequently the subject of a fatal accident inquiry. The costs of obtaining this information manually from the records of the 49 procurator fiscal offices in Scotland would be prohibitive. Decisions about disciplinary action following fatal accident inquiries would be for the relevant NHS employer.

  Prosecution of Parents
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the number of parents prosecuted under section 43 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, (b) the number of respondents who pleaded guilty, (c) the number of respondents found (i) guilty and (ii) not guilty after trial and (d) the average penalty, and the scope of penalty from minimum to maximum, imposed on those pleading guilty or found guilty in each full year for which statistic are available. [23190]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not separately identifiable in the Scottish Office Home and Health Department's classification of crimes and offences.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which non-departmental public bodies within the responsibility of his Department are subject to scrutiny by(a) ombudsmen, (b) the National Audit Office, (c) the Audit Commission and (d) other monitoring officers; which are covered by citizens charters; in which performance indicators apply; and in which members are liable to surcharge. [23958]

  Mr. Lang
  As regards executive NDPBs, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) on 1 May,Official Report, column 10–11. No advisory NDPBs are subject to the scrutiny of the Parliamentary Commissioner per se, although the administrative actions of administrative staff of the Scottish Office acting on behalf of the body would fall within his remit, as would those of the Horse Race Betting Levy Appeal Tribunal for Scotland and the Rent Assessment Panel for Scotland. The actions of members of the children's panel advisory commitees, which are administered by the local authorities, are subject to the scrutiny of the Local Authority Commissioner, as are the administrative actions of the administrative staff of children's panels, who are local authority employees. The expenditure of advisory NDPBs, the Horse Race Betting Levy Appeal Tribunal for Scotland and the Rent Assessment Panel for Scotland forms part of the total expenditure of the Scottish Office, whose accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The financial affairs of children's panels, which form part of official authority expenditure, are scrutinised by the Accounts Commission for Scotland. There are no other statutory monitoring officers which scrutinise the work of NDPBs, although all such bodies sponsored by my Department are answerable through me to Parliament. In accordance with the recommendations of a joint report by the Treasury and the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service in 1988, all NDPBs sponsored by my Department are subject to a comprehensive review at least every five years.

  The only NDPBs sponsored by my department whose members are subject to surcharge are the seven river purification boards.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people since the 1993 deadline 92
  have been refused entry to postgraduate teacher training on the grounds of non-conversion to degree equivalents of non-degree qualifications; and if he will make a statement. [23728]

  Mr. Lang
  All-graduate entry to the teaching profession in Scotland has long been an objective of both Government and teachers. In 1987 the Government announced that only those with degree qualifications would be eligible for entry to postgraduate teacher training after academic session 1989–90. Candidates who had begun a non-degree or degree equivalent course before 31 January 1987 were, however, eligible for entry in the seven years up to and including academic session 1993–94 in recognition of the fact that, prior to 1987, degree equivalent qualifications had been treated on the same basis as degrees.

  My Department is aware of 18 cases in which the 1993 deadline for holders of non-degree qualifications was missed. Clearly, it must be disappointing for the individuals involved to have missed this deadline despite the very substantial transitional period which had been allowed. It may be possible for holders of non-degree qualifications to upgrade them to a degree by means of the credit accumulation and transfer scheme operated by higher education institutions.

  Charter Mark
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which public bodies, arm's-length organisations, executive agencies and quangos under the operational control of the Scottish Office are now in receipt of the charter mark; and which ones are not. [24062]

  Mr. Lang
  The following seven organisations within the area of responsibility of The Scottish Office (and no others) listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1994", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library have received charter marks:

  1992
  HM Prison, Dungavel, now part of the Scottish Prison Service executive agency

  1993
  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  1994
  Highlands and Islands Enterprise Network
  Edinburgh NHS Trust department of chiropody and podiatry
  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust
  Law Hospital NHS Trust: William Smellie maternity unit
  State hospital, Carstairs

HEALTH

  Severance Payments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications were received by the NHS management executive for authority to pay severance payments in excess of those laid down by the standard NHS regulations in each year since 1990; how many were approved; and what was the total sum involved each year in each health authority. [20681]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  93

  Applications received by the NHS Executive for authority to pay severance payments in excess of those laid down by standard NHS Regulations

  Authority

  Received

  Approved

  Amount

  1993–94

  Salisbury HA

  1

  1

  8,000

  1994–95

  Mid-Downs HA

  1

  1

  7,000

  Anglia and Oxford

  1

  1

  20,322

  South Thames RHA

  3

  12

  38,391

  North Thames RHA

  1

  1

  116,000

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  1

  1

  14,000

  Camden and Islington

  1

  2—

  —

  NHS Supplies Authority

  2

  1

  72,881

  1 One still under consideration.

  2 Under consideration.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population is covered by general practitioners who are fundholders in(a) the north-east region of England and (b) each family health service authority in the north-east region of England. [21307]

  Mr. Malone
  The percentage of the population covered by a general practitioner fundholder in family health services authorities in the north-east region of England is shown in the table.

  FHSA

  Coverage per cent.

  Cleveland

  30

  Durham

  43

  Northumberland

  45

  Gateshead

  42

  Newcastle

  27

  North Tyneside

  16

  South Tyneside

  34

  Sunderland

  10

  North East England

  32

  "The Health of the Nation"
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce social, economic and environmental targets into "The Health of the Nation" programme; and if she will make a statement. [22671]

  Mr. Sackville
  None. "The Health of the Nation" is a Government-wide strategy to improve the health of the population. Many Departments have a role to play within their own policy areas. The immediate priority is to ensure that good progress is made towards achieving the targets already identified, although we keep the range of targets under review.

  Central Register of Suspended Doctors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce a central register of doctors suspended by hospitals and require all hospitals to refer to that register before employing a doctor. [22738]

  Mr. Malone
  No.

  Folic Acid
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she has given to making folic acid 0.4mg available on prescription for pregnant women; and if she will make a statement. [23542]

  Mr. Sackville
  Folic acid 0.4mg is already available on prescription for women who are pregnant or planning a pregnancy.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled in total, in each region and in each district in the fourth quarter of 1994–95. [23621]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Chelsea and Westminster Hospital
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many wards at Chelsea and Westminster hospital are(a) for the use of private patients, (b) in use for NHS patients and (c) not in use; and how many beds there are in the wards in each category. [23619]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The right hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Keith Bright, chairman of Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS trust, for further information.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she has funded into how best to improve the standard of care, quality of life and outcome for children in care; and if she will make a statement. [23412]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Health funds an extensive programme of research on child care. The work funded between April 1991 and March 1994 is summarised in "The Centrally Commissioned Research Programme", copies of which are available in the Library. Two research reports which focus specifically on the development of improved methods to assess and monitor outcomes of children in care are the linked HMSO publications—"Looking After Children: Assessing Outcomes in Child Care" and "Looking After Children: Research into Practice". These are also available in the Library.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funding will be available to local authorities to develop detailed records of assessed needs of children in care; [23411]

  (2) what funds she has allocated for the monitoring and assessment system being piloted by 39 local authorities as a follow up to, "Looking After Children: Research into Practice"; and if she will list the authorities involved. [23413]

  Mr. Bowis
  About £400,000 has been made available in the financial year 1995–96 to support the "Looking After Children: Good Parenting Good Outcomes" project. The 39 authorities listed will receive free forms, training materials, training courses, access to consultants and a helpline. The Department is currently considering whether the same development package of support can be made
  95
  available to other authorities, if and when they commit themselves to using this system.

  Bedfordshire

  Bexley

  Bradford

  Bromley

  Buckinghamshire

  Camden

  Cumbria

  Derbyshire

  Dudley

  Durham

  Gateshead

  Gloucestershire

  Hackney

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Hampshire

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  Hertfordshire

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kingston

  Kirklees

  Lambeth

  Leicestershire

  Lewisham

  Merton

  Norfolk

  Northants

  North Yorkshire

  Richmond

  Salford

  Somerset

  St. Helens

  Stockport

  Suffolk

  Sunderland

  Sutton

  Tower Hamlets

  Wigan

  Wolverhampton

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of answering questions from the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) since November 1994. [24214]

  Mr. Sackville
  Between November 1994 and 11 May 1995, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has tabled 501 parliamentary questions. The cost of producing the replies cannot be separately identified. However, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on 30 November 1993, at column 391, which stated that the average cost of preparing an answer to a written parliamentary question was £97.

  Acute Services, Southport and Ormskirk
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when she plans to meet the chairmen of the South Lancashire health authority and the Ormskirk hospital trust to discuss the health service review in Southport, Formby and West Lancashire; [23973]

  (2) what assessment she has made as to whether the health service review in Southport, Formby and West
  96
  Lancashire, conducted by Sir Duncan Nichol, has been objective; [23972]

  (3) when she plans to meet the chairman of the North West regional health authority to discuss the health service review in Southport and Formby and West Lancashire; [23971]

  (4) what steps she will take to ensure that the Ormskirk hospital is not closed down by the health service review in Southport, Formby and West Lancashire; [24444]

  (5) what considerations led the health service review in Southport, Formby and West Lancashire to come to its decision; and what weight was given to the evidence (a) in support and (b) against the decision making; [24442]

  (6) for what reasons the health service review in Southport, Formby and West Lancashire's conclusions are based on current service and not on the proposed service. [24443]

  Mr. Malone
  The Sefton and South Lancashire health authorities commissioned a review of health services in the Southport and Ormskirk areas. When the health authorities concerned have considered the report and Sir Duncan Nichol's observations on it, their proposals will be the subject of public consultation. As these proposals may be referred eventually to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for decision, it would not be appropriate for Ministers to comment at this stage.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which non-departmental public bodies within the responsibility of her Department are subject to scrutiny by(a) ombudsmen, (b) the National Audit Office, (c) the Audit Commission and (d) other monitoring officers; which are covered by citizens charters; in which performance indicators apply; and in which members are liable to surcharge. [23962]

  Mr. Sackville
  The following non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department of Health are:

  Subject to scrutiny by the Ombudsmen:
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.
  Standing Committee on Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education.
  Public Health Laboratory Service Board.

  Subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office:
  Public Health Laboratory Service Board.
  National Biological Standards Board.
  National Radiological Protection Board.
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.
  United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.
  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.
  Standing Committee on Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education.

  Subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission:
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Subject to scrutiny by other monitoring officers
  The Department of Health's internal auditors have access to all the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department of Health (as listed in Public Bodies, 1994).
  97
  The following non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department of Health are covered by citizens charters:
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
  Standing Committee on Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education.

  Performance indicators apply in the following non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department of Health:

  Public Health Laboratory Service Board.

  National Biological Standards Board.

  National Radiological Protection Board.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  None of the members of non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department of Health are subject to surcharge.

  Child Care
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will place in the Library a copy of her report to the European Commission on child care services and facilities; [23725]

  (2) if her report for the European Commission on child care services and facilities will have separately identifiable sections on Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the regions of England. [23727]

  Mr. Bowis
  At the end of March 1995, the European Commission asked member states to complete a questionnaire on the European Council's recommendation on child care, 92/241/EEC. This requests a response from the United Kingdom as a whole rather than from its constituent parts. This is currently being considered within relevant departments.

  Cross Infection (Prevention)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the guidelines to hospitals to ensure prevention of cross infection; what steps exist to ensure other hospitals are made aware of problems that may arise; and if she will make a statement. [23949]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health recognised the need for revised advice on the control of infection in hospitals and issued guidance prepared by a joint Department of Health and Public Health Laboratory Service working group, under cover of HSG(95)10, copies of which are available in the Library. The guidance includes advice on communications with other relevant hospitals.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will state, subsequent to the demise of the South Thames regional health authority, which body or person other than the national health service executive or herself is responsible for the policy of the London ambulance service. [23870]

  Mr. Sackville
  This will depend on the outcome on any application for trust status for the London ambulance service.

  Burnley General Hospital Ophthalmology Department
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will call for a report on the recent incident in Burnley General hospital ophthalmology department in which three people lost an eye; and if she will make a statement. [23948]

  Mr. Sackville
  We are satisfied that Burnley Health Care National Health Service trust took all the necessary measures to deal with this regrettable incident promptly and effectively. An investigation by the Medical Devices Agency is currently taking place.

  Research Work Force Capacity
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress her Department is making with its initiative on research work force capacity; when it plans to publish reports of the work it has commissioned; and if she will place copies of relevant reports in the Library when they are completed. [24140]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Health, through the research and development division, has commissioned a number of small-scale projects to provide a systematic description to current problems in ensuring that there is an appropriate research work force to take forward R and D initiatives in the field of health and social care. The information collected is now being used to inform the preparation of a co-ordinated strategy on research work force capacity.

  The reports of these complementary projects were produced as working documents for discussion at a workshop with the researchers involved. Following the workshop, further work drawing on the reports and the subsequent discussion was undertaken on one particular study. This report by SCPR—social and community policy research—is now being prepared for publication and will be available shortly. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Edgware and Barnet Hospitals
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the joint transport working party dealing with transport links between Edgware and Barnet hospitals first met. [24475]

  Mr. Sackville
  A meeting of officials from the Departments of Health and Transport is being arranged.

  GPs (Out-of-hours Work)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from what source the proposed offer to GPs for out-of-hours work will be funded. [24141]

  Mr. Malone
  Our proposals will be funded from moneys voted by Parliament.

  Research
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the research programmes funded by her Department which were in progress on 1 January, with(a) the title of the programme, (b) the location of the research team, (c) the name of the director, (d) the start and end dates of the contract for the programme, (e) the actual or planned amount of funding each year and (f) whether the question of renewal of the contract is being

  99
  or has been considered and, if so, the outcome of any decision made or whether negotiations are still under way. [24143]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Health has arrangements with 13 universities for long-term research programmes: these are listed in annexe C of the report "Centrally Commissioned Research Programme", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Peer review by site visit to all units was completed last year. The outcome of all the visits was favourable and directors have been informed that departmental funding will continue for a further five years after the expiry of their current contracts.

  In addition to its long-term funding, the Department currently has in the region of 230 contracts for individual research projects.

  Annual Reports
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will instruct(a) the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, (b) the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment and (c) the Clinical Standards Advisory Group to lay an annual report before Parliament. [24177]

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no plans to introduce legislation to make any of these statutory bodies lay an annual report before Parliament.

  The recommendations of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation are subject to ministerial acceptance and are published biennially in the memorandum, "Immunisation against infectious disease". The memorandum is published by HMSO and provided to all doctors throughout the United Kingdom; copies are placed in the Library. Advice produced by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment is always made available to the public and is available in the Library. The results of studies undertaken by the Clinical Standards Advisory Group are published by HMSO and are available in the Library.

  Hospital Building Costs
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the estimated costs of building a new maternity unit at(a) Ormskirk hospital and (b) Southport hospital. [24445]

  Mr. Sackville
  The cost will depend on proposals for the future pattern of services, as determined by the health service review in South Lancashire and Sefton, which will be the subject of full public consultation.

  NHS Failures
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from Sir Donald Acheson calling for a royal commission to investigate failures in the NHS; and if she will make a statement. [24220]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Waiting Times
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to set a maximum time that a patient should wait on a trolley. [24142]
  100
  Mr. Sackville
  The patients charter for England sets a new national standard for patients waiting to be admitted to a hospital bed from an accident and emergency department. From 1 April 1995, once a doctor has decided that a patient should be admitted, the patient can expect to be given a bed as soon as possible and certainly within three to four hours. The standard will be improved to two hours from April 1996.

  Hospital Closures
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average time it has taken in the last year for her to make a decision on the closure of a hospital after the final plans and proposals have been submitted by the regional health authority. [19801]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 21 April 1995]: Decisions on closure of a hospital have been referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on three occasions in the last year. Plans in Sunderland for the closure of Havelock hospital, the royal infirmary and the Ryhope general hospital and for the transfer of their services to the Sunderland district general hospital and the Sunderland eye infirmary were received from the Northern regional health authority on 15 December 1994 and the decision was announced on 22 February 1995. Plans to close the Brook hospital, change the use of the Greenwich district hospital and develop new services at the Queen Elizabeth military hospital were submitted by South Thames regional health authority on 16 March 1995 and announced on 4 April. Plans to bring together the general and specialist services managed by the Royal Hospitals National Health Service trust on the Royal London Whitechapel site and to close over time the London chest hospital and most of the St. Bartholomew's hospital site were submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 23 March and the decision was announced on 4 April.

WALES

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) 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; [23474]

  (2) 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. [23483]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: None.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of Sate for Wales 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. [23460]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: We are considering the possibility of making greater use of digital phones which are not susceptible to cloning and are discussing this issue with official agencies.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many mobile telephones being utilised by
  101
  his Department have been cloned during the last 12 months. [23433]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: One.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what use his Department makes of hand-held 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. [23443]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Mobile phones are issued to Ministers and key personnel for urgent business communications. For safety reasons mobile phones are also available to travelling officers.

  Total costs for the last three financial years are:

  1992–93: £22,289.98

  1993–94: £50,353.32

  1994–95: £48,664.90

  One hundred and forty-eight mobile phones are currently in use.

  Surplus Accommodation
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the Welsh Office accommodation which is surplus to its needs, identifying for rented properties the remaining length of the lease and the annual rental for each. [23724]

  Mr. Redwood
  Welsh Office accommodation is part of the common user estate, which is the responsibility of Property Holdings. There may be spare space available within individual buildings but the Welsh Office has no accommodation surplus to its needs. It is my policy to concentrate all of the central Welsh Office staff in Cathays Park. As this happens, other accommodation will be disposed of.

  Child Care
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the information relevant to Wales prepared for the European Commission on child care services and facilities in the United Kingdom. [23726]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which non-departmental public bodies within the responsibility of his Department are subject to scrutiny by(a) ombudsmen, (b) the National Audit Office, (c) the Audit Commission and (d) other monitoring officers; which are covered by citizens charters; in which performance indicators apply; and in which members are liable to surcharge. [23954]

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) on 25 April,Official Report, column 514. None of the members of these bodies is liable to surcharge.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all other non-departmental public bodies set up with effect from the same time as the Countryside Council for Wales; and if he will list which of them have had financial management and policy reviews(a) commenced and (b) completed. [24386]
  102
  Mr. Redwood
  No other executive non-departmental public bodies were established at the same time as the Countryside Council for Wales.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions action plans relating to non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have been published during the course of a bank holiday weekend; and if he will list those NDPBs involved and the dates concerned during the past four years. [24382]

  Mr. Redwood
  The action plan for the Countryside Council for Wales was published on Saturday 6 May 1995. Action plans are published at the earliest possible opportunity. No other publication date within the past four years has coincided with a public bank holiday.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the grade of the civil servant who carried out financial management and policy review of the Countryside Council for Wales and the department or section to which he is attached, when not carrying out FMPRs. [24383]

  Mr. Redwood
  Grade 7. The officer was employed on various duties before undertaking the review. Other senior managers were consulted on the review and a wide range of views was canvassed.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the financial management policy review of the Countryside Council for Wales carried out by his Department. [24385]

  Mr. Redwood
  The financial management policy review of the Countryside Council for Wales was overtaken by the review of the council's functions which I announced in response to the question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir Wyn Roberts) on 3 November,Official Report, column 1329. The action plan resulting from that review has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the financial management policy review of the Countryside Council for Wales was commended; how long the review took to complete; and what was the total cost to public funds of the review. [24384]

  Mr. Redwood
  The financial management policy review of the Countryside Council for Wales was overtaken by the review of the council's functions which I announced in response to the question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir Wyn Roberts) on 3 November 1994,Official Report, column 1329. The review started on 5 April 1994 and consultations on the action plan are continuing. The cost of staff allocated full-time to the work was about £23,000. They would have been performing other duties within the Welsh Office if they had not been doing this task.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with local authorities prior to the publishing of his Department's action plans on the Countryside Council for Wales. [24381]

  Mr. Redwood
  The action plan was drawn up in consultation with the Countryside Council for Wales. I am currently consulting local authority associations in Wales seeking their views on the proposals in the plan which could affect their members.

  South and East Wales Ambulance Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South and East Wales ambulance trust concerning the dismissal of the board director responsible for personnel; and if he will make a statement. [24281]

  Mr. Redwood
  None. This is a matter for the trust.

  NHS Trust Annual Accounts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what guidelines he has issued to NHS trusts with regard to the availability to the public of the last published set of annual accounts at convenient places; and what proposals he has to issue further guidelines. [24387]

  Mr. Redwood
  NHS trusts are required to prepare an annual report under schedule 2(7) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Either the full or an abridged version of the annual accounts must be included within the body of the report. The report must be made available to the public free of charge, be published prior to the annual general meeting, the advertisements for which must state how copies can be obtained and be placed in the Library of the House.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest available figures for the numbers of people in Blaenau Gwent constituency who are in(a) part-time and (b) full-time employment. [24291]

  Mr. Redwood
  According to the 1991 census of employment, there were 4,800 part-time and 14,800 full-time employees in Blaenau Gwent constituency in September 1991.

  Trust Appointments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the non-executive members of the boards of the NHS trusts in Wales which became operational on 1 April; what assessment he has made of the impact on the operations of those trusts which have been without boards since 1 April; and if he will make a statement. [24283]

  Mr. Redwood
  I hope to make an announcement shortly.
  104
  I have received no reports of operational difficulties in trusts established on 1 April 1995.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many NHS trusts had the appointment of their non-executive board members announced(a) before 1 April, (b) before 15 April, (c) before 30 April and (d) later in each year in which trusts have became operational in Wales. [24279]

  Mr. Redwood
  Prior to 1 April 1995, appointments of non-executive board members were announced for 23 of the 24 established NHS trusts before their operational date on 1 April. Board non-executive members were appointed to the remaining trust later in the year.

  Car Leasing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has issued to NHS trusts concerning the purchase or leasing of cars for executive board members; what proposals he has for the issuing of further guidelines; and what representations he has received concerning the controls on car leasing contracts for board members. [24282]

  Mr. Redwood
  I have not issued guidance to NHS trusts concerning the purchase or leasing of cars for executive board members. However, as set out in the code of conduct and accountability, proper stewardship of public moneys requires all NHS boards to achieve value for money. No representations have been received recently.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many executive board members of NHS trusts in Wales have been(a) disciplined formally and (b) dismissed for breaches of the code of conduct in relation to executive car leasing arrangements. [24280]

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is not available centrally. This is a matter for individual NHS trusts.

  Pay Rates
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about rates of pay in(a) the Blaenau Gwent constituency, (b) the rest of Wales and (c) the United Kingdom. [24313]

  Mr. Redwood
  Rates of pay vary widely, depending on the type of work, the level of skill involved and what the employer can afford. Outside the south-east in the UK, there is little evidence to suggest that, for the same job, they vary greatly from area to area.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.
Lord Netherthorpe Lord Netherthorpe —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I have accepted an invitation to deliver the McDermott Lecture, at the Queen's University, Belfast, on Friday 19th May. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Friday 19th May.

War Crimes Act 1991
2.38 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
When those under investigation (some since 1988) will be told whether they are to be tried under the War Crimes Act 1991; and whether any other such investigations are to be instituted.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Crown Prosecution Service has received initial advice from senior Treasury counsel. Having carefully considered that advice, further inquiries are in hand in relation to certain potential defendants. It is not possible at this stage to predict whether or when any prosecution will be initiated, nor to say when those individuals who remain under investigation will be told whether or not they are to be prosecuted. If any further allegations were to be made, it would be for the police to consider whether any further investigation would be justified.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply. Is it not apparent from Mr. Attorney's answer in another place on 28th April that there were only seven initial references to Treasury counsel? No definitive references have been made as regards the 20 remaining persons under consideration, 14 of whom have been under investigation since long before the passing of the Act. Why is it that no definitive advice has been sought by the Director of Public Prosecutions in any one of the 20 cases? Why has not the Director of Public Prosecutions made a decision either to charge or to exclude on the available evidence, as was done in Scotland by the Lord Advocate a year ago?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate made decisions in relation to Scotland on the basis of investigations there
290
which, as I understand, had been completed. The position in England and Wales is that seven cases have been reported by the police to the director, who is in consultation with my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General, as his consent is required in relation to any prosecution. The remaining 13 cases are still being investigated by the Metropolitan Police. Of the seven, certain further investigations have been requested. Your Lordships can be assured that my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General is anxious to reach a concluded view on these cases as soon as possible. But the investigations are necessarily complicated and he would wish to be sure that they were being properly conducted.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord able to assist us on the date of the oldest investigation into these matters, the ages of any prospective defendants who remain alive, and whether or not it would be fair, prudent and appropriate to set some definitive cut-off point for these investigations which have now gone on for so long?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the: investigations could only proceed once statutory authority for them had been given. Therefore, so far as concerns the police investigations, none dates before the granting of the statutory authority for them to take place. The noble Lord asked about the ages of those under investigation. My impression is that the oldest is around 84 years of age and the youngest of the order of 69 years of age. One's estimate as to whether they are old or comparatively young will depend, perhaps, on one's standpoint. In relation to investigations, I think that it is quite impossible to set a time limit if investigations are being pursued. So much depends on the course that the investigations take. But I have already given your Lordships the assurance of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General that he is anxious to complete this matter as quickly as possible. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, he has the example of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate in Scotland to bear in mind and possibly to seek to emulate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that, in an answer given in another place a few days ago, it was admitted that six police officers were fully employed on these investigations at a monthly cost of £77,000? Are we going to go on wasting the time of valuable officers who could be dealing with more serious and difficult questions of crime? Must we go on spending money in this way?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that I am as anxious as he is not to spend taxpayers' money unnecessarily. However, the question of precisely what investigations are required is a matter that has properly to be left to the judgment of those responsible for the investigations. These matters are serious and involve serious allegations. It is right that they should be properly investigated. I believe that those charged with the investigations are seeking to carry them out properly, as speedily as possible and with due regard to proper economy.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is it not now six years since the Hethrington-Chalmers report stated that the major obstacle to fair trials was the age of the suspects and the witnesses? That was six years ago. Is it not unsatisfactory that proceedings should still be dragging on without any prosecution being taken, and without any evident end to the proceedings? Might not the Government have been much wiser to follow the advice of this House in the whole matter of war crimes trials?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as regards the Government following the advice of this House, obviously its advice was carefully considered in the other place, which had the advantage of the views of this House before the second occasion on which the Bill was introduced there. Noble Lords do not need me to tell them the result of the vote in the other place. As far as dragging on is concerned, it is a question of trying to carry out the investigations properly. Anyone who knows anything about them—and I am sure that that includes all your Lordships—will appreciate that they are not easy investigations to conduct, having regard to the nature of the allegations. I repeat, those responsible for the investigations are anxious to bring them to a conclusion as quickly as possible, always having regard to the importance of the issues at stake and the need for careful and wise decisions.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the age of 83 years is nothing compared with the crime that has been committed? Does he agree that if I can remember what happened 50 years ago—and I am older than the oldest person whom the noble and learned Lord mentioned—other people can remember? Is the House further aware that yesterday I listened to a Jewish service in Cardiff and to a former victim of Auschwitz? She remembers, and these people remember. Murder is murder, and it does not become less because time has passed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if it were not for my faith in the credibility of the noble Viscount, I would have great difficulty in believing that he is as old as he claims. I am sure that your Lordships will agree with his view that recollections can be very strong in respect of certain events, even after the passage of time. Those who suffered in the events to which the noble Viscount referred, have very good reason for remembering well. Of course, in a fair trial recollections have to be tested. For example, recollections as regards identification would be important. All those are considerations to be taken into account in reaching a wise decision on the conclusion of these investigations.

Nuclear Policy
2.49 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their nuclear policy in the light of the argument in Paper II on Nuclear Proliferation published by the International Security
292
Information Service and written by Ronald Higgins and Professor John Ziman FRS, contending for "a higher realism than present national self-absorption."
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, while we welcome most contributions to the nuclear debate, we believe that we already pursue the policies which most effectively promote peace and stability.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that there is a degree of criticism about Trident at a very significant level—indeed, even the necessity for it is now being questioned—and that similar criticisms are being raised by bodies apart from that to which I refer in my Question, which is a well-known non-partisan organisation? Is the Minister aware that Field Marshal Sir Nigel Bagnall is quoted in The Times as questioning the whole necessity for Trident? Is the Minister further aware that in this House the noble and gallant Lord, Field Marshal Lord Carver, has done the same from time to time? In all those circumstances, will not the Government at least have another look at their nuclear policy which is becoming incredible?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I simply do not accept what the noble Lord says. As I have said on many occasions, we maintain a minimum deterrent which both contributes to NATO's strategy of war prevention and is the ultimate guarantee of our own national security. The noble Lord has been putting his points for a great many years. His analysis of what happened in the past has, I believe, been proved wrong while Her Majesty's Government's viewpoint has been proved right. It is possibly about time that the noble Lord reconsidered his point of view.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there are some of us who, reading the phrase "national self-absorption" in the Question believe that the policy of a British Government should be to secure the interests and safety of the British people? If that is "national self-absorption", long may it survive.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree totally with the noble Lord. Perhaps I can assist by informing him that just before the reference to "national self-absorption", quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in his Question, appear the words:
"That hope could appear Utopian".
That might help the noble Lord.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the recent non-proliferation conference, the Government's agreement to the signing of a comprehensive test ban treaty without reservations and to a cut-off in the production of fissile materials helped towards the achievement of what I think was a very welcome consensus at that conference? Is it not deplorable that the Chinese Government, who accepted the consensus, have today conducted a nuclear test?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. We heard today that the Chinese have tested a weapon. The Chinese issued a statement which includes a clear commitment to abide by the comprehensive test ban

293
treaty when it is agreed; we expect them to honour that commitment. We shall pursue that point with them and we shall continue with our commitment to try to reach a conclusion to the treaty by the end of 1996.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that circumstances have changed completely since Trident was decided upon at enormous cost—in fact, eventually at double the estimate? We no longer have two superpowers and the purposes for which Trident was built have disappeared. In all those circumstances, is it not worth taking another look at the situation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there are still two powers with very large quantities of nuclear weapons. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear at the beginning of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, we do not think that we should be negotiating reductions in the size of our nuclear arsenal, which has already been reduced considerably, until we see those of the Russians and the United States reduced very considerably.

Bahrain: Human Rights
2.53 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are initiating international action to secure compliance by Bahrain with internationally recognised standards of human rights in respect of torture, detention without trial and the use of firearms against peaceful demonstrators.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the Bahrainis are well aware of the importance of observing human rights, including in the areas identified by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask her whether there is any reason to doubt the reports by Amnesty International of firing on peaceful demonstrators, of withholding medical assistance to the injured, of detention without trial (or without a proper trial), and of the use of torture? More generally, does the Minister agree that there are some governments whose human rights records are so horrifying that they exclude themselves from normal, civilised, international discourse, and, if so, would she include Bahrain?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, while we cannot overlook the allegations that have been made, it is perfectly fair to say that Bahrain has made considerable progress in recent years. However, we remain concerned about the number of deaths and casualties during the recent disturbances. We have seen no evidence that the Bahraini police used excessive force to contain peaceful demonstrations, but there really is a difference when the demonstrations become
294
violent—and that is when the police resorted to the use of tear-gas and rubber bullets. However regrettable we may find it, that was the situation at the time.
I understand what the noble and learned Lord says about torture and about the other allegations that have been made. There is no substantiated evidence of the mistreatment of detainees, but we shall continue to examine any allegations of torture. If the noble and learned Lord knows of any, I hope that he will put them to us. I believe that a visit to Bahrain by Amnesty International would be of great benefit. It would be useful if that organisation could sit down with the Bahraini Government and agree the terms of a visit, because that is the only way in which we can make progress.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, i:5 the Minister aware that Amnesty International has asked to visit Bahrain and to observe the trials, which currently take place in camera? Can the Minister comment on reports from Amnesty International that Bahrain has resorted to the disgraceful practice of detaining children in lieu of relatives wanted by the authorities? Have the Government protested to Bahrain about that or raised the matter in any international forum?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I note what the noble Baroness said about the arrest of children who may be relatives of dissidents. We have no reliable evidence that that is happening, but I shall inquire further because, as the noble Baroness knows, neither the Government nor her own party believe that any detention without trial is right. There is no doubt but that those who have not yet been charged or released should soon be either charged or released.
I am glad to hear that Amnesty International has asked to visit Bahrain. I believe in the great importance of dialogue on such matters with organisations such as Amnesty International. I shall go into the. details of this matter following Questions this afternoon.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, may I suggest to the Minister that when looking at the detention of children as a means of bringing pressure to bear on their parents, she might glance at the case of Miss Afaf Al-Jamri, who was detained in order to bring pressure to bear on her father, the distinguished former MP and judge, Shaikh Al-Jamri, and that of her sister, Mansoora Al-Jamri, who was due to take her final examinations for a BA the week before last but who was detained by the security forces on her way into the examinations and prevented from taking them, again as a means of bringing pressure to bear on Shaikh Al-Jamri? Does the noble Baroness agree with her colleague Mr. Douglas Hogg that dialogue is the way to solve the political problems of Bahrain and that any dialogue has to include the principal signatories of the petition which was signed by 250,000 people and which called on the Amir to restore the 1973 constitution and Parliament, and that without such a dialogue, the disorders are likely to continue indefinitely?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think that I said in answer to the previous question that we believe that dialogue is necessary and desirable. There

295
is a clear need for us to take a close interest in all these cases—indeed, we are already doing that—including the case of Shaikh Abdul Al-Jamri. We are also aware of the concern about Mansoor Al-Jamri's recent visit to the United States, which was a cause of the disagreement with the Bahraini Government. He is a naturalised UK citizen and holds a UK passport. We shall certainly look into what he is doing.
However, I must say this. However concerned we are about the way in which the Bahraini Government are dealing with opposition groups, those opposition groups must act responsibly and within the law. Although this may seem a hard thing to say, I believe that, unless they do so, they are letting down their own case because this is a matter that will be resolved only by dialogue and by acting within the law. That begs the question of whether the law is yet right, but it is the only way to proceed responsibly.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, in the light of what the Minister has said about the value of a visit to Bahrain by Amnesty, will she make her view known to the Bahraini Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have no doubt that they read your Lordships' proceedings, but I shall bring it to their attention.

Official Languages: English and Welsh
3 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether English is the only official language in use in the United Kingdom.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, there is no concept of an official language enshrined in English or Scottish law. However, the Government accept the principle that for official purposes in Wales the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that many members of the Civil Service appear to be ignorant of the existence of the Welsh Language Act and are too often quoted in the national press as stating or implying that English is the only language used in the UK that has a status recognised by statute?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my noble friend was kind enough to send me one such press cutting. I can understand why it has got his goat—or perhaps I should say wedi cael ei afr. Such statements are wrong in fact and wrong in principle. If they have been made, we regret it.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a widespread belief in Wales that Welsh is the language of Heaven—in which case he should give further consideration to the extent to which it is official?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if Welsh is the language of Heaven, there is not much hope for me.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, when the Royal Assent is given in this House in the more formal way, is it not traditional for the words La Reine le veult to be used?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, English is a very catholic language and is influenced by many things. I am not aware of any current use of Welsh, but in view of what my noble and learned friend has said, perhaps that should be encouraged.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, since I have the responsibility for promoting the Welsh language on earth, in view of the Government's excellent record in the UK in this field, is it now their intention to become a signatory to the European Charter promoted by the Council of Europe for regional or minority languages?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the question of whether we should become a signatory to the European Charter is still under consideration, but nothing in that charter would require us to do more than we have already done for the Welsh language. We are proud of our record over the past 16 years in the support and promotion of Welsh in Wales.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, are we not overlooking yet another language in the UK, much used in official documents and known as gobbledegook? Should not that language be suppressed as much and as firmly as possible since it is usually unintelligible to any linguist?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, certainly, and my noble friend will be interested to know that today a document called Plain English and How to Speak It arrived on my desk in the Department for Education. I hope that we shall endeavour to do that in future even if we have not done so entirely in the past.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in those circumstances, does the Minister agree that it is high time that Her Majesty's Government took the lead towards the abolition of Eurospeak?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have had to wait a long time—I think it is about 10 months—for the noble Lord to be able to ask me a supplementary question about Europe. I am glad that he has done so, and I agree with him.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, if we may return, even briefly, to the general ambience of the Question on the Order Paper, and since the question of the Welsh language has been raised, will the Minister tell the House which public utilities and private companies in Wales have prepared and had accepted schemes for the use of the Welsh language in the services that they provide? Will he tell us when precisely the Government hope to lay before both Houses of Parliament the guidelines prepared by that excellent body Bwrdd Yr Iaith Gymraeg (the Welsh Language Board) as required by the Welsh Language Act 1993?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I never can answer the questions asked by the noble Lord, and so I am not surprised to be unable to answer this one. I shall write to him with the answers for which he asks.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Treasury is reported in the press as having consulted the provisions of the Welsh Language Act in formulating the criteria for open-ended investment funds? Will my noble friend please ensure that all government departments follow that excellent example?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, sometimes reluctantly, but inevitably, all departments pay a great deal of attention to what the Treasury says.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, as we have just a minute on the clock, may I ask the Minister an easy question to which I have no doubt he will know the answer off the top of his head or out of his brief? Will he tell us whether Welsh-speaking prisoners in English prisons are or are not allowed to have Welsh language books, periodicals and videos?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, there is no prohibition on them having such things. Whether they are provided for Welsh speakers or speakers of any other language on this planet depends on the conditions in the prison and the prison authorities, but it is in principle our policy that such material should be provided within reason.

Jobseekers Bill
3.6 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order of 4th May be vacated and that the amendments for the Report stage of the Jobseekers Bill be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 20,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 21 to 40,

Schedules 2 and 3.—(Lord Strathclyde.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill consolidates the statutory system for the licensing of operators of heavy goods vehicles which was set up by Part V of the Transport Act 1968. That system was modified by the Goods Vehicles (Operators' Licences, Qualifications and Fees) Regulations 1984, part of which implemented obligations arising under the common transport policy of the European Communities.
298
Both the 1968 Act and the 1984 regulations have been heavily amended. The most recent amendments, made by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and which are yet to come into force, will replace the present system of licensing whereby operators' licences expire five years after they are issued with a system of continuous licensing. Under the new system, operators' licences will continue in force indefinitely unless withdrawn on grounds relating to the licence-holder's conduct or on other grounds.
The law in this area is much in need of consolidation, and I should like to take this opportunity to thank the draftsman for continuing this important consolidation work. If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Criminal Appeal Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is a measure of very great importance for it goes to the very heart of our criminal justice process, to its effectiveness and its integrity, and to the public's confidence in the effectiveness and lightness of that system. We all share a desire to see our criminal justice system process operating to the highest possible standards of fairness and integrity. We all share the goal of a system that wherever possible prevents miscarriages of justice in the first place and which is capable of delivering swift and effective remedies when things have not worked out as they should.. The Bill will help us achieve these goals.
The Bill is designed to reinforce and extend the powers of the courts in criminal appeals and to establish a new and independent system for identifying and correcting miscarriages of justice. In so doing, the Bill implements some of the key recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in July 1993. I pay tribute to the manner in which that wise and eminent body under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, has illuminated the way forward in this major area of change. With the benefit of the consultations which we undertook following publication of the Royal Commission's report, we are able to bring before your Lordships' House legislation which will, I believe, be of immense, and lasting, public benefit.
I now turn to the detailed content of the Bill. Part I clarifies and strengthens the powers of the respective Courts of Appeal in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland. All the provisions either respond to the recommendations of the Royal Commission or improve the Courts of Appeal's operations in other ways.

299
The Bill places an appeal against conviction on a point of law on the same footing as other appeals against conviction and sentence. Leave to appeal in such cases will therefore be required in future, save where the trial judge has certified the case as fit for appeal. This provides a sensible mechanism which will filter out those appeals on a point of law which are without obvious merit.
The Bill clarifies the grounds for allowing and dismissing an appeal. It replaces the current formula which involves three confusing and overlapping grounds with a simple test. Under the Bill, the court will allow any appeal where it considers that a conviction is unsafe. It will dismiss any other appeal. This simple test effectively consolidates the existing practice of the Court of Appeal. I was delighted to see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice welcomed it when the Bill was introduced in another place earlier this Session.
The Bill lowers the threshold for the admission of fresh evidence by the Court of Appeal along the lines recommended by the Royal Commission and provides a means for beginning or continuing an appeal on behalf of a person who has died.
The Courts of Appeal in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland respectively will be able to direct the new commission to investigate certain matters relating to an appeal before the court on its behalf and to report its findings to the court. Although we believe that this power is likely to be needed only rarely, it represents an important addition to the court's powers to remedy wrongful convictions.
Part II of the Bill deals with the establishment of the criminal cases review commission. At present, the power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal where a miscarriage of justice may have occurred lies with the Secretary of State. But, as I believe we would all now agree, this is not the most appropriate place for such powers to lie. A fresh approach is required in which these powers are exercised by a new, and independent, body; hence the creation of the commission.
The commission will be constitutionally separate from, and independent of, both government and the courts. It will examine cases in England and Wales and Northern Ireland and determine whether they should be referred to the courts in the respective jurisdictions. It will be able to refer any conviction or any sentence, or both, to the relevant court. And it will be able to refer summary cases as well as those which were tried originally on indictment. The commission will be accessible and open. It will have strong and effective investigative powers and it will be well resourced to carry out its task.
The final decision on any case which is referred will continue, however, to rest with the courts—the relevant Court of Appeal, if the case was tried originally on indictment, or the Crown Court, or a county court in Northern Ireland—following the referral of a summary case. The Government believe that this is the right division of responsibilities, the commission investigating and referring and the courts determining the resulting appeals.
300
The members of the commission will be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. All appointments will be publicly advertised and candidates selected based on their ability to do the job in hand. At least one-third of the members will be required to be legally qualified and two-thirds must appear to the Prime Minister to have experience or knowledge of the criminal justice system. One member, at least, must have relevant knowledge or experience of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. We believe that given their requirements, members of the commission will between them bring as wide a range of relevant knowledge and skills to the work as it is possible to provide. And they will need all of their skills, for the task which they face is a difficult and complex one.
The financial memorandum in the Bill sets out our best estimate of the additional costs involved in setting up the commission. I believe it sufficient to say therefore only that we believe that the commission will be properly resourced and able to deal with its anticipated workload as efficiently and as effectively as possible. We believe it possible, at least initially, that the commission may receive up to twice the number of representations as are made to the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office at present. The commission will need to employ up to 60 staff. That is about three times the number currently engaged in such work within my department and that of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
The recruitment of its staff will be a matter for the commission but we expect that it will comprise, like the membership of the commission, a broad mix of legal, investigative and administrative skills and experience. These posts will, like those of the members of the commission, be filled following open advertisement.
In establishing a strong and independent body we have not lost sight of the need to ensure that the commission is fully accountable for its work. That is a necessary counterpart to its independence. The Bill contains provisions that will require the commission to report annually to the Secretary of State. It will also be required to keep proper accounts. Both its annual report and its audited accounts will be laid before Parliament.
The commission, like other non-departmental public bodies, will have to work within the budgetary requirements imposed upon it. The Secretary of State will agree with it a corporate plan establishing its operational goals and levels of performance. Thus the commission will be fully accountable for the work which it does.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will continue to be responsible for the law under which the commission will operate but he will take no part in the day-to-day decisions and administration of the commission.
At present, the only means by which miscarriages of justice in summary cases can be corrected in England and Wales and Northern Ireland is the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. But although a free pardon removes the effect of the punishment, it is clearly unsatisfactory that the Royal Prerogative of Mercy does not quash or reverse the conviction. That is something

301
only the courts can—and should—do. The Bill therefore provides, for the first time, for summary convictions, following investigation, to be referred to the Crown Court in England and Wales and to a county court in Northern Ireland.
However, many summary cases are very straightforward. They do not need the kind of detailed investigation which the commission will undertake before referring cases to the courts. For these, the Bill provides in Part III a very simple and straightforward remedy by extending the existing powers of the magistrates' courts in England and Wales to reopen a case to rectify earlier errors. At present, only the cases of those who pleaded not guilty to an offence at trial can be reheard in this way. The Bill enables magistrates' courts to reopen cases irrespective of the plea made at trial or the time which has elapsed since the case was heard provided that this would be in the interests of justice. The Bill makes comparable provision for Northern Ireland. This is an entirely new power for the Province.
In view of the many changes that will be made as a result of this Bill, we have also considered whether changes should be made with regard to the availability of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. We have concluded, however, like the Royal Commission before us, that this would still be needed for the exceptional case. The Bill therefore empowers the commission to refer any case to the Secretary of State for him to consider recommending the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy and to give him its reasons when making such a referral.
It is necessary, however, to guard against the possibility that the role of the commission, and its responsibilities for investigating and referring cases to the courts, may be undermined by the Secretary of State's continuing capacity to receive petitions for a free pardon from others besides the commission. The Bill therefore also enables the Secretary of State, when considering whether he should recommend the exercise of the prerogative in relation to any conviction, to refer any matters to the commission for its opinion and then to treat that opinion as conclusive of the matter referred. This avoids the need for parallel investigations into the same matter having to be undertaken by two different authorities. And it ensures that any necessary investigation into the soundness of a conviction in a relevant case will be made by a body empowered, and resourced, to consider whether a miscarriage may have occurred.
The Bill gives the commission all the powers that it will need to carry out its investigations effectively and thoroughly. It will be able to obtain the assistance of police forces and other bodies by requiring them to appoint an investigating officer to make inquiries on its behalf and in accordance with its directions and, if necessary, under its supervision; require the appointment of an investigating officer from a different force or other public body from that which investigated the crime originally; insist that it approves the choice of the investigating officer before an investigation takes place; direct that any investigating officer cease to act as such and that he be replaced by another if his performance is not satisfactory; make its own inquiries,
302
commission its own expert opinions and tests; and obtain access to documents held by police forces and other bodies. The commission will also be able to obtain relevant papers and other material held by my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as a consequence of their having considered possible miscarriages of justice cases under their existing powers. It will be clear from that that we expect the commission to take charge of the investigations carried out on its behalf. It will be the commission which will be responsible for investigating possible miscarriages of justice and for evaluating the results before deciding whether to refer.
The Bill requires the commission to be satisfied before making a reference that there is some new element—whether argument or evidence in conviction cases, or argument on a point of law or information in sentence cases—which the courts have not previously considered and which gives rise to a real possibility that the conviction or sentence will not be upheld by the relevant court so that it is of sufficient weight, in the context of the whole case, to merit referral. The Government believe those to be broad and sensible criteria. And they clearly define the boundaries between the commission's functions and those of the courts. We can see no useful purpose in the commission referring any case in which there is nothing new for the courts to consider.
The commission will give its reasons to the courts for referring the case. But that will not amount to a recommendation on the merits of the resulting appeal. As I indicated, that will be entirely a matter for the courts to determine in accordance with their normal powers and procedures.
As the House, I think, already knows, the Government agree with the Royal Commission that those seeking a review of their case by the commission should be kept properly informed of the progress of any inquiries being made into their case and that they should be given a full and reasoned explanation of any decision not to refer their case to the courts. The Bill therefore provides for the commission to give a statement of its reasons to the court when referring a case—which it will copy to the parties to the resulting appeal—and its reasons to the convicted person when it decides not to refer.
The extent to which the commission will disclose information in other circumstances will be a matter for the commission itself to decide. As it will be conducting investigations, not legal proceedings, questions of disclosure will fall to be dealt with accordingly. It will also be able to keep applicants informed of the progress made in investigating their cases, and to disclose information to them so that in the interests of fairness applicants will be able to make further representations in the light of matters found by the commission.
But as possible miscarriages of justice often raise sensitive matters, their investigation requires careful handling. The Bill accordingly makes it an offence for a member of the commission, a member of its staff, or an investigating officer, to disclose any information gathered by the commission in the course of its activities, save in the circumstances set out in the Bill.

303
The gateways for disclosure provided in the Bill are, however, sufficient to enable the commission, where it thinks fit, to disclose relevant information in the way I have indicated today.
The Criminal Appeal Bill is a very important Bill. The public look to us to create a criminal justice system which is strong, effective and fair; one where the innocent have nothing to fear; one in which the guilty are rightly punished; and one, above all, in which all can have confidence. The Bill represents a further step towards making our system the best it is possible to provide. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Blatch.)
3.24 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I shall be the first of many to welcome the Bill. As in another place, it has been welcomed by those on all sides of the House. The Opposition did not divide against it on Second Reading in another place, not that we should ever dream of doing so here.
As the Minister said, it is a very necessary and important Bill and it is long overdue. Without going any further back into history, we must pay tribute to Mr. Kenneth Baker for his response to the miscarriages of justice which became apparent during his term of office as Home Secretary and for his wisdom in appointing the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, as chairman of the Royal Commission. Unfortunately the noble Viscount has obligations today in Paris and he has asked me to express his apologies to the House for not being here, but he hopes to take part in the later proceedings of the Bill.
The Runciman Commission report two years ago received a very wide welcome; indeed, it was largely welcomed by the Government. We appreciate that. Of course we regretted that some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission were implemented in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act last year; but this recommendation—which in many ways is the most important of all the Runciman recommendations—was not included in that Act and is therefore a year later than it might otherwise have been. Indeed, it is no secret that we were proposing to table amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to incorporate a commission or an authority very much along those lines. We were deterred only by the publication in April last year of the very fair and excellent Home Office discussion document which forms the basis of this Bill.
The fact that it is necessary and long overdue does not mean that it is an easy matter for which to legislate. The relationship between any independent authority of this kind and, in particular, the Court of Appeal is very tricky to establish and very tricky to maintain. It is essential that the Court of Appeal and the commission should have a mutual respect for and clear understanding of each other's role in order that they can operate effectively what is really rather like riding a tandem.
304
It is also extremely important—and I shall return later to this issue—that they should both have the complete confidence of the public and all those involved in the criminal justice system. I have some reservations about the ability of the Bill as drafted to provide that confidence. But in general it seems to us that this attempt to redefine the role of the Court of Appeal and to relate it to the new independent commission is very much along the right lines.
Of course, the existing system was never static. It underwent a number of changes during its life, some of which were very welcome, while some were less welcome. Sir John May, in his second report on the Maguire case—he was also a member of the Royal Commission—talked about the self-imposed limits which the Court of Appeal set itself. It is well known that C3 in the Home Office, fulfilling the role which it is now proposed that the commission should fill, was essentially reactive rather than proactive: it responded only to recommendations rather than carrying out its own investigations.
The result of that has been that, as the Royal Commission said at paragraph 11.9 of its report:
"the role assigned to the Home Secretary … is incompatible with the constitutional separation of powers as between the courts and the executive".
That is the very serious defect in our existing law which this Bill is designed to remedy.
If, therefore, the Bill is to succeed as fully as it might do—and we are very keen for it to do so; indeed, we are most keen to be constructive in our approach to the Bill at all stages—there are a number of defects to which I have to draw attention and which I believe will need to be considered most carefully. If I devote the bulk of my speech to those defects, that does not mean that I believe that the Bill consists only of defects.
The first defect must concern the appointment and the membership of the commission. The procedure proposed is that the chairman and the members of the commission should be appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The analogy for that is the procedure for the appointment of Lords Justices of Appeal. I am not in any way going to criticise that procedure except to say that it is very private; it is not at all open. There is no scrutiny of any kind of the appointment of Lords Justices of Appeal and perhaps there should not be. But such a commission, if it is to maintain and deserve public confidence, ought to be rather more open. We ought to consider whether there should be some sort of independent parliamentary scrutiny of the membership of the commission rather than the procedure proposed in the Bill. That is the first problem that I have with the appointment of the commission.
There are also rules laid down in the Bill for the membership of the commission. Fundamentally, such people would need to have a knowledge and understanding of the criminal justice system. My first reaction to that is to hope that it does not mean that a knowledge and understanding of the criminal justice system are equated with legal training. Indeed, there are many people other than lawyers who are involved in the system, who are knowledgeable about it and who ought

305
to be included in such a commission. I shall not put up with any mutterings on the matter from my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition who is sitting behind me. It also occurs to me that the commission's clients are in fact those who have been accused and convicted of crimes. Therefore, there ought to be some attempt to ensure that the membership of the commission does not include people who have been convicted of crimes but does include people who come from the same social and ethnic background as those who are in the end their clients; in other words, the commission should be a good deal more open than I believe the Government propose. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to intervene. I give way.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, surely the noble Lord cannot possibly mean that villainy is confined to one class.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course I do not. But I believe that the noble Baroness would agree that the range of social class among villains is much wider than that of lawyers.
A Noble Lord: Oh, no!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the second, and perhaps the single most important, issue on which we question the judgments made in the Bill concerns the investigatory role of the commission and how it will go about that task. I was interested to note that the Minister made virtually no reference to that in her opening speech, although she must know that it is the issue which has caused by far the greatest anxiety. Indeed, not only Justice and Liberty but also the Bar Council and the Law Society have all referred to the matter with varying degrees of discontent.
The Bill provides that the investigation should be carried out on behalf of the commission by members of public bodies. "Public bodies" are defined in the Bill so as to include a wide range of bodies other than the police. But the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill makes it quite clear that it is intended that the great majority of investigations carried out on behalf of the commission will be undertaken by members of police forces. Investigations of officers of other public bodies are expected to be very rare, so the impact on the resources of such bodies will be minimal.
I question whether that is right either as a prediction or as a prescription. I question whether it is right that there should be such a firm presumption that virtually all investigations should be carried out by the police. There are many other investigative skills which are not necessarily those of the police and which ought to be involved in the investigations carried out by the commission. For example, investigations of fraud very often require the skills of the accountancy profession, although I agree that that is not the concern in this case. However, the investigative role of Customs and Excise is very important in a number of cases and, indeed, in criminal cases. The role of forensic scientists—and the Royal Society of Chemistry has made that case effectively—is important in the investigation of miscarriages of justice. Still more, I doubt whether it is
306
right, as the Bill proposes, that the investigation should in general be carried out by the police force that was responsible for the original investigation.
I appreciate that during the passage of the Bill in another place some amendments were made which increased the power of the commission to veto investigating officers proposed to it by the chief of police. But, nevertheless, it seems to me to be fundamentally in conflict with the requirement that there should be public confidence in the commission that it should be expected very largely to go back to the original police forces which were responsible for the investigation now being challenged and expect them to carry out the reinvestigation. It seems to me to go beyond the expectation that people will have of the integrity and independence of the investigation.
I am not impressed by the analogy which is made with the Police Complaints Authority. That authority contains a number of dedicated and skilled people, but the effect of the Police Complaints Authority over the years has been that 90 per cent. of complaints have resulted in no disciplinary action. I cannot believe that that is a good analogy for our new commission.
We are told that to go back to the original police force is right because it is cheaper and because the investigators need police power and accountability. However, I suggest that those objectives could be achieved in other ways. In particular, I should like to suggest that at least part of the investigative work commissioned by the commission should be undertaken by its own staff; in other words, even though some of the work will have to be carried out by police forces, nevertheless, the bulk of it should be done by people who are working for the commission, who are responsible to the commission and, indeed, who are members of its own staff. Where that is not the case, the presumption should be that, if the investigation is carried out by the police, it should be carried out by a force other than the one which carried out the initial investigation.
The third major issue which we have to consider is disclosure. There is a peculiarity in Clause 17 about disclosure by the Secretary of State to the commission itself which will have to be subject to amendment later on. But the most important provisions on disclosure are found in Clauses 23 and 24. In November of last year the Divisional Court in a judgment on the Bridgewater case said that applicants should be able to see and comment on evidence on which they have been or might be refused. It was said that that was an important principle of fairness. That judgment is not overturned by the Bill. But the fear must be that the formulation of Clauses 23 and 24, which turn disclosure on its head and put the primary emphasis on confidentiality, with only exemptions proposed in Clause 24, will weaken the power and will of the courts and of the commission to make the necessary disclosures to applicants. Therefore, the fear is that the provisions will weaken the Divisional Court ruling in Hickey and others.
The fourth major query which we have: is on what the Minister called the simple rule that the court believes that the conviction is unsafe. That is not what Runciman said. The phrase used by the Royal Commission was "is

307
or may be unsafe". The existing rule used by the Court of Appeal is "unsafe or unsatisfactory". We can agree that the words "or unsatisfactory" do not add significantly to it. But surely there is a need for a lower test than "is unsafe". In saying that, I have the support of the Bar Council and the Law Society, as well as Justice and Liberty.
Fifthly, surely there is a need for a lower test which may not cause the conviction to be quashed immediately but could, for example, trigger a retrial. Surely there is need for a recognition of the phrase "lurking doubt" which arose in the first place in 1968 or 1969 in the Cooper case. There is a need for recognition that something has to be done if there is a material irregularity in the investigation or the trial. We shall be putting down amendments about the criteria for quashing the conviction at a later stage. Indeed, I draw attention now to the minority report by Professor Michael Zander to the Royal Commission. It seems to me that there is a great deal of wisdom in his views about the necessity for correcting not only what happened at the trial but also looking at serious defects in the pre-trial proceedings.
Sixthly, there is the issue raised in Clause 13 about new evidence or argument. I wonder whether it is not more suitable to ask whether the issues have been adequately raised or adequately considered at the original trial; in other words, not to rely simply on new evidence. I return now to relatively minor matters because I appreciate that I must bring my remarks to an end—the question of legal aid and preparing cases for submission, which has been raised by a number of those concerned, and the question which the Law Society has raised about the leave to appeal, which is the issue in Clause 1 of the Bill.
It is clear that there is—I am sure that there are other issues—a great deal of meat in this Bill which is, I accept, an honest and honourable attempt to deal with the great problems which exist with the present system. There is still amendment to be done and it is the role, I suggest, of your Lordships to undertake that task. We shall do our best to help that.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, as the House will recall, this Bill was apparently an afterthought in the Government's legislative programme for this year, being identified only in the vaguest way in the gracious Speech. We are nevertheless glad to see it. It is, as the Minister said today, a Bill of great importance.
When the noble Baroness referred to the Bill in the debate on the Address, it sounded like a short and simple measure. The Bill as drafted is rather more substantial, but not the worse for that. In another place it took a whole day on Second Reading and virtually a whole day on Report, with over 12 hours in Committee in between. I would not expect your Lordships to be quite so prodigal with your time, but there is much that deserves detailed scrutiny and the Bill could be improved by amendment.
308
In her speech on 22nd November last, the noble Baroness asked for a general welcome for the Bill. That welcome was given and is being repeated today. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, there was no vote on Second Reading in another place, which is unusual enough especially with a Home Office measure. That, I think, is a way of judging the extent to which it has support across all Benches. However, I hope that a general welcome and support from all sides will produce a reciprocal response from the Minister. I hope that, as we are supporting her Bill sympathetically, she will in turn consider supporting our amendments. It is, after all, a constitutional duty of this House to improve Bills and I am sure that she will have an opportunity of sharing in that process.
When I spoke previously in your Lordships' House the noble Baroness gave me what I think I must call a thorough ticking off. I had the temerity to be critical of the Home Secretary in relation to penal policy. I had criticised his attitude to what I called "saloon bar populism" and said that in penal matters his rule appeared to me to be a case of,
"Give me a misconceived perception and I will yield to it". — [Official Report, 27/4/95; col. 1089.]
The Minister is a loyal and doughty fighter—I have no quarrel with that—and she admonished me. The noble Lord, she said, referring to me, has,
"not for the first time, personalised much of what he said". — [Official Report, 27/4/95; col. 1094.]
Of course she was right; indeed I did that. However, we do not have an anonymous system of government in this country. We have heads of great departments of state who exercise personal authority. They like to stamp their own style and ideas on their departments. That is how we work; that is how governments of all parties work. Indeed, it is how the Minister herself works. She is a strong and positive Minister. Things are different because she is there. Therefore, I shall continue to personalise Home Office policy when it is clearly policy made on the initiative of the Home Secretary. Indeed, if in response to the Minister's strictures I ceased doing so, I would be unable to praise the present Home Secretary for bringing this Bill forward. Other Home Secretaries could have brought before Parliament provisions for a criminal cases review commission — indeed, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred favourably to Mr. Kenneth Baker—but they did not do so. Michael Howard has done so, and with the Minister's permission I thank him for that.
Most of the points that I wanted to pursue on the Bill are matters for Committee. They need detailed and precise discussion. I would also like to hear the views of other noble Lords, both today and later, especially those with close experience of the criminal law. If the Bill is to be improved their views are crucial. There are only two points to which I wish to refer, as against the six of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The first concerns the funding of the review commission. The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, who chaired with such distinction—as is generally agreed—the Royal

309
Commission on the criminal law, had offered in a lecture elsewhere some afterthoughts about its conclusions. He said:
"I wish we had argued more strongly the need to ensure that the new criminal cases review authority … is properly—which means abundantly—funded".
I asked in the debate on the Address for Ministers to confirm that that would be the case. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, gave the undertaking. He baulked at the word "abundantly" but not at "properly". The Minister has used the same word today. But the Financial Memorandum is not reassuring. The net cost of the commission's accommodation and administrative overheads appears to be £3.5 million. That seems modest and I hope that it does not mean any restraint on the independence of the commission to make whatever provision it thinks necessary for its work. I agree that it is reasonable. One would take for granted that it must agree its budget with the Home Secretary from year to year, but I hope that the Minister in winding up today will confirm again that there will be no unreasonable restraint upon the money which the commission may spend.
However, much more worrying than the question of the cost of accommodation and administrative overheads is the assumption that the Bill will not give rise to extra demands on police resources. I find that difficult to believe. It would be very unfair if police forces received no extra help whatever when many are under great financial strain at present and some are reducing their services to the public.
My second point relates, as I am sure will the remarks of other noble Lords, to Clause 18 and, more generally, the question of who should carry out the investigations initiated by the commission and whether it should have discretion to appoint an in-house team.
In Committee in another place the noble Baroness's colleague, Mr. Maclean, said on this matter that the Government were not convinced that an in-house investigative team will be helpful or necessary. It would add significantly to the commission's costs and would not be an efficient use of resources. However, I can find no quantification of those costs. Ministers may say that it is not the main consideration, but they have introduced the idea of its relevance and it would have been irresponsible to do so without having relative data. I hope that later this afternoon the Minister can say—because there will have been time to check the figures—what "significantly" means. What estimate have the Government made of additional costs at the centre and the savings in police resources that may follow from independent investigation?
As to the principle of either an in-house team, which seems most practical, or a team hired for specific investigations, I hope very much that the Government will agree at the end of our debate in this House to an element of flexibility being built into the Bill. This is an independent commission. It will be independent of the Government and independent of the courts. The Government want it that way, and I am sure that your Lordships will want it that way. However, not everyone has faith in our system. If the commission fails to establish itself in the public eye as independent some
310
of its purpose will be lost. Not everyone will feel that investigations undertaken by police forces will ever be wholly independent of the Government and the courts—what I have called "the system" in all its separate parts.
I do not understand why the option of alternative means of investigation should not be written into the Bill. If the independent commission found that an in-house team would be unhelpful or unnecessary—words which the Minister used in another place—of course it would not employ one. That would be its independent decision, not the Government's, as revealed in the omission from the Bill. At the very least there ought to be provision in the Bill for second thoughts by which, if the commission so desired, it could be given such further powers by statutory instrument. Neither the Minister nor this House, nor those who may compose the commission, can know how the process will work. We cannot know now how it could be most effective in its purpose. All I suggest to the Minister is that if that option were available, if necessary by statutory instrument, it could be taken up without resort to primary legislation, which would not be a sensible use of the time of this House.
I hope that the Minister will consider that possibility. As I say, it would introduce flexibility. It would be a reasonable compromise which might command wide support. It could make this, which is a good and welcome Bill, even better. In that spirit, I hope that the House will send the Bill on its way.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: My Lords, before I address the House on the Bill I hope that four Lordships will consider it right and appropriate if I make brief mention of the late Lord Goodman and say how sad we all are at his passing. I should like to pay a personal tribute to the enormous contribution he made to the law and to public life generally.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: My Lords, the Bill raises two issues of fundamental importance both for the individual and for the public as a whole. First, a sound system of criminal justice requires an appeal process which is accessible, reliable and comprehensible in order to safeguard the right of those charged with criminal offences to be punished only if the admissible evidence proves them to be guilty. That is in accord with the right to liberty enshrined in article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the importance of which has been recognised by this House in passing the Bill recently presented by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. In that regard, there are a number of respects in which the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 has been thought capable of improvement.
Secondly, public confidence in the criminal justice system requires a mechanism for dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice when fresh material comes to light after all conventional avenues of appeal have been exhausted. In that regard the Royal Commission recommended references back to the Court of Appeal by an independent body rather than, as hitherto, by the Home Secretary.

311
The Bill before us addresses both of those important issues. I am glad to say that I support it. In doing so I speak not only for myself but with the concurrence of a group of senior judges with great experience both in the practice of the criminal law and in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal whom I have consulted on both the policy of the Bill and its detailed provisions.
At the heart of any appeal system is the test to be applied when deciding whether a conviction should be quashed or upheld. Clearly, the Court of Appeal cannot, and should not, carry out a complete retrial of the case, acting as judge and jury and reaching its own conclusions as to the facts. The role of the Court of Appeal is rather to decide whether anything in the conduct of the trial or in any fresh evidence which has come to light casts doubt upon the safety of the conviction or whether the court is otherwise unconvinced that the verdict is safe. But the public also demand, and rightly so, that the guilty should be convicted and that their convictions should be upheld. The appeal court must therefore have a statutory test which provides the proper criterion for determining whether a conviction should be quashed or affirmed.
In its report the Royal Commission recommended that Section 2 of the 1968 Act ought to be redrafted,
"in view of the present overlap between the grounds of appeal and the confusion over the scope of the proviso"
to that section. Its recommendation that the court should decide upon the safety of the conviction has been broadly followed by the Government. The new test—whether the conviction is unsafe—will, in my view, be concise, just and comprehensible to the ordinary citizen without narrowing the present grounds of appeal. It will assist the Court of Appeal and those who appear before it. And it will help appellants to understand more readily what is at stake and the reasons for the court's decision.
There has been criticism of the fact that the precise test recommended by the Royal Commission has not been adopted. In my view, however, there is no merit in including in the test the words "or may be unsafe" since the implication of doubt is already inherent in the word "unsafe". A conviction which may be unsafe is unsafe.
I turn to Part II of the Bill. In some instances, even after a case has been considered on appeal, new evidence or a new factor comes to light which makes it necessary for further consideration by the Court of Appeal. The other major limb of the Bill meets that requirement by the establishment of the long-awaited criminal cases review commission. As your Lordships have heard me say before, I very much support the setting up of an independent body to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice, and I was delighted when, seemingly at the last moment, time was found by the Government for its establishment in the present legislative programme. The Court of Appeal will continue to be the final arbiter of the safety of convictions and it will be the commission's role to refer appropriate cases to the court. I believe that the need for a body independent of the government and the courts, whose task will be to consider and, where necessary, to
312
investigate such cases is well established. In the other place, this aspect of the Bill was welcomed from all sides.
The commission will also provide valuable assistance to the Court of Appeal under Clause 14 of the Bill which empowers the court to commission investigations during the course of an appeal. In my view, although it will not be necessary to invoke it frequently, the demands of justice and efficiency call for such a power. It will allow the Court of Appeal to institute investigations other than by the parties themselves without the delay which would be caused by the dismissal of the appeal and subsequent application to the commission.
There are some subsidiary points to which your Lordships may wish to give consideration in Committee. The Bill provides an opportunity to clarify the provisions of Section 23 of the 1968 Act which deal with the admission of new evidence and I hope that the Government will soon be able to bring forward amendments. The power of the commission to refer sentence only cases to the Court of Appeal causes me some disquiet and was criticised in another place on the ground that the commission might in its early years receive a great number of applications of this nature which could leave it struggling to cope with the caseload it will inherit of allegedly flawed convictions, which is what the commission is essentially about.
There may also be an opportunity in the Bill to improve the procedures presently followed when a life sentence is imposed in a case of murder—in particular, regarding recommendations by judges as to the minimum term to be served. The current system for setting the so-called "tariff' period does little to enhance public confidence in our system and was recently criticised by the Court of Appeal. These are relatively modest reservations, however, and I strongly commend the Bill to your Lordships.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I also warmly welcome this Bill. I do so both from my experience at the Bar and, more particularly, as chairman of Justice, the all-party law reform group which exists to promote law reform and maintain and enhance human rights.
In the criminal law, the consistent aim of Justice as an organisation is to improve processes so that they have the twin effects of increasing the prospects that the guilty will be convicted while improving safeguards against wrongful convictions.
Justice has experience over more than 30 years of looking into suggested miscarriages of justice. There is no other body which has existed to do so on a regular and structured basis. Not long ago Justice was described in The Times as,
"a place of last resort when official procedures have failed".
In the course of this extensive work, Justice became convinced many years ago of the importance of the creation of a review body, independent of the courts, the police and the executive, to examine complaints and initiate appropriate proceedings for appeal to the courts.

313
We strongly so submitted to the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, so well chaired by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman.
We welcomed the clear and unanimous view of the Royal Commission that a new review body, wholly independent of government, was needed. So I warmly compliment the Home Secretary, Mr. Michael Howard, on his decision to implement the Royal Commission report. In introducing the Bill he said,
"We share a common interest in ensuring that our system is the best we can provide, that it contains all the necessary safeguards to minimise the possibility of a wrongful conviction, the most effective appeals procedures that we can devise, and the best machinery for investigating possible miscarriages of justice".
Those are uncontroversial aims, but it is good to hear them so positively stressed. On the same occasion, the Home Secretary also said,
"We need a new investigative body that is constitutionally separate from, and visibly independent of, both Government and the courts. We also need to clarify and strengthen the powers of the Court of Appeal to identify and resolve doubtful cases at the earliest opportunity".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/95; col. 23.]0
These words demonstrate the Home Secretary's wholehearted commitment to the Bill, and no doubt its inclusion in the current legislative programme reflects his determination. I would like to thank him for his personal commitment to ensure this excellent and most positive development for improving criminal processes. I would also add that strengthening the procedures for guarding against miscarriages of justice serves to raise confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole. This is crucial in establishing guilt in cases where charges are properly brought home against an accused.
The Home Secretary rightly laid stress on ensuring that the machinery for the new commission was as good as it could possibly be. In this spirit, I should just like to comment on two aspects of the machinery which is created by the Bill. First, it is obviously important that the investigation should be efficient and should be seen to be independent. I welcome the fact that members of the review body will include a mix of lawyers and non-lawyers. The Royal Commission rightly said that the precise numbers and mix must depend on its workload. I also agree with the Royal Commission report that, in general, investigation should be carried out by police forces. But I also believe —it is again what the Royal Commission recommended—that the review body should have on its own staff people with relevant investigative experience. I believe that the machinery would work better if there were a small core of police officers, possibly seconded for a period from their current police service, who were a part of the central team.
My noble friend the Minister said in opening the debate that it is vital for the commission to have strong and effective investigative powers. I agree and welcome that commitment. But under the Bill at present the commission has no power to appoint its own independent investigators from its own staff in any circumstances. I think that there would be much to be said for its having at the very least a residual power to appoint independent investigators in particularly sensitive or complex cases. I know that an all-party amendment to provide such a power was narrowly
314
defeated in another place, but I would hope that consideration would be given to this proposal again both by the Government and by your Lordships' House.
The second issue that I wish to raise relates to disclosure of evidence. In the past, the absence of full disclosure of evidence has been one source of miscarriages of justice, and also a major grievance to applicants whose cases the Home Office has refused to refer to the Court of Appeal. In summary, those applicants did not have the material which had been gathered in response to their complaints properly disclosed to them, nor any opportunity to answer the information which was influencing the Home Secretary in his decision. They met what was in many cases quite simply a brick wall. That was recognised by the Divisional Court in its judgment in Ex parte Hickey and Others last year. The court held that fairness required that applicants should be able to see and to comment on evidence which had previously been refused to them so that they could challenge its accuracy or make further representations. This is crucial to ensure that justice is done, and is seen by applicants to have been done. As the Divisional Court judgment said:
"Principle dictates that, absent powerful countervailing considerations, advance disclosure is required. It is required in the interests both of fairness and informed decision making. Without it an adverse decision may not be right; it will not be fair".
This is a point of real substance. In one case with which Justice has been involved for more than five years, which relates to the conviction of a man called Sammy Davis for rape, many of those who have looked at the case believe that there are very real doubts as to whether he was guilty. But the Home Office did not feel it appropriate to disclose the result of their investigations to his advisers. In the Divisional Court case to which I referred and after disclosure of the evidence had finally been made, the court took the view that there was a clear ground for hearing an appeal as the conviction might be unsafe. This illustrates just how important it is that the advisers to the applicant should have an opportunity to consider the evidence.
Doubts have been expressed as to whether the provisions of Clauses 23 and 24 of the Bill preserve this emphasis. They would appear at first sight to provide for a general duty of confidentiality which is qualified by some limited exceptions. These exceptions are very general and do not specify the occasions or purposes for which disclosure is required. Concern was expressed about the provisions in another place. Ministers in response helpfully stated that the same approach which was established in the recent court judgment would in practice be followed, saying:
"In our view, the Commission will be governed by the same duty of fairness and by the resulting requirements of disclosure".
So I welcome the clear statement today from my noble friend the Minister that the Government recognise that it is important in principle that information should be disclosed to the applicant. It is in fact elementary because only in that way can the applicant have the chance to answer new material and only in that way can the procedures of the commission be sufficiently transparent to be seen to be fair. I believe that exceptions, if they arise, should be rare.

315
I wish to refer briefly to one other point. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice pointed out, Clause 2 of the Bill provides that the Court of Appeal shall allow the appeal,
"if they think that the conviction is unsafe".
Anxieties have been expressed as to whether that sufficiently covers the situation where the conviction might be unsafe; but, again, in another place the Minister in response—and I have no doubt that my noble friend will confirm this—stated that what is described as the "lurking doubt" test would still apply. The confirmation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice of his understanding on this was welcome. As he said, a conviction is unsafe if it may be unsafe and if that is clearly established so that no one is in any state of doubt, it is extremely welcome.
Before concluding, I should just like to state my support for the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice on the desirability of the Court of Appeal considering certain possible changes which affect those sentenced to life imprisonment. In particular, where the judge states in open court a "recommendation" that a prisoner should serve for a minimum period of years, that recommendation—albeit stated in open court—is not an order, as I understand the law, from which an appeal may be brought. I believe that the present position with regard to mandatory sentences and the executive procedures which are involved in implementing them is far from satisfactory in general. But I recognise that that is a wider topic than falls within the Bill. I ask that careful consideration be given to the proposal of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice.
I end where I began. I warmly commend the principle of the Bill to the House and again express gratitude to the Home Secretary for the personal impetus he has put behind this most worthwhile reform.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is it not amazing that it has taken until this year for us to consider a power that was vested in the Home Secretary to refer cases, where he saw fit, to the Court of Appeal because there was doubt about a conviction? All Members of this House have respect for politicians, even if those outside the House do not share it. However, how extraordinary that this power and right in regard to our system of justice should be reposed in the Home Secretary. How extraordinary that it should take until now for us to be considering powers to investigate where matters of miscarriage of justice occur.
I hope that your Lordships will not think this self-advertisement, but I am reminded that reference has been made to the report on the Maguire case by that fine judge, the right honourable Sir John May. In the Maguire case there was a conviction which was lifted only in 1991. I wish to read from page 67 of the report. Sir John May wrote in 1985:
"in May 1985 Lord Fitt initiated a debate in the House of Lords on the Maguire case, pressing the Government to reopen it. He was supported from all sides of the House and Lord Mishcon, Labour
316
front bench spokesman on Home Affairs, made a new and specific request to the Home Secretary (although he said he was speaking in a personal capacity)".
Then there is the quotation of what I suggested to the Home Office Minister at that time:
"to appoint independent scientific advisers to look at the evidence that was given and advise the Secretary of State whether there are grounds under the section [17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968] for him to consider that there is new evidence".
Then in his report Sir John May takes us through the evidence that was given from the Home Office as to why that suggestion was not acted upon. I read from page 71, paragraph 11.43:
"On repeated requests to establish a scientific committee Mr. Stanton's advice was clear".
In parenthesis, I may say that he was a grade 7 official in the C3 Division of the Home Office. The report quotes Mr. Stanton's advice:
"These approaches must continue to be resisted. We do not know what conclusions, if any, a committee of scientists might arrive at. There would be pressure for the Secretary of State to act on the basis of any recommendations (for example, referral) it might make, leaving potentially awkward decisions to be made, and setting a dangerous precedent. Arguably it remains up to the Maguires and their supporters to demonstrate a case, not for the Secretary of State to explore it himself'.
That was in 1985. If that scientific committee had been appointed as scientific advisers to the Home Secretary on the Maguire case, would it have taken until 1991 for that miscarriage of justice to be redressed?
So I have a personal sense of satisfaction that we now have a Bill before us under which the investigatory work will be carried out, not by a politician but, with our usual reverence for the separation of powers, by an independent body that will have the power to investigate.
It is all very well to give bodies created by Parliament the power to do things. It is easy for us to put that permissive power on to the statute book. After all the publicity that has been given to grievous miscarriages of justice, the public will have great expectations that this body will deal promptly and thoroughly with applications and that it will have the power to investigate and the intelligence to reach proper decisions. Are we satisfied that, when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament by the statutory instrument that the Secretary of State will be empowered to issue, this will be a body capable of carrying out this work?
I believe that the figure given was 730 cases per annum now being considered by C3 division of the Home Office. I believe I heard the Minister say in her very lucid account of the provisions of this Bill that provision was being made for that figure to be doubled, certainly in the first year, and perhaps even trebled. I thought that she said doubled, but let us take it for granted that it is to be trebled. That is not a bad estimate. One can imagine the number of people who will be encouraged to say, "My case is one of a miscarriage of justice. By the grace of God, there is now a commission to which I can apply".
One also has to add that cases now with C3 division will be passed on to the commission. Are we satisfied that we shall have people of sufficient ability and training to staff the commission? Not everybody is satisfied, if I may say so with deep respect, that the

317
officials of the Serious Fraud Office are necessarily of the calibre that we expected. Nor is everybody satisfied that those who run the Child Support Agency are of the ability that we anticipated. I hope therefore that remuneration of officials of the commission will be adequate to attract people who are genuinely able to deal with the administrative work that will be required as well as with the investigative work.
It is not just a question of our having faith in the police. I hope that in this House we shall always state in regard to the police what is the experience of most of us; namely, that the majority of our police force are brave, decent, honourable people who are doing a most difficult job. Having said that, we all know from our own experience—and it is only human—that a minority do not live up to that reputation. The public are a little suspicious of any inquiry being handed over to the police when it relates to the propriety of police action.
We cannot do without the police on such inquiries and investigations. But it would be awfully sensible for people in the police force to think of this commission as a correct step in their career, be it for a period of five years or whatever, so that their loyalty is not to their local police force but, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh suggested, to the commission itself. That must be the right way of doing things, rather than just passing work out to the police. As was rightly said from the Liberal Democrat Benches, one has to take into account the fact that, so far as the police are concerned, they are over-burdened as it is. Unless we want —noble Lords will forgive the expression—slick, quick work done of a not very thorough nature, we really must see that this is not just a matter of referral to a police force, and certainly not to a force that is involved in whatever may be the inquiry.
In conclusion, if we are trying to build an edifice of justice within the system of which we are rightly proud, please do not let us think again in purely non-practical terms. The man or woman who will apply to this commission will not, in 99 cases out of 100, be very literate and will not understand the process. We have to realise that there will be no justice unless the application that is made, the reaction to the possible communications from the commission, the reaction to new evidence that is procured and the submissions that the case is a proper one for the Court of Appeal are assisted by lawyers. When we talk about being assisted by lawyers, there is no point in trying to escape the inevitable conclusion that in 99 cases out of 100 that must be done on legal aid. We must take that fact into account. Otherwise, if we set the system up without making proper provision for people to obtain justice, our attempts at justice are half-hearted.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, at this stage of the debate I shall be very brief, address just three points and put down a marker for an amendment. Like all other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome this Bill. As to the statutory test under Clause 2, I had already made a very rough note that "what may be unsafe is unsafe". Then I heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice indeed say so. That is a
318
sufficient test. With respect, I do not support the suggestion that was made that the test should be that it "may be unsafe".
However, from my own practical experience there are worries about the lurking doubt. In the case of Heibner— in which I was not instructed at the time and am not instructed now—it is on record that the Court of Appeal held expressly that there was a lurking doubt and refused the application. This is not the moment to take up your Lordships' time. The case is on record and may be consulted. Therefore, let us not suppose that the lurking doubt is wholly dispensed with. If anybody is interested, I could find the reference in my chambers.
Secondly, clearly the Home Office and the police must be under an obligation, a duty, to disclose all relevant material in accordance with the ex parte Hickey decision mentioned by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. That will require some careful drafting. In principle, however, I support everything that was said on that matter by my noble friend.
The third point is that, as my noble friend said, there should be some form of residual power to appoint an independent investigator—a staff member—in difficult or contentious cases.
The marker for the amendment that I wish to put down at the end of Part I as a new clause affects the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and is to the effect that, where a person makes an application on or before arraignment to quash an indictment, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the Crown Court either refusing or granting the application. That is not a matter that I should argue at this stage and take up time with it. But it is a matter which has received the interest and, to some extent, the approval of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice on another Bill. In fact, it would save a considerable amount of delay and a considerable amount of expense. It would also, broadly speaking, accord with the broad requirements of the fair dispensation of justice.
4.31 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, as, a practising member of the criminal Bar, I too welcome the Bill. I hope that the House will forgive me if a little of what I say is tinged with some personal unhappy experience. As a junior counsel, I was unhappily involved in the original trial of the Maguire family and their first rejected appeal against conviction. My client served many years of imprisonment before that injustice was recognised and acknowledged. More recently, I represented one of the Taylor sisters, both at the trial and later in the Court of Appeal. That was a case in which the failure of the Crown to disclose vital information to the defence emerged only after two young girls had served the first year of a life sentence. In that case, the miscarriage of justice was recognised and corrected by the Court of Appeal the first time round.
The need for a body such as that proposed by this legislation is now universally recognised. Victims of miscarriages of justice for many years have had to pin

319
their hopes of righting what is a truly terrible wrong on attracting the attention and support perhaps of a dedicated lawyer prepared to work for nothing often over many years; or on capturing the attention and interest of an investigative journalist; or on the support of a Member of this House or another place who was prepared to take up the cause; or on a churchman who might have become interested in the case and was prepared to intercede; or, indeed, on the organisation Justice, of which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, is chairman and which, over some 30 years, has helped something of the order of 800 people a year who go begging for help when they see no other route to redress the wrong. Many people, of course, are simply dependent, or have been up to, now on family and friends and their efforts, and also, above all, on a great deal of good luck.
The proposed review body fulfils a real and urgent need. At risk of sounding as though I am carping, which I am not, perhaps I may just sound a few words of caution. Public expectations of this measure are very high. In fact, they are unrealistically high. Although the Bill can play an important part in fighting miscarriages of justice, such miscarriages of justice will still take place and there will still be many which cannot be corrected by this mechanism. It is just worth saying, as others have said before me, that every case in which a crime has been committed and the offender has escaped the due process of law is in itself a miscarriage of justice. This machinery, which is necessary and beneficial, cannot address those matters. It has to be looked at as part of a package which must include improved crime prevention, effective use of police resources and policing generally, and more assistance to the victims of crime.
There will still be miscarriages of justice which no body such as this can uncover or correct. We must be vigilant in looking at the way in which our criminal law is applied and is working to see where those danger areas are to be found. Perhaps I may give one example. In the legislation before this House in 1993—what is now the Criminal Justice Act—a number of changes were made which, for example, altered the rules in relation to corroboration and to the right of silence. When, for instance, a sexual complaint is made and only the accuser and the accused know the reality of the position, unless the accuser later admits that he or she has not told the truth, a miscarriage of justice will, or is likely to, remain uncorrected.
Having said that, the Bill must be part, in the public's perception, of an overall pattern of tackling both sides of the equation. It is essential that the public must have confidence in this body and indeed in the Court of Appeal. That confidence must be based, first, on the conviction that it is a truly independent body, independent of both government and the police, and, secondly, on the knowledge that the body is competent and has sufficient resources in order to carry out what will clearly in some cases be expensive operations. It may be necessary to instruct experts, find witnesses and take evidence. I am greatly encouraged by what the noble Baroness said about the adequate funding which,
320
she maintains, will be available. But the public must be satisfied that the body will be fair, both in its composition and in its decisions—not just fair but seen to be fair.
When I started at the Bar in 1970, there was a notorious chairman of one of the busiest London magistrates' courts who, after he and his colleagues had been in retirement deliberating on a case for some time, was alleged to have told the defendant, "We think there is a doubt in this case but you are not going to have the benefit of it." That story may be apocryphal, but there is no doubt that the necessity for all parts of the criminal justice system not merely to be fair but to be seen to be fair is far more readily appreciated today by the judiciary at every level. I shall not say that it is impossible but it is difficult to find the bad tempered or obviously biased judges of yesteryear. But such fairness is also crucial because the press monitor the way in which justice is seen to be done in public and the public care about it.
So, with those points in mind, there are just four matters that I ask the noble Baroness to consider when she comes to reply. First, as other noble Lords have said, this review body will be under enormous pressure, particularly at the outset, from the number of cases likely to be referred to it. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the essential need for legal aid to enable applicants to prepare their applications to this body. It is precisely those who are inarticulate and ill educated or who may suffer forms of mental or other disability who are likely to be most prejudiced when trying to ensure that their application to this body is presented in such a way that it is selected for review. That seems to me to be one area in which, if legal aid is not available, there is a real possibility that miscarriages of justice may fail to be identified at the very start of the process.
Secondly, I echo what other noble Lords have said about the need for independence in relation to the police. I readily understand why the Government at this stage have opted for, at any rate, the majority of the investigations to be carried out by serving police officers. I am concerned that, particularly as time goes on—one knows this from other bodies where investigations are required—it is often the case that a pattern emerges in the numbers of cases coming before the body.
An in-house staff may be able to deal with matters very much more expeditiously and have considerably greater experience than police officers who are brought in for limited periods of time. I echo what other noble Lords, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, Lord Alexander of Weedon and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, have said. At the very least let us see in the Bill flexibility which will enable at a future date in-house investigative teams to be set up where that seems appropriate.
The third matter I wish to mention is one on which I have been partly reassured by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice had to say. Together with both sides of the practising profession I was concerned about the substitution of the single unsafe test in the Court of Appeal. I was anxious, as many are, that

321
there should be no raising of the threshold for a successful appeal. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure those of us who are concerned about that matter. I understand that one of her colleagues in another place has been able to give that reassurance. It would be unfortunate if, in attempting to provide a single simple test, we were to lose, for example, the capacity of the court to deal with the lurking doubt case. It seems to me and to many other practitioners that if it appears that a conviction is unsafe the Court of Appeal should quash the conviction; if it appears that it may be unsafe there may well be good grounds for a retrial. The Court of Appeal has in recent years been using its power to order retrials more frequently with—I hope to be forgiven for speaking from personal experience—excellent results. In a retrial in which I appeared very recently, some three years after the original trial, more witnesses had been found than were available three years before.
The last matter I would ask the noble Baroness to consider when she comes to reply is the question of disclosure. I have absolutely no doubt that there would he many, many more cases of miscarriages of justice but for the recent development in the law in relation to disclosure. I understand that the Government and others are under pressure to take steps to ease the difficulties which the police are finding in complying with the present requirements. It may be that this matter may come before the House in due course in a future Criminal Justice Bill. In both the Maguire case and the Taylor case, to which I have referred, wrongful convictions resulted from a failure to disclose material. From what the noble Baroness has said already, and from what I hope she may say in reply, I trust that openness will be the order of the day, that there will be disclosure to the commission of all documents where the Home Office has previously reviewed a case, and that the applicant should see the commission's report and any statements and opinions or other reports which accompany it unless it is in the public interest not to do so or the sensitivity of the material prevents it. In other words, I hope that she will assure us that there will be a presumption in favour of disclosure.
I welcome the Bill, as have all others who have spoken. Improved as I think it can be, I believe that it will do a great deal to restore confidence in the criminal justice system and ultimately in the rule of law too.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I welcome the Bill. It is a prime example of how events move a government to act in what in retrospect is obviously an inevitable way. I welcome the Bill to correct obvious weaknesses in the criminal justice system which have been too common in recent years. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned the Maguire case. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, mentioned it in terms of practical experience. Much of what appears in the Bill and in the Royal Commission report stems from the original May inquiry.
My interest in this matter arose when I was Northern Ireland Secretary and Home Secretary and later because of a personal concern about the guilt of the Guildford
322
Four and the Maguires. I, too, wonder how the new body will work. I learnt a great deal that concerned me in a programme on Yorkshire Television. Television programmes do not always perform a valuable service but the Yorkshire Television inquiry into the Guildford case was very revealing. I learnt a great deal from a visit to Styal prison to see Carole Richardson, who as a 17 year-old girl had been sentenced to life imprisonment. When I visited her she was 33 or 34. She is no longer in gaol. Anyone who has been involved in the criminal justice system as a politician could not travel back on the train without wondering what one does to correct the system. The medical staff at Styal prison said to me, "This girl is not guilty". They all said that. But that is not enough. There was something wrong with the system.
There is a need for a complete change in the procedures. C3 are not bad people but they are given an almost impossible task to carry out as civil servants. They should be freed in some way from dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice. When in a certain case I attempted correspondence with the Court of Appeal I was made to feel as if I was a rather foolish non-lawyer who should not interfere in those matters. The person I was writing about is now out of gaol. I am not pretending that there is an easy way through those problems but the legislation before us today is endeavouring to find a way.
I had a few constituency cases in a part of the world which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, knows well because her father was a Member of Parliament in that area. The constituents did not know what it was all about. They felt that there was something wrong. I pursued the case through C3. We shall have to be very careful when cases are submitted from such people because they will be dissatisfied at the end of the day unless the new body clearly explains why the case has been turned down—if the position is otherwise, there will be little problem.
For all these reasons I became involved with what the Royal Commission called the "cardinal's deputation". Led by the Cardinal of Westminster, it included the late Lord Devlin—I heard queries today about old men but I can only hope that I have as razor sharp a mind as Lord Devlin did when he was well over 80 and approaching 90—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman who, because of family illness, is not present today. The Bill owes much to the cardinal and his staff, to Robert Kee, who did more than assist us, and to Alistair Logan, a solicitor, who fits the category which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, described. He is a solicitor who almost sacrificed his career in order to pursue a case from which he could make little or no money.
I feel I should mention other people before raising one or two points. Much is due to Christopher Mullin, a Member of Parliament in another place. He is a classic nuisance figure. He does much better on the Back Benches than ever he would do in wasting his talents as a Minister. I was in Italy during the war. When Rome was falling we came across an Irish priest who had been helping RAF men and also soldiers to escape. When we asked, "What are you going to do now?", he said, "I'm

323
going to help the Germans escape". Whatever government may appear in the next year or two, Chris Mullin will be there being a nuisance, because he cares not for man nor beast. In the other place and here in a different fashion, I have no doubt, such men are important.
We owe much to the Royal Commission and the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, who together marshalled the arguments for change. I hope that the minority report by Professor Zander will be looked at carefully when we come to Committee and Report stages. I do not wish to speak as if we were at those stages, but there are a number of issues I ask the Minister to look at beforehand because I do not have the same view as others about the meaning of certain clauses.
The report explains at the beginning of Chapter 11 why it recommends the establishment of a new independent body. After raising the question of accountability, it deals with,
"the powers it may need to investigate cases".
A number of your Lordships have raised that point this afternoon. That is the most important part of the commission.
The Home Office issued a very good press release on 23rd February. It states that the commission would, "direct and supervise investigations". As a former Home Secretary I asked myself whether I directed anything in that respect. The press release refers to "direct and supervise investigations". Will there be supervision and direction of the police? I have never noticed in the past that when a police force was asked to look into a case it was directed by the Home Office. The press release goes on to say,
"direct and supervise investigations undertaken on its behalf".
So these are not policemen. I pull back from getting into a Committee or Report stage, but for reasons I shall come to in a moment I have the feeling that more can be done under this Bill than one thinks.
To those noble Lords who are to participate in the later stages of the Bill, I commend the scheme issued by the Home Office as to how the new system works. I shall not go into it all. It states,
"The CCRC will have new powers to … require a police investigation".
That is fine. It goes on to say that it will,
"approve [the] appointment of investigating officers"—
which means policemen—and,
"supervise investigation".
The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, said:
"Although the Royal Commission envisaged investigations being carried out by a designated police force under the direct supervision of the new review body"—
it is this direct supervision which I do not understand—
"that body should not be precluded from recruiting onto its own staff trained investigators"—
a point that has already been made—
"who would not necessarily be serving police officers".
324
The Archbishop of Westminster wrote a letter to The Times and I shall use just a few lines of it. The letter states,
"The Bill appears to provide no reserve power for the Commission to instigate and carry out investigations using only its own suitably qualified staff, and it appears to leave the Commission with insufficient powers effectively to plan, direct and supervise police investigations".
Under the present terms I do not see the commission supervising the police and calling in the deputy chief constable of a county force and asking, "Have you done this; have you done the other?" That is what supervision and directing means.
I was looking hopefully at the Bill as it has been drawn. Clause 18 requires the appointment of an investigating officer. Does that have to be a policeman or policewoman? Clause 20 refers to Sections 16 to 19 as being,
"without prejudice to the taking by the Commission of any steps (including obtaining, or arranging for others to obtain, statements and opinions and commissioning, or arranging for others to commission, reports) which they consider appropriate".
That follows on from Clause 14(1) which states,
"Where a direction is given by the Court of Appeal under"—
another section of the Act—
"the Commission shall investigate the matter specified in the direction in such manner as the Commission think fit".
The commission can do what it likes. I see nothing to prevent the commission from calling others to work for it apart from the police. I understand the problem. A policeman has the right to question, but someone else would not have that right. I see this new commission as having far greater powers than is perhaps realised. When I operated with C3 we had practically no powers. In this Bill there is reference to "any power".
I welcome this Bill and I ask for clarification on those points as regards the powers of the commission because we shall debate it at a later stage of the Bill. I am convinced that, as well as the police, we should have other investigators. I have had a police guard for the past 22 years. I owe the police a great deal. I am not being anti-police, but there are aspects of certain happenings in recent years where one questions what the police have done. One can question what politicians have done. I support the police completely, but the new commission should have powers to investigate other than with the police themselves. We shall come back to that point. In preparation for that I say to the Minister that we need explanations of what those clauses of the Bill, as drawn, mean.
4.56 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have noted with some pleasure and with much relief the general welcome for the Bill. I have also listened carefully to the very valuable points and expressions of concern which have been made. I shall of course try to address many of the points but constraints of time will prevent me from answering every single point. No doubt, much will have to wait until further stages of the Bill.

325
It has been common ground in our discussions that the Bill is concerned not only with the pursuit of justice but also with the issue of confidence that justice is done and is seen to be done. I welcome the support which noble Lords have given to those fundamental principles.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, opened the debate in terms of the points of criticism. I take into consideration very much all those points of concern that have been made in a very constructive way against the background of a general welcome for the Bill. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have properly been echoed by many others during the course of the debate.
The first point considered what is meant by members with knowledge and experience. The noble Lord gave some examples of what he meant. It is not intended that they should all be lawyers—or even any of them. They may include former police officers, prison governors, forensic psychiatrists or probation officers, just to name four examples. The body will not be confined to people with absolute knowledge of the law.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and many others, including my noble friend Lord Alexander and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, were concerned about disclosure. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was that the provisions in the Bill would weaken the judgment in, for example, the Hickey case. I do not agree. The Bill requires the commission to provide a fully reasoned explanation of any decisions not to refer a case. The Bill also provides gateways through which the commission can disclose information in other circumstances. These are sufficient to enable the commission to keep applicants informed of the progress made in investigating their case and, in line with the judgment in the Hickey case, to disclose information so that in the interests of fairness they can make further representations on matters that the commission has found in the course of its inquiries.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the criteria for the commission to refer cases to the courts. The requirement that there should be some new evidence or argument is a broad one. It will enable the commission to refer any case to the courts in which some new point has come to notice which might lead the court to take a different view as to the safety of the conviction. The current grounds for allowing or dismissing an appeal are complex and overlapping. Under the Bill the Court of Appeal is required to allow an appeal against a conviction if it thinks that the conviction is unsafe, and to dismiss the appeal in any other case. That change clarifies the terms of the existing law and, in essence, restates the existing practice of the Court of Appeal. It has been warmly welcomed. Indeed, I noted the welcome given to it by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice.
The discussion paper gave a broad welcome to the Royal Commission's formula of "is or may be unsafe" because the Government recognise the need to bring clarity and simplification into these matters. However, the Royal Commission's formula goes wider than the current practice of the Court of Appeal and was on examination found to be uncertain in its effect. The formula in the Bill provides a simple test which effectively restates the existing practice of the court. It
326
does not narrow the grounds for allowing an appeal. Noting the reservation made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I have to say, consistent with the points made by my noble friend Lord Alexander and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that the provisions retain the "lurking doubt" element of the current test for allowing an appeal.
The use of police investigators has been mentioned by many noble Lords. Under the Bill, the commission may obtain opinions and reports from, and have inquiries carried out by, whoever is appropriate. That might include accountants, psychiatrists or forensic scientists. However, where inquiries require the expertise and skills of the police, it is both the proper and most effective solution for that work to be conducted by police officers under the commissioners' direction and supervision.
On that point, perhaps I may turn to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. The noble Lord's understanding of this was about right. In effect, we are empowering the commission to use the police—not requiring it to use the police as the only means of exploring a case.
Perhaps I may reiterate what I said earlier. The Bill gives the commission all the powers it will need to carry out its investigations effectively and thoroughly. It will be able to obtain the assistance of police forces and other bodies by requiring them to appoint an investigating officer to make inquiries on its behalf and in accordance with its directions and, if necessary, under its supervision. It will be able to require the appointment of an investigating officer from a different force if it thinks that appropriate or from public bodies other than those which investigated the crime originally if it thinks that the case would be prejudiced by the use of the same force when it is possible to engage a different force. It will be able to insist that it approves the choice of investigating officer before an investigation takes place. It will be able to direct any investigating officer to cease to act as such and to direct that that individual officer be replaced by another if his performance is not satisfactory.
The commission will be able to make its own inquiries and commission its own expert opinions and its own tests. It will be able to obtain access to documents held by police forces and other bodies. It will also be able to obtain relevant papers and other material held by my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as a consequence of their having considered possible miscarriages of justice under their existing powers. They will have the powers to operate in the way that was suggested by the noble Lord—
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for more fully explaining the provisions. Will the commission have the power to employ former policemen as investigating officers? I am not talking about replacing the police force, but given that an understanding of what the police do in investigations is not given to everybody, might not a former policeman have a useful role to play?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's point, under the law serving policemen have particular powers of investigation which cannot be replicated in other bodies. Therefore, there will be a distinction in how such people are engaged by the commission. If other people are engaged, they will not have the same powers as are enjoyed by serving police officers.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, is seeking to clarify an important point. The financial statement refers to the cost, to which I referred earlier, as being £4.3 million for accommodation and administrative overheads. Do I understand that there is provision within that sum for the in-house investigations to which the noble Lord refers if that is what the commission wants?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not dealing with costs at the moment; I am dealing with the powers not only of the commission but of serving policemen and others engaged in the investigative work. I shall refer to the question of costs in a moment.
A major change from the current arrangements will be the use of police investigators working under the active direction and supervision of the commission. That, and the power of the commission to insist on an outside force, provides the necessary independent element in such investigations.
My noble friend Lord Alexander was concerned that the review body should have a core of investigators among its staff, such as seconded police officers. We agree. It is our intention to have among the commission's staff people with a police background, but we believe that their efforts will be most useful to the commission if they are employed in advising members on the direction and supervision of a number of investigations rather than being forever away from the commission, embroiled in detailed inquiries on the ground.
Extending that point, my noble friend Lord Alexander asked: why not give the commission its own investigators to look into particularly difficult and contentious cases? The problem is that almost every applicant will consider his or her case to be difficult or contentious. If some cases were deliberately withheld from the police on those grounds, how would other applicants be given confidence that they had been fairly treated and what incentive would the police forces have to take responsibility for imperfect investigations if they were barred from correcting mistakes made in difficult cases? It is a question of other people being engaged in such work "where appropriate" and of incorporating the use of directly employed staff.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, expressed concern about the need for the commission to be properly funded. He also raised that point in an intervention. It will be our aim to ensure that the commission is properly funded, consistent with our obligations to ensure that public funds are used with regard to value for money. The value-for-money aspect cannot be disregarded. The police already undertake substantial investigations in such cases from within their existing resources. We do not at present
328
consider that there will be any significant additional burden but, of course, we shall have to keep that position under review. We have noted what noble Lords have said.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice was concerned about the extra burden from sentence referrals. The Secretary of State has the power to refer any sentence imposed following a conviction obtained on indictment. We receive representations on sentence in about 50 cases each year. Some are representations on the sentence alone, while some cover both conviction and sentence. Some decision has to be made about how they are to be dealt with in the future. We considered three options: leaving the power with the Secretary of State; providing an extended right of appeal to the courts; and transferring the power to the new commission. We concluded that giving the task to the new commission was the best, most cost-effective and sensible solution. The commission is empowered and resourced to investigate and could take on the question of an alleged wrongful sentence without difficulty.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, was concerned about the costs of in-house teams for investigations. The costs of in-house investigations have not been assessed and we have insufficient data on which to base such an assessment. As I have said, the police at present meet the costs of an investigation by them into an alleged miscarriage of justice on behalf of the Secretary of State. No figures are available for those costs. They are not recorded separately from those regarding other investigations by the police. The Government consider that providing an in-house team would not be cost-effective because, first, it would add considerably to the commission's costs. Demand for investigations into larger, more complex cases is likely to fluctuate and it is therefore difficult to establish a unit of optimum size. At times, some of the officers in the unit would be under-occupied; at others, necessary investigations could be delayed because the officers needed to do the work were engaged on other cases.
Officers of such a unit would have to be accountable for the exercise of police powers and subject to disciplinary arrangements in respect of their operational duties. Special arrangements would also be needed to give them access to training opportunities and to keep them in touch with developments in police practice, investigative techniques, and so forth.
Experience shows that in a significant number of cases the investigation required is straightforward. It would be far quicker and more cost effective to ask the force concerned to undertake the work. It knows the background to the case and where to find the people concerned. It would be less effective to use a group of officers unfamiliar with the case to make the same inquiries. If trained, experienced investigating officers were to be seconded to the commission they would not be available for other duties when not investigating for the commission. All of that is with the caveat that, where appropriate, of course the commission would employ the right people for the job in hand.

329
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice asked about appeal procedures being created for judicial recommendations in mandatory life sentence cases. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is aware of the noble and learned Lord's concerns and has written to him on that point. We are not convinced that the issues raised are straightforward. There is a difference between mandatory and discretionary life sentences, and the different procedures are established to reflect that difference.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to handing over inquiries to the police, especially when they are investigating police propriety. The proposal is not to hand over inquiries to the police—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. The commission's independent members and staff will be directing and supervising police inquiries as closely as they consider that to be necessary. There should be no doubting the thoroughness with which the police already investigate miscarriages of justice, but of course that point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway put up a marker. I wonder whether he will forgive me and allow me to think more about that marker. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked me about legal aid, and whether it would be available to those wishing to make representations. Legal aid through the green form scheme will continue to be available to those wishing to make representations to the commission— whether initially to the commission or at a later stage in the light of the results of any investigations by the commission—but no additional provision is needed, because once the commission looks into a case it will of course be doing any necessary investigations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and others, were concerned about disclosure. She asked the straight question as to whether there would be a presumption in favour of openness. I can unequivocally answer yes, subject of course —I hope the noble Baroness will understand this—to the necessary confidentiality in relation, for example, to witnesses.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, referred to the work of Cardinal Hume and others who made representations on behalf of the Guildford Four. Perhaps I may pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, because I am aware that he was a member of that group of people which did such sterling work.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me but I shall address the individual points much more fully in Committee. The Government recognise the importance of establishing a new review body which will be of long-term benefit to the maintenance of the quality of, and indeed public confidence in, the criminal justice system. I believe that the broad welcome that many of the provisions contained in the Bill have received will enable that goal to be achieved. My hope is that we shall establish the commission as soon as may be. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Jobseekers Bill
5.14 p.m.
Reports received.
Clause 1 [The jobseeker's allowance]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert ("and a jobseeker's allowance shall not be suspended, or terminated, by an employment officer, or an adjudication officer, if that officer has a financial interest in that decision.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I had spent some time trying to produce a draft of the basic principle behind the amendment when I found that it had been done very much more felicitiously than I could have done it in the words of the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. The first of his principles is that holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family or their friends. I would wish to add to that also for their service, for any dedicated public servant the better financing of one's service means as much, or, indeed, more, than the better financing of oneself. It has the effect of enabling one to do all sorts of things one could not otherwise have done. It is as intoxicating as the transition from opposition to government, which is well known to be something which has attractions for large numbers among us.
There is a considerable problem about this already. If we look at the CAB report entitled In search of work, about which I have already corresponded with the noble Lord, Lord Ingle wood, we have cases which might cause some concern. Paragraph 2.22 refers to the leader of a Restart course saying to someone on the course, "I am not supposed to know they get a bonus for signing you off. Paragraph 2.10 refers to a claimant who made her own arrangements to go to the Job Club instead of it having arranged through the employment officer. The employment officer said, "Why didn't you wait for me to suggest that to you? I'm on a bonus scheme". She was then told that no one could stay on the course above a certain time and was taken off it.
We know well, for the Minister confirmed it when we were in Committee, that for the Employment Service a benefit penalty is counted as a positive outcome. We know well also, for he confirmed, this also in Committee, that the service has a target for referrals to the adjudication officer. The Minister made great play of the fact that referrals to an adjudication officer is not the same thing as disentitlement. It is referral for consideration. I will ask the Minister, first, why does he think that it is a better service if more people are referred to the adjudication officer? That is not self evident to me.
I understand of course that we are not dealing with the equivalent of a conviction; we are dealing with the equivalent of a police decision to prosecute. But suppose that, when those of your Lordships who drive leave the House by car, the police have a performance target to prosecute a certain percentage of us, either for speeding or for driving with excess alcohol. I think that some noble Lords would protest volubly, indeed, on occasion,

331
too volubly. I think that there would be a strong feeling that it was an abuse of the police process to give them such a performance target. Indeed there is a tradition— many centuries old—that the police do not choose to prosecute on every occasion. There is often sense in that. Anyone who thinks otherwise should look seriously at the character of Angelo in Measure for Measure.
The criterion, as the Minister put it to us in Committee, is that there is a reference to the adjudication officer in any case where there is an arguable case that the person is not meeting the conditions of entitlement. I wonder why he did not agree to have the criterion used by the CPS—where there is more than a 50 per cent. chance of success. That is a much more reasonable criterion and one which need not have given the officer any particular incentive to try to find rules for the advancement of his service.
In such a case we want decisions to be taken on the merits. A decision taken for the advantage of the employment officer or of his service appears to many of us to be a corrupt practice. I am well aware that there are many among us honourable men who disagree profoundly with that view. We have in our society a considerable amount of disagreement about what is corrupt. Therefore, the real question before us is what the law should do when there is a difference about what is corrupt and what is not. For reasons of legitimacy, I argue that it is better to take the more stringent stand. A sense of corruption has a profound delegitimising effect, much like that of taking power as the result of a contested election result. It is not good for one's standing.
The Minister may wish to argue that the amendment is unnecessary. If so, long may it remain unnecessary. But if it is on the statute book, it is likely to remain unnecessary in a way that it might not otherwise. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, it is difficult to see why the Government should object to the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said:
"There is no link between the performance targets of the Employment Service and the adjudication officers' decisions".—[Official Report, 20/4/95; col. 608.]
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said:
"There is not, and will not be, any correlation between the conditions of benefit for a jobseeker and an employment officer's pay".—[Official Report, 25/4/95; col. 825.]
The problem is that there were reasonable grounds for believing that, nevertheless, that may be the case at the moment. In order to clarify the situation beyond any doubt, we argue that the Government should agree to the amendment.
Since 1991 the Employment Service has published no fewer than five operational plans. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for allowing me to see all of those plans. I argue that, if one reads the plans, it makes sense to assume that there is some such link or correlation. If there is no link or correlation I should like either one of the Ministers to explain the targets in the operational plans; in particular, three targets.
332
First, there is a target in the operational plan that 10 per cent. of claims will not be pursued. How do officers know that 10 per cent. of claims are not worth pursuing? Secondly, there is a target in the operational plan that, depending on the year, between 5 per cent. and 8 per cent. of claims—the number has risen from 45,000 to 185,000—shall be submitted to adjudication officers on the grounds that the applicant is not available or actively seeking work. How do they know that in advance? Thirdly, there is a target in the operational plan that between 2.5 per cent. and 3.5 per cent. of claimants shall be found to be processing fraudulent claims. How do they know? Why do they fix such targets unless they want those targets to be achieved? How are those targets to be achieved unless the Employment Service officers, including the adjudication officers, ensure that those targets are achieved?
Why is there a tendency for those targets to rise and at very worrying rates? As regards the plan for 1995, if one adds together the fraud rate and the rate for references to adjudication officers which appear every year, one might construct what I call a "skiving index". It is the assumed rate of skiving. In 1994–95, 205,000, or 70.4 per cent., of the registered unemployed were targeted as skivers. In 1995–96, despite the fact that registered unemployment has fallen, 267,000 unemployed people are skiving. Therefore, 11.1 per cent. are skivers, which is a rise of some 50 per cent. I must tell the House that at that rate by the year 2000 all jobseekers will be skivers.
It does not matter if they are not because there is a similar rise in the disqualification rate. One cannot believe that the skiving rate and the disqualification rate are unconnected. In 1993–94, from April to December, there were 76,000 disqualifications. In 1994–95, from April to December, there were 113,000 disqualifications. That is 48.6 per cent., so it will take a little longer; if by the year 2000 all jobseekers are not skivers, by the year 2005 they will all be disqualified anyway.
How can it be that such targets do not influence the performance of the officers concerned? Year after year—I could quote if I wanted to waste the time of the House—the operational plan has spelt out the link between the pay of those officers and the targets, aims and objectives of the service. In 1992–93 the plan stated:
"The aim has been to relate rewards to the individual's contribution to the business objectives".
Of course, the targets are part of the business objectives. In 1995–96 it stated:
"The aim is to ensure that each person"—
that is each adjudication officer, for example—
"has a performance and development agreement closely related to their office or section's operational or business plans".
The targets are part of the plan.
I find it impossible to believe that there is not a connection. If one looks, for example, at the Civil Service pay agreement, which has existed since 1989, one finds that all those officers have four or five alternative box ratings in which they can be placed. They are placed in those box ratings according to their annual report markings. Could an adjudication officer be given an "outstanding" rating—a Box 1—unless he

333
or she had met and surpassed the target for disallowances? Could he or she possibly reach an "acceptable and effective" rate—a Box 3—unless the target had been hit? Would not he or she be given a Box 4 or a Box 5—that is not an acceptable target—unless they had found the necessary percentage of fraud? What is the point of those targets unless they are built into the objectives of the individuals concerned?
I do not suggest that those officers' targets are concerned only with disqualifications and the finding of fraud. Of course they are not; many other targets are built into their performance-related pay; for instance, whether they can get the target proportion of long-term unemployed people into employment and whether they can pay the benefits speedily within the prescribed time. Of course, there are other items in the necessary report objectives and markings of those officers. However, it is implausible and unbelievable that those targets have nothing to do with what they achieve in their performance-related pay.
Therefore, I have four questions for the Minister. What are the targets for if they do not affect individual performance? Where do the targets come from; how do they get there in the first place; why is it assumed that some claims are not worth pursuing, that some will be fraudulent and that some will be disallowed? Thirdly, why is it that after four years of depression and unemployment we find that those figures are galloping upwards and upwards until, if they gallop for long enough, everybody will be disallowed? Fourthly and finally, how can the Government, if they have any decency or sense, oppose the amendment?
5.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the discussion in Committee revealed a great deal of confusion about the Employment Service's targets and what they mean for individuals. From what I have heard, I believe that the confusion remains, because some of those misconceptions have been repeated this afternoon. Therefore, I should like to set out clearly what I believe to be the essential role of the Employment Service in administering unemployment benefits and the function of targets in its work, for I believe that there is nothing inconsistent or improper in our approach. I start by making clear that there is no question of any annual performance agreement target interfering with the independence of adjudication officers. I hope that that sets to rest at least one of the hares which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, set running. The adjudication officers are charged with ensuring that the law is applied correctly in an individual's case. They receive guidance on applying the law from the Chief Adjudication Officer. There is no question of AOs being rewarded for allowing or disallowing cases. Like all ES staff—for AOs who make these decisions are all ES staff—they work: to individual performance objectives. They are not set, and will not be set, objectives that relate to the nature of their decisions. Their objectives refer to the volume of the cases that they are handling and the speed with which they make their decisions. The quality of decisions, in terms of the evidence quoted and the legal
334
basis on which the AO made the decision, is monitored by the Central Adjudication Service, which is a body statutorily independent of Ministers.
I now move on to the position of front-line ES advisory staff. Their first duty in this matter is to ensure that only those who are entitled to benefit receive it. The taxpayer has a right to expect that benefits should not be paid to people who fail to meet the conditions of JSA, which are set out clearly for all jobseekers at the beginning of their claim and in their jobseeker's agreement. The alternative would be overpayments to thousands of people which would be practically impossible to recover. That would not be responsible management of taypayers' money. ES staff also have a duty to ensure that benefit payments to claimants are not unnecessarily suspended. If they have a doubt about the claimant's entitlement they must be able to substantiate that doubt with clear and accurate information for the adjudication officer to make a decision. Both these facts are important and should be reflected in how ES staff are guided in their work.
The targets set for the Employment Service in its annual performance agreement with the Secretary of State for Employment are carefully balanced. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked me what they were for. They focus on the effectiveness of the Employment Service in getting unemployed people, especially disabled people and the long-term unemployed, into jobs; the speed and accuracy of benefit payments; ensuring that benefit is paid correctly to those entitled to it; and the quality and cost effectiveness of its service. The ES and its staff must strive to meet all those targets. I cannot believe that noble Lords would object to such targets as that to place 1.9 million unemployed people and the targets in relation to long-term claimants, unemployed placings in inner cities and disabled people. I cannot believe that any noble Lord would object to those targets being part and parcel of the Employment Service targets.
There is no question of one of the many targets achieving priority at the expense of others. Just as targets are now encouraging the Employment Service into its best ever performance in helping people back to work, so it is right that targets should improve its work in its duty towards the taxpayer and the claimant in its accuracy of referrals to adjudication. Those targets are set on the basis of experience over previous years in the work of the Employment Service. Those data are collected year on year and it is on that basis that new targets are set.
The annual performance agreement was referred to by the noble Earl. I believe that that is what concerned noble Lords in Committee. The APA for 1995–96 sets a target of 185,000 submissions to independent adjudication:
"where there is an arguable case for supporting information to show that the claimant is not available for, actively seeking or willing to accept work".
That is 185,000 submissions out of some 4 million odd claims per year. This target is reinforced by a requirement on the face of the APA for monitoring of the quality of referrals and of the numbers that are returned as inadequate. It is not, therefore, a target for

335
disallowance, termination or suspension of benefit. It is a requirement for ES staff to meet high quality standards in the identification of doubt over a claimant's availability or job search.
I fear that this may still have been rather misunderstood by some noble Lords in our discussions in Committee. The quality of submissions is an essential element, with those that are defective being carefully monitored. The point here is again one of balance. The individual employment officer should refer cases where he has a real doubt about entitlement. But he should not refer where he cannot substantiate his doubt with clear evidence. In short, he must do his job as well as he can, and he will be assessed according to how well he succeeds in all aspects of that. One consequence, I am pleased to say, is that in recent years the quality of referrals has gone up sharply. There are fewer and fewer examples of adjudication officers being given inadequate information on which to base a decision— something which the Chief Adjudication Officer has in the past had cause to criticise in his monitoring of the work of ES adjudication.
Much is made of how those performance indicators are brought together to deal with the agreed standard of people in the Employment Service. Overall performance assessments are made on a range of boxes A to D: Box A means that the objectives have been exceeded; Box B means that the objectives have been met; Box C means that some objectives have been met; and Box D that few or no objectives have been met. Every year the service negotiates the distribution of the available performance pay budget and the ratio of allocated performance shares with the Employment Service unions. That often results in annual increments as people move up the incremental scale. It may determine how they move within grades. People are promoted, move up the scales and are paid extra in relation to how well they perform. I cannot at least believe that my noble friends think that that is a foolish way to try to run the Employment Service.
To sum up, the checks and balances contained in the targets which are set for the ES as a whole, and which are contained in public documents in the specific target for referrals to adjudication and in the way that those are managed in individual cases, enable me to assert unequivocally that the system does not lead staff for their own gain to suspend claimants from benefit. I am myself certain of that. However, I recognise that there has been concern in this House. If your Lordships would welcome further assurance about this matter, I will give a commitment to write to the Chief Executive of the Employment Service to remind him of the sensitivity of the target. ES staff must be absolutely clear that their performance management will relate only to doing their job properly. In the particular case of this target—
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, when the noble Lord writes to the Chief Executive, will he ask him, because he does not appear to be able to answer this himself, where the targets come from and why the targets that we do not like are rising at the rate of 50 per cent. per year?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord did not hear me answer his question as to where the targets come from. I said that
336
the targets are based on the experience of previous years and the data which are collected from year to year. The targets are based on the experience of previous years. Your Lordships may be interested to know that in the last period for which I have information, which is for the year up to last December, something like 81 per cent. of all the referrals were found by the adjudication officer to be such that benefit should not be paid. That suggests, as I said earlier, that the actual referrals are pretty accurate in identifying people who are not obeying the three conditions of being available for work, actively seeking work and being willing to take a job. In an attempt to try to be helpful—
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The noble Lord explained in considerable detail, for which I am sure Members of the House are most grateful, the reasons behind the targets and asked us to accept that their purpose is indeed to make the service as efficient as possible. Therefore, I wonder—and I ask the question genuinely—why the Minister does not feel able to accept the amendment, which, after all, would be wholly compatible with everything that he has said and which would go a very long way towards reassuring Members on all sides of the House.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought I had explained that, when one looks at the targets all together, they can have an effect on how an Employment Service staff member is treated as regards what increments he receives. If he has not done a good job and, obviously, if he has fallen down on a number of the performances that I mentioned, then perhaps he will not receive the increment that he might otherwise have expected. Indeed, he may not be promoted to the next scale as he might otherwise have expected. I believe that the amendment would stop that happening. I actually believe that it might stop people working for the Employment Service because everyone who works for the service pays income tax and, therefore, has some financial interest as regards the amount of government money—that is, taxpayers' money—which is being paid out. Therefore, it might not be a terribly easy amendment to put into effect, even if one were minded to do so. However, I was trying to be helpful and allay the fears of some of your Lordships in that respect when I said that I would write to the Chief Executive of the Employment Service to remind him of the sensitivity of the target.
As I said, Employment Service staff must be absolutely clear in the matter. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to intervene. I give way.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am much obliged. If unemployment goes down, why do the targets go up? I still do not understand.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, the targets have just started. The data that we have from the previous year show that we have in fact achieved those targets, and we then move them up. However, if unemployment continues to fall and falls dramatically, then we will, inevitably, begin to see a downturn in some of those targets. But,

337
at the moment, with the level of unemployment as it is, the number of people who form its base actually give rise to something over 4 million claims. Therefore, 185,000 referrals does not seem to me to be unreasonable, especially if one goes out into the world and talks to any businessman. Such people will tell many tales of people who were not actually terribly keen on being offered a job, who were not actively seeking work and who did not really want to be very available. I do not not want to pray that in aid very much, but everyone knows that that happens. As I said, I do not believe that the figure of 185,000 is unreasonable.
I return now to what I said I would do as regards the Chief Executive of the Employment Service. Employment Service staff must be absolutely clear that their performance management will relate only to doing their job properly. In the particular case of this target, that means making to the best of their ability accurate and high quality referrals to adjudication and not volumes of referrals which may be ill considered and of poor quality. As I mentioned before, one of the things that we have already noticed about the targets is that the quality of the information upon which the adjudication officer has had to work has actually improved.
I believe that the amendment unfairly questions the professionalism and standards of the Employment Service. I hope that the House will accept the assurances that I have given. However, if the noble Earl decides to press the matter to a Division, I trust that my noble friends will support me in the Lobby.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister sits down, I should like to ask him the following question. I take it that my noble friend is giving an absolute assurance to the House that the employment officer has no financial interest in the decision? If that is so, then the amendment, if it were carried according to its drafting, is, as I believe the noble Baroness suggested, meaningless. Therefore, why continue with it? My respectful answer would be, because it is meaningless. We have reached the stage where we have a categoric assurance. Whatever may be said, thought or objected to about targets—and I understand the concern—is irrelevant to the drafting of the amendment.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the Minister has undertaken to write a letter. I am sure that the House will welcome that undertaking. However, will the Minister also undertake that such a letter will be written between now and Third Reading and that a copy of it will be placed in the Library so that those of us who are worried about the matter will be able to read it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am in the hands of the House in such matters. However, I believe that I should reply first to my noble friend, because, to all intents and purposes, I am supposed to be the last speaker in the debate apart from the noble Earl who has to sum up and tell us what he intends to do with his amendment.
338
I must tell my noble friend that there is a little difficulty involved here. The person who makes the decision is the adjudication officer. He has no targets in that respect. I had hoped that I had made that absolutely clear. The targets are referred to in the 185,000 submissions that the front line officer must make to the adjudication officer where there is an arguable case, with supporting information, to show that the claimant is not available for, actively seeking or willing to accept work.
So far as concerns the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I have indeed said that I will write to the chief executive. However, I am not sure that I will be able to do so before Third Reading, though I will certainly try to do so.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his intervention, but the amendment is fighting a fashion and fashions have a habit of growing and becoming more extreme. Therefore, if the amendment were unnecessary at present, that would be no evidence that it would be unnecessary next year. There is sense in building dykes to ensure that the sea can come so far and no further.
I am grateful to the Minister for the care with which he replied to the amendment. I accept that he spoke entirely according to his conscience and with the greatest care that he could. But I wish that he would not make out that we do not understand what he is saying. I believe that I understood what he said. Having read carefully what he said in Committee, he certainly said exactly what I expected him to say. If that is the criterion involved, I think that I understand it.
The Minister began by saying that he would set out the Government's position clearly. Whenever a Minister utters the word "clearly", one expects obfuscation. The Minister went on immediately to argue that the adjudication officer had no financial interest in the decision. We accept that that is, at present, correct. The burden of my argument was about the target for the employment officer, who, after all, is in the front line and making the first decision about referral.
The Minister said that targets do not relate to the nature of those decisions. For a moment he took my breath away. I went scurrying back to study the Hansard report of what he said during the first day of the Committee proceedings. But then the Minister immediately repeated the point himself, so my checking up was unnecessary. The noble Lord confirmed that there is a target of 185,000 referrals to adjudication officers. We understand that they are referrals and not judgments. However, we think that they are absolutely improper, and we also think that what the Minister said about disentitling people who fail to meet the conditions is begging precisely the question of this amendment. It is assuming precisely what needs to be proved.
The Minister argues that it is an unfair suspicion of the adjudication officer or of the employment officer to think that they might be influenced by a performance target. But here he is on what I might describe as "McCarthy's fork". Either he is not influenced by the target in which case it is unnecessary, or he is influenced by it in which case we believe it is corrupt. I know other

339
people do not agree with us but is it wise to have something on the statute book which half the House believes to be a corrupt practice? I ask the opinion of the House.
5.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 135.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brain, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Chorley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mishcon, L.

David, B.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Palmer, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Rea, L.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale, L.

Freyberg, L.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Geraint L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Halsbury, E.

Serota, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hamwee, B.

Simon V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jeger, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Varley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Waverley, V.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lawrence, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Aldington, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brentford, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Astor, V.

Brookes, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Balfour, E.

Butterworth, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Cadman, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Caithness, E.

Birdwood, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Blaker, L.

Carnock, L.

Blatch, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Boardman, L.

Chesham, L.

Borthwick, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

340

Clark of Kempston, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Courtown, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Cox, B.

Manton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Merrivale, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mersey, V.

Davidson, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

De Freyne, L.

Milverton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mountevans, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Moyne, L.

Eden of Winton. L.

Munster, E.

Elles, B.

Nelson, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norrie, L.

Elton, L.

Northesk, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Ferrers, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Flather, B.

Orkney, E.

Foley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pender, L.

Goschen, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Plummer of st. Marylebone, L.

Prior, L.

Haig, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Hanson, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Rees, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Renton L.

Harmsworth, L.

Renwick, L.

Hemphill, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Henley, L.

Romney, E.

Hives, L.

St. Davids, V.

Holderness, L.

Seccombe, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Sharples, B.

Hood, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hothfield, L.

Stewartby, L.

Howe, E.

Strange, B.

Inglewood, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Knollys, V.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Lauderdale, E.

Sudeley, L.

Lindsay, E.

Suffield, L.

Liverpool, E.

Teynham, L.

Long, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas, L. [Teller]

Torphichen, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Ullswater, V.

McConnell, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wakeham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wynford, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.59 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, after ("Act") insert ("and in particular subsection (2A) below).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 96B and 96D. The amendments are concerned with vulnerability and the definition of vulnerability.
The Government have allowed that where a doubt has arisen in relation to availability for or actively seeking work nonetheless someone who is both vulnerable and in hardship should continue to receive a penalised benefit of some 60 per cent. of means-tested JSA. In

341
the amendment we do not deal with the issue of doubt, although we shall explore that issue later. Nor are we concerned with the 60 per cent. sum, woefully inadequate though we believe it to be. We deal instead with who is deemed under the Bill to be vulnerable. We attempt to define vulnerability, particularly, as your Lordships will see, in Amendment No. 5.
The Government may object to the amendment on one of two possible grounds, or on both. They may object that this is a matter for regulation and should not therefore be on the face of the Bill. That would be one argument against the amendments. A second argument would be a substantive one; namely, that some of the categories of claimant listed in Amendment No. 5 do not seem to the Government to be vulnerable and should not be included. I shall speak to each of those arguments briefly.
I shall deal first with the argument that such a definition should not be on the face of the Bill. The whole House made it clear when we dealt with the recommittal of Clause 6 and throughout the Committee stage of the Bill that it was deeply dissatisfied that so much was being left to regulation. The Minister himself admitted at Second Reading that this was a skeleton Bill and policy details would be left to regulation and statutory instruments. In other words, the details would be left to the discretion of the Minister and therefore would be beyond the proper scrutiny of the House and beyond the power of the House to amend.
The concept of vulnerability is pivotal to the Bill. It is pivotal because it defines what someone who is vulnerable—for example, a carer—may reasonably be expected to do when seeking and being available for work. It is pivotal in the sense that it defines eligibility for a hardship payment. We believe that it is sufficiently pivotal for it to be on the face of the Bill. Otherwise a major area of policy is beyond the capacity of this House to modify in debate. If it is put on the face of the Bill then claimants, staff and advisory bodies know where they stand.
The amendments are not inflexible. The final category in paragraph (h) of Amendment No. 5 allows for additional groups of claimant not covered in the list to be included. At the very least it ensures that those groups listed are defined as vulnerable.
Therefore, the first argument, which I hope your Lordships will accept, is that the concept of vulnerability is so important to the Bill that it should not be left to regulation but should be on the face of the Bill so that we can all see what is meant by it.
The second argument that the Government may advance against the amendments could be that some of the groups listed should not be designated as vulnerable. I wish to emphasise that, with one exception, this definition of vulnerability is entirely consistent with all the assurances that the Minister has so far given us. It is also entirely consistent with the concept of vulnerability used by the Department of the Environment in relation to eligibility for priority housing should someone become homeless. The only addition in the housing legislation which is clearly not relevant here is the case of people coming out of prison
342
or a long-stay institution such as a former mental hospital. Under JSA such people would be eligible for income support rather than this allowance.
Therefore, the definition is consistent; with what the Minister has said so far, with one exception. It is consistent with existing definitions of vulnerability used by the Department of the Environment in relation to homelessness and priority eligibility for rehousing.
The one addition in the amendment, which reflects the nature of the Bill, relates to those with incapacity points but who nonetheless do not have sufficient incapacity points to qualify for incapacity benefit. They should also be added to the list. All the other groups— women who are pregnant, those who have dependants, carers, people with an illness or disability defined by a general practitioner, the homeless, those under 18 or living in a refuge—are covered by the housing legislation. I believe that the Minister has accepted that all of those groups are potentially vulnerable. As I said, the only addition is to take account of the new incapacity benefit legislation. Someone who has points which would begin to qualify them for incapacity benefit but not sufficient points to obtain incapacity benefit would be deemed to be vulnerable for the purposes of JSA.
Why do we propose that addition? Many noble Lords who spoke in Committee on the Bill were worried about the interface between incapacity benefit and the jobseeker's allowance. People who fail to meet the either/or test for incapacity benefit will not be credited with the 15 points for physical disability or the 10 points for mental health problems. They will fail to get those points and will not receive incapacity benefit. They will therefore be required to conform to the jobseeker's agreement. We are worried and have expressed that anxiety on many occasions, and many of your Lordships have joined with us in expressing that concern, that some people may fall between the two stools. They will not be eligible for incapacity benefit but, because of their partial disability, they will not be eligible for the jobseeker's allowance.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has repeatedly given an "absolute assurance" that if someone is refused incapacity benefit they will obtain jobseeker's allowance. He has said that there will be no gap between the two benefits through which the partially disabled may fall. I am afraid that his "absolute assurance", which he gave the Committee in good faith, does not explain why people already fall through the gap between the two benefits. I have quoted the RADAR survey before. RADAR showed that in approximately 77 cases of people being refused invalidity benefit nearly one-third were then refused unemployment benefit. They fell between the two, just as we feared. That is happening now. Incidentally, none of those people was able to find work.
We fear that because a gap exists now and people fall into that gap the Minister's absolute assurances, though given in good faith, cannot cover some of the eventualities. We fear that the gap will widen.
I believe that the Government do not want that gap to exist, and I believe that they certainly do not want it to widen. If the Government were minded to accept them,

343
the amendments would help to bridge that gap. How? Because they flag as vulnerable a claimant who is partially disabled and has some points towards incapacity benefit as accredited by a GP or by the Benefits Agency's own medical service, but not enough to qualify. What is that flagging likely to mean? It means two things. First, such flagging of someone as vulnerable will shape the perceptions of the employment officer. It will ensure that he understands that someone with partial disability—which could be a physical condition such as chronic angina or, more worryingly, a mental health problem such as chronic depression, or a moderate learning disability—is regarded as vulnerable in terms of the labour market. It will ensure that a sensitive and appropriate jobseeker's agreement will reflect that partial disability.
If there is doubt about abiding by those terms, and when dealing with mild or moderate mental health problems, flagging someone as vulnerable will also ensure, secondly, that that person, if in hardship, is immediately eligible for a hardship payment while those doubts are resolved and will not be required to wait a fortnight or so for benefit.
If one has been on invalidity benefit and for many years has been regarded as disabled, coming off that benefit as a result of the introduction of the new incapacity benefit legislation will be traumatic for many partially disabled people. They will be fearful, anxious and frightened as they are expected to re-enter an already overstocked labour market, bringing with them a track record of chronic ill health, irregularity of work, probably a lack of attachment to the labour market and lack of suitable labour skills. They are deeply apprehensive; they are in poor health.
If we have to force such people back into the labour market —that is what the incapacity benefits legislation does—at the very least I would hope that we could allay their fears somewhat by flagging such claimants as vulnerable, thus ensuring a more sensitive jobseeker's agreement and immediate eligibility for hardship benefit should they fail to meet the requisite tests. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I must apologise to the House that I was still making my way back after Telling when the noble Baroness rose to move the amendment. I am correct, am I not, that the noble Baroness moved Amendment No. 2, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 5, 96B and 96D?
I strongly support the amendments, with the sole reservation that they are painfully modest. The amendments deal with the right to severe hardship payments pending appeal. I should like to express my regret to the Minister that we became so heated when we debated the issues last Thursday night. I have tried my level best to understand what he said. I hope that I have improved the understanding between us; I am not sure whether I have succeeded. However, as I expound what I believe he was getting at, perhaps he will correct me if I have understood incorrectly; I may well have done so.
344
Two issues caused me considerable bewilderment as regards the Minister's arguments last Thursday night. First, why did he consider that he was allowed to take away benefit without due process? That question goes very deeply to this issue: how far is social security subject to the rule of law? Secondly, why does a suspicion that a person does not meet the conditions of entitlement constitute proof?
Of course, the hub of the issue is the basis of entitlement to benefit. The noble Baroness and I suggested that, as with a prosecution for crime, the basis should be innocence until proved guilty. The Minister did not like that argument. I suggested that the basis might be similar to that of the law of property: you have the right to remain in occupation of your property until you are proved not to have a title to it. As the phrase runs, possession is nine points of the law. That goes back a great many centuries. The Minister did not like that suggestion either.
I have since taken legal advice on the question: what is the basis of entitlement to benefit? The advice that I have received is that it is to be treated as a civil right. However, that gives the same assurances and the same protections in many ways as if it were property.
I have read what the Minister said. It seems to me that the hub of his argument rests on the question of burden of proof. At col. 273 of the Official Report of 11th May, the Minister said:
"As the entitlement has not been established the benefit should not be paid".
I believe that if you meet the means-tested conditions, it is prima facie evidence of entitlement until proved to the contrary. But, if I have understood the Minister correctly, the situation is more like the 11-plus examination. You have to go through an examination before you are eligible. But, like the 11-plus examination of days gone by, it is very often wrong. I do not find that notion of entitlement persuasive. It is doubtful whether it is compatible with present law.
I wish to raise one technical point with the noble Baroness and the Minister on Amendment No. 5. The amendment provides protection for women in refuges. As I understand it, those women have hitherto been protected under the availability rules. They are treated as though they are available for work even though they are not. I trust that the noble Baroness agrees that; if it appears better to Women's Aid and to the Government that that should remain so, the matter should be tidied up at Third Reading. The Minister promised us that before debate on the Bill concludes he will tell us how women in refuges are to be treated. I hope that he is now in a position to do so.
I ask the Minister this question once again. If a person meets the test for eligibility for means-tested benefit but does not receive it, how can he not be in hardship? I accept the answers that he gave: that they have savings or relatives caring for them. That will not be the position for most of the people involved. Therefore, why does the Minister believe that we can disentitle them yet not put them into hardship?
The Minister listened to what my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby said about the effects of disentitlement in the United States. Since she spoke, we

345
have had a new report from NACRO on social policy and crime. It supports, with a wealth of footnotes, everything that my noble friend said. If the Minister considers the amendment in terms of costing, I believe he will find that the provision is cheap at the price.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I make one point in addition to those so forcefully made by the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Russell. It relates to a specific group in a list of vulnerable persons which we discussed perhaps less than some of the other groups.
The House debated with sympathy and due consideration the position of those who are not so disabled that they draw disablement benefit but, equally, have some disability which makes employment unlikely or difficult to attain. However, there is another group. My noble friend touched on it. I wish to ask the Minister about that group. Let me make this plain to noble Lords in the House who may wonder about the sheer modesty of the amendments. We have accepted a 40 per cent. reduction from the already relatively low level of income benefit—we have not accepted it; we have attempted to encourage the Government to concede on the issue of the most vulnerable groups.
The two groups that I wish to talk about are referred to in the list of vulnerable groups. They are those under the age of 18 who are living independently, or those in refuges. My noble friend referred to battered women in refuges. But there is, too, the group of children or young people in refuges who are escaping from physical, sexual and other forms of abuse. I am pleased to see present the right reverend Prelate, who knows one of the poorest areas of this country. He will know, as I know, that it is a real problem. The young people have fled their homes for overwhelmingly good reasons because they have suffered abuse of a kind that I shall not at present seek to illustrate by examples. However, there are horrendous examples. Those young people should not be compelled to live in absolute poverty while their cases are being adjudicated.
In the same way, women who are liable to be severely battered and beaten up should not be compelled to return home because they have no means of continuing to live in a refuge. Indeed, I ask seriously whether the Minister considers that it can possibly be right to drive people back to such conditions in those situations.
I raise one other issue. If there is no legitimate form of income for a young woman or young man who has been abused or treated with violence in her or his own home, and she or he is therefore living rough to escape, the alternative is all too often prostitution. This House should think carefully before taking any steps which might drive young men and young women in that direction. The report from NACRO bears out the fact that many young people are driven to prostitution when they have no other source of legitimate income, if they are not driven to crime.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, this group of amendments is designed to ensure that a vulnerable person is not totally destitute while waiting for the decision as to
346
whether he or she will obtain the jobseeker's allowance. It may not be the right way to tackle the: problem in the Bill. It may be better for it to be done by regulation. But I hope that, when replying to the group of amendments, my noble friend will be able to assure the House that vulnerable people will not be left destitute, possibly having to find an income by an immoral or illegal activity. How will such people be supported? They are vulnerable and need support. How will they be funded? How will their children be provided for? I hope that in reply my noble friend will address that point. There may be other ways in which support will be given, but as a civilised country we must give vulnerable people some support.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I support the amendment. Does the Minister agree: with the list in subsection (2B) in Amendment No. 5? I find it difficult to believe, running through the list, that he could maintain that any single provision should not be there.
On the other hand, I should like to see the provisions in the Bill because the case that has been made out for them is incontrovertible on humanitarian and also on legal grounds and they should be on the face of the Bill. In a year when we shall enact one of the disabled persons Bills now before Parliament, it is entirely right that Amendment No. 5 should be put on the face of the Bill. It should also have the power, which the amendment would not give, to add to the list. That is, not to amend the list: I do not believe that we should subtract any provision from the list but I see no reason why a power should not be added which would make the amendment more agreeable to the Government. By statutory regulation, by either the affirmative or negative instrument, the list could be added to, but it should not be in any way diminished.
In this Session of Parliament, disabled people who are called "vulnerable" in the amendment should be specially cared for under the Bill. Therefore, I strongly support the inclusion of the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand some of the anxieties that have been expressed by the noble Baroness and other noble Lords this evening on these issues. JSA hardship payments will be the safety net in the benefit system for those who are required to be available for work in order to receive benefit, so it is important to ensure that vulnerable claimants are effectively protected.
Amendment No. 5 is the crux of the noble Baroness's proposals. The amendment deals exclusively with cases where a decision is awaited on whether a claimant is available for and actively seeking work or whether he has entered into a satisfactory jobseeker's agreement. It does not deal with cases where an adverse decision on those matters has already been made. The noble Baroness has been quite clear that it is this group which particularly concerns her because the issue of doubt has not, in this case, been resolved. Interestingly enough, Amendments Nos. 96B and 96D would remove our power to make hardship payments to people after such a decision. I am not entirely sure that that was the noble Baroness's intention.

347
So we are looking here only at cases where we do not know whether someone is entitled to JSA because we do not know whether they are available for work, or we do not know whether they are actively seeking work. It cannot be acceptable to pay benefit automatically to people before we know whether they meet the entitlement conditions. That would not be a responsible use of public funds.
We take the view—and I think this may be the main difference between us—that the same principle applies mid-claim if it appears that the claimant is not continuing to satisfy benefit conditions. I must remind the House once again that JSA is a conditional benefit. People are expected to do something in return for the money they receive. They must satisfy the conditions not just once at the beginning of a claim, but throughout a claim. Therefore, if a doubt arises, then the case must be referred to adjudication and once again benefit should not, in our view, be payable on the normal basis as if no doubt had ever arisen.
We agree that it is right to afford protection to the vulnerable faced with a situation of hardship. I can assure your Lordships that hardship payments will be available to vulnerable claimants who need that protection. The Government's proposals broadly follow the pattern that currently applies in actively seeking work cases under income support. Where a question has arisen in JSA over whether someone is actively seeking work, or on his availability for work, a claimant will be able to be considered for a hardship payment throughout the period of consideration if he is in one of the prescribed vulnerable groups.
However, where the adjudication decision is taking longer than two weeks, claimants outside the vulnerable groups will also be able to receive JSA if they demonstrate hardship. We believe that is a reasonable and fair approach. The claimant has not demonstrated that he meets the normal conditions for benefit, therefore it is not awarded under normal conditions. But the hardship payments will provide the protection for those in vulnerable groups who need this right from the start, and we will extend this to all other claimants if the decision-making process is a lengthy one and if after a fortnight no decision has been reached that they have failed the labour market tests.
Paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 contains the regulation-making powers to award benefit to people despite entitlement not having been established. This will apply both at the outset of a claim and when an existing award has been suspended because of a doubt as to whether a person is continuing to satisfy the jobseeking conditions.
Amendment No. 5 also seeks to define on the face of the Bill matters of detail concerning the definition groups which will have access to benefit as "vulnerable groups". As I have outlined to your Lordships before, the regulations in JSA which define the vulnerable groups with access to hardship payments will build on those currently applying in income support to claimants who fail to look for work. That includes households where the claimant or partner is pregnant; where the
348
claimant is a member of a couple with responsibility for a child or young person; and where the claimant or partner qualifies for a disability premium.
We are expanding this definition, in line with our commitment in the White Paper, to cover people who are sick and disabled. People who are incapable of work should normally be claiming an incapacity benefit. However, some claimants who suffer from a serious underlying medical condition, rather than a disability, may be capable of work, but may for dietary or other reasons be particularly seriously affected if all benefit is withdrawn. Consequently, we propose that where the claimant or partner has a serious medical condition of this type they will have access to JSA hardship payments at all times, if they meet the normal hardship tests.
We are also widening the groups who can receive hardship payments to include those with caring responsibilities. We have looked carefully at how to define the group we are concerned to protect—those who provide substantial care to sick, disabled or elderly people. We wish to strike a sensible balance which recognises real need but does not include cases where the care provided is negligible. The amendment of the noble Baroness would make for an unworkable gateway.
The clear starting-point in the benefit system is invalid care allowance, which goes to those with significant caring responsibilities. The qualifying condition to ICA is that the person being cared for must be in receipt of the middle or higher rate of disability living allowance care component or of attendance allowance. We propose to set the same condition for carers' access to hardship payments. However, in view of the fact that the claimants involved are claiming a jobseeker's benefit rather than a carer's one, we do not propose to apply the additional ICA qualification of at least 35 hours' a week caring. To qualify for access to JSA hardship payments the claimant will need to be responsible for regular care, but there will be no specific hours rule or prescribed pattern of caring.
Of course, if a carer qualifies for ICA he or she can choose not to be a jobseeker and can qualify for income support as a carer. And I would remind your Lordships that ICA remains payable for eight weeks after the recipient ceases to be a carer, which provides a period of grace before some ex-carers come into the ambit of JSA.
We are confident that these definitions will strike the right balance between protecting the taxpayer from paying benefit where there may be no entitlement, and protecting those in vulnerable groups from hardship. The noble Baroness's amendment would go much further than this by paying benefit automatically to most groups when we do not know whether they are entitled to it. It would also through its final subsection open hardship payments up to everyone at all times.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me whether it was legal to suspend benefit on grounds of doubt. It is a longstanding feature of social security law that benefit can be suspended. Section 5(1) (n) (i) of the administration Act allows regulations to provide for suspension:
"where it appears to the Secretary of State that a question arises whether—
(i) the conditions for entitlement are or were fulfilled".
Parliament has approved that principle, which will apply in JSA as it does in other benefits.

349
I now turn to the question of people with one or more points from the IB test. I cannot accept that we should go so far as the noble Baroness wishes in her amendment. Many people would score a point or two in the test, but that does not mean that they are necessarily particularly vulnerable to hardship. Those who do not qualify—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the Minister's pardon. I merely seek clarification. Are we debating Amendment No. 3, to which the Minister is addressing himself, or is that still to come?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am addressing the amendments that are grouped with this one, No. 2: Amendments Nos. 5, 96B and 96D. I am attempting to address the points that were made and am dealing with the point made by the noble Baroness about IB tests.
As I said, many people would score a point or two in the test, but that does not mean that they are necessarily particularly vulnerable to hardship. Those who do not qualify for a disability premium but who have a serious health condition would indeed fall into a vulnerable group. We do not believe that we should go further than that and include everyone with a minor health problem.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked me about young people who are the homeless victims of violence or are otherwise destitute. She suggested that they should not have to wait for an AO decision without benefit. Claimants in these categories do not have to wait for an AO decision on a claim. They can qualify with a severe hardship direction. That is the Secretary of State's decision and is a completely separate issue from the one that we are currently considering.
I recognise that this is a sensitive area. But these are matters that will be dealt with in regulations and which will require, I have little doubt, fine tuning over time in order to deal with new problems as they arise and difficulties that we may wish to address. I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that I have already undertaken to look at provisions for women in refuges. I cannot go further than simply to repeat that commitment. I am of course willing to consider all the points made by noble Lords and to look at whether there is a genuine case for extending any of the provisions when we come to the regulations.
However, what I cannot do is accept that people should always have access to benefit whatever their action or status. I have said on a number of occasions that in order to qualify for this benefit a person has to meet the principal qualifications; namely, to be available for work and actively seeking work. We have gone a long way in the running of the system to attend to those people who are in particularly vulnerable groups, and we shall continue to do so in JSA. However, to go further and to put on the face of the Bill the suggestions set out in the noble Baroness's amendment would be wrong. If the noble Baroness does not withdraw her amendment—I understand that she feels strongly about many of these issues and therefore she may not—I hope that my noble friends will vote against it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he will be kind enough to say that he will write to me when he is clear about what is to be done on the issue of women's refuges.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I will certainly do that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, first, I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for their support for this amendment and for a very helpful and well-informed short debate.
We have two areas of disagreement with the Government. I have to say that our fears have not been allayed on either. First, on the issue of doubt relating to Clause 5(2) (a), I noted the Minister's words. He said that JSA was a conditional benefit and the claimant must satisfy the conditions for it. We agree. But when a doubt has been raised, we do not know whether the claimant has or has not satisfied the conditions. We shall know that only after adjudication. That is the size of the gap between us; namely, that the Minister persists in believing that to fine someone in advance of their case being heard is acceptable within the conventions as well as the ethic of natural justice. We shall return to that point.
The second point that the Minister made related to what he—I shall not say "dismissed" because that sounds too cavalier—labelled as "matters of detail" so far as the groups were concerned. That was his phrase. I do not think that these are matters of detail at all. The groups concerned would not regard as "matters of detail" whether or not they are regarded as vulnerable. That phrase was perhaps a little unfortunate.
We are dealing here with some of the most marginal and vulnerable groups within the group that is potentially and actually unemployed. We are dealing with women who have been abused and who are in refuges; with people who are coming off incapacity benefit, even though they may have received invalidity benefit for many years, and who are frail, worried and apprehensive; with young people who have come out of care and who are on the streets; with carers who may look after someone for 15, 20 or 25 hours a week; with people who are themselves marginalised and vulnerable or who care for such people. That is not a matter of detail at all. It is at the heart of this Bill. If we as a society cannot make decent minimum provision for such groups, I am afraid we should be ashamed of ourselves.
At the end of the Minister's speech, to which I listened very carefully, I am still left totally confused as to what groups the Minister will regard as vulnerable and therefore who will become so through the regulations. So far as I could see (I ticked off the list as he spoke) those who are pregnant or have a dependent child will be covered by vulnerability. Foster children were not mentioned, but I imagine that the same would apply. The Minister shakes his head. Is he saying that the definition does not apply to someone with a foster child? I presume that in this case a foster child is treated as a dependent child; the

351
Minister has not so far suggested that there is any difference. Perhaps he will write to me if I have misunderstood him.
He had a query about carers, but went on to say that a carer has been defined as either someone engaged in caring for over 35 hours a week and entitled to ICA, or alternatively as someone not receiving ICA because he or she does not care for someone for over 35 hours a week but who is nonetheless regularly caring. That definition will affect a jobseeker's agreement because the employment officer has to recognise that condition, as we have all accepted, and it can simply be cross-referred into this amendment; there need be no problem there.
The Minister agreed illness, physical or mental disability confirmed by a registered practitioner. He said that he would write to the noble Earl and, I hope, to others of us in regard to the situation of women in refuges. As for those who are homeless, is the Minister saying that such people are not vulnerable when they are living on the streets and are under the age of 18, coming from a history of community and residential care? Are those people not vulnerable?
It seems that the two groups that the Minister is not willing to cover are, on the one hand, those who are homeless and on the streets—particularly those who are under 18 and who are potentially vulnerable, as we know, to prostitution and criminality—and, on the other hand, those coming off disability or incapacity benefit who have some partial disability and therefore some points but who are not registered as vulnerable. That seems to be the difference between us. Is the Minister really saying that those two groups are not vulnerable and should not be covered? Do your Lordships believe that someone who has enjoyed invalidity benefit and has now lost it, particularly if they have a mental health problem which is not necessarily easy to diagnose, is not vulnerable? Is the Minister really saying that somebody who is under 18 or is homeless is not vulnerable and destitute? Is the Minister saying that? I cannot believe that your Lordships share such a view or believe that such groups are not vulnerable.
The Minister has gone a long way towards accepting the list but not those two groups. I do not understand that. Before I decide what to do with the amendment, perhaps I may ask one further question. He said that the definition of vulnerability will come through regulation. Specifically, will the regulation under this clause be by affirmative procedure or not? Can I have a reply to that question?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if I heard the question aright, I believe I am right in saying that all the regulations to do with JSA in the first six months when we are setting it up will be by the affirmative procedure, as I recall. It is for a little further on than we are today. But that will be the case; thereafter, of course, it will be the negative procedure. I hope that that helps.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I take it that the Minister is saying that he will expect these regulations therefore to come under the affirmative
352
procedure, for the first time. So for any subsequent editions the list obviously will not be so treated. I want to get this point right because there seems to be some ambiguity. Is the Minister saying that if he wished to take some of these groups off the list of vulnerability after April 1996, he could do so by the negative procedure? I am sorry to have to engage this point but it has not been raised before. Will the Minister reply?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the point has not been raised before. Probably a little further on we can raise it again, but I am happy to try to be helpful. Let me be clear that at the first time of setting out these regulations, they will be by affirmative order. Thereafter any change adding or subtracting will be by the negative procedure. I think that that is perfectly clear.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to the point. However, in the light of his reply, I must confirm that the Minister is not able or willing to give us assurances on what are in my view two very vulnerable groups: those coming off invalidity benefit who have partial disability but have no guarantee that they will be regarded or treated as vulnerable either in terms of their jobseeking agreement or in terms of their continued eligibility for hardship payment should a doubt be raised as to their availability for work on the one hand, and the same problem with the homeless and those under 18 on the other.
Moreover, given that any changes to the potential list that the Minister has outlined for us may, after April 1996, be reduced and this House will have no capacity to amend and may not even have the opportunity to scrutinise, I seek the opinion of the House.
6.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 114.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Barnett, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Howell, L.

Brain, L.

Hughes, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Craigavon, V.

Jay of Paddington, B.

David, B.

Jeger, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Dubs, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Lawrence, L.

Falkland, V.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Geraint, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

McCarthy, L.

Grey, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Hamwee, B.

McNair, L.

Hardinge, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

353

Mishcon, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Monkswell, L.

Stedman, B.

Newcastle, Bp.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Palmer, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Redesdale, L.

Varley, L.

Whaddon L.

Richard, L.

White, B.

Rochester, L.

Williams of Crosby, B. [Teller.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Russell, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Seear, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Kenilworth, L.

Aldington, L.

Kimball, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Astor, V.

Kingsland, L.

Balfour, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lindsay, E.

Blaker, L.

Liverpool, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lucas, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brigstocke, B.

McConnell, L.

Brookes, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Butterworth, L.

Cadman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marlesford, L.

Carnock, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Miller of Hendon, B. [Teller.]

Chelmsford, V.

Milverton, L.

Chesham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Moyne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Munster, E.

Courtown, E.

Norrie, L.

Cox, B.

Northesk, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Orkney, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Deedes, L.

Pender, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elles, B.

Rawlings, B.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renwick, L.

Flather, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Romney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seccombe, B.

Greenway, L.

Sharples, B.

Hacking, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Haig, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hanson, L.

Strange, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hemphill, L.

Sudeley, L.

Henley, L.

Suffield, L.

Hives, L.

Teynham, L.

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

HoImPatrick, L.

Torphichen, L.

Hood, V.

Trumpington, B.

Hothfield, L.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Inglewood, L.

Wakeham, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("or, if he falls to be treated as not available, he shall nonetheless be entitled to a jobseeker s allowance where he has been assessed as capable of work under Part XIIA of the Benefits Act, but he has been awarded one or more points in respect of one or more descriptors applied under the all-work test").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment touches on two issues in particular: first, the interface between incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance; and, secondly, the interface between unemployment benefit and income support, which is being replaced by JSA. I shall deal with the second issue first. On availability for work, JSA represents the bringing together of unemployment benefit and income support, but both of those at the moment have, if one likes, different responses to the situation of availability for work. At the moment, if someone is receiving unemployment benefit and doubt arises about whether he is available for work, his benefit is continued until the doubt is resolved. If he is on income support, however, and a doubt arises about availability for work, the benefit is removed until the doubt is resolved. In amalgamating these two benefits the Government have adopted the much harsher income support rules, where benefit is stopped the moment a doubt arises, rather than the more reasonable rules of unemployment benefit, where benefit is stopped only where it is proven that the claimant is not available for work. We shall continue to debate the wrong done to people who are punished in advance of being found guilty, which is what stopping a benefit merely on a doubt entails.
The first aspect of the amendment is that if a claimant falls to be treated as not available for work, whether following the employment officer's doubt or following a judgment by the adjudication officer, he should nonetheless be entitled to a hardship payment if—this is the second part of the amendment—he has some points coming from the incapacity benefit test even though they are not sufficient to qualify him for incapacity benefit.
Why are we revisiting this matter following the previous amendment? The disabled person to whom the Minister referred in the previous discussion who is eligible for such hardship payment comes within a definition that is very narrowly drawn. Such a person has to be in receipt of a disability premium such as DLA, be registered blind or have a serious underlying medical condition. A disability premium is paid to meet the financial cost of care and mobility of someone who is disabled. It is seldom paid to someone, who has, for example, a mental health condition. Therefore, most people with a mental health condition will not get a disability premium and therefore they will not come within the Government's definition. That is reinforced by the fact that the DSS's own research—Report No. 19—shows that of those on invalidity benefit only 19 per cent. also obtained DLA. Therefore, DLA is a very narrow definition of disability, particularly for someone with a mental health or learning disability.
This amendment would widen the notion of disability for hardship purposes to include the partially disabled—those who fail to get fewer than 10 points on the mental health test or fewer than 15 points on the physical health test. About whom are we talking? In particular, such an amendment would pick up those who have not filled in the JSA form properly because they have a moderate learning disability. At the moment they would lose JSA. It would pick up those who may place too many restrictions on the nature of the work they are willing to accept, perhaps because they are frightened to go out alone. At the moment they would lose JSA. It would pick up those who may fail to turn up for an offer of work because that day they experienced a panic attack. At the moment they would be disqualified from JSA. It would pick up those who may fail to attend a Restart interview because, quite simply, they were unable to comprehend the message or the instructions. At the moment such people would fail JSA. By failing JSA they would lose benefit.
The point I am trying to make, perhaps inadequately, is that, because of the very nature of partial disability, particularly in the areas of mental health and moderate learning difficulties, by making them more eligible for hardship payments we will cost them their hardship payments precisely because they suffer panic attacks, precisely because they do not comprehend a conversation and precisely because they suffer from strong mood swings. Those are the very reasons why such people need special consideration. Yet those characteristics will cost them the consideration they should have.
It does not have to be like this. If such claimants come with points validated by the incapacity benefit system those points could be the passport, a clear simple and obvious passport, to the Employment Service and to hardship payments. But, unless we accept such an amendment, those who are partially disabled will find that their very disability renders them regularly offending against a JSA agreement and thus they will lose all benefit. It is important that we protect them. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this amendment deals with people not of incapacity but of limited capacity. The Minister may regret that we keep returning to this situation. I accept entirely the assurances that both Ministers have given us that they wish to deal with this category of cases. Their intentions are entirely adequate. Our reason for returning is that they have not made those intentions effective. The cases keep on coming of people who are found ineligible for incapacity benefit but are not signed on when they go to the Employment Service. So long as the cases go on arising we must keep on returning to the problem of finding some adequate way of providing for them. The Minister will, I hope, forgive us that.
Let us take, for example, epileptics. I speak with feeling on this subject because I have had epilepsy in my own family. My grandfather was an epileptic while being a distinguished Member of another place. I understand perfectly well that people who are epileptics can work and can do so extremely successfully. But we
356
are also dealing with the attitudes of employers. A case came to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux recently of someone who had been working perfectly adequately until his employer discovered that he was epileptic and said, "We don't want any epileptics here", and produced a cock and bull reason for dismissal involving a voluntary unemployment penalty while it was investigated. That is typical of the kind of reason, to return for a moment to a previous amendment, why we want benefit paid during appeal.
Here again, we also return to the effect of performance-related pay. Placing people in employment is a positive outcome. I do not think there is any argument about that, but there is room for argument about the effect of it, because if placing people in employment is a positive outcome, the employment officer is likely to take more trouble over those who are easier to place in employment because he will be scoring more successes. He is likely to take a rather dim view of finding his office, as he would see it, cluttered up with large numbers of people whom it is extremely difficult for him to place in employment. That is a quite unfair interference with his performance. That is the sort of problem which we are getting and which explains why employment officers are making so many difficulties about people coming off invalidity benefit being allowed to sign on. I hope that the Minister will pay some attention to what is actually going on on the ground and do something to make his will to stop it effective.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, those who have spoken have done so extremely ably. All I can say is that I support this group of amendments.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have had a considerable amount of discussion about our proposals for people who leave incapacity benefit and claim JSA. I very much appreciate the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl. We share these concerns that people with a physical or mental condition have needs which require special consideration. I can assure your Lordships—I have done it before and I am happy to do it again—that we have drawn up the JSA proposals and in particular the availability rule, taking account of these requirements.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned that examples keep on coming. It would be quite hard to keep on coming considering that incapacity benefit has just started. I appreciate that the noble Earl was actually referring to invalidity benefit and the situation before the incapacity benefit came in. One of the targets which I hope he will approve of, although he disapproved of others earlier, is a target which says that the objective is to offer people with disabilities particular help and advice in finding and retaining work or appropriate training and to help and encourage employers to make work or training opportunities available to them. Four per cent. of total unemployed placings achieved will be for people with disabilities. In that regard I hope that he sees the target as a positive one.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that, but, before giving employment officers contradictory targets, I ask him to remember the fate of the chameleon that was put on tartan. It dropped dead.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that it would depend entirely on what the tartan was and how much trouble it would entail.
I now turn to Amendment No. 3. I am a bit perplexed about it. The amendment provides that a person who has failed the all-work test in IB but has been awarded at least one point, who will be treated as not available, should still receive JSA. We intend to use the power to treat people as not available, as was discussed in some depth in Committee, to treat a limited number of groups as not available: full-time students, women who are receiving statutory maternity pay within the maternity pay period, and prisoners on home release. The reason for this is clear. Although people in these groups may be able to make themselves available for work, we have made other provision for their support. The power will ensure that, if any people in these groups make a claim for JSA, they will be treated as not available. I see no reason why people who have failed the all-work test and who fall into one of these three groups should receive JSA when other, more appropriate, provision is available.
Having listened to the two speeches, I suspect, however, that the intention behind the amendment is to allow people who have failed the IB all-work test and do not make themselves available for work to receive ISA without fulfilling the availability condition. If this is the intention, I cannot agree that this is correct. A decision on IB that a person is capable of work will apply across all other benefits. I have mentioned that on a number of occasions. Thus a person who has failed the all-work test will automatically be capable of work under JSA and will be entitled to allowance provided he is available for work. As I have said many times before, all JSA claimants will be able to restrict their availability in line with their physical or mental condition, and with no requirement that such restrictions should be inhibited by their prospects of securing employment. This will, of course, apply equally to those who have failed the all-work test.
As regards Amendment No. 28, I reassure the noble Baroness that we want to include, not exclude, people with disabilities in JSA and to this end we have taken the needs of people with disabilities into account in drawing up the JSA labour market rules. We intend to carry forward the current provisions in unemployment benefit and income support which allow a person with a mental or physical condition 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 condition.
I would like to emphasise to your Lordships, however, that the first priority of jobseekers is to find employment and to this end it is vital that jobseekers are available for employment. The noble Baroness's amendment would seek to ensure that disabled claimants can claim JSA without fulfilling one of the main labour
358
market entitlement conditions. It would be wrong to open up the availability condition to people who are not prepared to be available for employment.
The amendment specifically refers to people who have failed the all-work test but have been awarded one or more points in respect of one or more descriptors applied under that test. This would include, for example, someone who cannot walk more than 400 metres without stopping or severe discomfort, or someone who cannot answer the telephone and reliably take a message. I assure the noble Baroness and your Lordships that 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. As I have said many times before, and I am happy to say it again, provided that jobseekers in these 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.
Where the claimant or partner would be entitled to a disability premium or where the claimant or partner has an underlying medical condition which means that they would be at risk, payment of JSA can be made at any time that hardship can be demonstrated, even when the claimant is not available for work.
I turn to Amendment No. 76. I entirely accept that where it is unreasonable, by reason of a disability, for a claimant to take a job or to accept an offer of a place on an employment programme or training course, that person should not be penalised by facing a benefit sanction. Before an adjudication officer imposes any sanction he would always consider whether the claimant had good cause for such actions. Current regulations, which we will be following in JSA also, already specify that he should take into account harm to the person's health and excessive mental or physical stress to which the job or programme might subject him. Therefore, if the kind of disability identified by the all-work test meant that the job offer was inappropriate or the training arrangements unreasonable, appropriate protections against sanction are built into the system.
I should add, of course, that, even where a sanction is applied because the person was not considered to have had good cause for his actions, a disabled person, or someone with an underlying medical condition which would put them at risk if benefits were withdrawn, would have access to hardship payments throughout the period of sanction.
However the amendment would go much further. No sanction could be applied, whatever the circumstances, if the person had been awarded one or more points against the descriptors of the all-work test. This is a pretty sweeping exemption. A person could be sacked from a job for gross misconduct but could receive full benefits as if nothing had happened. A person could refuse any job offer, however reasonable, even where it was fully compatible with his disability, and continue to receive the same level of benefits. A person could refuse

359
a place on a training course, even one specially designed for his special physical or mental needs, and not face any consequences.
The noble Baroness used her example again. I presume that it was the same example which she used in Committee; namely, a person with quite severe depression getting only six points. I have looked in some detail—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I did not.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, then it was another example. I thought that the noble Baroness was harking back to the example she had already used in Committee. If she was not I shall not go over that. It is undoubtedly the case that one has to look at all these cases in the round and at the person in front of the doctor, as it will be, making the decisions. It is difficult to come to decisions across the Dispatch Box about hypothetical cases, as I had been about to point out to the noble Baroness if she was putting the previous case—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: "Hypothetical" again?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Our reforms to incapacity benefit have been designed to break the dependency culture of people who can in some cases, despite a reduced level of capacity to work, play a role in the labour market. The amendment would simply open up the possibilities of people resting on benefit despite all the offers of help and assistance open to them. I cannot believe that that is in the interests of the labour market, the taxpayer, or, least of all, those individuals concerned. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment. I hope that it will be withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, I wonder whether he yet understands why we are worried. A partially disabled claimant who does not now qualify for incapacity benefit but who has received invalidity benefit —that is, he is pretty seriously disabled, but has failed the 10 to 15 point test—must now seek JSA. He has to meet two conditions: that he is available for work and that he is actively seeking work. The Minister rightly said that the actively seeking work test will reflect the claimant's degree of partial disability.
However, there are two problems. The first is the availability for work test; the second is the notion of what constitutes a "disabled person". First, the availability for work test, as opposed to the actively seeking work test, requires an additional set of tests which a disabled person who has a mental health problem, such as suffering panic attacks, or who is unable to go out of the house alone, may fail by virtue of his disability, thus rendering himself ineligible for benefit.
The second problem that the Minister failed to address is the definition of a "disabled person". The definition that the Minister offered is of someone receiving a disability premium, which is somebody on the disability living allowance; someone who is registered blind, I understand, or someone with a serious
360
underlying medical condition. The problem is that most people with a mental health problem, who have some points from the incapacity test, do not qualify under the Minister's definition of a "disabled person" because they do not qualify for DLA, they are not registered blind and they may not be regarded as having a serious underlying medical condition. Such a person will have been sufficiently "disabled" a year, six months or even a month ago to receive invalidity benefit but has come off that benefit (although not qualifying under the new definition of "disability") and therefore has no protection at all. That is the group of people we are trying to help.
We accept that many people have a physical disability which is easily understood and appreciated by a relatively untrained employment officer and that they will not be at risk. However, someone with a moderate mental health problem or with a learning disability who has come off invalidity benefit will not, under the Minister's definition, qualify to be labelled—perhaps I should say "flagged up" because the word "labelled" has an unfortunate overtone—as a "disabled person". Such a person can be treated as though he or she is not disabled even though, to return to the Minister's example, that person may exhibit agitation, confusion or forgetfulness which results in accidents. That would count for one point. Such a person's concentration may be sustained only by prompting—again, one point. Such a person may be frequently distressed for part of the day due to mood fluctuations—again one point. The claimant's mental stress may have been a factor in making him stop work—two points—or he may frequently feel scared or panicky for no obvious reason. Again, that scores two points, making a total of seven points. However, that person does not qualify for incapacity benefit or meet the Government's definition of "disabled". That person is virtually unemployable, yet is likely to fail the availability for work test, the actively seeking work test and, without any protection being flagged up, will be incomeless.
If I have mis-stated the case, I ask the Minister to correct me, but I believe that I am right in saying that such a person will not get incapacity benefit, will not be regarded as "disabled" under the Government's own definition, and will probably be income-less. However, only a month or two months previously, such a person would have been in receipt of invalidity benefit.
Given the previous voting, there is probably no point in seeking a Division at this stage, but I think that what we are doing to some extremely vulnerable people should rest heavily on us this evening. We refused to regard them as vulnerable in the previous amendment and the Minister has not accepted that we should flag the situation at the interface with employment officers and adjudication officers when it comes to determining benefit, yet those people are virtually unemployable and without protection as they enter an overstocked labour market. We should be very worried about them. I hope that the Minister shares our concern and that, as and when we return to this issue, possibly when we consider the regulations, we shall be able to encourage him to move further than he has tonight. If we do not, we shall

361
be leaving some of the most vulnerable people on our streets extremely vulnerable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 7.55 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.16 to 7.55 p.m.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 3A:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("and, notwithstanding any other provisions in this Act, in the case of a person who is responsible for the care of another, "available" in this context shall mean available for employment at 48 hours' notice").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 23A. This is a simple, straightforward amendment. We all recognise, including the Government, the degree to which care in the community depends upon the willing support of carers. Government support for the Bill relating to carers introduced in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Wicks is evidence of that.
Throughout the Bill the Government have agreed that carers may restrict their hours of work as part of their jobseeking agreement. We know that most carers do not receive incapacity support premiums. They do not receive ICA. A survey by the Carers National Association found that about 60 per cent. of carers were in financial difficulties because of their caring responsibilities. Those are difficulties that would be overcome if they could re-enter the world of work.
Although we still have to persuade the Government that carers may reasonably put restrictions on location and type of work, we accept that the Government have allowed carers to limit the hours that they may work. In one important sense—beyond location and type of work—we feel that the responsibility of carers has not been recognised adequately in the Bill; that is, they have to be available for work on 24 hours' notice.
As I said, this is a simple amendment. There is no cost involved. It suggests that carers should be required to be available on 48 hours' notice only. Why is that necessary? We would all agree that young, single people without dependants would expect to be immediately available. We have all agreed, and the Government have accepted, that volunteers with commitments to organisations for which they are working should be able to give 48 hours' notice. Those volunteers are often working with old people in old people's homes and with disabled people.
If doing so as a volunteer one is entitled to offer 48 hours' notice, why if one is doing the same work but on a one-to-one basis as a carer—the same elderly or disabled people—should one be allowed only 24 hours' notice to make oneself available for work? Is not that unreasonable?
In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, argued that it was unreasonable to provide child care on 24 hours' notice. Tomorrow we shall be supporting the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which provides for seven days' notice because we accept that it is crucial for the well-being of young children that they have secure and kindly care.
I have to say as a parent and a former carer of my elderly parents that finding good childminders was simplicity itself compared to finding care for elderly people. The local authority will have a list, for example, of registered childminders. There will be nurseries and there may be grandparents. It is infinitely harder to find a carer where, for example, an elderly person is becoming increasingly confused at perhaps the onset of Alzheimer's disease or may be incontinent and requiring personal toileting. But because that person may need less than 35 hours a week in care, the carer is not eligible for ICA. How easy will it be within 24 hours to find someone to undertake such demanding, difficult and not always pleasant jobs? How does one ensure that the person is gentle, kind and reliable and that the elderly or disabled person will get on with him or her? I suggest that it is not possible to achieve that within 24 hours. It would be difficult within 48 hours but at least it would be possible.
The alternative is that a conscientious and loving carer of an elderly parent, in particular, will turn down a job if within 24 hours he cannot find someone he trusts. He will then be threatened with loss of the JSA. The Minister may well say—and he would be right—that the job for which the carer can apply will reflect the hours that he is available. But carers work up to 45 hours per week unpaid. Few jobs will allow a perfect dovetailing of the employer's hours with caring responsibilities. That is fine if the caring is a modest 10 or 15 hours per week. However, trying to dovetail with work 30 or 32 hours' caring per week will be difficult and untidy. It is certain that the carer will need to have alternative and additional back-up arrangements at home in order fully to meet the employer's demands, even if he takes a reduced-hours job knowing that the person being cared for is safe and comfortable at home.
We ask for a tiny concession which will bring the situation of carers of disabled and elderly people into line with those volunteers who care for elderly and disabled people. It would also give the carer a real possibility of re-entering the world of work as he would wish. He would have a reduced-hours job knowing that there was satisfactory back-up care in place. It would help to float the carer off the poverty and social isolation that he is likely to face. I hope that on grounds of compassion and consistency the Minister will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I support the amendment and wish to advance two arguments in addition to those put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. The first argument is that we are living in

363
a society in which the proportion of elderly people is constantly growing. Most families can expect to have at least one elderly dependent person. As we know from the figures projected forward to the end of the millennium and beyond, approximately one elderly person will be dependent on every two working people by the year 2010. The number of working people, or those hoping to find work, looking after a dependent elderly relation will not diminish but increase. Many working families will have to care for an elderly dependent relation.
I advance that argument because Ministers may say that if people satisfy the available-for-work and actively-seeking-work criteria they must be able to get away from their caring responsibilities. However, they will find that in real social truth the combination of o caring responsibilities and attempts to obtain a remunerative job will become common for an increasing number of our fellow citizens.
Furthermore, if we cannot rely on voluntary carers within the family or the wider community there is no way in which we will be able to support by statutory services the number of elderly people for whom we must be responsible and must look after. That would be wildly expensive and an outcome that few elderly people would prefer.
My first argument is that, given the fact that in the Bill Ministers are legislating not only for today but for the next few years and beyond, and given that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has consistently relied on precedent from previous social security Acts in order to justify some of the provisions in the Bill, any precedent that we now set could be most important. Therefore, I urge that in this instance, where we are looking at a large population of dependent elderly people in their 80s and 90s, Ministers will give fresh consideration to this relatively modest amendment.
There is a second argument which is in a sense caught up with Amendments Nos. 6 and 77. I shall not attempt to argue them now but merely point out the heavy penalties for failing to meet the condition of the jobseeker's allowance; for instance, those involved if one falls in the category of giving up a job or without sufficiently good reason refusing a job offered. We are trying to amend that heavy penalty which, as the Minister knows, can amount to as much as 26 weeks' loss of benefit.
I turn to the point so ably argued by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis; namely, that the possibility of someone losing his allowance because he failed to satisfy the condition of the jobseeker's agreement—that condition being his availability for a certain job at a certain time—could mean a very heavy penalty. If the carer failed to accept a job when it was offered to him, he could face not only the difficulty of taking up a job but the loss of the jobseeker's agreement and the benefit that goes with it.
The 24-hour rule is difficult to satisfy. Anyone who has had the care of an elderly relative or parent will know that one of the hardest things in the world is not to find another carer but to settle down the elderly relative with a new carer. That can be a nightmare, as
364
almost every woman with an elderly dependant knows. The 24-hour rule is not in line with common sense nor with mildly humane practice.
I urge the Minister to consider this modest amendment. The job of looking after elderly or difficult parents or relations is not enjoyable. Probably no one would like to give that task priority over accepting a remunerative job. There is no temptation to "skive", as described by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. The Minister could well make a concession which would be to the good of care in the community, to elderly people and a cohesive, decent and mutually supportive society. I support the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as President of the Carers National Association, I declare an interest. I strongly support what has been said and I hope that the amendment will be accepted. It would be highly desirable if more than 48 hours were allowed; it costs nothing to give a longer period of time in which to make arrangements.
It is highly desirable that carers should return to the labour market. Many of them will be out of the labour market for so long that returning will be very difficult. They will become a problem to themselves and to society as a whole. Therefore, anything that eases their way back into the labour market is an advantage. The proposal will cost the state nothing and carers will have more time to make difficult adjustments.
The people for whom they are caring are extremely difficult to satisfy. They make a great fuss about having anyone other than their daughter or whoever it may be caring for them. If the arrangements are not satisfactory, the carer will be out of the job in no time because he or she will not be able to put up with the rows at home. The proposal does not create a precedent and the Government could go to at least 48 hours, preferably more. That would help in a number of ways.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, grouped with this amendment is Amendment No. 23A, which stands in my name. I do not know which is the better of the two amendments. Perhaps an amendment should be made to this part of the Bill; perhaps an amendment should be made to Clause 6, where my amendment is placed
Anyone who has any experience of trying to arrange care knows that it can take a great deal longer than 48 hours to obtain satisfactory care. In this instance, I declare an interest because the association for which I work provides carers for a number of disabled people living independently in their own homes. My wife is also involved in providing care for various people.
I do not know whether your Lordships have any experience of trying to get hold of social workers on Friday afternoons. It is probably easier to get blood out of a stone, because Friday afternoons are for case work conferences. It is terribly difficult to get through to social services to speak to anyone responsible. In fact, if a new case crops up which gets through to them, it is normally passed on to a charitable organisation such as SSAFA in the hope that it will do the work that afternoon and over the weekend.

365
In addition, some carers have very complicated arrangements which involve a number of people. Those arrangements all need to be unravelled before the carers can go to work and suitable arrangements put into place. As other noble Lords have said, in particular in relation to an older person, it is extremely important that the person being cared for at the very least accepts, but preferably gets on with, those who are caring for him. We all become more difficult to please as we get older. I admit that. My family will tell you that it is increasingly difficult, not just year by year but week by week.
As I said, discussions with other carers may take longer than 24 hours. A number of carers are also caring for more than one person. According to the General Household Survey in 1990, one-fifth of carers are caring for at least two people. That means that the process must be gone through not once but twice.
I have an example, with which I shall not bore the House, of one carer who looks after people in two different parts of London and is therefore liaising with two different sets of social services departments. London is quite small compared with many other parts of the country. Time and travel are also factors to be taken into account; so is being able to contact the relevant person when necessary and not being told that he is out on a case and will not be back until the following day or that there is a stand-in operating for him who knows absolutely nothing about the case being dealt with.
In practical rather than legal terms, 48 hours is the very least that is required. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give some sort of sensible and satisfactory answer to this amendment.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, an effective availability condition is vital for any unemployment benefit. 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 should normally be available to take up employment immediately.
We recognise, however, that it would be unreasonable to expect people with caring responsibilities to meet the same availability arrangements as other jobseekers. That is why in JSA we shall be introducing for the first time a specific easement of the availability rule to allow general restrictions on the period that carers should have to be available during the week. They will be able to limit the number of hours that they are available, below the minimum of 40 hours to be applied to other jobseekers, in line with their caring responsibilities. That is significant recognition of the importance which we attach to caring responsibilities in society.
It may also help if I draw attention to the way the new rules will fit together to the advantage of those with caring responsibilities. In practice, many carers will be able to arrange the terms of their restrictions on availability so that they will not be required to be available on several days in the week. That will not affect their entitlement to JSA. Since no carers will be expected to be ready to take up work on a day on which they had agreed that they would not be available, the practical effect of those new flexibilities will be that in many instances carers will be given time to respond to offers of work.
366
Those are substantial easements from the general availability rule to meet the needs of carers. However, I have reflected carefully on the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen. Both recognise that people with caring responsibilities who wish to participate in the labour market will, as now, need to plan in advance the best way of rearranging their caring responsibilities to fit in with any future employment that they may be offered. Both recognise, however, that carers require no less time than voluntary workers to put their plans into place and take up work or attend an interview.
I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness and my noble friend have said. I am pleased to be able to make a commitment that carers should, like volunteers, have a full 48 hours' notice. Those are details to be covered in regulations under Clause 6, as we have already made clear. If the noble Baroness and my noble friend will agree to withdraw their amendments, we will undertake to bring forward the appropriate regulations to give effect to what their amendments seek to achieve.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply with more than usual sincerity. I also thank those noble Lords who took part in the debate. It is clear that the Minister has considered this matter since Committee, but if he had not done so I am sure that the quality of contributions which we have heard this evening from all sides of the House, from noble Lords who spoke with far greater expertise than I have of the practical problems of caring, would have persuaded him. However, I am grateful and this will be warmly welcomed by the carers' associations. I obviously do not need to press the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert:
("( ) A jobseeker's allowance shall not be suspended, under section 18 of this Act, for a period exceeding six weeks").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this deals with disentitlement. It provides that total disentitlement should not continue beyond six weeks.
Like many other amendments that we have discussed today, it is extremely modest and should cause no great problems. Before we attempt any consideration of disentitlement, we should know what happens to those who are disentitled to benefit. As far as I know, the Government have made no serious attempt to find out the answer to that question. We are always told that the Department of Social Security does not make policy on anecdotal evidence, although since the habitual residence regulations I am not quite sure whether that is still the case. But here, as far as I can see, the department has no evidence at all, not even anecdotal evidence.
If we are to assess whether disentitlement is good and to what extent or for how long it is good, before extending it, as this Bill does, we need to have a faint idea of what is the effect. Surely that is not an over-ambitious request.
There are some obvious hypotheses which can be formed, some of them supported by a MORI report on severe hardship payments for 16 and 17 year-olds, which I believe is the only serious research on the effect of disentitlement that we have. This evening we have heard about the risks of prostitution. They are real. There is a 17th century case of an Oxford head of house who died, having regrettably been swindled by the trustee of his pension fund. According to Anthony Wood:
"Whether the females lived honestly, 'tis not for me to dispute it".
Many times I have asked the Department of Social Security to carry out some serious research into the problems of debt among those on benefit. They can be serious and a real obstacle to returning to employment.
As regards problems of health, there has been a recent Crisis report on the spread of TB among the homeless. The figures are quite alarming. In 1983, the average rate of TB among the population in general in south-east London was 80 per 100,000. In hostels and day-care centres in London in 1994, it was 2,000 per 100,000. That is not just a local London result. In Glasgow hostels, again among the homeless, the rate was 1,456 per 100,000. There is similar evidence from New York.
Of course, TB is an extremely expensive illness. The Minister may well find that if he goes in for increasing disentitlement in the way that this Bill does, he will spend more money than he saves.
The Minister has argued throughout, and most notably on the second amendment today, for moving away from a concept of entitlement towards a very much more strictly conditional attitude to benefit. Nobody wishes to encourage people on benefit to do nothing, to take advantage, and so on. Provided that it is compatible with subsistence, a benefit penalty is perfectly defensible. But I believe that the Minister introduces total disentitlement at his own peril. When he goes home this evening, I hope that I do not have to mean those words literally. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I believe that it is a very good idea to have a time limit for which the allowance should be suspended. But being somewhat cynical I wonder whether a time limit as long as that suggested is wise. The very fact that there is a limit on time often means that that time is worked right up to before the decision is finally made and the suspension removed. That is something about which one would have to be most careful.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the object of the amendment is to reduce the maximum period under the Bill of 26 weeks for which there can be a suspension. One is bound to ask the Minister to explain and defend the present period. Why is it unreasonable to propose that the allowance should not be suspended,
"for a period exceeding six weeks",
368
under Clause 18 of the legislation? Why is that considered to be unreasonable? Presumably it is because the present maximum period of suspension proposed under the Bill is required. It is required because, on average, we are told that it takes that long. On 20th April (at col. 592 of Hansard) someone on this side of the House asked the Minister what was the average waiting time on appeals, some of which would be subject to the suspension procedure. As I understand it, the Minister said that it would be too expensive to find out. Nevertheless, the average time on all appeals was 22.4 weeks. The Minister also said that the adjudication officers processed to the independent tribunal service in 21 days on average. Therefore, what is the 26-week period for?
The Minister was kind enough to send me a copy of the operational plan for 1995–96. It is interesting to note that, whereas there are targets for virtually everything—for example, placings, interviews, the non-pursuance of claims, the dispatch of benefits, the number of frauds and the size of efficiency savings—there is nothing about reducing the appeals period so that it would not be so necessary to have such a long period of suspension. It seems to me that it is up to the Government to explain why the amendment is unreasonable.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, there is one further aspect of the amendment to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. It is an aspect which has not yet been widely discussed in our debates. It is perhaps a little late to start now with a new subject, so I shall do so only briefly. I am concerned particularly about subsection (5) (b) of Clause 18 and the circumstances in which a jobseeker's allowance is not payable where, your Lordships will recall, the penalty could be one of 26 weeks. My point relates to the particular circumstances listed under subsections (5) and (6).
Subsection (5) is where regulations will prescribe the conditions rather than subsection (6) which is subject to adjudication. I am more concerned with subsection (5) because it falls within the area of regulations rather than that of adjudication. My particular concern under paragraph (b) is that the whole set of conceivable penalties applies in the case of someone who has neglected to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity to take a place on a training scheme, or who has given up a place, failed to attend or lost his place, and so on.
Will the Minister consider the fact that in subsection (5) (b) we have virtually withdrawn all the normal sanctions of the market, which are that the consumer can in certain circumstances walk away from something or a product which is utterly unsatisfactory? He or she cannot be compelled to buy, swallow or otherwise take on board an unsatisfactory product. But why should the product be unsatisfactory? Of course in many cases it will not be. Indeed, there are many very good training schemes and there are some excellent ones; but there are also some very bad ones. I speak as the Minister who first introduced the youth opportunity scheme, which was the very beginning of the process under which we said that 16 to 18 year-olds should be trained and should normally not be expected to be part of the labour market. Therefore, I know of what I speak. I have been

369
to visit many training schemes and have seen some quite frightful ones, including one where the entire time was spent on arranging paper flowers and where the contractor still got paid for such training.
However, my particular concern is encompassed in a most interesting article which appeared in the Financial Times on 3rd May on the subject of TECs. I shall quote just one short passage from it:
"In the current financial year Tec budgets have been slashed overall by as much as 19 per cent … with a 24 per cent reduction in expenditure on training the long-term unemployed".
The article continues:
"Tec executives [are concerned about] the new funding regime introduced this year by Mr. Portillo. Aimed at ensuring greater value for money, they believe it will make training disadvantaged groups, such as the physically and mental disabled, less attractive".
Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister for an assurance on the issue. What happens if a young person has either been offered a wholly unsatisfactory training scheme or has found it most difficult to get on such a scheme because of the reductions in the budget mentioned by the Financial Times? Further, what happens if such a young person wants to point out that from his point of view the scheme is serving no useful purpose whatever and that he is simply compelled to be there by the threat of withdrawal of benefit for as much as possibly 26 weeks? I am not saying that that would happen in every case, but that is the maximum sanction.
Will the Minister at least consider before Third Reading whether there might be some mechanism—and the Citizen's Charter springs to my mind—whereby a young person on an absolutely unsatisfactory training scheme should have some redress to an employment officer or an adjudication officer so that he cannot be compelled to continue such a course which, because of present arrangements under which contractors are paid, will mean that the contractor will continue to be paid as long as that young person is on the course? Ministers are withdrawing, although I am sure that they are not doing so conscientiously or deliberately, the entire consumer sanction. It seems to me that we should not bring up our 16 and 18 year-olds to recognise that there is no power whatever in the free market for them to have the consumer goods that they require and from which they will benefit.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, perhaps I may also intervene in the debate. I should like to suggest that one of the things that the Government need to consider is the object of the exercise in terms of suspending benefit. For example, is it to save money? In that case, the longest period of suspension of benefit—up to 26 weeks—may be quite sensible from the Government's point of view, and I am trying to look at the whole matter from their point of view. Alternatively, is the object to persuade jobseekers to take the course of action, and change their approach to the matter in a way that the Benefits Agency thinks will be positive in terms of their being more acceptable to the job market?
If the object is the latter—I hope that the Government will say that it is not the former; that it is not just an exercise in cutting expenditure—and what the Government are seeking to do is to persuade jobseekers to change the way that they approach things and thereby
370
apply for more jobs, change their appearance or appear at certain times in a timely manner, and so on (in other words, all the things that the Government have mentioned as giving rise to the need for such sanctions), surely it makes sense that the sanction should be similar to what one might describe as a short, sharp shock. Moreover, surely such sanctions should be reviewed after a fairly short period so that the Government or the civil servants involved in the whole process can make a judgment as to whether they are actually working.
On that basis surely there should be mechanisms in place that enable an early review of a case. I am thinking in terms of weeks rather than months. I am thinking in terms of a period of one or two weeks alter which the Benefits Agency, or whoever it may be, could hold an interview with a jobseeker and ask him or her whether he had changed his way of going about things. First, there needs to be a mechanism for reviewing a case and, secondly, there needs to be a carrot, if you like, in front of the jobseeker in the form of an employment officer saying, "If you change your situation, you will get your jobseeker's allowance back". It is important that we look at the shortest possible suspension period rather than thinking of a longer suspension period. I hope that the Government will respond to those comments.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it is a great waste of time and money and an employer's time and money if people are being trained who are not suitable for the training programme to which they have been sent. That can easily happen. A bad mismatch between training and a trainee is expensive and time consuming. It is much better that the trainee leaves the training if it is not right for him. This could arise as a result of mutual agreement. It may be well understood that the trainee should not be attending a particular course of training. No employer and no trainer wants to have someone on a training course when that course is unsuitable and the trainee does not wish to attend it. The penalty for leaving training in that situation should be a minimum and not a maximum penalty.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I recognise that the noble Earl is concerned with the length of sanctions in Clause 18 when benefit will not be payable. I regret to have to tell the noble Earl that I cannot accept a maximum of six weeks. Our experience in the 1980s showed that maximum periods of disqualification of six and then 13 weeks were simply not effective in discouraging people from making themselves unemployed. Returning to six weeks as a maximum would send the wrong signals to unemployed people. We would, I am sure, again see a rise in the number of people leaving jobs of their own accord without making suitable arrangements for their future employment or income, or refusing for no good reason to take jobs offered to them.
It is important, however, to recognise (hat a sanction of 26 weeks is not the norm. Where adjudication officers find that there are mitigating circumstances they do not impose the maximum sanction. I wrote last week to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Seear, with the

371
information that the average length was significantly less than 26 weeks. Only 21 per cent, of the cases leaving voluntarily attract a maximum sanction; only 40 per cent, of misconduct cases do so. That gives a clear indication that adjudication officers are weighing up the complex range of circumstances behind any decision to leave a job.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, where you have an average, that is the average of a scatter or a range with a top end and a bottom end. He also made a point about the time taken in clearing appeals. The important fact here is that that is dealt with by the independent tribunal service. We are trying to establish whether ways can be found to speed up the process. Ministers have discussed the importance of this work with the president of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and are committed to making improvements. Progress is being made. Clearance times for appeals against unemployment benefit decisions—
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I want to get the noble Lord right. Is he telling me that in 1995 there are people who say, "I will not leave this job voluntarily because I could be disqualified for 26 weeks", whereas if they could only be disqualified for six weeks they would leave their jobs? Is the Minister saying that that applies in 1995?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I was merely pointing to the evidence that has come to the attention of the Employment Service which lies behind the decision to adopt a flexible approach.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, what evidence?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I referred to it. For the reasons I have given, I cannot accept an amendment from the noble Earl which would seek to alter the current maximum of 26 weeks. The noble Lord also mentioned suspension, or the non-payment of benefit. We have made it perfectly clear, both in this House and in another place, that payment of JSA will not be suspended pending the adjudication officer's decision. In the case of sanctions under Clause 18, benefit will continue to be paid until the adjudication officer has made a decision.
Amendment No. 77 removes the stipulation that the minimum period of sanction that can be prescribed under Clause 18(2) is one week, and the maximum period that can be prescribed is 26 weeks. As your Lordships will be aware, these sanctions relate to the circumstances set out in Clause 18(5); that is, refusal or failure to carry out a jobseeker's direction or to attend a training scheme or employment programme. But let me assure your Lordships that the Government's intention, clearly set out in the White Paper, is that the regulations will establish a two-week sanction for these circumstances, rising to four weeks if the claimant persists in his refusal or failure. We believe it is right to set a clear penalty so that unemployed people will be under no doubt of the consequences if they reject our help and assistance without good cause.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, as the noble Lord is discussing subsection (5), I hope he will forgive me for returning to this matter. I strongly suspect that the officials in the Box did not expect to hear the question that I raised. Therefore, I hope the Minister will address it for a moment. I am not asking for an immediate answer. However, a serious situation arises from the absolute inability to be able to exercise a right of judgment that the training course one is on is totally useless to oneself and possibly also to the employer. I want to press the Minister on the point that there should be some channel under which a responsible and decent young man or woman on a training course which is wholly unsuitable should be able to complain or to raise the issue before the process of even a two or four-week sanction starts to operate. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, will understand that this is a reasonable question. It arises from my own experience of some terrible training schemes being run alongside some good ones.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I was hoping to try to elaborate on the reply that I had half given to the noble Baroness. She is absolutely right to say that this is an important point. There are two categories of people we are talking about. For those who fall within the scope of Clause 18, the provision which applies in these circumstances is that of good cause. That provides a safeguard for the person concerned. However—perhaps this is more important—one of the important differences that will be introduced by the jobseeker's allowance is the relationship that will exist between the jobseeker and the relevant employment officer whom the jobseeker will meet on a regular basis and with whom he will be able to discuss his particular problems and predicaments as they emerge. I believe that built into the system there is this beneficial characteristic of increased contact with the system.
As regards the category of young people we were discussing earlier, not only is there contact with the Employment Service if they come within the scope of JSA, but there is also the Careers Service, the TECs and possibly an employer, if that is appropriate, with whom they can discuss their problems. I do not believe anyone in this House would dissent from the basic proposition which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made; namely, if one mismatches trainees and training, one will not take matters forward.
As the amendment appears to recognise, we must retain flexibility in the whole matter we are debating. That is particularly important bearing in mind the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen. If there are matters which would subsequently lead the Government to think that there was a requirement to adjust the periods of sanction, we believe that the way we have arranged matters will enable that to be done satisfactorily and easily. If this period is to be revised—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister is being understanding about the points we have made. I wonder whether between now and Third Reading he could consider the possibility that where the trainer or the employer and the trainee agree that the training on

373
which the trainee has embarked is not suitable, there could be no penalty, or a greatly reduced penalty, and that that could be written into regulations if not on the face of the Bill. That seems a sensible arrangement. The people involved in the training could reach an agreement that it is not appropriate. If that is mutually understood and agreed, surely there could be a safeguard of the trainee's position.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I shall certainly reflect on the comments of the noble Baroness. However, I suspect that what she suggests may not be necessary.
To return to the amendments, we believe that we need more flexibility than is offered by a maximum of six weeks. I can confirm that we have no intention of ever prescribing a longer period than 26 weeks. For that reason I urge the House, if we vote on the matter, to reject the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all the noble Lords who supported the amendment. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for what I might describe as his very supportive opposition to it. I take his point. I agree with it, and in a perfect world I might have drafted the amendment accordingly.
I am grateful to the Minister for his attempts to accommodate the points made by my noble friends Lady Williams of Crosby and Lady Seear about training. Those are important points. No useful purpose is served by training which does not train.
As recently as last Sunday one of the people in our Whips' office, when coming to see me about amendments, spoke while waiting on the station platform to someone who attends a job club. The person described how he was being taken through a long process of identifying colours. He was not being tested for colour blindness. That sort of thing is a waste of time and a waste of public money. It serves no useful purpose except the creation of a hoop through which people have to jump. Therefore, it would be very much appreciated if the Minister would look into the matter.
Some time ago my noble friend Lady Seear produced a case of somebody who wanted youth training as a garage mechanic and was offered training as a hairdresser. That is not suitable, and the person will not learn anything from it.
The basic bones of the reply underneath the Minister's attempts to be reasonable in every way he could were, nevertheless, not acceptable. I do not believe that he expected them to be acceptable any more than I expected the amendment to be acceptable. The Minister said that during the 1980s the Government discovered that a benefit penalty of six weeks was not effective. Has the Minister considered whether that may possibly have been because there were no jobs for people to find? Has the Minister considered that it may have been partly due to the fact that it is not only Cabinet Ministers who ought to have the human right to say that there are some circumstances in which they cannot serve with honour? I was going to use the phrase "the dignity of labour", but in the end I am thinking of human dignity. That is the right of every person on earth, and beyond a certain point, if one imposes sanctions on people who feel that they cannot stay in a
374
job, one deprives them of their human dignity. One comes very close to crossing the line that separates labour from slavery. That causes us deep concern.
I have listened to the Ministers throughout this evening. I hear a rapidly changing attitude to benefit, in particular, a rapidly changing attitude to the concept of entitlement in which this Bill is itself a milestone. I hear the end of the Beveridge concept of the safety net to which every person in the country is entitled. That is not a concept that Beveridge invented. To my certain knowledge, it goes back to the Poor Law of 1601. I believe that it goes back a great deal further than that.
Therefore, in this very conditional approach to benefit, there is almost a justification by works, earning benefits step by step. We hear a rejection of many centuries of our culture. That causes me deep concern. It is an abdication of responsibility, and an abdication of responsibility which makes us very much less one nation than we were previously. If the Government abdicate responsibility, what can they say if the unemployed abdicate responsibility equally? Nobody should abdicate responsibility, and if we: do not want other people to do so we should set an example.
I shall not push the matter to a Division tonight, because of the generosity of the Minister's response to those points on which he was free to think about the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but we have not heard the last of it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 2 [The contribution-based conditions]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 19, leave out from ("not") to end of line and insert ("entitled to income support.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 111 and 112. These amendments are a small tidying-up exercise which align the wording of the Bill with that which currently applies in the Benefits Act.
The provisions affected are intended to prevent the making of duplicate awards of JSA and income support to the same claimant, or duplicate awards of benefit to members of the same family. As your Lordships know, both JSA and income support are intended to cover the needs of the whole family, so clearly that would be inappropriate.
The current wording in the Bill does not quite achieve that, as it refers to benefit being "payable". The term "payable" implies that an award of benefit has been made and benefit is due to be paid to the claimant in a given week. In most cases, if the claimant is entitled to receive JSA or income support benefit will normally be payable. However, in a small number of circumstances, for example, if a claimant is undergoing a sanction or if the sum awarded is less than 10p, the benefit is not in fact payable. In those circumstances it would be possible for the claimant or another family member to have a new award of benefit while the first award was still open. There is a risk of confusion and overpayments where that occurs.
By referring to entitlement that confusion is removed. However, the amendment in no way removes the choices open to the claimant and his family to choose the benefits and claiming arrangements they prefer. If a claimant wants to switch between income support and JSA he needs only to terminate one claim before the next is made. The same applies if a couple wish to swap arrangements for claiming JSA. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, although I consider that the concept of entitlement is somewhat hypothetical, we do not oppose the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [The income-based conditions]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment Nos. 8 to 10:
Page 3, line 1, leave out from ("not") to end of line and insert ("entitled to income support;").
Page 3, line 2, leave out from ("family") to end of line 3 and insert ("one of whose members is entitled to income support;").
Page 3, line 4, leave out from ("family") to end of line 5 and insert ("one of whose members is entitled to an income-based jobseeker's allowance;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 7, after ("work") insert ("provided that the remuneration exceeds the applicable amount (determined in accordance with regulations under section 4) for the claimant and his family, regardless of the hours worked").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hesitated because I hoped that the Minister would move this amendment among his blockbuster.
I am sure that Amendment No. 11 will commend itself to the Minister because it keeps people in work and cuts the social security Bill—objectives which I am sure we all share. It concerns the adult dependency hours rule, which I find one of the most perverse twists of the Bill.
Let us go back a step. After six months a claimant is moved on to means-tested JSA. His partner's earnings are taken into account, as are their savings. As the benefit is income-related, some 70,000 people will lose it altogether. On this side of the House we deplore the introduction of means testing after six months rather than a year. However, at least the means-testing rules are coherent. They are income related. They are coherent until one comes to the cruel twist of the hours rule. Let me explain.
Two couples live side by side. In each family one partner earns £63 and the other partner receives contributory JSA. Neither couple has children. In one household they move on to means-tested JSA. In that first house the woman is earning £63 a week in a job, say in a shop, which pays £3.50 an hour. She works 21 hours a week. Her partner can then claim a further £21 a week in means-tested JSA after deductions. Their total income is £83.
At the house next door the woman also earns exactly the same sum, £63. However, she has a harder time because she receives only £2.50 an hour for cleaning in the shop in which the other person is an assistant. She
376
therefore works 25 hours a week, not 21 hours, for the same money. It is heavy cleaning work; she is tired. But because she works more than 24 hours, he can receive nothing from JSA or income support because of the hours rule. Therefore the person who earns £63 has it set against JSA and receives an additional £20—a total income of £83, as well as access to the back to work bonus. Next door the person earns £63, receiving no JSA, and has a total income of £63. She receives £20 less than her neighbour and has no access to the back to work bonus. Why, my Lords?
JSA is not only a means tested benefit. It has to face another, in my view irrelevant, hurdle—the hours rule. If you have no children and work for 24-plus hours, you lose all entitlement to means-tested JSA irrespective of whether the pay is £20, £60 or £80. Literally, the woman in the second household cannot afford to work because we have constructed for her a marginal tax rate of over 120 per cent. She works for £63 and loses £73. The couple cannot afford to do that.
The hours rule is sensible for couples with children because it marks the point at which you come off income support and go on to family credit, whereupon your income is topped up. We have no problem with that. But where there are no children and therefore no family credit, the hours rule still applies. The consequence is that the hours rule cuts right across the income related rule to ensure that many people who are below income support level cannot be topped up. As the Government have admitted, 60,000 couples will be below income support level because they are foolish enough to continue working.
No couple can live on such an amount. What happens, my Lords? If the partner cannot reduce her hours to below 24, she will come out of work because to work will make her poorer. Therefore, instead of paying that couple £20 in addition to the £63 to top them up to the JSA level, we now pay them the JSA of £73 instead. That does not top up the earnings; it replaces them. We then make it harder for either person caught in the benefits trap ever to return to work. Are we not clever? We have penalised work; we have penalised the very low paid; and we have added to the benefit bill all at the same time. We are very clever; we should be proud of ourselves. It is all because of a redundant and unnecessary hours rule.
If JSA is to be means tested after six months, so be it. But for those without children we should not add the double hazard and double penalty of an hours rule. The provision is redundant. It is cruel, costly, cynical and short sighted. It is stupid too. I hope therefore that the Minister will accept the amendment. It will keep people in work and save us all some money. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on the face of it, the noble Baroness's amendment has much merit. I go along with all the arguments that she adduced for childless couples. But, unfortunately, the amendment would need some reworking because it refers to "the claimant and his family". A family is more than a couple.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, what is the point of the hours rule? The important point relates to the income of the couple, not just to the hours worked. Regarding the

377
person who works long hours at low pay, it may be the only skill that he has. He may be working extremely hard to support his family. He should not be penalised.
When he replies, can my noble friend tell us what research has been undertaken into the cost or savings of abolishing or retaining the hours rule? When drawing up the Bill, no doubt my noble friends have undertaken research to ensure that the legislation works sensibly.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is an important amendment. The noble Baroness outlined her arguments about the effect of the Bill on couples as long ago as 1st December when she spoke on the uprating Statement. That was a remarkably able speech, as was her speech on the subject at Second Reading.
I do not know what I would have done about these points had I been a Minister. However, I know that I would have asked long ago for some fairly serious work to be done on the force of the points made and various alternative ways of meeting them.
With the Bill we have constructed an unintended consequence which may be somewhat serious. I listened to the Minister in Committee defending the hours rule. He seemed to me to be aware that he was in some difficulty. I believe that there is room for a good deal of thought on the subject.
There is room also for a good deal of thought about the effect on couples. The noble Baroness concentrated on one potentially harmful effect—getting people to give up work. However, it is not the only harmful effect of the measure. Couples are put into a situation where it is not economically sensible for them to continue to work as a couple. But there is no bar on them continuing to work separately. The structure that the Bill sets up is also an incentive to the break up of marriages. I am not nearly as panicked about the spread of divorce as are some noble Lords. But I believe that where people wish to remain married, forcing them apart by the use of economic tools is a very high crime indeed. It is a wanton interference with an attempt to live a loving and stable private life. That is something that legislation should not do.
When the Minister replies, I beg him to indicate that there is serious thought about the pit into which the Government have inadvertently walked and that they are seeking some way of getting out of it. I hope that they will remember the first law of the noble Lord, Lord Healey, on holes: when you are in one, stop digging, and then you might get out some day.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, let me say first that I have some sympathy and agreement with the noble Baroness in that we both want the benefit system to support and reinforce incentives for those who want to work. However, while I am sympathetic to much that she said, I do not think we should exaggerate the problem here. The great majority of claimants—even single or childless claimants—will always be better off in work than on benefit. They will usually be better off financially in the short term, and for many people a relatively low-paid job may be the first step to a higher paid job in the longer term. The Government have taken important steps to make sure that for most people there is a clear financial advantage in working. The reforms
378
of the in-work benefits at the end of the 1980s and the introduction of family credit have had a major impact on helping people to take and stay in relatively low-paid work. We are taking further steps with the introduction of JSA to help partners of benefit claimants to take and stay in work. Ten thousand to 20,000 couples are expected to benefit from the change in the couples hours rule in JSA and IS, increasing from 16 to 24 hours a week with the introduction of JSA, and a partner's earnings will help to build up the back to work bonus.
Despite my sympathy for the noble Baroness's aims, I cannot accept that we should guarantee that claimants will always and in every case be better off in work than on benefit. There are some people with high mortgages, for example, for whom that guarantee would effectively rule out almost every job that was available in their locality or at their skill level. At the same time, taxpayers in relatively low paid work would be financing the system which kept that claimant on benefit. I do not believe we can go as far as the noble Baroness suggests in her amendment and actually offer people a guarantee of a minimum income through the benefit system in the way that her amendment would like. The jobseeker's allowance is designed to help unemployed people and their families. As I said before, it is a long standing principle in income-based benefits that couples are treated as a single unit and benefit is payable only if neither is in remunerative work. Of course, I accept that the rule means that a number of couples—and I think it would be a tiny minority—could find themselves working over 24 hours with pay, as described by the noble Baroness. But I believe that it would be a very tiny number of people in that position.
9 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if the Minister will allow me, I gave the Government's own figures and I am sorry if he missed them. From the Government's figures it is not a tiny minority; the figure given in the other place was that 60,000 couples would be affected.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suppose it depends on how one defines a minority as against the 4 million people who are unemployed and making claims for benefit who come on to the system in one year.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, is the Minister telling us that there are 4 million unemployed? We have been saying that for years.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is a clever point but the noble Lord knows very well that I referred to the 4 million earlier this afternoon. Perhaps he was out of the Chamber at the time but the 4 million are the people who make new claims during the year. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that many cease being unemployed. Unemployment has fallen by over 600,000 since the end of December 1992. The figure is continuing to fall—a fact which probably does not particularly please the noble Lord because it takes away one of his constant complaints about the Government. That was a nice intervention, but I fear that it was on entirely the wrong point.

379
My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked about the cost of abolishing the rule. It is extremely difficult to give a reliable cost, but the figure could be between £20 million and £50 million, if we assume that fewer than half the employed earning couples and fewer than a quarter of the self-employed—
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to withdraw the charge that the fall in unemployment does not please those of us on this side of the House. It pleases us but we would like to be even more pleased.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am delighted to say that of course I know that it pleases noble Lords on the other side of the House just as it pleases us. I trust that it will continue to please us all for many months to come.
However, to return to the question, as I mentioned earlier in my speech we have tried to address the problem by the introduction of family credit. As your Lordships know, we have announced plans to pilot a new in-work benefit for single people and childless couples which would help those without children who cannot qualify—obviously because they do not have children—for family credit. That is the way in which we would like to tackle the incentives problem which I agree exists for a small minority of people. With that explanation of how we hope to tackle the problem I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I asked him what was the purpose of the hours rule. I do not understand it. I should have thought that the finances of the couple were the most important point. What is the purpose of that rule? It seems to me to be totally illogical.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may answer my noble friend. In the course of my speech I said that it is a long standing principle in income-based benefits that couples are treated as a single unit and benefit is payable only if neither is in remunerative work. On the point about the 16-hour rule, which now becomes the 24-hour rule, it is a lessening of the condition that the benefit is paid for couples who are unemployed. My noble friend still looks puzzled. The purpose is to encourage people to take up part-time employment. But clearly, as they move towards full-time employment, they cease to be unemployed as a couple. I should have thought that was self-evident. One has to draw the line somewhere. We are moving the line to 24 hours. I should have thought that was a reasonable dividing point between defining people as being in part-time work and beginning to become full-time workers.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am sorry but I still do not understand how the number of hours of work during the week at a very low wage affects the income. It is the income of the couple that is important. I do not understand why working more than a certain number of hours at an extremely low wage should deprive someone of benefit.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may help my noble friend. It seems to me that there are two ways of considering work. I should have thought that the number of hours worked was a factor. As my noble friend will recall, we define 40 hours as the kind of availability that people should have for work. I have made the point that as people increase the number of hours they work then surely my noble friend can see they move from a position where they are doing part-time work to where they begin to work longer than is defined, in the normal sense of the word, as being unemployed. I am sorry that I cannot help my noble friend further.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we are not talking about the jobseeker, but about the jobseeker's partner. I understand that the jobseeker must be available to work, but not his partner.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House again, I have said twice that it is a long standing principle in income-based benefits that couples are treated as a single unit and benefit is payable only if neither is in remunerative work.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not usually say this but I believe that the Minister is totally unpersuaded by his own case and he cannot therefore expect to persuade us of it. He has accepted almost every argument we have adduced. For example, he said that we want people to be better off in work than in benefit. The fact that the Government not only support family credit, as we do—and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is absolutely right, we are talking about those without children—but also that they propose to pilot an in-work benefit for childless couples exactly addresses our problem. However, what the Government will do is to introduce a new benefit extending family credit. Incidentally, it would help if the Minister could tell us the cost of that as against the cost which he gave his noble friend Lord Swinfen of £20 million to £50 million for this proposal.
The Government propose to introduce a new in-work benefit when all they have to do for a large number of people is simply to abolish the hours rule. That rule was introduced in 1988. It has not been written in tablets of stone ever since the Victorian or the Elizabethan Poor Laws. I should have thought that all the evidence showed that the system is not working. For childless couples the hours rule forces them to choose between working and not working. My example was of them working for £63 a week, or not working and having benefit as a couple for £73 per week. Alternatively, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, they could break up as a couple. Those are the choices they have. To get around that dilemma—and the Minister conceded tonight that it is a dilemma—the Government will bring in some fancy new benefit, an in-work benefit which will apply to many more people, in order to deal with the problem when it could simply be achieved by repealing the 24 hours rule.
I realise that this is not Committee stage and I apologise if I am stretching the tolerance of the House. With the leave of the House, will the Minister explain, since he introduced the material in connection with the

381
new in-work benefit for childless couples, the advantages of that over scrapping the 24-hour rule, as we suggest tonight? Is it cheaper? Will it help more people? How quickly can it be applied, and will it, or will it not, help more people back into work? Can the Minister help us on this point?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I understand that this amounts to Committee procedure and I shall go no further with this matter. The point about the test that we shall apply in relation to family credit type benefit for single people and childless couples is that it will affect not just a partner but the individual himself. It will not simply affect the partner rule.
As I explained, the partner rule has to do with the fact that the unemployed couple are treated as a couple. When they claim benefit they are treated as a couple, and therefore there has to be some kind of dividing line. I accept that the noble Baroness thinks that our dividing line is unacceptable, but I explained why her amendment would render some people who receive very high income support—for example, mortgage support— virtually unable to take any job because they would not be able to get a job that would give them more income than their benefit.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not understand that point at all. The new changes in the mortgage system would overcome the very problem that the Minister adduced. That is not a relevant argument. The Government have taken steps to overcome that problem for people going onto income support. The Minister is saying that he prefers to pilot an in-work scheme that will top up the joint income of one person in work rather than abolish the hours rule so that the person in part-time work can set that against a JSA in a pound for pound deduction and then top up.
The advantage of the second path, namely abolishing the hours rule, is that it will indeed do what the Minister wants. It will allow one person in a partnership to use part-time work as a stepping stone to full-time work or to an adequate income. If the 24-hour rule is abolished, you are more likely to find people in relatively unskilled, relatively low-paid part-time work in the hope and expectation that it may be a springboard. If the rule is kept in place, you cannot reasonably expect anybody rationally to choose to stay in work, even if it is a passport to full-time work, and knowingly be poorer as a result. The Government are imposing this choice on people: stay in low paid work, or leave work and get a more adequate benefit. Can the Government be surprised when people do the rational thing and go for the benefit, which is £10 or £15 higher, rather than for work that brings in £10 or £15 less? The Government recognise that. They are to pilot an in-work scheme to top up. We could argue about the sense in that.
I do not see why the Government are going by the more cumbersome route when they can go by the simpler route and abolish the 24-hour rule. It is simple. All you have to do is wipe out a couple of lines of the Bill. Instead, we are going through an elaborate array of pilot schemes, checks and audit trails, testing back on everything, seeing whether we extend it, and primary
382
legislation. We are going through all of that, when instead all that we have to do is accept this amendment, which would have the same effect.
Why are the Government making life so difficult for themselves? Why do they have to spend more money and take more time to be less effective in doing what this amendment would offer? I had always thought that one of the definitions of bureaucracy was essentially that it was rational. I thought that there were many other disadvantages to bureaucracy, but at least it was rational. I have now even given up on that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment Ho. 16:
Page 3, line 26, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have had substantial debates on the provisions of the Bill relating to 16 and 17 year-olds. My noble friend the Minister has just given a very full definition of our approach. However, it still appears that there is much between the Government and the Opposition on this issue. I hope, however, that we may all be able to agree on some government amendments in this group. I should like to take some time to explain them.
In Committee we had a long debate over Clause 15(3) (b), as it now is. This deals with the revocation of the severe hardship direction if it appears to the Secretary of State that the young person has failed to pursue or has rejected an opportunity. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, argued that there should be a provision on the face of the Bill that the direction should be revoked only if the young person had acted "without good cause". My noble friend resisted this on the grounds that it was unnecessary because the Government's arrangements with training and enterprise councils and the Careers Service effectively provide this sort of protection to young people. But the noble Baroness argued most persuasively and my noble friend agreed to consider her points further. We have done so carefully. I shall rot speak to Amendment No. 66 on today's Marshalled List but I undertake that there will be a similar amendment on tomorrow's Marshalled List. Our amendment will make clear that it is open to the 16 or 17 year-old who has rejected or failed to pursue an offer of training to say that he had good cause for so doing. If he does not do so, of course, the direction is revoked, as now. But if he does, and as a result it appears to the Secretary of State that he has shown good cause, then the direction will remain in force. I have several times explained that this situation is exactly as it is now in practice, but we have been persuaded that it is right that this important protection should appear on the face of the Bill. This is, I think, precisely what the noble Baroness was seeking, and I trust that she will accept my undertaking.
Amendments Nos. 16, 62, 67, 72 and 105 deal with the provisions in the Bill relating to the definition of "training" for 16 and 17 year-olds and related issues. This is another matter which we debated fully in

383
Committee. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, approached it with all his customary passion for questioning regulation-making powers.
I remain convinced that the definition of training for the purposes of JSA must be in regulations, not primary legislation. Only regulations will provide the flexibility needed to keep pace with developments in training. New qualifications and training methods are being brought forward all the time. The Government's own programme of modern apprenticeships is a major reform of the training system for young people and has been very widely welcomed.
On top of this, the definition must be able to respond to different arrangements in different parts of the country. Government sponsored training in this country takes account of individual and local needs within a national framework, ensuring high quality. We do not have every trainee learning the same thing at the same time in all parts of the country. We have encouraged diversity and competition. In England and Wales, different TECs make different arrangements. That breeds quality. In Scotland, the system itself is different. It operates under different legislation and in place of TECs there are the local enterprise companies, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The arrangements lead to training of the highest quality.
In the memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and in our debates on this Bill in Committee, we explained that our intention was that the regulations would define training as certain training provided for 16 and 17 year-olds pursuant to arrangements made under Section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973. In response to a debate earlier on the Bill, we have been considering whether we could provide noble Lords with a more useful definition at this stage. Your Lordships will understand that I am not drafting the regulations now as I speak, and these words may change between now and the publication of the draft regulations, but we have in mind a definition such as:
"training for young people provided directly or indirectly by a TEC under its operating agreement with the Secretary of State",
and the equivalent in Scotland. I should explain that "operating agreement" is the term for the contract between the Government and the TEC. It is a long and detailed document and I shall ensure that copies are available in the Library.
We have concluded that the existing power to define the meaning of "other assistance" in regulations is too broad. As your Lordships are aware, we are very mindful of the need to use regulation-making powers sparingly and in the right context. We propose, therefore, that if regulations so provide, training will include:
"assistance to find training or employment, or to improve a person's prospects of being employed, of such a kind as may be prescribed".
We propose to put that on the face of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords ill find it acceptable.
This group of amendments is intended to bring about these changes. Amendment No. 62 removes from Clause 15 a reference to "other assistance". I do not speak to
384
Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 but give an undertaking that there will be similar amendments on tomorrow's Marshalled List.
Amendments Nos. 16, 67 and 72 remove from Clauses 3, 15 and 16 the powers to define the meaning of "training" and "other assistance" in regulations. Amendment No. 105 adds a power in Clause 34 to define the meaning of "training" in regulations and a provision that, if regulations so prescribe, "training" includes assistance to find training or employment or to improve a person's prospects of being employed, of such a kind as may be prescribed.
In these amendments we have shown a willingness to listen to advice from the Benches opposite. In particular, I have given an undertaking that we shall introduce the concept of "good cause" into Clause 15 and we will limit the scope of the definition of "other assistance". I have also given your Lordships a further, clear indication of our intentions as to the definition of training for the purposes of JSA. I hope that your Lordships will be able to approve these amendments.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister is quite right that these amendments show that the Government have listened to what has been said on this side of the House. I thank them very warmly for doing so. In particular, I thank them for the "good cause" provision in Amendment No. 66. I am very pleased indeed to see it.
I am also entirely happy with Amendment No. 16, the amendment which is on the Marshalled List at the moment. I already previously moved such an amendment in my own name, even though it was not in quite the same package as the Minister's. I also welcome that amendment.
I am interested in and shall read carefully what the Minister said about the regulations and the definition of training. Before we leave the subject, perhaps I may ask him whether he would expand a little on the phrase "training … provided … indirectly by a TEC". I think I understand what he means by it. It probably means something to which I would not object. But I should welcome more explanation and possibly a slightly tighter definition. I presume that he is referring to franchising arrangements of one kind or another. If so, that is not in principle unacceptable, but I would want to be satisfied about the monitoring that is being done in relation to it.
I have slightly more problems about the amendment involving the definition of training. In this respect I want to speak to Amendments Nos. 104, 106 and 106A, which are also in this group and are in my name. The purpose of a definition is that a court should be able to decide whether the activity is within the definition or without it. A definition is one that must provide a test: does the activity meet it or not? We have attempted to provide a definition. It is taken out of the Employment and Training Act 1973, which is where the Government say in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee they have gone for their definitions. The intention of these amendments is not in any way to be unhelpful.

385
Amendment No. 104 defines an employment programme as meaning,
"a programme which significantly improves the claimant's chances of finding employment".
A court can consider: does it or does it not? Does it qualify or does it not qualify? It is a meaningful question. Amendment No. 106 defines training as meaning,
"training that assists persons to select, train for, obtain and retain employment suitable for their ages and capacities".
Again, it provides a test: does the activity meet it or does it not? Amendment No. 106A defines training schemes as meaning,
"schemes that assist persons to select, train for, obtain and retain employment suitable for their ages and capacities".
None of those definitions is meant to be controversial. They are meant simply for the purpose of providing a test so that the court can consider whether something does or does not meet them.
However, when I look at the Government's amendment, Amendment No. 105, I cannot welcome it in the way I have welcomed other government amendments in this group. It begins with words which are painfully familiar to us:
"'training' has the meaning prescribed for the purposes of this Act".
How on earth is a court to decide whether something is or is not a training scheme by virtue of that definition? It really is not on. I admit that the second part of the amendment, that it,
"includes assistance to find training or employment, or to improve a person's prospects of being employed",
is a good deal more welcome. That is a good part of the amendment. But it still goes back to the same old language and ends up with the words,
"of such a kind as may be prescribed".
It may be an uncharitable suspicion but I am beginning increasingly to wonder whether the purpose of this style of drafting is to give the Government powers which are immune from scrutiny by the courts because they are so meaningless that the courts cannot decide whether anything meets them. I give an example of training actually provided by a TEC in the North-West. The person concerned was supposed to be training as a pipe fitter. The employer providing the placement had so little work that the trainee was unable to get any experience. As a result, the whole of one year's trainees failed to reach the required standard because they had been unable to complete the necessary assessments for qualification. That story would fail our definition of training—and I think quite rightly too—but it would pass the Government's definition of training because it has so little precise meaning that I really cannot see how anything could fail it.
I know that Amendment No. 105 is not formally before us until late tomorrow night, but I will beg the Minister, in the spirit of the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, to come back with a little more explanatory definition, with a definition that actually defines. If he does not do that, whatever time of night it comes up, I cannot guarantee my reaction to it.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble: Earl has said virtually everything that one can say about these amendments. I thank the Government because, despite all the qualifications, I accept that there has been some movement. There has not been much movement on training and how much movement there: has been on "good cause" we have to wait until tomorrow to find out. However, at least there has been some movement. There is an indication that we have made some impact on what the Government say and for that we are extremely grateful.
I am looking forward, but not with much hope, to what the Government say about the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because I commend them to the Government. They have the advantages which he states, but they are also a way of coming back to a theme which we have sought to make at different stages of the Bill—that is to say, that the jobseeker's position should be reciprocal. There should be something which is not merely what the jobseeker has to give when he signs the jobseeker's agreement, but which the Employment Service itself has to give in reply. In the noble Earl's definitions of "employment" and "training" there is something reciprocal which the service has to give to the jobseeker as well as what he has to demonstrate to the service. I shall be extremely interested to hear what the Minister says about those amendments.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I would like to begin with some of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He made reference to training provided indirectly by TECs. It is the case that the training and enterprise councils do not normally provide training directly. It is provided by training providers under contract to the TECs and they are obliged to monitor the quality of what is provided. That is done through the contracts to implement quality assurance: arrangements according to standards set by the Secretary of State. These standards are known as the TEC quality assurance supplier management. The acronym is TQASM which I cannot pronounce. The requirements apply uniformly to all TECs. TECs are also obliged, through their contracts, to take any action required as a result of quality audits.
I listened to the comments of the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, about the; definition of "training". Obviously, we shall reflect on the comments which have been made. At the same time I ask your Lordships to reflect on the comments I made when I introduced the amendments. They go into some detail about what the Government propose in this regard.
I turn to the noble Earl's amendments. I thank him for the explanations he gave. I shall take each in turn and explain why we believe that they should not be accepted. As I said before, the overwhelming majority of people who become unemployed make every effort to find work at the earliest possible opportunity. There is an enormous turnover in the labour market. Over one-third of a million people leave the claimant count each month. Of those who become unemployed, about half leave benefits within three months and around two-thirds leave within six months. Therefore, for the vast majority of people the question of training and

387
employment programmes is simply not an issue nor should it be a central feature of the conditions of eligibility.
For those who do become long-term unemployed, again the vast majority actually welcome the opportunity to improve their skills, re-examine their career prospects, and re-motivate themselves to return to the world of work. The issue of being required to take extra action does not arise.
Experience shows, however, that a small minority seek to abuse the benefit system and persist in ignoring the help available to them. Without benefit sanctions there would be nothing to protect the taxpayer and the national insurance contributor from such abuse. That is why separate sanctions are needed for people who refuse to take advantage of the help offered through employment training programmes. That is nothing new. Such sanctions have long been a feature of benefit legislation. Conditions penalising the refusal to attend courses were first introduced in the Unemployment Insurance Act 1920 and have been a feature of unemployment benefit legislation ever since.
Our intention is to prescribe specifically the employment programmes as we do now for which there should be a benefit penalty if a claimant refuses to attend. That is the sensible and clear solution to ensure that there is no doubt on the jobseeker's part or on the part of the Employment Service staff as to which programmes do or do not fall within the scope. On the contrary, the noble Earl's definition would lead to considerable uncertainty as to what did or did not significantly improve the claimant's chances of finding employment. Parliament, through its approval of regulations, must be able to decide whether programmes fall within the scope of Clause 18.
Turning to Amendment No. 106, I have given a firm and clear explanation of how we propose to deal with the definition of "training" for the purposes of 16 and 17 year-olds receiving JSA. We have tabled a series of amendments to that effect and there will be further similar amendments on tomorrow's Marshalled List.
The noble Earl's amendment proposes a variation on a theme. I should like to explain why we do not believe that that proposed variation would be appropriate. The amendment is very wide. It proposes that such training should be defined as training schemes that,
"assist persons to select, train for, obtain and retain employment suitable for their ages and capacities".
I do not think that we would disagree with that as a general definition of "training"—indeed, as the noble Earl said, the words have been taken from the Employment and Training Act 1973—but we do not think that it will do as a definition for the purposes of JSA. As I have explained, what we want to capture in the definition is, essentially, government-sponsored training for young people, such as youth training and modern apprenticeships; and 16 and 17 year-olds will be required to register for youth training. The noble Earl's definition goes much wider. It has many of the problems of uncertainty and lack of parliamentary control that I have already mentioned in relation to the definitions of "training schemes" and "employment programmes". Is
388
the noble Earl proposing that 16 and 17 year-olds should be able to register for any sort of training that meets his definition?
9.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister says that my definition is very wide, but surely it is not as wide as,
"such meaning as may be prescribed".
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as my noble friend and I have explained on several occasions, it is important both that we provide a clear definition so that people know what it means, and that we provide flexibility in the system as circumstances change over time. That is the important thinking behind the approach that we have taken in our definitions in this regard. How can we be certain about the quality of such training? We hear a lot from the Opposition Benches about the quality of youth training, but at least we have the ability (through contracts with TECs and other arrangements) to control the quality of youth training. In the noble Earl's proposed world, would there be any way of controlling that quality? Surely it would be a free-for-all—and I do not think that that is what the noble Earl wants.
We believe that the noble Earl's amendments are well intentioned but misguided. I very much hope that he will recognise that and withdraw them, bearing in mind the commitments that I have given. If he does not and if we divide on them, I shall have to ask the House to reject them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 16A:
Page 3, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) Where consideration is being given to payment of an income-based jobseeker's allowance to a person under paragraphs 8 and 9 of Schedule 1 on grounds of hardship, any person whose income is such as to entitle him to income-based jobseeker's allowance calculated in accordance with section 4 shall be deemed to be in hardship.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a very simple amendment. Within JSA, for six months there is a contributory—that is, a non-means tested—benefit. If the employment officer has any doubt, JSA may be stopped unless the claimant is both vulnerable and in hardship. That is followed by means-tested JSA. Again, if the employment officer has any doubt, JSA may be stopped unless the claimant is both vulnerable and in hardship.
We tried—unsuccessfully—earlier this evening to put a definition of "vulnerable" on the face of the Bill. The Minister said that that will be done by regulation. But what of hardship? The point of the amendment is to try to understand why the Government need a concept of "hardship". We are arguing that, if people qualify for means-tested JSA, have they not already been means-tested, and does not the fact that they receive JSA demonstrate that they are already in hardship—or to put it as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, so tellingly puts it, is there anybody who has had means-tested JSA withdrawn who is not thereby in hardship?
Let us remind ourselves of the rules of eligibility for a means-tested benefit. They are very restrictive: neither you or your partner may be in work; and you must have little or no savings and no other income. Once obtained, the level of JSA is extremely low. Again, let us remind ourselves of the figures. If you are 24, under 25, JSA is worth £36.80 a week or about £5 per day. It is worth £6.50 a day if you are single and over 25 or £5 a day each if you are one of a couple.
Most of us could live on £5 a day for a while, if we came to that benefit with well-stocked food cupboards, decent clothes, adequate furniture, heating and lighting, and water bills already paid for a quarter in advance. One can then survive. But if instead you are single, 24, in a poorly furnished bedsit, living from day to day, that £5 a day is all you have on which to live; for all food, clothes, toiletries, cleaning materials, heating, lighting and water. In addition, that £5 a day has to cover all broken pieces of china, any torn towel, any dead light bulb. It also has to cover the cost of seeking work, buying newspapers with their job advertisements, a phone card, postage stamps, the travel costs of bus and tube fares to interviews. At 24, £5 a day will, I guess— looking at my sons' budgets—buy you cereal for breakfast, sandwiches for lunch and chips for an evening meal, some instant coffee, and sugar, and one return tube trip at £2 to look for work. That is all it will buy, and after that you are still rather hungry and decidedly scruffy.
Being on benefit means that unless you can scrounge or shoplift, a new tube of toothpaste means missing a meal or an interview. You can walk, of course, but having your shoes resoled takes the money available for lunches for three days.
Will anyone here say that if you are trying to live on £5 a day for food, clothes, heating, and lighting, travel, job search work, toiletries—the lot—you are not already in hardship? If your Lordships agree with that, as I think you will, why in heaven's name is any further test of hardship needed except to humiliate the unemployed still further? I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is the first amendment of a group of amendments with the dreaded arrival of regulations where there is no indication of what they will lay down. It is the part of Clause 4 to which the Select Committee on Delegated Powers drew the attention of the House. It asked that great care be taken by the House over this clause.
We shall come later to another group of amendments—age-related allowances—upon which this also has a bearing, but at the moment I shall just keep to the one clause which is affected by the failure to put on the face of the Bill any indication of what someone's entitlement might be.
The House may like to be reminded that in Schedule 1, paragraph 9, to which the amendment refers the,
"income-based jobseeker's allowance to which a person is entitled … is to be payable at a prescribed rate"—
which means prescribed by regulations with no clues for the rest of us as to what that rate might be, and—
"for it to be payable for a prescribed period".
390
There are no clues for the rest of us as to what that period might be. We are in effect consigning most of our disadvantaged fellow citizens to an unknown rate for an unknown period in a way which does not enable the House now, or at any later time, to debate whether it is enough to live on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, has tried to give some kind of definition in the amendment, which we support, so that there is some indication of what is meant by hardship by relating back to the present levels of income benefit. It is at least an attempt to put on the face of the Bill some guide posts as to what the amounts may be.
I hope that when he responds to the amendment the Minister will be able to say something other than what is on the face of the Bill—which is; virtually an open-ended non-commitment, to coin a phrase—about what will be the position of the people who are already suffering hardship as a result of the operation of Schedule 1, paragraph 9, which leaves the matter wide open.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this amendment would effectively remove the test of hardship from hardship payments for all income-based claimants who fail to meet the entitlement conditions. The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear me say that this is not acceptable to the Government. The hardship payment arrangements in JSA strike a balance between protecting taxpayers from subsidising those whose unemployment results from their own choices and protecting the vulnerable from hardship. The claimants who are dealt with under paragraphs 8 and 9 in Schedule 1, to which this amendment refers, are people who are required to look for work in order to receive benefit. If a person is not genuinely available for work, or refuses to look for it, he is not entitled to receive a benefit for people who are jobseekers. The only basis on which payments are to be made to such claimants is to protect those who are in vulnerable groups. Other claimants have a choice; if they want to receive benefit they must make themselves available for and start looking for work.
The test imposed by the amendment is simply that the claimant satisfies the income-based conditions for JSA. Let us remember that someone can have capital of up to £8,000 and still satisfy the means test for income-based JSA. The claimant could be doing some part-time work, as could his partner. That is not what we mean when we speak of hardship.
Under JSA, it will be for the adjudication officer to decide whether to award benefit on grounds of hardship. He will take into account all the circumstances of the case, including alternative access to funds and capital. We shall be placing in regulations the core criteria which adjudication officers must take into account when considering the question of hardship. This is currently left completely to discretion, with guidance from the chief adjudication officer. But we consider that it must be right for a benefit of last resort to take into account individual circumstances. That is the way in which hardship will be determined, not by an absolute financial limit.

391
There will be in regulations core criteria which the adjudication officers must take into account when considering the issue. That ought to be a step forward. I hope that with that explanation of our intentions the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is too late tonight to do anything other than withdraw the amendment. However, I remain completely unconvinced by the Minister's reply. He drew a distinction between hardship and the JSA allowance on two criteria. The first was that the claimant or his partner might be in work. Of course, under the JSA a single person can keep only £5 from that work and a couple £10. We are not talking about large sums; it is only £5 extra for a single person in part-time work. As regards capital, if a single person has more than £3,000 he will not receive the JSA. As regards a couple with £3,000 to £8,000, £1 is deducted each week for every £250. That will quickly eat away at any residual capital.
The amendment is not as the Minister described—to seek to remove the test of hardship. We are trying to define the test of hardship by aligning it with eligibility for receipt of the JSA. We are saying that the JSA is a means-tested benefit. It is a minimalist benefit, but it takes into account a very modest amount of saving and a very modest disregard of £5 for an individual. The JSA is a means-tested benefit on which one is barely able to live for any length of time, which is why we have such pressure on the social fund.
It is amazing to say that over and beyond that we need an even more grudging test as regards an income on which to live and below that of the JSA, which already sends people into debt collectors hands, disconnections and the Social Fund loan trap. I wish that the Minister would depart from giving hypothetical examples and move into the real world. He would then see what it was like to try to live on less than £5 per week, which is what he is signalling people towards. At this time of night I have no choice but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Clause 4 [Amount payable by way of a jobseeker's allowance]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 17, I should advise the House that, if Amendment No. 17 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 18.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, leave out line 34.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment, which is in my name, is grouped with Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which cover the same point by a similar route. I have no strong preference as regard the drafting of the amendments. The point which they all address is the age-related structure of benefit—the lower benefit for the under-25's.
The Minister will know that that has never been acceptable or clearly intelligible to us. A number of justifications have been put forward for it. I believe that the current justification is that those aged under 25 are alleged to have lower wages.
First, we do not see why that is at all relevant to what we regard as a subsistence benefit. It does not cost any less to live if you are under 25. A pack of butter in the supermarket costs exactly the same whether you are 25 or 70. It does not make sense to argue that younger people have less need for a subsistence benefit. In fact, the contrary is often the case.
The Government's justification in terms of lower wages really does not seem to make any sense at all because, after all, a good many groups earn wages lower than the average. None of the other groups on that list is singled out for a lower rate of benefit. We should think it outrageous if they were. Why are young people different? Why is there this discriminatory provision? The young widely regard it as that and it is causing a great deal of resentment.
It also seems to me to be falling for the concept of the average. Averages do not eat; people do. If the average of a group is below that of other groups, it does not mean that any particular individual is in that position. Even if it were a justification, which it is not, it would be thoroughly misconceived because it does not consider the needs of individuals, which is what the benefit system is all about.
There is a good deal of evidence that the basic level of benefit is low enough to make living extremely difficult. The National Consumer Council report, Your Food, Whose Choice? has a great deal of evidence on that, as does the report from the National Children's Home. But, if it is difficult to live on the ordinary rate of benefit, it is even more difficult to live on the rate of benefit for the under-25s.
I hope that the Minister will not return this evening to the argument which claims that young people can all live at home, because by this time the Government must surely have learnt that, in the real world, a great many of them cannot. From time to time the Minister must have watched birds throwing their young out of the nest He must have observed, from the rather pathetic first attempts at flying, that that is occasionally done rather prematurely. That weakness among bird parents is shared with human parents. The vast majority of teenagers who live away from home do so because their parents have thrown them out or, as I believe my noble friend Lady Williams said earlier this evening, because of abuses of a type which would make none of us argue that they should continue to live at home.
It is really not reasonable to insist that teenagers should live at home. If the Government were really serious about that argument, they would extend the child premium for income support up to the age at which they believe people should cease to be continually living at home. I have asked them to do so many times, but I have met with very considerable resistance. When the Government withdraw that resistance, I shall believe that they mean what they say about living at home. But

393
as they have not withdrawn it, I do not believe that they mean what they say and I hope that they will not say it again.
I shall leave the House with one case of real hardship. It relates to a young man of 18 in Nottingham who was living on the lower rate of income support. He came under the supervision of the probation service because he had been caught stealing in order to pay his poll tax. If that young man had not been law abiding, he would not have needed to go into crime. That is the sort of thing that the Government push people into by having a rate of benefit which is really too low for subsistence and which has no rational justification. I beg to move.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I express my support for Amendment No. 17. While doing so, I may refer to Amendment No. 18 which arrives at the same point but by a different route. I shall also be speaking to Amendment No. 19. The amendment would remove the age discrimination—because that is what the clause provides for at present—as regards payment of "contribution-based" benefit. In fact, it means that the claimant is being fined for being a certain age. I say that because there is no discrimination regarding the terms under which they contribute. Indeed, a young person may have been in work from the age of 18 to, say, the age of 23 and have paid contributions based on his income in the same way as everyone else. Yet, because that person is of that age, he is discriminated against when it comes to drawing benefit and that benefit is reduced.
The Minister said in Committee, at col. 681 of Hansard, that it was a well-established feature of income support that young people receive a lower rate of benefit. Well, it may be established but that does not make it right; indeed, it is wrong. Moreover, because it is wrong, it should be changed. In fact, in 1988 the Social Security Advisory Committee said that it was wrong to introduce the provision in such a discriminatory way. Eighteen to 24 year-olds will receive £36.80 per week instead of £46.50. Both are very small sums of money on which to live. The problem is that, if it is the lower rate, the person is penalised even more and is expected to live on £5.25 a day which must cover all except rent; for example, all one's food, heat, lighting, water, clothing, household goods and, yes, the cost of looking for work.
The Minister may say, as he said previously, that 75 per cent. of that age group live at home as if that is the answer to all their problems. But what if the members of the family at home are also unemployed? They cannot claim support for that 18–20 year-old because he or she is an independent person under the Bill and is receiving the reduced rate of benefit. I suggest that one cannot automatically assume that, because someone is living at home, there is the resource, the wherewithal or, indeed, the commitment to look after such young people.
We have before us a really nasty little clause which gets at a small number of people but does so in a very profound way. Amendment No. 19 is a natural follow-on to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. The Bill currently says that the age-related amount will be applicable and will be determined "in accordance with
394
regulations". We keep returning to that point time after time; indeed, as did the scrutiny committee. What will the regulations contain? What requirements will they make of young people? What penalties will be imposed? What tasks will the young people be expected to fulfil in order to qualify for benefit? There is no indication in that respect and we would like the Minister to outline the nature of those regulations.
Many nasty comments have been made about the Bill. It has been said that it is mean and that it penalises people in a way that does not help them when they need a helping hand. As regards the age group we are discussing, I believe that the legislation will condition their attitude to society for the rest of their lives if they are discriminated against in the way proposed and treated in the appalling way suggested by the Bill. Such young people have paid their contributions and are entitled to the benefits without having such discrimination aimed at them. I hope the Minister will accept that point and indeed that he will accept Amendments Nos. 17 and 19.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support these amendments. Many of these young people are still growing and therefore they need more food than those of us who have reached rather more advanced years. Because they are still growing they will require new clothes in order to be smart enough to go to job interviews. Those clothes are not always easy to get. Because they are young they are likely not to have family commitments and therefore will be expected to go very much further in search of work, and they will consequently need to pay the additional travelling costs.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, these amendments are designed to carry forward current unemployment benefit rules and would mean that contribution-based jobseeker's allowance would be paid at a flat rate regardless of age. We had these amendments and this debate in Committee. Everyone who has spoken has suggested that they do not wish to hear my arguments again. I regret to say that they will hear them again because I think they are good arguments and I believe they should be accepted in defence of what the Government propose in this clause.
One of the major aims of JSA is to introduce a simplified and equitable benefit structure for unemployed people. We are doing this by bringing unemployment benefit and income support together. It is a well-established feature of income support that young single people receive a lower rate of benefit. Under JSA we shall be adopting the same treatment for all unemployed young people. I have said before—and noble Lords rather predicted I would say again—that the lower benefit rates recognise the fact that younger people generally have lower earnings expectations and commitments. The average earnings for the 18 to 24 age group are less than two-thirds of the average for all adults, and the large majority—about 75 per cent.—of young people receiving income support do not live independently, and the lower rate also reflects this.

395
However, young people who have families can claim income-based JSA and receive the same rate of benefit as any other family in the same income circumstances. Where the claimant does not live at home, he can obtain housing benefit on the same basis as anyone else. The best thing we can do for this group is to help them get into work, and that is what we are doing. The Employment Service has been testing special programmes geared to the needs of young people, and national programmes will provide something like 130,000 places from this April. The lower rates that will be payable to young people in JSA, as I said, carry forward the well-established principles currently operating in income support. They reflect the lower commitment and earnings expectation that young people generally have.
Having listened to noble Lords, I do not expect them to agree with me or to be won over by my argument. I think my position is perfectly clear; I understand their position. However, I am afraid that there is rather a gulf between us.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I thank all those who have spoken. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, drew attention to the fact that the family may also be unemployed. That is a distressingly common situation. It creates real hardship and it makes the denial of the child premium up to the age of 18 all the more relevant. It also emerged from the MORI report that when parents throw out 16 and 17 year-olds, one of the commonest reasons for doing so is that they cannot afford to support them because they receive no benefit. Therefore the policy is achieving precisely the opposite of its intention.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for his point about growing people of that age eating more, needing more new clothes and costing more. I can confirm from my memory as a parent, as I think many of us can, that he is exactly right.
I understand the Minister's weariness with hearing our arguments, as we are weary of hearing his. However, it is important that it should remain on the record that it is a measure which does not enjoy general consent. This is not something which is accepted simply by passage of time. There is no Burkean title of prescription for this to go on. So long as there is the least risk that anybody may say that there is, it is an issue which we shall have to continue to reintroduce. I regret the time it takes, but the continuing lack of consent cannot be signified in any other way.
I ask the Minister one precise question. If he is able to intervene and give me the answer to it I shall be happy to give way to him. Can he give me a guarantee that when regulations determine the age-related amount those regulations will not widen the gap between the young and the over-25s? If he can give me that guarantee it will be very welcome and it will make a difference to me.
The Minister said that he wanted to introduce a structure which is simplified and equitable. He has not done so. He has not got within miles of it. I
396
cannot see how it can be a simplification to introduce a whole lot of different rates which have to be calculated and when people's entitlement and the applicable amount changes on their birthday in the middle of a financial year. That does not sound like a simplification to me. As for it being equitable, I have never heard anything less equitable in my life. It is discriminatory, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said, and it is causing real anger among the young.
The Minister should listen occasionally to the youth and student Liberal Democrats. Whenever we put before them any policy paper which has inadvertently, perhaps because the drafter was not thinking about it, omitted to rule out age discrimination absolutely, immediately they put down an amendment demanding that we put that right. More power to their elbow: we do.
10 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to intervene before he concludes. I can tell him that the same rates will apply as apply currently in respect of income support, so the gap will not be widened.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful for that small but very real mercy. I thank the Minister for it.
That does not, of course, put the basic problem right. I still simply cannot understand the argument about lower earnings. I am sorry to be so thick. I have listened to it many times, but I really cannot make it out. It seems to me that the Minister is on a fork. Our problem is why it is relevant. We cannot see that it ought to be relevant at all because we think it is a subsistence benefit. I have had no answer to that point. I have gone for five years without an answer to it, and I may go another five years without one, but I shall keep on asking.
If it is relevant, why is it relevant only to the case of youth? Why is it not relevant to other groups with lower earnings? Take, for example, people with disabilities. We all agree that the disabled tend to have lower average earnings than others. Imagine the outcry if a rule were introduced that people with disabilities would get benefit at a lower rate than others. The Minister would be swept away by the indignation. It does us no credit that we are not expressing the same indignation on behalf of the young, on behalf of people who are still learning a sense of social responsibility and whose sense of social responsibility is likely to be determined by the example they are set by us. I do not look forward to that. Can the Minister explain to me sometime before we are through with the Bill why low earnings are relevant and why they are only relevant to this group?
I have heard these answers many times. I am no nearer understanding them than I have been. I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment for tonight, but at Third Reading I hope that I may receive a response which actually answers the questions I am asking. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) Regulations shall provide for a prescribed amount of earnings to be disregarded in calculating the amount payable by way of a jobseeker's allowance, and that prescribed amount shall be reviewed annually in the light of the previous year's price inflation").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 21 I speak also to Amendment No. 60. We are again addressing the issue of disregards. We attempted to raise the issue in Committee in respect of the earnings of part-time workers. However, that did not meet with support from the Minister. Amendment No. 21 allows for the amount of the disregard—the amount that an unemployed person can earn before the benefit is affected—to be the subject of regulations instead of the fixed amount current with the present arrangements.
The amendment also proposes that the amount should be reviewed annually in the light of inflation. Surely that is sensible and in line with what occurs with regard to most social security benefits. The Government are anxious, so they say—we have heard it stated again tonight—to get people back to work; hence their proposal for a back-to-work bonus. Those moves are entirely welcome. However, they should not be seen as invalidating the need to improve disregard arrangements.
Welcome as the back-to-work bonus is, it will only help those who manage to obtain an offer of full-time employment which they accept. Such moves do not help those who cannot find suitable employment but who may obtain casual or part-time work. I do not understand the Government's objection to what seems to be a useful way of getting people involved in the job market again, even if only in a very modest way.
Amendment No. 60 deals with much the same principle. The amendment attempts to ensure that,
"Any amount prescribed in regulations as a limit upon capital or income affecting eligibility to a jobseeker's allowance shall be reviewed annually in the light of the previous year's price inflation".
That is a similar principle to the one enunciated in Amendment No. 21.
I hope that this time round the Government will tell us that they have considered the issue of part-timers since we discussed it in Committee and have decided to regard the amendments as entirely acceptable. Amendment No. 21 seems very reasonable to me. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in Amendment No. 21 the noble Baroness returns to an issue on which I am sure we shall yet again find it difficult to reach agreement. As I explained in the earlier debate, we share the desire to improve work incentives for unemployed people and their partners. But raising earnings disregards is an expensive, and, more importantly, an uncertain way of doing that.
Taking the expense first, if we had increased the current earnings disregard in line with inflation since 1988, then the cost in JSA would be approximately £15 million. Applying this across the other benefits—income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit—would add on in the region of another £75 million per annum. This is a total cost of £90 million.
398
The noble Baroness contends that we have not taken into account certain behavioural factors in our estimates. I do not know and I do not suppose that the noble Baroness knows either, how far the earnings disregard is a factor which unemployed people consider when undertaking part-time work. There are many other issues, such as childcare, which may or may not influence a person's decision to undertake part-time work. What we can say is that, while increasing the disregard might encourage some claimants to take up work, it might have the opposite effect on others. By reducing the financial incentives to take up full-time work which takes them off benefit, an increase in disregards could simply encourage some claimants to remain on benefit combined with small earnings. We therefore cannot accept that increasing the disregard automatically every year in line with inflation is necessarily the best and most cost-effective option for helping unemployed people.
No government in the past have adopted the policy of increasing disregards regularly each year. When inflation is low such a policy would add only pence to the disregard. We prefer to use resources to introduce substantial new incentives for unemployed people to move out of unemployment into work. We have brought forward new measures like the back to work bonus whereby claimants will receive a lump sum equal to half their earnings above the disregard when they go back to work. That is far more generous financially to many claimants than simply putting up the disregard by a few pounds. Of course, it deals with the difficult bridge problem between being out of work and going into work. We have discussed, and agreed about, the existence of the problem on a number of occasions. Although we have disagreed about some of the details of the partner's rule, we have taken the measure which increases the partner's hours rule from 16 to 24 hours, and the whole £600 million package of work incentives announced in the last Budget is designed to do what we believe would be a more effective job than index-linking disregards.
I am not sure to what extent the noble Baroness addressed Amendment No. 60 which concerns capital limits. As she rightly points out, it is the same issue. I believe that, just as with earnings disregard, increasing the capital limits annually would not be the best use of resources. Uprating them on an annual basis would simply lead to already scarce resources being diverted to those people who already have some means of their own. That would, as I have said before, represent poor targeting when the priority must be maintaining benefit levels, improving help for those most in need and, above all, helping unemployed people back into jobs.
I believe that the present limits strike a reasonable balance by allowing people to maintain a cushion of savings to fall back on, while expecting those with more substantial capital to use some of their resources towards their own living expenses. However, I can assure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who I know are interested—although they have not spoken this evening because of the lateness of the hour—that capital limits are kept and will continue to be kept under review. They have been and will continue to be uprated from time to

399
time, but only as and when resources and priorities allow and not through the automatic method which the noble Baroness seeks in her amendment. I hope that with that explanation she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am not surprised at the response I received this evening because, with one or two exceptions, the Minister has not been favourably disposed towards the amendments we have moved from this side of the House. He said that people might be discouraged from going for full-time employment and prefer to go for low paid part-time employment in order to benefit from increased disregards. However, I believe he overlooks the fact that for many people it is difficult to obtain full-time work. They take part-time and often badly paid casual work because that is all that is available. It seems to me that if that is all that is available, people should not be discouraged from taking it. By improving the disregard situation they might be encouraged into taking some form of employment, even though it may not be what they ideally desire.
As to the Minister's comment about capital limits, I note that he said that they are kept under review, but I am not happy about that. I do not know when they were last reviewed. Perhaps some time ago. I fear that it was certainly not recently. It is not necessarily the right response simply to say, "We cannot move these because it will all be terribly expensive". It seems to me that practically everything we cite as being responsible and responsive to people's needs is regarded as being off limits because it is too expensive.
As the Minister rightly said, we have not had much of a debate this evening because it is late. Therefore, it is not my intention to press the matter to a vote, although I regard the response we have had as not being at all satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 21A:
Page 4, line 38, at end 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.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we revisit regulations, especially affirmative regulations as they affect Clause 4. I asked the Shadow Chief Whip for an appropriate entrance line on Clause 4, but his imagination and mine failed. If inspiration strikes in the next three or four minutes, I shall do my best to amplify his comments on Clause 4.
The whole House was pleased at the way in which the Government responded to the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee on Clause 6. The Government defined both availability for employment and "actively seeking work" and put those definitions on the face of the Bill in new Clauses 6 and 7; and in response to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Richard last Thursday on recommitment the
400
Government also agreed to go for the affirmative procedure on those new Clauses 6 and 7, although not, alas, on what was then Clause 6D.
Even at this late hour I should like to remind the House that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee was equally concerned about Clause 4. Noble Lords will perhaps recall that paragraph 8 of the final report of the Scrutiny Committee did not seek new definitions in Clause 4 but was clear that the regulations in Clause 4, just as in Clause 6, should come about by affirmative procedure. I quote:
"Clause 4 allows the calculation of the amount of the jobseeker's allowance to be governed by delegated 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. 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".
The reference on Clause 4 that the House may wish to consider the clause with care is stronger in its phrasing than a similar proposal that the House should handle Clause 6 by affirmative procedure, where the House was asked simply to "consider" the clause. Following the lead of the Leader of the House and the advice of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, the House agreed to move by affirmative resolution on Clause 6—which we were asked merely to consider. We are now looking at Clause 4, which we were asked in even stronger language by the Scrutiny Committee to consider with care. I hope that the House will follow suit.
The Government agreed only that Clause 6 should be recommitted. Therefore the issue of delegated powers in Clause 4 could not be discussed on recommitment. Yet, as I pointed out, the Scrutiny Committee's request that it should be done by affirmative procedure was stronger for that clause than it was for Clause 6.
It may be that the Minister will say—I have to anticipate him since we are not in Committee—that the proposed levels of JSA will be included in the annual social security uprating statements, which of course come by affirmative resolution procedure. But other regulatory powers in Clause 4 which also affect financial eligibility will not be in that uprating statement and could therefore escape scrutiny. I hope that the Minister, in the spirit in which the House accepted that Clause 6 should be by affirmative procedure, will accept Clause 4 likewise. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I rise only briefly to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. I again underline her point that the House has an obligation to consider very carefully indeed the findings of the Select Committee on delegated legislation. Clause 4, along with Clauses 6, 7 and 16, were thought by the committee to be matters of considerable constitutional import. We have dealt with Clauses 6 and 7 by the recommittal of the Bill and the commitment to an affirmative procedure. But we have not dealt with the strictures on Clause 4, or for that matter on Clause 16.
Clause 4 is of the essence, since it is part of the essential function of Parliament to consider at all times the position of expenditure based upon taxation and the

401
taxpayer's interest, to which the Minister, who is currently otherwise engaged, has referred time and again throughout this debate. He has spoken time and again about the responsibility that the Government feel for taxpayers.
Parliament cannot fulfil its obligation to taxpayers if it does not know anything about the amounts of public expenditure and the commitments to payments made in a Bill because they are all subject only to regulation. Constitutionally, I must say, I find it in many ways even more offensive that the House had no idea—nor did the other place—about the kinds of sums that we are thinking of when we talk about the "prescribed amounts". That applies to hardship as well as to the jobseeker's allowance, and to the income based jobseeker's allowance in particular.
So, in supporting the noble Baroness, I do so at least as much for constitutional reasons as for reasons connected with the substance of the Bill. I wonder whether, having, I think very sensibly, accepted that the affirmative resolution procedure was constitutionally appropriate to Clauses 6 and 7, the Minister might now seriously consider in the light of the Select Committee's recommendations—the Select Committee was an all-party committee and included many distinguished Members of the Government's own party—that there should at this stage be an acceptance that the affirmative resolution procedure should apply in this instance also.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as the House will know, over some time I have been an astute watcher of the debate between the negative and affirmative resolution. It occurs to me as regards this particular clause—although I am very cognisant of the fact that I said last week that this Bill was not the Bill in which to have variable order-making powers, if I may so précis my remarks—that, with the exception of the annual operating statement mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I know of no other instance, including, incidentally, prescription charges, which is made by affirmative order. Therefore, I should like to learn from my noble friend the Minister whether there are any other instances. That would help me to make a judgment.
The other point that occurs to me is that at this late hour noble Lords are apt to withdraw amendments by the dozen. That applies to Back Benchers on this side as well as to the Opposition parties. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will wind up the debate or whether indeed it will be the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. It would be helpful to me in making a judgment on this amendment to know whether this matter will return at the next stage of the Bill or whether the answer given by my noble friend the Minister will be satisfactory.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in moving these amendments, both the noble Baronesses have made reference to the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It will not surprise your Lordships to know that I considered the report very carefully, as I do all the reports of the scrutiny committee. As some noble Lords will remember, I pointed out at Re-commitment that I was a founder member of the committee. Perhaps, therefore, that gives
402
me more reason than most for reading with a great deal of care what it says and taking seriously its recommendations, as indeed we did in the case of Clause 6. There, we agreed that there were strong grounds for changing the arrangements for parliamentary control.
However, in the case of Clause 4 I do not feel that the grounds are quite so strong. I am not so convinced that we should change the system of parliamentary control proposed in the Bill and move to affirmative resolution for all time. In its report, the committee states that the amount of the jobseeker's allowance will be fundamental to the operation of the statute. Clearly that is so. However, the regulations made under Clause 4 will set out much more than the simple benefit rate. In particular for income-based jobseeker's allowance they will cover the detail of the make-up of the allowance—that is, all the detailed entitlements and conditions for the various premium payments and technical details of help with housing costs and mortgage interest payments.
To answer my noble friend, the regulations made under the comparable powers in income support are not subject to the affirmative resolution, in recognition of the fact that they are extensive, highly technical and require updating and adjusting regularly. If we went down the affirmative route, every small change, perhaps simply to align the arrangements for the change in another income-related benefit, would have to be subject to debate in each House.
The main regulations under Clause 4 will fall to be made under subsection (5). The intention is that the rates and rules for the award will be aligned across the income-related benefits. Minor amendments to regulations made under the current comparable powers are generally made several times a year. On most occasions, they follow a decision by a commissioner or a court. They are often very minor amendments which change a few words or a line in the regulations to clarify the original policy. On other occasions, a minor change elsewhere in the benefits system could require an adjustment; for example, to the technicalities of conditions relating to receipt of premium payments or to a definition.
I do not believe that it would be a sensible use of parliamentary time to have those done by affirmative order. However, I can assure your Lordships that the first set of regulations made under this clause will be by affirmative order. They will set the structure and initial rates of the new allowance. Earlier this evening I answered questions about how we envisage that working. Thereafter, we will have a duty to review the rates each year under the general uprating provisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, discussed that. As we all know, the uprating order is itself subject to the affirmative resolution, so offering a clear opportunity each year for scrutiny and debate over changes to the rates.
There are two quite different issues involved in this clause. There are those regulations which will at the beginning set out and lay down what the size of the benefit will be. Thereafter, there are the annual uprating regulations. Those will be done by affirmative order. The other regulations under the clause are highly

403
technical in nature. When one looks across to the other parts of the benefit system, including the parts that will be replaced by the JSA, these are done by the negative procedure. I believe that these two different procedures—the affirmative and the negative—match the two different types of changes that we will need to make in the future using the regulations.
Having heard my explanation I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. If she does not, and we have to go into the Division Lobbies, I hope that my noble friends will support me.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very careful reply. I shall obviously study it further and see whether we wish to revisit this matter at Third Reading. By the leave of the House, I shall withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content". To the contrary "Not-Content". I think the "Not-Contents" have it.
Amendment negatived.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 21B:
Page 4, line 38, at end insert:
("( ) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have no need to move this amendment which is very much along the same lines as Amendment No. 21A. I recognise that the Minister did a great deal to remove some of the concerns that we have on this aspect of the Bill. Some still remain, but he met some part of our disquiet. I thank him for his reply.
[Amendment No. 21B not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past ten o'clock.

  NATO Enlargement
  NATO Enlargement
  NATO and Counter-Proliferation
  NATO and Counter-Proliferation
  NATO: US Participation
  NATO: US Participation
  US Arms Sales to European States Initiative
  US Arms Sales to European States Initiative
  NATO: Member States' Agreement to Military Deployments
  NATO: Member States' Agreement to Military Deployments
  NATO and OSCE
  NATO and OSCE
  OSCE: Role
  OSCE: Role
  Chernobyl: Closure
  Chernobyl: Closure
  VAT: Seventh Directive
  VAT: Seventh Directive
  Private Finance Panel
  Private Finance Panel
  National Insurance Holiday Scheme
  National Insurance Holiday Scheme
  Lloyd's: Powers of Secretary of State
  Lloyd's: Powers of Secretary of State
  Internet Publication of Environmental Information
  Internet Publication of Environmental Information